News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.1K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 998     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 371     0 

GO Transit: Union Station Shed Replacement & Track Upgrades (Zeidler)

Track 16 would become track 15. Track 15 would be replaced by an island platform with platform 28 serving track 14 and platform 29 serving the new 15. The distance between track 13 and 14 doesn't look that much different from the distance between track 14 and the current 16 to me.
 
drum118 said:
Out of the 3 tracks to the south, you will only gain one extra track for that new platform. Track 27 will be used for both platform and the current track 29 will become 28. The patform width will be narrower
Click to expand...
I think you are confusing tracks and platforms. There are 16 tracks right? If so, they'd eliminate track 15, and build Platform 28/29 there. Would indeed be narrow I'd think. But so is Platform 27/28 isn't it?
 
nfitz said:
I think you are confusing tracks and platforms. There are 16 tracks right? If so, they'd eliminate track 15, and build Platform 28/29 there. Would indeed be narrow I'd think. But so is Platform 27/28 isn't it?
Click to expand...

I was using dumb GO numbering.

At present time the existing new platform is service by tracks 13 and 14, with 14 on the south side. The remaining 2 tracks are 15 and 16 that make up those 3 tracks to the south for argument.

If you remove track 15 and put in a new platform in its place, you only gain one extra track for that new platform and that is 16. Track 14 will service both platforms.

The new platform will be narrower than the current one, which is about the same as the existing ones in the shed.

Since CN only runs one daily train west on Track 16 these days, the south platform will have to be more narrower at the east end where it will bend as well the the very west end to accommodate the 86' cars.

It will be touch and go for a new platform to be put in. I will say no platform will go in as hope.
 
unimaginative2 said:
The most important change for Union Station will be a switch to lower capacity, more frequent trains.
Click to expand...

+1

Not just for Union. It'll change the face of transit in Toronto (particularly in the 905). GO rail service will now be as accessible and reliable as the TTC subway network.
 
I agree, but it would be unprecedented for a North American city outside of New York. Apart from electrification, it would also require a full separation from freight railways, flyovers where junctions or even wyes occur (we are slowly doing this, though), double tracked service everywhere and making sure that every station has at least two platforms, preferably high platforms, and that there is grade separated pedestrian access at every station. We would also have to completely reconfigure the yards and maintenance centres. It's a worthwile project, but it won't be cheap.
 
Hipster Duck said:
I agree, but it would be unprecedented for a North American city outside of New York. Apart from electrification, it would also require a full separation from freight railways, flyovers where junctions or even wyes occur (we are slowly doing this, though), double tracked service everywhere and making sure that every station has at least two platforms, preferably high platforms, and that there is grade separated pedestrian access at every station. We would also have to completely reconfigure the yards and maintenance centres. It's a worthwile project, but it won't be cheap.
Click to expand...

Unprecedented, but feasible as long as we continue on with all the current projects.

Electrification is approved, all corridors are getting more tracks, Hagerman and Snider diamonds were recently grade-separated, West Toronto diamond is currently being grade-separated, Davenport Diamond is planned to be grade-separated soon, tons of stations are getting pedestrian tunnels, and there is a proposal for another maintenance centre.

In fact, the limiting factor for capacity will soon be Union Station (where it isn't already). Using smaller, more frequent trains would spread the load more evenly on the platforms, and shorter trains could allow some of the island platforms to be divided into two stub-end platforms.
 
Last edited:
drum118 said:
If you remove track 15 and put in a new platform in its place, you only gain one extra track for that new platform and that is 16. Track 14 will service both platforms.

The new platform will be narrower than the current one, which is about the same as the existing ones in the shed.

Since CN only runs one daily train west on Track 16 these days, the south platform will have to be more narrower at the east end where it will bend as well the the very west end to accommodate the 86' cars.

It will be touch and go for a new platform to be put in. I will say no platform will go in as hope.
Click to expand...
What if you design the new platform to ONLY service Track 16 and not Track 14. Track 14 is currently operational with only one platform. So why not use the entire width of the new platform to go where Track 15 is to service Track 16? That might avoid the narrowness problems.
 
Hipster Duck said:
I agree, but it would be unprecedented for a North American city outside of New York. Apart from electrification, it would also require a full separation from freight railways, flyovers where junctions or even wyes occur (we are slowly doing this, though), double tracked service everywhere and making sure that every station has at least two platforms, preferably high platforms, and that there is grade separated pedestrian access at every station. We would also have to completely reconfigure the yards and maintenance centres. It's a worthwile project, but it won't be cheap.
Click to expand...

And, interestingly enough, Denver. At least in a few years. The New York example is incredibly frustrating because they operate lots of trips per day and the infrastructure is there to handle rapid transit level service but the trips are so random throughout the day that it's not really a practical option, not to mention the lack of fare integration. Even on the incredibly busy section of the LIRR from Penn to Jamaica, you can sit for a long time waiting for a train at Woodside.

The rolling stock requirements for S-Bahn/RER style service are less demanding than a lot of people might expect. We already have an enormous amount of capacity in terms of rolling stock, but much of it sits idle for most of the day.

People criticizing mid-day trains for not being entirely full are way off-base. Not even Tokyo packs all of its trains to the gills off-peak. That doesn't mean that the service is somehow a failure.
 
Last edited:
unimaginative2 said:
People criticizing mid-day trains for not being entirely full are way off-base. Not even Tokyo packs all of its trains to the gills off-peak. That doesn't mean that the service is somehow a failure.
Click to expand...

Look at the photo below. Does that look like that line is a failure? They could move those people with a bus.

Yamanote-sen-205-cattle-wagon.jpg


Well, that's the Yamanote line. It moves 3.2 million people A DAY. The entire TTC only moves 2.5 million. Unimaginative is right, in Europe and Asia it's expected that off peak trains will be largely empty.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top