[micheal_can]

Would it not be easier to simply raise the historic train shed? It's basically a steel skeleton so making it another five feet taller shouldn't be that challenging. Certainly a lot easier than digging the tracks down.

How long do you want to close the station for? It would not be a quick job.

 

[junctionist]

What is wrong with the current corridor through west harbour. 1.5km isn't very far and is a reasonable distance for last mile solutions and local transit to cover. The existing corridor has lots of room to expand, follows an extremely straight and flat alignment to Niagara, running through most of the population centers along the way. If you are going to spend money increasing speed and service, upgrade the tracks to allow 100mph speeds and build a bayview junction bypass, and you'll have a high enough speed line for less than the cost of building a brand new corridor.

The limited number of trains that serve downtown Hamilton is awful. That's where a lot of the jobs, people, stores, attractions, and transit connections are located and will be located in the future as downtown revitalizes and densifies. Downtown is also more accessible than West Harbour to people on the mountain. West Harbour is surrounded by acres of detached houses. It's nice that there's a GO station there, but it'll never be the "Union Station" of Hamilton.

 

[rdaner]

^Because sfh are permanent?!

 

[chrisw]

Regarding consultation,

Alto, the subsidiary of Via Rail that is developing the project, will be holding its first round of public consultations on its proposed route this winter, focusing on a broad corridor for the track. Two more rounds of consultations on a firmer route will take place over the next 18 months. These consultations will consider the result of field studies on wildlife and environmental impacts along with noise, water and air quality studies.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/high-speed-rail-property-expropriations-9.6993241

 

[ComptoirGeneral]

How long do you want to close the station for? It would not be a quick job.

Are you implying digging the tracks downwards wouldn't be a disruptive job? Personally I think it should be torn down.

 

[smallspy]

So...whos lying? This has been a talking point ever since it was rumored and confirmed that they wont be electrifying the shed for a long time

"lying" is not a good way to depict the difference. "Risk tolerance threshold" may be better. "Professional disagreement among experts" is yet another. "Willingness to try something untried or controversial" is another. "Not willing to take a position" is another. "Absence of clear facts" is another.

It does surprise me that no one has tried to mock it up or modify a single track and experiment. Maybe some consultant has been engaged to do that in a lab setting somewhere. Maybe the test (and its answer) would depend on technical specs that haven't been nailed down yet (e.g. brand of equipment, exact height of pantograph, etc).

And then there is the reality that while the solution may be technically doable, it may also be expensive and so isn't being tackled until there is an electrification program launched that actually requires it. With lots of sandbox gossip filling in the silence while we wait.

Or, nobody willing to actually commit one way or the other when that electrification launch is still a ways away. But making contingency plans in case the answer is negative. And the contingency, which may never be needed, gets talked up as a statement of fact when it hasn't been proven yet..

- Paul

There's another option that you didn't cover but that I think is the correct one.

"Not aware of previous study or research."

This happens to be a particularly big problem at Metrolinx right now, as much of the new staff for a while now have been hired straight out of school - and with no working experience - and then end up in more powerful positions as the old heads retire and head for greener pastures.

"Institutional memory" is entirely a thing, and it can be lost.

Dan

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Would it not be easier to simply raise the historic train shed? It's basically a steel skeleton so making it another five feet taller shouldn't be that challenging. Certainly a lot easier than digging the tracks down.

It would be simpler and more logical to tear down that worthless garbage. Frankly that portion of the station should be stripped of its' heritage designation. It is patently ridiculous to put in a special requirement for the trains just because of the limitations imposed by this worthless pile.

AoD

 

[CapitalSeven]

Here we go again: Heritage = what I consider pretty.

 

[micheal_can]

Regarding consultation,

Alto, the subsidiary of Via Rail that is developing the project, will be holding its first round of public consultations on its proposed route this winter, focusing on a broad corridor for the track. Two more rounds of consultations on a firmer route will take place over the next 18 months. These consultations will consider the result of field studies on wildlife and environmental impacts along with noise, water and air quality studies.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/high-speed-rail-property-expropriations-9.6993241

This may sound bad, but it is good news. It means we may see the project move forward without it being slowed down by NIMBY.This could be the start of Canada building projects more quickly.

Are you implying digging the tracks downwards wouldn't be a disruptive job? Personally I think it should be torn down.

Oh, no, not at all. The station has 16 tracks. The shed covers 10 tracks. So,i f you want to raise the shed, all of those tracks and their associated platforms would need to be closed. Digging the tracks out,they could do a couple at a time. So, the station could still operate reasonably well while that happens.

 

[zang]

By population - Quebec City/region is about 1/3 bigger than London.

AoD

And Quebec City also ends up helping better connect east coast provinces. West of London, there isn’t that much.

 

[Natika33]

It would be simpler and more logical to tear down that worthless garbage. Frankly that portion of the station should be stripped of its' heritage designation. It is patently ridiculous to put in a special requirement for the trains just because of the limitations imposed by this worthless pile.

AoD

I feel I was one of the few originally who liked the old train shed, but if it's standing in the way of progress & electrification, then I'm all for removing the heritage designation & the structure. It's not like they can't reuse parts creatively elsewhere if they want to keep some momentos.

 

[WB62]

So,i f you want to raise the shed, all of those tracks and their associated platforms would need to be closed.

The entire station remained open and functional when the shed was almost entirely taken apart for renovations.

 

[micheal_can]

The entire station remained open and functional when the shed was almost entirely taken apart for renovations.

View attachment 699225

Place a jack under each of those posts. How safe would it be for passengers to move around the platform?

Regardless, I doubt anyone here will be part of the decision making as to the future of the train shed and electrification. So, we will just have to wait till a decision is made.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Demolish the damn thing. It's inhibiting growth of transit services and nobody in this city has any appreciation for it other than a handful of heritage enthusiasts - and even then I bet a good chunk would acknowledge it should go if it's actively presenting a major barrier to transit expansion.

 

[Urban Sky]

From what I piece together from the grapevine (and should be consumed with a grain of salt), the progress blocker is not necessarily the shed itself, but the support structures underneath the tracks, which would need to get fixed before any major modifications or upgrades like electrification can take place…