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

[Neil]

But what would this more efficient track layout look like?

Something like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Centraal_railway_station although we cannot achieve this full width. Union has the potential to have some platforms practically from Yonge to Simcoe. That means we could triple-berth trains and a passing track makes that operationally doable. Btw, I'd take the train shed too. What we have makes the term "shed" appropriate.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

That means we could triple-berth trains and a passing track makes that operationally doable.

What the heck, why would they have 3 tracks in between platforms?? I don't see how that would be operationally useful, especially for our Union station considering no trains pass through the station without stopping to let passengers off.

 

[Neil]

What the heck, why would they have 3 tracks in between platforms??

See the picture: http://www.caspercomsci.com/images/holland/amsterdam_train_station_03.JPG With a crossover joining all 3 tracks, a train can come into the station and park in front of a train that is loading passengers. Then, when the train behind is ready to go, it pulls out and passes the train in front of it. With Union's current configuration, its one at a time, follow the leader.

 

[reaperexpress]

What the heck, why would they have 3 tracks in between platforms?? I don't see how that would be operationally useful, especially for our Union station considering no trains pass through the station without stopping to let passengers off.

When I was in the Netherlands, I was interested by their rail operations, so I took the following sequence illustrating the practice. In this particular instance the second-berthing train actually came from two tracks over, but in Amsterdam it would be from the middle track.

It was in Rosendaal, the Netherlands. The SNCB* international train I took to Brussels pulls in front of a NS** local train on the same platform. The SNCB train is pulling into platform 4a, the local train is on 4b.

Although it makes for great flexibility, I don't think it would be the best use of space. The amount of space taken up by the third track easily outweighs the added capacity that would come from triple-berthing. We can easily double-berth anyway, because most trains terminate in Union.

*SNCB: Société Nationale de Chemins de fer Belges (Belgian National Railway)
**NS: Nederlandse Spoorwegen (Dutch Railways)

 

[vegeta_skyline]

I see what your saying and how that could be very advantageous. Unfortunately union station isn't long enough to accommodate multiple GO trains. Maybe if GO ran 6 car consists that method could be accommodated within the Union station rail corridor. But running smaller trains is not an option for GO as it would reduce system capacity because the number of trains GO can run on the rail system is limited by the current track configuration and signal system in place.

 

[reaperexpress]

I see what your saying and how that could be very advantageous. Unfortunately union station isn't long enough to accommodate multiple GO trains. Maybe if GO ran 6 car consists that method could be accommodated within the Union station rail corridor. But running smaller trains is not an option for GO as it would reduce system capacity because the number of trains GO can run on the rail system is limited by the current track configuration and signal system in place.

I think people assume that GO will eventually switch to shorter trains, because regional rail systems tend to have shorter trains than commuter rail systems.

It's certainly true that GO couldn't just run shorter trains within the next few years, but Union station will be around for a long time, so it would make sense for it to be prepared for when GO starts operating less like a commuter rail system and more like a regional metro.

I think that whether or not there is a capacity shortage depends more on the layout and operation of the tracks than on the actual number of tracks.
A double-track subway line can comfortably run at 30,000ppdph (YUS & BD, for example), and can run as high as 80,000ppdph (HK MTR). Yes, regional rail trains don't load as quickly as subway trains so the minimum headway is lower, but then again, we also have more than 2 tracks on the Lakeshore and Kitchener lines.
With proper signaling, it would be practical to run trains as frequently as every 5 min on a single track per direction. With 6 car bilevel trains, that would work out to 21,600ppdph. If I recall correctly, that is roughly what Metrolinx predicted the peak demand on the busiest line (Lakeshore West) in 20 years. The busiest lines have more than a single track per direction, so the demand should easily be able to be accommodated with smaller trains.

 

[Hipster Duck]

But what would this more efficient track layout look like? It seems the station is constrained both in number of tracks and width of platforms. When you reorient things you end up taking space from one and giving it to the other. I'm not sure that the cost of moving all the supports to somewhere else would end up substantially different from what is there now.

Right now, the layout at Union station is:

PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM

A more efficient layout would be:

P L A T F O R M _track track_P L A T F O R M _track track_P L A T F O R M.

The platform would be considerably wider than what we have today, allowing for very wide staircases and/or dual direction escalators, as well as elevators that wouldn't take up the entire platform width, allowing passengers to navigate around it. The ease of pedestrian movement and circulation allows dwell times on the platform to be significantly reduced.

While you increase platform width substantially, you also get rid of a redundant platform and space the tracks closer to one another, so there isn't a reduction in track capacity.

Here is an example from Germany which has basically the same loading conditions as what we see at Union station. That is, it's also a bi-level train with two doors per car and a low platform height. Look, people are even leaving with bicycles - something that is impossible to do given the tiny staircases at Union right now.

EDIT: The setup that Neil showed in the Netherlands is ideal, and as Reaperexpress mentioned, the goal of GO in the future should be to have shorter, more frequent multiple unit trains rather than 12-car behemoths pulled by a locomotive. The current (and unfortunately future) setup of Union station is very poor at accommodating that kind of service.

 

[reaperexpress]

The other benefit from smaller trains is that it reduces strain on platform and stairway capacity by spreading out the load over many small trains, rather than one flood of 3600 people every time a 12 car train pulls in.

Our massive trains also cause problems at suburban GO stations. Every time a train pulls in, the flood of passengers exiting cause a traffic jam at the parking lot exit, prompting people to run to make it to their car first.

[video=youtube;Lz0jlFuG1rE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lz0jlFuG1rE[/video]

 

[yyzhyd]

Right now, the layout at Union station is:

PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM

A more efficient layout would be:

P L A T F O R M _track track_P L A T F O R M _track track_P L A T F O R M.

Small note that Union's layout under the shed is PLATFORM_track track_PLATFORM for the northern & southern most sets.
in between it's PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM as you stated.

 

[EnviroTO]

The ridership of Amsterdam station doesn't seem very impressive considering the much higher ridership of inter-city services through the day that one could expect in Europe. Could Amsterdam handle all the ridership that they have spread through the day instead arriving between 8am and 9am and leaving between 5pm and 6pm roughly? How certain are you that their station is more efficient?

Right now, the layout at Union station is:
PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATFORM_track_PLATF ORM_track_PLATFORM
A more efficient layout would be:
P L A T F O R M _track track_P L A T F O R M _track track_P L A T F O R M.

That layout certainly wouldn't need any changes to the shed, just the supports below. However, I can see the benefits of a layout which is LOADING_track_UNLOADING_track_LOADING, etc. Most of the efforts on passenger flow at Bloor-Yonge have to do with separating the flows in and out and a two platform per train layout does that for you.

 

[gweed123]

That layout certainly wouldn't need any changes to the shed, just the supports below. However, I can see the benefits of a layout which is LOADING_track_UNLOADING_track_LOADING, etc. Most of the efforts on passenger flow at Bloor-Yonge have to do with separating the flows in and out and a two platform per train layout does that for you.

I agree. One of the best ways to reduce dwell times at Union is to separate the loading and unloading flows. They already do this, but the trains are too long and the platforms are too narrow (as are the staircases). This causes backlogs when unloading, which slows down the entire exiting process.

I would imagine though that the loading platforms would need to be wider than the unloading ones, because people will be waiting on them. Also, you would likely have 2 trainloads of people waiting on the same platform, so it would need to be even wider.

If more GO lines are coupled (e.g. Milton with Stouffville, Kitchener with Richmond Hill), turning Union into a through station instead of a terminus, it would make the process smoother as well. What this would also do is allow for each line to permanently occupy a platform, eliminating the mad rush for the stairs when the platform number comes up on the screen.

 

[Neil]

The ridership of Amsterdam station doesn't seem very impressive considering the much higher ridership of inter-city services through the day that one could expect in Europe. Could Amsterdam handle all the ridership that they have spread through the day instead arriving between 8am and 9am and leaving between 5pm and 6pm roughly? How certain are you that their station is more efficient?

Ridership of Amsterdam Centraal isn't sky high because there are 5 other commuter train stations around the city core. It does work better though; I've seen it at some rather busy times.

Union's capacity like all train and subway stations is driven by dwell time. There are limits to how fast you can get people on and off a train and people don't usually sprint to work like they sprint to the parking lot. Funny video...

Thus, a station's overall capacity is not driven by platform width or how much retail is in the waiting area, but by how many train cars can be parked there at one time. Because we can't gain parking space by making the station wider, we have to make better use of the station lengthwise by berthing trains end to end. Switchovers and passing tracks are the only way to do this. 12-car consists, yeah we could only double berth those. 7-car EMUs could be triple berthed but that is down the road. We've got some money to flush down the toilet before then. Alas though, the century is young.

Union from Google Picture an arched roof stretching all the way from Yonge to Simcoe and think of what we could put under it. And those pesky pillars between Bay and York are tying are hands. I don't think so. The current Union renovation is a small plan thought up by small minds.

 

[Hipster Duck]

The ridership of Amsterdam station doesn't seem very impressive considering the much higher ridership of inter-city services through the day that one could expect in Europe. Could Amsterdam handle all the ridership that they have spread through the day instead arriving between 8am and 9am and leaving between 5pm and 6pm roughly? How certain are you that their station is more efficient?

I would not underestimate the volume of traffic - both passengers and train movements - that moves out of a European railway station in a short time span. I'm pretty sure there are hours of the day when the main train stations move more people than Union at its peak.

 

[andrewpmk]

The ridership of Amsterdam station doesn't seem very impressive considering the much higher ridership of inter-city services through the day that one could expect in Europe. Could Amsterdam handle all the ridership that they have spread through the day instead arriving between 8am and 9am and leaving between 5pm and 6pm roughly? How certain are you that their station is more efficient?



That layout certainly wouldn't need any changes to the shed, just the supports below. However, I can see the benefits of a layout which is LOADING_track_UNLOADING_track_LOADING, etc. Most of the efforts on passenger flow at Bloor-Yonge have to do with separating the flows in and out and a two platform per train layout does that for you.

Remember that Amsterdam has a second rail line running around Amsterdam in the middle of the A10 motorway, and I suspect there is more employment there than in near the old train station. This would be sort of equivalent to having frequent service on the CP line through Summerhill. Also Amsterdam isn't a very big city. Amsterdam is probably comparable in size to the old City of Toronto; the whole Randstad is a bit bigger than the GTA but is very polycentric, and there is nowhere in Amsterdam approaching the densities of the financial district in Toronto.

 

[drum118]

Jan 27
Finally got around to take some photos for the first time this year and caught this.

Most of the platform curb is in place for the new 25 platform with some forming still taking place.

The roof steel framing is not as shown on display and not sure if this has to do this been the last bay to the south. More steel bracing to be install.

More photos up on site.