Jonny5
Senior Member
I think they even mention it in passing in there. The story is basically "Horrible design flaw discovered at Union Station that is nearly impossible to not easily fix."
|
|
|
I think they even mention it in passing in there. The story is basically "Horrible design flaw discovered at Union Station that is nearly impossible to not easily fix."
DonValleyRainbow
Senior Member
From the article:
Not sure I'm buying it. There will inevitably be extra fixed cost to mobilize more consultants and workers to solve this problem. It should have been included in the scope of the project, and the province should have fronted the cash. No one could reasonably doubt electrification of the GO system after the useful life span of the current restoration work.
Maybe a bad example because it's new infrastructure and a lower cost, but they managed to protect the new Pearson spur for electrification. Same scenario: electrification wasn't a sure thing, design work began when electrification was much discussed but far from confirmed.
Not sure I'm buying it. There will inevitably be extra fixed cost to mobilize more consultants and workers to solve this problem. It should have been included in the scope of the project, and the province should have fronted the cash. No one could reasonably doubt electrification of the GO system after the useful life span of the current restoration work.
Maybe a bad example because it's new infrastructure and a lower cost, but they managed to protect the new Pearson spur for electrification. Same scenario: electrification wasn't a sure thing, design work began when electrification was much discussed but far from confirmed.
georgevicbell
Active Member
Toronto has a park just for this exact problem...take a few pieces and send them to Guildwood Park...
Was the glass part designed to be expanded east and west if ever we wanted to? I always imagined that was the secret plan...once everyone sees the nice glass bit we remove another 1/5 of the shed to the east and west and eventually the old stuff is gone...
Was the glass part designed to be expanded east and west if ever we wanted to? I always imagined that was the secret plan...once everyone sees the nice glass bit we remove another 1/5 of the shed to the east and west and eventually the old stuff is gone...
crs1026
Superstar
I am positive (but am having no luck finding proof) that this has been raised before when electrification was tabled as a serious possibility and the 'experts' at the time were emphatic that there would be no problem fitting catenary under the trainshed.
Certainly electrification was kept in mind when the entire West Toronto Diamond and Weston/Strachan Tunnel designs were done - and that was in the 2007-2009 period. For that matter, I'm sure the Bathurst flyunder was designed to have this space in it. It is appalling that GO hasn't been thinking about this all along. It's very late in the game to make this discovery.
- Paul
Neil
Active Member
I've said it before. The bush shed by all means should be preserved. But in situ? I think it would look awesome at the Bloor GO station. Installed a couple feet higher though.
diminutive
Active Member
I think this is a false dichotomy. The argument against the shed is a little more robust than 'I think it's ugly, let's get rid of it.' Critics have also been keen to note that the shed actually interferes with the station's primary purpose as a transit hub by impeding things like electrification. I'm not a 100% sure, but i've also heard that the frequent shed supports impede platform consolidation, which will be very important for RER-like services.
Pointing out that we regret some instances of heritage structures being demolished doesn't lead to the conclusion that we would regret this instance. Nobody's crying over loosing the old terminal buildings at Pearson, for instance. Certainly nobody in the other cities that had these kinds of sheds regrets loosing them.
crs1026
Superstar
Eureka - it was discussed - see http://stevemunro.ca/2010/11/16/go-electrification-air-rail-link-updates/
Comments by Bruce McCuaig to a Standing Committee of the Legislature sure makes it sound like GO had this in hand. When a senior public official makes assertions to a Legislative Committee that don't pan out, there ought to be a headline or two in that.....
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=fr&BillID=&ParlCommID=8959&Business=Agency review: Metrolinx&Date=2013-11-19&DocumentID=27462
EDIT: Page 69 of the original GO Electrification study
http://www.gotransit.com/electrific...y/docs/ElectricificationStudy_FinalReport.pdf
- Paul
Comments by Bruce McCuaig to a Standing Committee of the Legislature sure makes it sound like GO had this in hand. When a senior public official makes assertions to a Legislative Committee that don't pan out, there ought to be a headline or two in that.....
http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/committee-proceedings/committee_transcripts_details.do?locale=fr&BillID=&ParlCommID=8959&Business=Agency review: Metrolinx&Date=2013-11-19&DocumentID=27462
EDIT: Page 69 of the original GO Electrification study
http://www.gotransit.com/electrific...y/docs/ElectricificationStudy_FinalReport.pdf
- Paul
Last edited:
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
Couldn't part of the shed be moved to the railway history museum at the roundhouse? Does it lose it's heritage significance if it is moved?
crs1026
Superstar
Item 29 of the City's Heritage Conservation Policy, which is part of the Official Plan document at
http://www1.toronto.ca/planning/chapters1-5.pdf
It goes on to list exceptions, but they don't help here.
- Paul
Neil
Active Member
Oh I don't know.
"may be relocated within its property or development site"
I think we've found the new moat glass support structure!
Richard White
Senior Member
The city is the minor designate in the heritage preservation of the station. It is also a NATIONAL historic site with levels of protection from the FEDERAL Government. No major modifications can be made without talking to Parks Canada first.
Richard White
Senior Member
I volunteer at the Toronto Railway Museum. It is safe to say that placing a part of the train shed there would not be feasible. The weight of the shed plus the locos would damage the MTCC parking lot. Even when we move our locos there we have to put them in specific locations as designated by professional structural engineers hired the City of Toronto and the MTCC.
Couple that with the fact it would be in the way in the park and it becomes a non-starter. With all of Steamwhistles events, other events in the park throughout the year it is not practical to put any large structures there that cannot be easily moved. The buildings already there were placed there as part of a master plan for the park in consort with a multitude of heritage preservation and city officials.
drum118
Superstar
There is a height clearance at the Toronto West Diamond to the point the hanger will be on top of the brace beams and the overhead will be hung from them.
As pointed out above, Metrolinx has known since 2009/2010 they had height clearance issues at Union Station and other places that I know of and no real surprise other than cost and time to fix them. I think Metrolinx wanted to do something different and been told they can't.
To dig down and lower the tracks is not that easy since there is very little material that can be removed before you hit concrete slab. You could dig out the track area and bolt the rails to the concrete slab, lowering the rail by haft the thickness of the ties or more depending on the location. You got the Simcoe, York, Bay and Yonge St underpass to deal with and that your base level. NOTE: If tracks lower, all the accessibility platforms will have to be rebuilt for the correct new height unless to be on a slope between the coach and platform.
You can raise the existing roof by cutting the support columns and jacking it up to add the extra material that is needed to get the clearness.
What I original wrote and after looking at the photo below shot on Jan 23, I had to rewrite this. Before you can touch the support columns, you have to cut the rivets from the arch frames as well brace the columns that will take platform space. You have to remove 3 arches over 6 tracks before you can deal with raising the first 2 rows of columns per arch for the first 2 tracks. At the same time, you need to remove the support trusses running east-west between the columns for the first 2 rows of columns. At this point, someone must have had decided to either removed the columns to cut them to splice the extension to it or to fabricate new columns to the correct height as well drilling new holes in them to match the trusses and the arches connections. You need to added angle material to the ends of the arch and truss so they can be bolted to the columns to give the similar look that exist today.
Once you have the first 2 tracks done and brace, you remove the arches and trusses for 4 more tracks that haven't been removed. You then can repeat the first operation for the next 2 tracks and then moved on to the next 2 before removing anymore trusses and arches. All the other existing braces will have to be removed and modify before reinstalling them. This will not be cheap to do.
This will push the roof completion back by 2 years.
As noted, you can run a gutter pan under the existing arches like TTC does at underpasses that will be faster and cheaper to do.
As pointed out above, Metrolinx has known since 2009/2010 they had height clearance issues at Union Station and other places that I know of and no real surprise other than cost and time to fix them. I think Metrolinx wanted to do something different and been told they can't.
To dig down and lower the tracks is not that easy since there is very little material that can be removed before you hit concrete slab. You could dig out the track area and bolt the rails to the concrete slab, lowering the rail by haft the thickness of the ties or more depending on the location. You got the Simcoe, York, Bay and Yonge St underpass to deal with and that your base level. NOTE: If tracks lower, all the accessibility platforms will have to be rebuilt for the correct new height unless to be on a slope between the coach and platform.
You can raise the existing roof by cutting the support columns and jacking it up to add the extra material that is needed to get the clearness.
What I original wrote and after looking at the photo below shot on Jan 23, I had to rewrite this. Before you can touch the support columns, you have to cut the rivets from the arch frames as well brace the columns that will take platform space. You have to remove 3 arches over 6 tracks before you can deal with raising the first 2 rows of columns per arch for the first 2 tracks. At the same time, you need to remove the support trusses running east-west between the columns for the first 2 rows of columns. At this point, someone must have had decided to either removed the columns to cut them to splice the extension to it or to fabricate new columns to the correct height as well drilling new holes in them to match the trusses and the arches connections. You need to added angle material to the ends of the arch and truss so they can be bolted to the columns to give the similar look that exist today.
Once you have the first 2 tracks done and brace, you remove the arches and trusses for 4 more tracks that haven't been removed. You then can repeat the first operation for the next 2 tracks and then moved on to the next 2 before removing anymore trusses and arches. All the other existing braces will have to be removed and modify before reinstalling them. This will not be cheap to do.
This will push the roof completion back by 2 years.
As noted, you can run a gutter pan under the existing arches like TTC does at underpasses that will be faster and cheaper to do.
Last edited:
Translude15
Frank the Tank
These are from 2014. I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Just a question do the pantograph poles on heavy rail trains flex or are they fixed at the same height no mater what?