[rbt]

These are from 2014. I don't want to say I told you so, but I told you so.

I must have missed it. What exactly is the issue?

"One option is to adapt the catenary so it fits under the arches, perhaps using a rigid rail instead of wires, as some railways do when they run trains through tunnels."

You don't even need to leave Union Station to find an example of rigid overhead power rail (check the Queens Quay tunnel). That's pretty damn normal for use in tight spaces (under bridges, inside tunnels like Eglinton Crostown, moving components like draw bridges, and inside low ceiling stations). Costs a little more to install but as a bonus rigid rail is actually more efficient and has lower maintenance requirements. Train speed, however, will be limited to 160kph through Union Station as a result of this; probably adequate.

Adequately grounding the train shed will be a far more interesting task.

Now, if they can't find rolling stock that fits under a rigid rail installation I'll be very surprised and wondering just how hard they looked given the size of the order. It's also possible they're looking for an excuse to lower the rail bed; raises platforms without redoing the elevators/escalators again.

If a Cherry St. LRT is ever built, it too will have rigid rail installed on the draw bridge if anyone wants to get published in the Globe.

 

[drum118]

Just a question do the pantograph poles on heavy rail trains flex or are they fixed at the same height no mater what?

They can flex from what I saw in Europe.

 

[drum118]

I must have missed it. What exactly is the issue?

"One option is to adapt the catenary so it fits under the arches, perhaps using a rigid rail instead of wires, as some railways do when they run trains through tunnels."

You don't even need to leave Union Station to find an example of rigid overhead power rail (check the Queens Quay tunnel). That's pretty damn normal for use in tight spaces (under bridges, inside tunnels like Eglinton Crostown, moving components like draw bridges, and inside low ceiling stations). Costs a little more to install but as a bonus rigid rail is actually more efficient and has lower maintenance requirements. Train speed, however, will be limited to 160kph through Union Station as a result of this; probably adequate.

Adequately grounding the train shed will be a far more interesting task.

Now, if they can't find rolling stock that fits under a rigid rail installation I'll be very surprised and wondering just how hard they looked given the size of the order. It's also possible they're looking for an excuse to lower the rail bed; raises platforms without redoing the elevators/escalators again.

If a Cherry St. LRT is ever built, it too will have rigid rail installed on the draw bridge if anyone wants to get published in the Globe.

What draw bridge are you talking about??

The new Cherry St south of Lake Shore will be to the west of the current location with a better alinement's than today as well having a new bridge. The one at the Shipping channel is off the books under the current revised plan.

No train will be doing 160km at Union Station bypassing it.

I posted my comments in the Union Station Thread http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...ion-m-s-city-of-toronto-zeidler.4308/page-195

 

[Duck]

No train will be doing 160km at Union Station bypassing it.

It was a joke.

 

[Jonny5]

10 September 2015:


Union Station Revitalization by Jimmy Wu, on Flickr


Union Station Revitalization by Jimmy Wu, on Flickr

Any reason why a few panels are darker than the rest? Sorta gives off an unfinished vibe.

"Design."

I am more curious about the briefly mentioned water spraying system which was supposedly to be installed for cleaning, but was scrapped. The glass looks filthy up close. The diagonal slats on the sides are especially grimy. Indeed even the the light is partially blocked through it now eliminating much of the alleged benefits of this thing.

 

[crs1026]

"Design."

I am more curious about the briefly mentioned water spraying system which was supposedly to be installed for cleaning, but was scrapped. The glass looks filthy up close. The diagonal slats on the sides are especially grimy. Indeed even the the light is partially blocked through it now eliminating much of the alleged benefits of this thing.

That will likely continue until we get all the diesels out from underneath.

Like most older buildings in the downtown, Union Station was etched by acidic coal smoke for decades after it was erected. Power washing is a relatively recent development - the depot's traditional look was black and sooty.

Perhaps the grime on the new trainshed is just another heritage attribute.

- Paul

 

[Neil]

When they removed the full bush in favour of the clear box, it stands to reason there would be more maintenance involved.


Sorry, I couldn't resist.

 

[Contra]

"Design."

I am more curious about the briefly mentioned water spraying system which was supposedly to be installed for cleaning, but was scrapped. The glass looks filthy up close. The diagonal slats on the sides are especially grimy. Indeed even the the light is partially blocked through it now eliminating much of the alleged benefits of this thing.

They're still doing work on site. I really doubt we'll see it anywhere near clean until they're done around there. And at that point who knows how quickly it will get dirty given we've only seen it under-construction.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Wasn't Union Station built for steam trains, and all their sooty smoke?

Were changes made for diesel? Did they assume originally that they would never go electric at some future date?

 

[crs1026]

Wasn't Union Station built for steam trains, and all their sooty smoke?

Were changes made for diesel? Did they assume originally that they would never go electric at some future date?

For all its esthetic faults, the Bush trainshed was the perfect design for steam locomotives. The steam engines' exhaust stacks fit closely to the slot in the center of the track, and the exhaust and soot blew out the top. This was a much better arrangement than the big 'balloon' depot structures, which trapped the exhaust in the large void where it would just fog up everything and the soot would just fall back on the platform. If we still had steam engines in service, that new glass atrium would suck.

The exhaust principle still held with diesels, as their exhaust stacks tended to line up in the same way, but diesel exhaust doesn't rise with the same force, so it would tend to drift under the roofline, especially in breezy conditions. Fortunately the sheer volume of diesel smoke is much less, so it was never a serious problem.

I don't know of any serious plan to electrify trains into Toronto Union. The radial lines had on-street depots not necessarily close to Union Station. I suspect the subject was never seriously pursued before the energy crises began in the 1970's. The CN Turbo was not compatible with the trainshed, but it quickly became an oddball and after that, VIA had no money for electric trains.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

Delhi used rigid catenary for 25kV AC on their metro.

 

[crs1026]

I dug out the EA for the Georgetown South Project, from 2009. There are numerous references stating that that project will ensure that the structures do not preclude electrification. See pages 54, 67, 72, 83, 100.

http://www.gotransit.com/gts/en/docs/finalEPR/Final_EPR_text_only.pdf

I just can't buy the ML spokesperson's statements that ML never addressed electrification because it wasn't funded. They had to know that electrification was already an imperative for any structural design work. The decision to proceed to refurbish the trainshed as it was must have raised the question about what dimensions were required to fulfil electrification. Someone must have made the decision to just keep going with the trainshed rejuvenation, and to ignore the electrification implications.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

I dug out the EA for the Georgetown South Project, from 2009. There are numerous references stating that that project will ensure that the structures do not preclude electrification. See pages 54, 67, 72, 83, 100.

http://www.gotransit.com/gts/en/docs/finalEPR/Final_EPR_text_only.pdf

I just can't buy the ML spokesperson's statements that ML never addressed electrification because it wasn't funded. They had to know that electrification was already an imperative for any structural design work. The decision to proceed to refurbish the trainshed as it was must have raised the question about what dimensions were required to fulfil electrification. Someone must have made the decision to just keep going with the trainshed rejuvenation, and to ignore the electrification implications.

- Paul

Yeah, it's all bullshit, frankly.

They've known since the original electrification report in 1981 that the clearances under the trainshed are tight, and as part of the report they came up with a suite of different possibilities to overcome it. And every single report since has outlined additional measures that they can take.

I think, frankly, it's a combination of someone at Metrolinx not knowing anything about what they are doing and panicking about it, and a slow news day at the newspapers.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[gweed123]

The height clearance issue is for bi-level EMUs, correct? Could Metrolinx not just go with single-level EMUs instead, and leave the bi-levels to the non-electrified, more long distance trips? It would be a reduction in capacity, but it would make RER much more "subway-like".

 

[crs1026]

The height clearance issue is for bi-level EMUs, correct? Could Metrolinx not just go with single-level EMUs instead, and leave the bi-levels to the non-electrified, more long distance trips? It would be a reduction in capacity, but it would make RER much more "subway-like".

They could, but the problem would be that once the overhead was installed on a platform, that platform would no longer be usable by the bilevel fleet - which will be with us for many years. It's likely a constraint that would aggravate operations within the station.

The solution is to spend what it takes and fix the clearances so the whole depot can be electrified properly.

It's just frustrating, and another drip-drip-drip example of ML not having their stuff together.

- Paul