|
|
|
GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
Do I detect some slippage in the schedule?
- Paul
crs1026
Superstar
I suspect that any new configuration would ensure there is one track built through Union with clearance sufficient for freight trains.... likely on the south side of the trainshed.
The existing handicap islands on GO platforms do not encroach on the necessary freight clearance. The issue is that the floor level step on the bilevels does not extend out all the way to the island.... which is why the CSA’s deploy their ramps. The coaches would have to be modified to extend the floor level outwards. There might still be a gap, but aa much easier one to step over.
I am doubtful of the claim that the change would make the entire platform accessible. Over the pond, where there are many varieties of rolling stock, and even variations on platform height, ramps are still frequently used for wheelchair access. Certainly, boarding is faster for non-handicapped riders, but the platforms and the equipment may not align all that well.
Mind the Gap still may apply.
- Paul
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The platform and track will also depend on what dimensions GO Transit (or others) will use for future train cars.
The Toronto subway car widths are 3.137m wide, for comparison.
From link.
See also this link for Association of American Railroads Equipment Diagrams for Interchange Service
The Toronto subway car widths are 3.137m wide, for comparison.
From link.
See also this link for Association of American Railroads Equipment Diagrams for Interchange Service
Last edited:
hw621
Senior Member
Do freight trains have to stop at Union? Can we make it a passenger train only station?
M636RF
New Member
Right now, very few freight trains run through Union Station, and those that do always pass by on the far south track (that has no platform). Therefore, they aren't that relevant when discussing platform sizes at Union Station. What is of more concern is the size of the other types of passenger trains (VIA, AMTK, and potentially ONR) that use or will use the station.
drum118
Superstar
If you look at posting above or back a few pages, you will see update photos on Bramalea by me. Exhibition is still dead in the water. Was by Maple New Year Eve and looks like nothing taking place, but hard to see in the dark and rain if anything is taking place.
Need a dome to see Don Yard. Haven't seen the others since I don't get there in the first place.
Only time a freight train stops at Union is for a signal, otherwise use the very south track to bypass the station. There used to be a daily train going westbound around noon, but haven't seen it in years.
Jan 4/19
Love the smell in the air
Allandale25
Senior Member
I know that freight trains rarely pass through Union and only use the southern most track (and until the spur to the water treatment facility in the Port Lands is restored there's no regular service).
So I assume that the Union platforms will have very tight clearances and be level, but some platforms at other stations couldn't match that because freight trains still may need to go by at those other stations? In other words, the closest example I can think of is the UPX platforms on the Kitchener Line. Could a freight train if it had to go by the UPX platforms at Weston and Bloor?
crs1026
Superstar
Short answer: yes they can, although they might be speed restricted.
If you look at the UPE equipment, eg here, you will see that the floor step is built out beyond the carbody, which has a slight taper at platform level. The platform design is conservative - the car comes out to the platform, the platform doesn’t come to the car. GO bilevels have a similar taper, the clearance plate posted above shows the outside dimension but the sill at the doors is recessed.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
IIRC, and I'm still looking for it as it was in the strings at this site, BBD have a modification kit available to make the steps retract and extend when needed, and it's already in use in at least one of the US systems (I thought the Utah 'UTA' one, but have yet to refind it).
Meantime, here's from the Skyscraper forum:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=231799[...]
The Solution:
Siemens has developed a deployable gap-filler, which is now in service on Florida's BrightLine:
• Video Link
These allow for high platforms to be built directly on the mainline without need for gauntlet tracks or platform extenders, and freight trains can roll through these stations at full speed:
(skip to 20 seconds into this video)
• Video Link
This solution solves all the problems with platform heights. There don't need to be any infrastructure improvements. There don't need to be any special tracks for station platforms. There don't need to be wheelchair lifts, steps, or high-blocks. The only moving parts are contained within the train cars, so they can be actively maintained at the same schedule as the doors themselves.
I propose that every new passenger rail system be designed to use high-platforms, 48-51 inches tall, and use active gap-fillers to make every platform a level-boarding platform.
For busy rail corridors, bi-level cars can still function at high-level platforms, such as New Jersey Transit currently uses:
Another way to do bi-level cars is to go straight up, where space allows it. This would mean that passengers with disabilities could still move between cars easily on the bottom floor, and the top floor could be used for observation areas, just like in the Colorado Rail Car Ultra Domes, which are 18-feet tall (meaning they can go anywhere a double-stack container train can):
Most importantly, Siemens - the manufactuer of the Brightline cars - is set to manufacture 137 cars for Illinois and California for corridor service, replacing an order for bi-level cars. These types of passenger cars are also well-situated to be the car-of-choice for Amtrak's next long-distance fleet, replacing older cars on their long-distance trains. If these cars become that ubiquitous, it would be extremely easy to include the same gap-fillers in all these new cars (or retrofit them into existing Siemens cars). This would create a national standard platform height and eliminate all of the complicated and less-effective solutions that have been deployed throughout the non-Northeast Corridor parts of the country.
For more reading on how complicated platform heights can be, read this post of the Caltrans HSR Compatibility Blog:
http://caltrain-hsr.blogspot.com/200...VN24vHSWVqM2VM
[...]
Please refer to the linked source, my editing is minimal, and some other info I haven't included.
The Siemens innovation is especially germane, as of course, VIA's Corridor replacement coaches are the same as shown (interior may differ). I'd posted a short blurb from the Siemens Viaggio pdf https://w5.siemens.com/cms/mam/mobility/Documents/viaggio-imagebroschuere-en.pdf in the Great Platform Height Debate string last night.
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threa...ding-for-go-trains.21140/page-14#post-1409601
Hopefully someone will locate the BBD DD example already posted here at UT. @mdrejhon ?
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
^ I'm sure the design exists, but anything retracting mechanically is not a good idea. Ice, snow, deferred maintenance, self-destructive behaviour of commuters trying to dash through closing doors....just too many risks of failure and/or delay causing issues. Just extend the sill as far as is prudent, as a fixed structure.
It may have worked on Peter Witt cars, but this is the electronic age. Things fail more often these days. Keep it simple.
- Paul
It may have worked on Peter Witt cars, but this is the electronic age. Things fail more often these days. Keep it simple.
- Paul
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's not that simple, or that would have been done from the start.
The gap necessary for sharing rails with freight (at many other GO stations) necessitates the use of 'clearance' at the floor height such that a 'bridge' is needed for the gap.
Consider how far back the accessibility platforms are from the coaches. The North Am coach template in use dictates a way to bridge a gap when sharing with freight. For instance, where they have level loading in Salt Lake City means that heritage steam locos can no longer use the track, the wheel beams will hit them.
I'll dig more and post later. There's no simple "fixed" way out of this save for using gauntlet tracks, expensive and far from simple.
Addendum:
https://www.arema.org/files/library...ht_Manual-High_Speed_Passenger_Rail_Lines.pdf
By far the best solution is to have an extendable plate built into each coach doorway, and that's why it's being done.
Last edited:
Toronto1834
Active Member
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Just curious, how you do you find this stuff out? Do you view all development applications and committee/board meeting agendas?
Toronto1834
Active Member
The City's development projects webpage, filter the search by recently submitted applications. This tool shows all development projects within the City of Toronto. Because this is only a site plan application and not a major planning application it likely won't go to a committee of council for approval.