[salsa]

They're limited by the structure underneath the tracks. Each track is essentially a bridge over the underside of union station. They can't move the tracks, without adding/moving the support columns. That cake was baked almost a century ago.

They had a chance to move the columns during the dig down, but they didn't do it.

 

[vegeta_skyline]

These new high platforms would require track re-alignments such as gauntlet tracks to accomodate freight trains...

There are other solutions such as movable platform gap fillers seen on the O-train line in Ottawa and elsewhere. Though I maintain that there really is no problem at all. From what I've personally observed during my time operating freight, standard freight cars fit just fine in between the current platforms. There is generally a lot more lateral movement with freight cars but that can be controlled by restricting the train speed. Such that even if the platform was much higher there wouldn't be any issues. How else could they build the elevated platforms for the UP at Bloor & Weston? CN & CP still have running rights to operate their local roadswitchers & transfers through there. Or for the matter the r.107 fence in between platforms at stations which have multi-tracks, there are no problems getting by those even where the fence has been dramatically bent outwards. There probably would be too much of a gap for the cars to be accessible though. So you'd still need to have a ramp, manual or automatic(they've experimented with automated in-train ramps already), and a specific car(s) to accommodate such. The bigger issue is with what we call dimensional loads, i.e. freights cars larger than the standard profile. GO had to build its platforms to accommodate the demands of the operating railways CN & CP to allow for these cars to seamlessly past through any portion of their mainlines. But now that CN/CP have consolidated their operations such traffic is not commonly seen on metrolinx owned lines. Dead-ended lines like the Barrie, Stouffville would never see such use and the platforms there could be converted. The situation is a little more complicated on lines such as the Lakeshore West where CN still has running rights and in the event of a track shut down on the Halton sub CN would need to defer their mainline traffic onto GO's tracks. I can't say either way, as I don't know the specifics of those agreements though it seems that kind of traffic has indeed been restricted from accessing the Weston sub in order to accommodate the higher UP platforms there.

In any case, GO seems quite content with the current configuration. From what I can tell there is no impetus to change the standard design of GO platforms for the time being. One only need to look at how many platforms have recently been rebuilt to the current design. You don't sink all that time & money on a building stations to that design if your planning on changing it any time soon. However I suppose that could change for RER implementation depending on the equipment requirements. But that's still a ways down the road.

They had a chance to move the columns during the dig down, but they didn't do it.

Exactly if ever there was the perfect opportunity for some forward thinking that would of been the time. That ship has now sailed.

 

[mdrejhon]

I like the idea of at least one high-level platform at TUS - to serve VIA's trains only - and I feel that one should

I am curious about GO's plans over the next twenty years about high level platforms. The single decker electric trains (used both by GO RER and SmartTrack, which is essentially a subset of GO RER) would present an opportunity to raise the platform at all stations, but this would be a hugely expensive endeavour with a lot of disruptions.

 

[Long Island Mike]

High Level Platforms: Are they in GO Transit Rail's future?

There are other solutions such as movable platform gap fillers seen on the O-train line in Ottawa and elsewhere. Though I maintain that there really is no problem at all. From what I've personally observed during my time operating freight, standard freight cars fit just fine in between the current platforms. There is generally a lot more lateral movement with freight cars but that can be controlled by restricting the train speed. Such that even if the platform was much higher there wouldn't be any issues. How else could they build the elevated platforms for the UP at Bloor & Weston? CN & CP still have running rights to operate their local roadswitchers & transfers through there. Or for the matter the r.107 fence in between platforms at stations which have multi-tracks, there are no problems getting by those even where the fence has been dramatically bent outwards. There probably would be too much of a gap for the cars to be accessible though. So you'd still need to have a ramp, manual or automatic(they've experimented with automated in-train ramps already), and a specific car(s) to accommodate such. The bigger issue is with what we call dimensional loads, i.e. freights cars larger than the standard profile. GO had to build its platforms to accommodate the demands of the operating railways CN & CP to allow for these cars to seamlessly past through any portion of their mainlines. But now that CN/CP have consolidated their operations such traffic is not commonly seen on metrolinx owned lines. Dead-ended lines like the Barrie, Stouffville would never see such use and the platforms there could be converted. The situation is a little more complicated on lines such as the Lakeshore West where CN still has running rights and in the event of a track shut down on the Halton sub CN would need to defer their mainline traffic onto GO's tracks. I can't say either way, as I don't know the specifics of those agreements though it seems that kind of traffic has indeed been restricted from accessing the Weston sub in order to accommodate the higher UP platforms there.

In any case, GO seems quite content with the current configuration. From what I can tell there is no impetus to change the standard design of GO platforms for the time being. One only need to look at how many platforms have recently been rebuilt to the current design. You don't sink all that time & money on a building stations to that design if your planning on changing it any time soon. However I suppose that could change for RER implementation depending on the equipment requirements. But that's still a ways down the road.

VS: Good insight about high level platforms and freight trains - I have learned that it is not only where
high level platforms plan to be installed it also depends on the freight carrier(s) that are involved...
Track condition is a prime concern - if cars shift around too much platforms and cars can get damaged...

I recall that at times Norfolk Southern and CSX can be apprehensive depending on where high level
platforms are built and located - For example New Jersey Transit has two island high level platforms
on its Raritan Valley Line at Union and Roselle Park that are equipped with one full length gauntlet
track each on its busy Lehigh Line west of Newark,NJ - that line goes over to NJT-owned ROW near
Cranford,NJ and there are stations further W on that route such as Plainfield,NJ that have high level
platforms...

The Long Island Rail Road-which has high level platforms systemwide-has installed plastic edging on
many platforms that can help at times of close clearance with freight cars and I find interesting that
they will not hesitate to operate freight trains through stations with high level platforms on both sides
of a track such as used at Hicksville,Babylon and Ronkonkoma - The New York and Atlantic Railroad
provides freight service on the LIRR under a service contract with the MTA...

There are places where "mini-high" platforms are used for disabled riders that have features such as
bridge plates to assist in boarding trains - railroads such as SEPTA and Boston's MBTA have them in
places where full-length high level platforms are not used and in cases of lines such as Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor which see limited freight train service dispatchers try to route trains on tracks
that do not have high level platforms directly fronting on them if at all possible...

In closing it will be interesting to see how the UPE trains operate with their new high level platforms
and I feel this could give insight into how future electrified GO Transit Rail lines can be with these
new features...Will GO Transit use future EMUs built to access them?

LI MIKE

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

They had a chance to move the columns during the dig down, but they didn't do it.

The dig down involved extending the existing columns not complete relocation of them. If we had decided to relocate the tracks and support columns than I would imagine the project would be orders of magnitude more expensive than the current project.

 

[DSC]

The dig down involved extending the existing columns not complete relocation of them. If we had decided to relocate the tracks and support columns than I would imagine the project would be orders of magnitude more expensive than the current project.

Undoubtedly, and the station could probably not have remained open while it was going on.

 

[silvercity]

VS: Good insight about high level platforms and freight trains - I have learned that it is not only where
high level platforms plan to be installed it also depends on the freight carrier(s) that are involved...
Track condition is a prime concern - if cars shift around too much platforms and cars can get damaged...

I recall that at times Norfolk Southern and CSX can be apprehensive depending on where high level
platforms are built and located - For example New Jersey Transit has two island high level platforms
on its Raritan Valley Line at Union and Roselle Park that are equipped with one full length gauntlet
track each on its busy Lehigh Line west of Newark,NJ - that line goes over to NJT-owned ROW near
Cranford,NJ and there are stations further W on that route such as Plainfield,NJ that have high level
platforms...

The Long Island Rail Road-which has high level platforms systemwide-has installed plastic edging on
many platforms that can help at times of close clearance with freight cars and I find interesting that
they will not hesitate to operate freight trains through stations with high level platforms on both sides
of a track such as used at Hicksville,Babylon and Ronkonkoma - The New York and Atlantic Railroad
provides freight service on the LIRR under a service contract with the MTA...

There are places where "mini-high" platforms are used for disabled riders that have features such as
bridge plates to assist in boarding trains - railroads such as SEPTA and Boston's MBTA have them in
places where full-length high level platforms are not used and in cases of lines such as Amtrak's
Northeast Corridor which see limited freight train service dispatchers try to route trains on tracks
that do not have high level platforms directly fronting on them if at all possible...

In closing it will be interesting to see how the UPE trains operate with their new high level platforms
and I feel this could give insight into how future electrified GO Transit Rail lines can be with these
new features...Will GO Transit use future EMUs built to access them?

LI MIKE

I would really love to see future GO "RER" be converted to efficient suburban rail style system used in cities around the world like Tokyo and Paris. If Metrolinx really wants to get it right, I think all of the following need to be done:
* Complete freight/passenger separation (at least provide station bypass tracks)
* Complete electrification
* More infill stations (at least inside Toronto)
* EMUs (regardless single-level like Tokyo's or lightweight bi-level like Paris')
* High platforms
* Better fare integration
* Much higher frequency than now.

Some of these are already on Metrolinx's list but I'm not sure how far does the province want to go.

 

[drum118]

Undoubtedly, and the station could probably not have remained open while it was going on.

No kidding!!!

That an understatement and would had added years to the project at a huge cost.

 

[Markster]

That would be a project on the order of a wholesale demolition and reconstruction of the train shed area, including all levels below. With construction staging, I imagine that would look something like the Union Subway station south platform construction inching its way across all platforms at Union. Not impossible, but I can't see the benefits being worth it, just to make slightly more efficient use of platform space.

 

[Neil]

It would have made a HUGE difference in the use of platform space. The platforms now between the shed and Simcoe, and between the shed and Yonge are not used at all. Why? Because we chose to preserve the heritage shed in situ. This freezes the track configuration, which means no passing tracks, which mean no way to effectively implement double or triple berthing. Would this have cost a lot of money? Of course, but I wouldn't consider what we're doing now cheap. Could it have been done without shutting down the station? Yes. As guste stated, each track is essentially a bridge over the station below. You just take down 1-2 bridges at a time and replace it with a structure that will support a different rail alignment.
A proper solution is a big investment. The shame is that what we're spending now is not working towards a proper solution but rather make it more difficult to achieve one. Its encasing the current configuration in more concrete. That can be chipped away though I imagine there are egos associated with the current effort that will be more difficult to remove. I'd give it at least 30 years.
I'm all for preserving history, but by leaving the 1920's track/platform configuration in place, we're also preserving a 1920's capacity. Don't expect to operate 2020's commuter rail.

 

[smallspy]

This freezes the track configuration, which means no passing tracks, which mean no way to effectively implement double or triple berthing.

Except that they are going to implement double-berthing on all of the tracks used by GO when they finally get all of the signal improvements done.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The issue is that most of GOs platforms aren't capable of double berthing.. 24 through 27 certianly aren't and the platforms that are 660+ meters long are used by VIA. GO on quick inspection has maybe 2 tracks capable of double berthing.

Double berthing with EMUs would be more than possible however, presuming they are shorter.

 

[Neil]

Except that they are going to implement double-berthing on all of the tracks used by GO when they finally get all of the signal improvements done.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

The operative word there is "effectively". Without a passing track, the train behind can't leave before the train in front, and an empty berth in front can't be accessed if the rear one is occupied. Unless, of course, you operated the station as if it was 2 back to back terminal stations but that has a different set of capacity constraints.

 

[Neil]

The issue is that most of GOs platforms aren't capable of double berthing.. 24 through 27 certianly aren't and the platforms that are 660+ meters long are used by VIA. GO on quick inspection has maybe 2 tracks capable of double berthing.

Double berthing with EMUs would be more than possible however, presuming they are shorter.

You're describing the current track configuration. I'm talking about an ideal one.

 

[innsertnamehere]

I'm discussing Smallspy's comment about implementing double berthing very soon.