Toronto Union Station Revitalization | ?m | ?s | City of Toronto | NORR

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Yeah that just seems entirely impossible. Completely different systems and initial infrastructure.

Nope - it was actually considered as a solution to the capacity problem at Union - from USRC capacity study report (hosted by Steve Munro):

https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/usrc-track-study_ugstationdwgs.pdf

AoD

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Nope - it was actually considered as a solution to the capacity problem at Union - from USRC capacity study report (hosted by Steve Munro):

View attachment 92048

https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/usrc-track-study_ugstationdwgs.pdf

AoD

These plans were mentioned as late as this year in the SmartTrack business case, page 51: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94599.pdf

Costs $900 million to build, and "Requires up to two new platforms at Unions Station. Costs provided for Simcoe Station concept - Underground Station with tunnel entrance just to the West side of Union Station. Costs from USRC EP Report based on the completed high level conceptual design"

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

These plans were mentioned as late as this year in the SmartTrack business case, page 51: http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2016/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-94599.pdf

Costs $900 million to build, and "Requires up to two new platforms at Unions Station. Costs provided for Simcoe Station concept - Underground Station with tunnel entrance just to the West side of Union Station. Costs from USRC EP Report based on the completed high level conceptual design"

Of course the question is - why did we rebuild the station without considering services for the future? This is like the polar opposite of the Bloor Viaduct - making stuff up as one goes along.

AoD

 

[SaugeenJunction]

Of course the question is - why did we rebuild the station without considering services for the future? This is like the polar opposite of the Bloor Viaduct - making stuff up as one goes along.

AoD

Would have been way easier to rough it in now, while platforms and concourses are on rolling closure schedules. If it is built down the road it will be much much harder to do than if it was done today.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Would have been way easier to rough it in now, while platforms and concourses are on rolling closure schedules. If it is built down the road it will be much much harder to do than if it was done today.

It's quite a bit further down in the bedrock so I am not sure if one can just rough the tunnel in as a way of saving money now (not to mention you can't rough it in without considering how it relates to the rest of the station, tracks, etc). Having said that, there isn't even any planning for that eventuality - I don't recall the mall space is designed with future connections to underground platforms in mind. If it gets built, you can almost bet that the solution will be jury-rigged, just like the LRT loop.

And honestly, if they had planned this along with the Union Station redo at the same time, they could have created something more coherent, more in tune with the users than the current lipstick on a pig.

AoD

 

[Northern Light]

I think, when it comes to capacity at Union, it's about realistically tackling the constraints.

At a simplified level, the constraints are signalling, the crossing of the ladder tracks (blocking movements on multiple tracks as you cross to/from your Union platform), and dwell time.

PTC and modernized, shorter-block signals address the first. Correctly aligning incoming/outgoing trains, with exclusive, uni-directional, through-running train/track as much as possible, tackles the second.

The third is mainly platform capacity, partially addressed by through-running, partially addressed by widening platforms/stairs.

In the latter case, I claim no expertise, but my understanding is the structural columns are under the tracks, not the platforms, and as such, track-removal is straight-forward with respect to platform widening.

Expansion of stairs/escalators may be more of a challenge, depending on their location relative to the structural columns, but should be feasible, I believe.

That only leaves the question of how many tracks you should remove, in order to maximize capacity.

If K-W and Stouffville run as one looping service, that would require 2 tracks, Lakeshore needs 2, Barrie (paired?) with Richmond Hill needs 2, Milton would then be a terminal service on 1 track. So that's 7.

If you assume VIA needs 3 tracks. One for the long-haul services, one each direction for the Corridor.

That's 10.

Currently there are 16, I think.

If that's the case, you could remove up to six tracks (or widen six platforms).

That sounds reasonable to me.

But I'm sure people more knowledgeable than I will elucidate the shortcomings of my idea.

 

[steveintoronto]

Of course the question is - why did we rebuild the station without considering services for the future? This is like the polar opposite of the Bloor Viaduct - making stuff up as one goes along.

AoD

Yeah, the ship has already left on that one, but not all hope is lost. With the lower height requirement for passenger (even with catenary) compared to double-stacked freight, which no longer comes through the USRC, I see possibility of double stacking at least a pair of tracks under the Bathurst, Spadina, Blue Jays Way, Simcoe South and York bridges and run the elevated pair around the south side of the Union shed to elevated platforms, and then ostensibly continue east until rejoining existing track level at or near the Don. Steep inclination? Not even as steep as the present fly-under at the Bathurst yards. Since this will be for RER, it will also be electrified, and the EMUs will climb a steeper gradient much easier than loco-hauled stock due to higher adhesion and power to weight ratio.

Will it look like shid? It won't be pretty, but what are the options otherwise? It will only add two more tracks through Union, but that will be just enough to break the imminent log-jam. The pinch point isn't just Bathurst bridge, it's the gap by the Dome and the Tower. There's is the even more fantastic idea of utilizing the expressway to hang a pair of tracks or run them down the centre of it, but I don't think that would be necessary or advisable.

As for tunnelling under that corridor, there's some very real problems tunnelling that deep in Toronto, the rock tends to compress. This isn't Stockholm or even Montreal unfortunately as per type of underlying rock.

No matter how you look at it though, hands are now tied to further expand track capacity at Union, save for this:

PTC and modernized, shorter-block signals address the first.

Agreed. The signally and control systems being used are decades behind best practice...a lot more could be squeezed out of Union by using the latest technology.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

But I'm sure people more knowledgeable than I will elucidate the shortcomings of my idea.

Similar thoughts are in the report:

https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/usrc-track-study_mainreport.pdf

AoD

 

[mdrejhon]

PTC and modernized, shorter-block signals address the first. Correctly aligning incoming/outgoing trains, with exclusive, uni-directional, through-running train/track as much as possible, tackles the second.

Metrolinx is considering something even better than PTC for GO RER.
It is called CBTC, similar to what TTC is installing on the Yonge Line over the years.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ntrol-ptc-cbtc-safety-shorter-headways.21483/

 

[mdrejhon]

Similar thoughts are in the report:

https://swanboatsteve.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/usrc-track-study_mainreport.pdf

AoD

Great reading of an old doc. I guess this report is why they decided to doubleberth UPX.....

When that report came out, Airport Rail Link was proposed as a single berth.

They found double berthing increased train throughput for opposite direction services, e.g. UPX and Richmond Hill/VIA sharing the first track.

Now...Appendix B....wow....90 trains an hour and 5min electric service on all lines on USRC if using underground Lakeshore tunnels. That would be a dream. Let's check again in 2066.

 

[steveintoronto]

Great reading of an old doc. I guess this report is why they decided to doubleberth UPX.....

When that report came out, Airport Rail Link was proposed as a single berth.

They found double berthing increased train throughput for opposite direction services, e.g. UPX and Richmond Hill/VIA sharing the first track.

Now...Appendix B....wow....90 trains an hour and 5min electric service on all lines on USRC if using underground Lakeshore tunnels. That would be a dream. Let's check again in 2066.

It was an interesting read, but dated. ONR no longer exists (at Union), and signalling and control systems, as you state, have left the USRC decades out of date. Also the inclusion of CN freight movements is very dated. I think the study should be reviewed to bring it up to date. And it should be done now. It's crucial to realize far more efficient use of what's there, even before any physical infrastructure improvements are considered, which will be very expensive.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Of course the question is - why did we rebuild the station without considering services for the future? This is like the polar opposite of the Bloor Viaduct - making stuff up as one goes along.

AoD

This. I was just thinking the same thing. Why an underground level with additional platforms was not considered is beyond me. Mind you we built a brand new airport terminal with zero provisions for a rail station/connection as well.

Sometimes I wonder if designers are to focused on maintaining the scope of their project, and minimizing costs, that they fail to make provisions for potential future additions.

 

[steveintoronto]

This. I was just thinking the same thing. Why an underground level with additional platforms was not considered is beyond me. Mind you we built a brand new airport terminal with zero provisions for a rail station/connection as well.

Sometimes I wonder if designers are to focused on maintaining the scope of their project, and minimizing costs, that they fail to make provisions for potential future additions.

I wouldn't blame the designers, who'd love to 'do things right'. The problem is with executives and inept politicians.

[...]With the lower height requirement for passenger (even with catenary) compared to double-stacked freight, which no longer comes through the USRC, I see possibility of double stacking at least a pair of tracks under the Bathurst, Spadina, Blue Jays Way, Simcoe South and York bridges and run the elevated pair around the south side of the Union shed to elevated platforms, and then ostensibly continue east until rejoining existing track level at or near the Don. Ramps could be built to the Don and Lakeshore lines east end, and to K-W and Hamilton lines at the west end. Steep inclination? Not even as steep as the present fly-under at the Bathurst yards. Since this will be for RER, it will also be electrified, and the EMUs will climb a steeper gradient much easier than loco-hauled stock due to higher adhesion and power to weight ratio.

Will it look like shid? It won't be pretty, but what are the options otherwise?[...]

I may have been too harsh on how the elevated tracks would look. Consider the ones into the airport, albeit with a softer radius. It might be necessary to trench down a bit for the lower level of tracks to clear the upper level under bridges, but that would be relatively easy. Consider the fly-under already extant in the Bathurst yards, but much less deep.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I wouldn't blame the designers, who'd love to 'do things right'. The problem is with executives and inept politicians.

The recent designers didn't tackle the problem either in this case - the reports (e.g. Union Station Master Plan) illustrates that - they are too fixated upon the then immediate problem.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

The recent designers didn't tackle the problem either in this case - the reports (e.g. Union Station Master Plan) illustrates that - they are too fixated upon the then immediate problem.

AoD

Perhaps we're applying the term "designers" and 'planners' as one and the same? Both work according to a mandate that defines the project. The designers I know chafe at the project definitions that desecribe the latitude of their tasks. I'd give examples, save that I might reveal too much that would make life difficult for some of the architects already under contract for at least one of the projects covered elsewhere on this site.

Make no mistake though, I completely agree with the view that planning was incredibly short-sighted for Union, albeit there might be engineering reasons that dictated not considering tunnelling under Union Station proper. The tracks are already supported by piles that rest on crumbly, relatively unstable rock. Trenching adjacent to Union is a different matter, there's little overhead superstructure to support.

I was just consulting this for some cross-sectional drawings:
https://stevemunro.ca/2009/04/03/understanding-union-station/

What might be a consideration yet is tunneling to the south of the station and shed, (perhaps under the freight by-pass) but no matter how you cut it, an elevated track pair (either above or beside present trackage) would be far cheaper and faster to construct. Whether that would meet 'visual' criteria is a good question, but until the USRC and Gardiner are moved, aesthetical consideration is a moot point.