legoswmonkey
New Member
Main advantage here is a direct connection to upper levels of the parkade, like Burlington.
|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
crs1026
Superstar
Re sterility -
I look at this image and think, how will that be kept clean? So many nooks and crannies, in a fairly dirty environment. How often will the windows get washed, and the diagonal beams dusted?
I would not give some of the newer stations much credit for staying fresh looking. Bloor is the dingiest, the underground passages at Bramalea for instance already look a bit gritty - not exactly polished floors. Maybe I am expecting too much from pretty basic concrete underpasses, but one wonders how maintainable this will be.
- Paul
I look at this image and think, how will that be kept clean? So many nooks and crannies, in a fairly dirty environment. How often will the windows get washed, and the diagonal beams dusted?
I would not give some of the newer stations much credit for staying fresh looking. Bloor is the dingiest, the underground passages at Bramalea for instance already look a bit gritty - not exactly polished floors. Maybe I am expecting too much from pretty basic concrete underpasses, but one wonders how maintainable this will be.
- Paul
Bojaxs
Senior Member
When I was in Ottawa riding the transitway a couple years back, I saw a contractor walk into a station and and just start power washing the entire inside.
Looked as if the interior of the station was designed for quick and easy washing.
ctf5650
New Member
From what I have observed, the second platform at Aurora will not leave space for a third track. I heard the original plan was for three platforms at Aurora, one for each track, but I recall reading that the plan has changed to two tracks/platforms. I wonder if King City will keep some space for a third trackAs @crs1026 mentioned, the third track was never planned to be imminently built in the first place, but spreading the platforms at Downsview Park, Rutherford and Maple stations ensures that we have the option to build a third track in the future.
That said, the station renderings for the Rutherford grade separation did show all three tracks, possibly to illustrate that the bridge is wide enough for them.
Even just a short segment of triple track from Rutherford to Maple would create a two-station passing track that would allow express trains to overtake locals in both directions (alternating directions on the centre track). It would be most useful if there's express service and local service at least every 15 minutes. If local service is every 30 minutes there's plenty of room to run 30-minute express trains between the local trains without any overtakes - the express can be up to 20 minutes faster than the local without catching up. Even with 4 local trains per hour it's possible to schedule express trains without overtakes, though the local service would need to be uneven 12/18 minute headways to make room for the expresses rather than an even 15 minutes.
Here's a conceptual timetable I mocked up for the Maple-Rutherford passing track in this earlier post:
crs1026
Superstar
Doesn't look like King City will be triple wide, but that isn't necessarily a problem. GO doesn't need three continous tracks the full length of the line to accommodate a few peak one-direction expresses.
We don't know what ML's current vision is for the line, I suspect that any thought of express service has been filed under "problems for our grandchildren to solve". Having said that, a few tail tracks at select stations is prudent to allow turnbacks, parking of disabled trains, and the occasional overtake. Doesn't look like these are being built into the signalling at this time, but we shall see.
- Paul
kev1n1m
Active Member
To answer your question from the perspective of a regular user of pickering station, whose renovations were done a decade ago, it won't be kept clean. It will be swept and mopped twice a year, but never dusted. Dirt and cobwebs will start to emerge and never once be dealt with with a quick wipe or swiffer or even so much as a broom handle. In a decade the station will look 25 years old.
cplchanb
Senior Member
the only answer is NEVER. there is simply no budget nor the morality like the japanese to regularly clean their transit infrastructure and vehicles.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Just because they're only building two tracks/platforms doesn't necessarily mean they're removing the space for a third track. The purpose of the third track at Aurora was to let some northbound trains terminate there and await their departure time to head back south, without obstructing the mainline, so the planned track configuration was the same as the current configuration at Unionville: side platforms on the double-tracked mainline, plus a third track along the west side of the southbound platform that dead-ends at the end of the platform. Note that this configuration does not require any additional space between the tracks on the mainline - the third track is on the west side of the southbound platform.
There are plenty of examples where Metrolinx has future-proofed side platforms to be converted to island platforms, which is fairly easy to do since you just need to not build buildings in the way of the future track. In some of the more recent cases (Bloor, Cooksville, Guildwood, etc) they even installed tactile markings on the unused edge of the platform facing the hypothetical track.
Guildwood station, note that the westbound "side" platform has tactile markings on both sides, in case a fourth track is installed on the north side, converting it to an island platform.
Cooksville station, note the tactile markings on the north side of the "side" platform:
The third track at Aurora is completely unrelated to the third track further south. The provisions at Rutherford/Maple are for a passing track without a platform for the purpose of letting express trains overtake local trains, which makes no difference to the line capacity. If you don't care about average speed, you could run 15+ local trains per hour on just 2 tracks south of Aurora, which is way more than the Barrie Line would ever need. But to achieve those frequencies you'd need pretty substantial turnback capacity - a basic two-track terminal like the current one at Oshawa GO wouldn't be able to reliably terminate that many trains, so you'd need additional turnback capacity such as the proposed third track in Aurora to reduce the frequency of trains making it to the end of line. This is why some peak-period Lakeshore East trains start/end in Whitby rather than Oshawa - they head straight to/from Whitby yard, to avoid the bottleneck at Oshawa.
The turnback platform doesn't need to be at Aurora specifically, it just needs to be somewhere they want to terminate some of the trains. Mulock or East Gwillimbury seem like good alternative sites where space is less constrained than at Aurora. In fact it doesn't even need to be a platform, it could alternatively be a tailtrack between stations, but that's less optimal for passengers since it eliminates the convenience of having the train already sitting on the platform when passengers show up.
Have you seen any indication that they are planning to install structures that would conflict with the future terminating track?
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
When the Cooksville GO Station was redeveloped, Metrolinx had it built for a track on the north side to make the platform a centre platform and remove the current walkway from Hurontario St when that track go in.. The new stations has 2 tunnels from the southside as well an overhead walkway. There is enough room on the south side of the current two tracks for two more tracks with one of the current two servicing the platform. The whole CPKC corridor can support 4 tracks easy with a third tack already in place to service the Erindale and Kipling centre platform today with a missing section between that third track. The Lisgar station was built as a centre platform currently a walk in station
There a a fair number of existing stations that can support a third and fourth track easy if the need is require, but a number others will require great investment to support a third or fourth track.
Last edited:
JJTheJetPln
Active Member
If this were a hospital, I agree. Since it isn't, they'll go with the initial design, and then paint over it once they realize how dirty it'll look. If not, shut the doors and pressure wash everything until something breaks and realize that isn't ideal.
urbanclient
Active Member
generalcanada
Senior Member
ive heard people here saying it was because DB "proposed things like 1 per train operation that was never going to happen"
this article makes it look like they were proposing just changing inventory software and got shot down.
Were they too ambitious or did metrolinx put roadblocks in front of anything new?
Northern Light
Superstar
To me, the passage that stood out was:
I would encourage people to click through the link above and read the full piece by @jackhauen who does excellent work at the Trillium that deserves our support.
****
I will limit my comments to the general here and say this:
In my own dealings with Mx, but also those of many people I talk to, the general consensus is that they are less than completely honest in their dealings, outright wrong too often , and it is absolutely SOP (Standard Operating Procedure) there to just stonewall people when you don't feel like dealing with them. I've had people tell me it took six months to get a simple response to something, that needn't have been a bother for Mx, and further that ultimate resolution only came about due to high level escalation.
The Premier's office was dialed in to the issues here from early on...... draw what conclusions you may.
Last edited:
APTA-2048
Senior Member
Looks much like the inside of the Pickering bridge. The windows are quite dirty and there is dirt and grime on the horizontal surfaces. It’s not awful when you don’t think about it, but it’s pretty dirty when you actually look. The elevators are also absolutely filthy on either end of the bridge.