News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.1K     0 

Can someone ELI5 what the arguments are for why the trainshed at Union is supposed to be a barrier to electrification?
 
Here's some more mappy speculation. Notice below two parallel lines of dots from Toronto to Peterborough, and then the dots that are north of a straight line between Peterborough and Ottawa. Then take in the dots quite to the south of Ottawa. This is evidence they actually got out on the land and looked at the hydro corridors running all the way from Scarborough to the Ottawa Valley (the "Gatineau" corridor) and roughly between the Tweed and Smiths Falls areas, through some conservation areas and the Rideau Lakes. There are big obstacles to building through these areas, but farms and towns are not prominent among those. That work was done up to last year, and it's this year they are reexamining the Ottawa-Montreal route. Why can't someone leak any of this 😃

1764180034631.png
 
CapitalSeven said:
You don't go through Gatineau or the Senate. Although some earlier studies proposed using what are now O Train tracks and across into Gatineau, that would entail a new station at what is now Bayview and scores of grade separations. I think the door is closed.
Click to expand...
If you went through Bayview, you'd need I think 9 grade crossings in Gatineau if you closed some grade crossings (or else did some short tunnel or trench sections). But those grade separations have to be done anyways if you ever want to extend the trillium line into Gatineau, so there's good value there.

CapitalSeven said:
I'm talking about a route as outlined below in red dashes, using different ROWs. I think it's vanishingly unlikely. For example, I figure you would need a 3 km tunnel under Hawkesbury and the Ottawa river. At the end of the day, it's not really a longer or impossible route, assuming you can connect Gare Central to Parc with a new tunnel.View attachment 699021
Click to expand...
I do like this route too though.
 
T3G said:
Can someone ELI5 what the arguments are for why the trainshed at Union is supposed to be a barrier to electrification?
Click to expand...

Simple electrical "limits of approach". The vertical clearances under the trainshed are marginal relative to the separations needed for 25 kv catenary. Potential for arcing to the trainshed's steel structure or to the trains themselves.

Some say it can be done, others say it's problemmatic.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Simple electrical "limits of approach". The vertical clearances under the trainshed are marginal relative to the separations needed for 25 kv catenary. Potential for arcing to the trainshed's steel structure or to the trains themselves.

Some say it can be done, others say it's problemmatic.

- Paul
Click to expand...
I have heard (and I do not remember where) that the plan was to dig down the track bed to make up for that space. That would only be needed for the sections under the historic train shed. The newer ... thing, seems high enough, and likely was built to allow for the wires to be strung there.
 
micheal_can said:
I have heard (and I do not remember where) that the plan was to dig down the track bed to make up for that space.
Click to expand...

Someone at Metrolinx had this idea years ago and its obviously not gonna happen because it’s an insane one

micheal_can said:
That would only be needed for the sections under the historic train shed. The newer ... thing, seems high enough, and likely was built to allow for the wires to be strung there.
Click to expand...

Even if it was actually feasible, idk how you expect the tracks to dip down, go back up, and then dip down again in 300 metres.
 
Last edited:
WB62 said:
Someone at Metrolinx had this idea years ago and its obviously not gonna happen because it’s an insane one



Even if it was actually feasible, idk how you expect the tracks to dip down, go back up, and then dip down again in 300 metres.
Click to expand...
I am not a railway structural engineer(or whatever they are actually called). That is why I listen and ask questions.

The issue with the train shed is the historical designation and what can be done to it under that designation. However, with ALTO, is there any expectations that the cars are going to be anything but single level? Even if you had 30 minute frequency, would the demand ever get that high?
 
ssiguy2 said:
Looks like SWO got shafted again. From a ridership and financial point of view, HSR should go west to London before it goes east to Quebec City.
Click to expand...

This has been discussed to death before. Ontario's HSR proposal did some damage. VIA's HFR started around the same time and the Ontario proposal force HFR to set aside the portion West of Toronto. Further to the above, going west from Union is a very complicated project that really should be done in its own phase. Going through rural Quebec is less problematic. The only problem in Quebec is getting through Montreal.
 
crs1026 said:
Simple electrical "limits of approach". The vertical clearances under the trainshed are marginal relative to the separations needed for 25 kv catenary. Potential for arcing to the trainshed's steel structure or to the trains themselves.

Some say it can be done, others say it's problemmatic.

- Paul
Click to expand...
People far smarter than I have told me that there are no concerns with electrifying the trainshed, especially now that they've put in the new smokejacks - which are shorter and thus give more clearance than the original ones.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
People far smarter than I have told me that there are no concerns with electrifying the trainshed, especially now that they've put in the new smokejacks - which are shorter and thus give more clearance than the original ones.

Dan
Click to expand...
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
 
generalcanada said:
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
Click to expand...

"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
 
crs1026 said:
"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
Click to expand...

Which tying it back to ALTO, it could mean that 1 or 2 tracks get modified as the test track. Or, the entire station is altered in conjunction with Metrolinx and ALTO. I'd imagine that the timeline to electrify as much of GO as possible is within 15 years from now.
 
micheal_can said:
I have heard (and I do not remember where) that the plan was to dig down the track bed to make up for that space. That would only be needed for the sections under the historic train shed. The newer ... thing, seems high enough, and likely was built to allow for the wires to be strung there.
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top