As I stated in the past, you have issues at Union for longer platform as you are on a curb. I know I have taken shots of the east ends, but can't find them to show the condition.
I may have missed that post. Can you describe what is the bottleneck to simply raising the platform & adding platform wall doors? It seemed similar depth to the narrow-depth Union TTC platform. Yes, very narrow, but it would be usable.
And to make it less claustrophobic -- I was thinking, given enough money (say, over ten million dollars, but less than 100 million) -- possibly budgetted as a RER-specific Union Enhancement -- still possibly
more politically feasible than many alternate solutions that threaten to cancel electrification!)
....Couldn't the brick walls and iron walls, be removed as an obstacle, simply by having the lower part having a bunch of punch-out holes (structural modifications). For example, the flat metal walls between the iron H supports, so you just have a bunch of supports in the middle of platform, far less obtrusive than the support pillars in the middle of the platforms at Yonge-Bloor? The store in the beginning of the SkyWalk is now also vacant too, so that space can be cannibalized. In some areas, any walls only need to be removed at the lower level in very slim structurally-supported hole punchouts -- it's not a skyscraper we need to support, anyway. Then all we have is poles/supports/Hbars in the middle of platforms for the eastmost 3 coaches that are now raised platforms with platform walls. It won't be deep platforms, but it would be less claustrophobic than what I earlier suggested. It seems messy, but not
that messy, if done properly, low-profile, and tastefully...
The structural strength of that old ironwork wall is probably greatly overengineered, given early 20th century mentality of overengineering, and other support retrofits might be doable if alternate structural strength is needed... The wall cutouts could even neatly integrated into the heritage design of the ironwork there. That way, lots of new entry points & far less claustrophobic. Tap gates could even be installed near these area (in the skywalk right after Union, but far before the fancy UPX area) as an additional entry point above-and-beyond the main 3-coach-sized UPX station and the new public Track 3 access.
This would create more space for a TTC-width raised platform for the eastmost 3 coaches, couldn't it? Then the same 6-coach EMUs (if chosen for RER), could then also be used at the UPX station too, possibly cleanly solving a white elephant UPX problem if the same train fleet is used for UPX/RER/ST.
With easy stairs or ramp access from Track 3. Obviously there would be major compromises to be made, like shortening allowed trains at Track 3, followed by a future whole Track 3 platform raising during future phases of SmartTrack.
The intermediate (Bloor/Weston) platform raisings could cannibalize existing GO platforms -- you would lengthen platforms into the existing GO platform area. As some service transferred to 6 coach EMUs instead of 12-coach bilevels. During the transition period where the old BiLevels still stop at Weston/Bloor, some coaches could remain closed during the high-floor EMU transition period on this corridor. 12-coaches bilevels would only open 9 doors. All infills could be designed as high-platform.
If they choose high-floor EMUs for the EMU route (RER/ST segment), the opportunity of cannibalizing low-floor platforms with high-platforms at Weston/Bloor arises, with the technique of only opening 9 coaches out of 12 at these stations (musical chairs like during construction) during a transition period before diesels begin going express at these stations.
There really is no non-messy compromise -- and this might end up being the least messy compromise if there was an
small engineering overkill spend to "solve" the curb problem you say... Even if it cost $50M (if that) it would still be a fraction of 1% of the RER budget. But it looks like a "Rube Goldberg" engineering solution to create holes in the wall to permit a slightly deeper "normal TTC depth" platform -- would not even need to cost $100M while satisfying everyone (e.g. signal relocation, mechanical equipment relocation, alternate maintenance access, etc.).
Assuming Metrolinx successfully overloads UPX trains by 2018 with standing room only, there might be voter interest in hearing "SmartTrack takes over UPX" talk, even if it's in name only. This could save electrification and reduce long term RER costs (same 6 coach EMU fleet for all EMU routes)
With the fare unification GO+UPX, the merger of UPX into GO/RER is already signalled as a possible outcome. When the electrified UPX-RER hybrid stops at places like Liberty and Eglinton Crosstown, (and possibly goes past to Unionville), this will overwhelm 4 coach trains. It would be a waste to upgrade to 4 coach trains if UPX is simply merged into RER with the infills. Shut down UPX Union, relocate UPX to a regular track? That'd be a short lifetime for 4 coach trains that probably ends up as a different brand than what they'll choose for RER.
I mean, if this is a keystone to RER plans, we need to transition to RER properly, and not waste it on low-fare 3-coach or 4-coach trains. Even $100M on structurally re-engineering/removing/punching that wall (and all equipment/mechanical relocations) would save a lot of money for electrified RER over the long term by unifying the EMU fleet, I would think (Assuming they end up choosing high-platform EMUs).
It might not be possible at current budget, and might not be practical if they choose low-floor EMUs. But if they go high-floor, it seems there is an obvious transition period occurs anyway that overlaps the intermediate UPX stations, so it's Pearson and Union we'd be mainly concerned about, as a separate spend... That does mean we modify UPX infrastructure so early after we just built it (ouch), but if we're lengthening to 4 coaches and modifying anyway, then costing a "higher cost but EMU fleet unifying" path to unifying to a 6-coach EMU fleet needs to be begged, right?
I do agree re-banding UPX, as I never supported the plan in the first place. Calling it RER or SmartTrack is a name only
Yes, this would be name only.
2018 is going to be a trouble year as to where transit goes depending on the election out come as well if its a spring election, not the normal fall one.
No kidding. In the light of $13.5 billion of the RER initiative, is it truly impossible for $20 million to make engineering megaproject modifications necessary to shoehorn a narrow raised platform backwards into Union? If the later cost savings was a fleet unification "without the messy politics of shutting down still-new UPX assets"? I'm just wondering.
