Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Looks like they didn't give a damn about triple tracking the Stouffville line.
|
|
|
- Thread starter kEiThZ
- Start date
Looks like they didn't give a damn about triple tracking the Stouffville line.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
This further solidifies my vote for the Conservatives and I'm heading to the advance polls today. Only they can be trusted to deliver us subways.
syn
Senior Member
Good to show there's confirmation for something I think most of us knew all along.
robmausser
Senior Member
Nowhere does it say that we cant have the LRT and triple track the Stouffville line. Are you an engineer? Have you taken an assessment of the route?
You just squint at google maps and proclaim things you know nothing about.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
It doesn't take a f***ing genius to figure it out, and I didn't just squint at a goddamn map, I actually measured the corridor to the best of my ability.
The corridor is about 20 meters (69 feet) wide on average. A typical rail corridor requires 13 feet of clearance between track center lines, however, it should be closer to 16 feet between track center lines. This is according to Transport Canada guidelines. When you factor in the need for signals and electrical lines, the track spacing needs to go up to 20 feet. https://www.tc.gc.ca/media/document...gc.ca/media/documents/railsafety/TC_E_05e.pdf
For a triple track go line, 5 tracks are required, therefore, track spacing must be 16*4= 64 feet between the outer track centreline, and the inner track centreline. That leaves 5' of spacing for the rest of the distance between the rest of the track, for signals, power lines, and stations.
Here's a quick diagram I drew up, and for the record, you know nothing about me and have no right to claim ignorance when you yourself know nothing more about the corridor.
Attachments
robmausser
Senior Member
John Tory is a crook for basing Smarttrack off of Google Maps images!
Now watch while I make assumptions based off of Google Maps images!
sixrings
Senior Member
Who doesn't like napkins?
Attachments
aquateam
Active Member
- You've put 16 feet of clearance between each centreline when the requirement is only for 13'. If you take a look at google maps, you can see for yourself that there is only ~12 feet between track centrelines for the SRT.
- The minimum clearance from the outside of the tracks is 8', not 16'. 16' is the width of the entire envelope, not from the centreline.
- Those Transport Canada standards don't apply to the SRT, just like they don't apply to the TTC subway or to the Spadina streetcar. The SRT isn't a mainline railway, freight isn't running on it, and the same level of clearance wouldn't be required.
- Even if you had correctly interpreted the standard you still haven't answered the basic question: why do you think it is impossible for Metrolinx to eat into the green space buffer or to expropriate a narrow strip from the parking lots of the adjacent low-rise industrial properties, if they wanted to triple track?
We know you're in the beginning of your undergraduate, both from your own admission and from some of the responses you've made (e.g. trying to show that the LRT has higher operating costs than the subway by starting with F=ma, giving the course number of where you had learned something, or by saying that one of the posters can find his acceleration from his speed "by differentiating an equation.")
I think the nature of education is that they reward you for stating confidently what you have learned instead of acknowledging the limitations of your knowledge. When I started working as an engineer, it took being chewed out a few times before learning that "I don't know but this is what I do know" is a better answer than one that isn't fully justified. An correct answer without supporting arguments/references is worth less than a wrong answer. Socrates was the wisest man in Greece because he didn't think he knew what he didn't know.
If you confidently assert answers that aren't certain, others will just assume that you are "talking out your ass" and won't take what you're saying seriously, even when you do know what you're talking about. In the context of this forum, you'll probably just be blocked by users and your posts filtered out.
Many of these posters, myself included, are professional engineers with advanced degrees. Many have insider knowledge from years as employees of CN/CP/Metrolinx. There is insight to be gained in keeping an open mind to the collective knowledge of this forum, whether or not it comes from "f***ing geniuses."
Attachments
Last edited:
Juan_Lennon416
Senior Member
Yet some of the responses you guys give just doesn't add up. This is coming from professionals whom I have encountered outside of UT.
...just saying
sixrings
Senior Member
everyone's a professional when they agree with you... when they don't agree with you then it must be fake news.... Just sayingYet some of the responses you guys give just doesn't add up. This is coming from professionals whom I have encountered outside of UT.
...just saying
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
I used 16 feet for centreline tracks because LRT requires a pantograph and different vehicles. In order to assume no expropriations are necessary, I had to use the larger value. It's also to help take into account the requirement of platforms, fencing, and other clearance requirements that may not be evident from a simple image.
I used 16' for the outside tracks' centerlines because, again, of platform requirements, and to account for any extra space required for signal placement, utilities, substations, storm drains, as well as any other safety clearances that may be required along the corridor.
Even under the assumption of minimum conditions, why on earth would you build lines so close to each other when electrification is in place? And if we want trains to go faster, why would you place minimum distances between the SRT/LRT line and a mainline go train (which may reach speeds of up to 140-150 km/h)? Sure, Japan may do it in the Seikan Tunnel, but the trains are engineered to increase aerodynamics and are significantly heavier than an LRV.
GO lines are heavy rail, so you have to make them 16 feet. Sum up everything, you get 80', still more than the corridor width.
Fine, in theoretical terms, you can fit 5 tracks together under the bare minimum through the entirety of the corridor, but in practical terms, is that really feasible? If so, that'd be great for everyone since you will retain your freight service, 2 way GO service (express service is still in question), and have your subway/LRT line on the side.
And to answer the final question, the argument is made with the assumption that no expropriations are to occur, and to be entirely fair, I believe this GO corridor is stated for quadruple tracking due to the desire for express trains. How do you fit a 6th track in here? What about storage/Tail tracks for the LRT? Are we even allowed to cut into the Hydro One corridor?
My apologies if my reply angered anyone.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
I though this corridor couldn’t handle triple tracking GO in the first place? How in the world are you going to get 4-6 tracks?
aquateam
Active Member
When saying something is impossible, you don't get to add in unspecified margin like that.
- The Flexity Freedom vehicle width is 2.65 metres, compared to 3.0 metres for the GO bi-levels. So the LRT vehicles actually take up less space in the corridor.
- There are no new platforms needed in that part of the corridor because there would be no need for a politically motivated Lawrence GO station if the SRT/LRT still exists.
- The details of electrification haven't been worked out, but if it's anything like the Deux-Montagnes line (25 kV) you would only need one substation for the entire line. Which would be in a suitable plot of land adjacent to the line, not directly inside the most space-constrained part of the corridor.
- The signals and catenary for electrification could be cantilevered or above the corridor, like in the Georgetown corridor; no need to try to put it between the tracks where there isn't room.
So you can triple track the corridor.
Again, I'd like to point out that this distance (13 feet) is the existing spacing between the SRT (which is electrified), the tracks in the Georgetown corridor (which is planned to be electrified), and in the TC standard that you provided.
This isn't HSR: GO trains won't be accelerating from rest to 150 km/hour then back to 0 km/hr in the less than 6 kilometers between Agincourt and Kennedy. And that section of the Stouffville line is long and completely straight, so unless you have a source saying otherwise, there's no reason why there would be speed restrictions in that section.
In the TC document posted, which does apply to GO, the requirement is still only 13 feet.
If you need a fourth track (although 3 is already plenty to work with) then you would have passing tracks at the stations, where you don't have SRT tracks taking up space. The local trains dwell on the outside passing tracks while the express trains continue through the center track(s).
2 of those tracks are the SRT/hypothetical LRT, so we are only discussing going from 1 GO track to 3.
Attachments
Cobra
Senior Member
Internal emails and other records show that even as the Ontario Liberals agreed to finance a Scarborough LRT system, former transportation minister Glen Murray and other officials worked behind the scenes to push for a subway. #Exclusive
How Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals secretly helped kill the Scarborough LRT
https://t.co/uv98lPU5Bn
https://twitter.com/TorontoStar/status/1004103880806977536?s=19
How Kathleen Wynne’s Liberals secretly helped kill the Scarborough LRT
https://t.co/uv98lPU5Bn
https://twitter.com/TorontoStar/status/1004103880806977536?s=19
syn
Senior Member
This was known some time ago. They made a political move after the Ford's poisoned the idea of an LRT.