Toolio555 said:
I wish they made the main diamond bridge metal this same colour as this one instead of “rust brown”. This vintage green-ish colour is much more aesthetically pleasing.
Click to expand...
It is easier to inspect ferrous metal structures when they are unpainted. The oxide (rust) coating can actually be a bit of a natural protectant.
 
crs1026 said:
Removing the diamond and reducing noise to the neighbourhood is a priority, but that task rests solely with CP and there is nothing that ML or the contractor can do to move that along.
One would hope that ML expedites the rest of the work on the flyover and removal of the “old” trackage - so that the trail and public realm improvements happen quickly and the neighbourhood gets some return on its patience with the project.
As for finishing the flyover as a railway track….. there’s no need for the second track or its end ramps to be dine in a hurry. We are probably two years or more from seeing the tracks doubled at either end. I’m not expecting faster progress, and maybe the labour is better deployed to getting the fourth Kitchener track finished so the existing Railpath is restored quickly.

- Paul
Click to expand...
They're making swift work of it. I'll try and get some pictures if I have time.
 
lenaitch said:
It is easier to inspect ferrous metal structures when they are unpainted. The oxide (rust) coating can actually be a bit of a natural protectant.
Click to expand...
It is often less expensive to go for something like ASTM A588 structural steel that is designed to weather in this fashion than to get another grade of non-weathering structural steel and have it painted (and repainted as needed). Weathering steel has been known to have a safe lifespan of 120+ years, just imagine the number of times you'd have to repaint a painted steel bridge to get that kind of life out of it.
 
jordanmkasla2009 said:
It is often less expensive to go for something like ASTM A588 structural steel that is designed to weather in this fashion than to get another grade of non-weathering structural steel and have it painted (and repainted as needed). Weathering steel has been known to have a safe lifespan of 120+ years, just imagine the number of times you'd have to repaint a painted steel bridge to get that kind of life out of it.
Click to expand...
It is also known as Corten/Cor-Ten and is prefer to bridges or things over water for environment concerns. Also for things that are hard to repaint over time as well looks.

It is also more expensive than G50 steel until you add in painting the G50 steel over its life cycle.

Down side to Corten/A588, it leaves rust stains where they are in contact with concrete.

As note, hard to see structural issues that have paint on them or a number of coats compare to no painted items. Have to more inspection with painted items as well time that is costly in the long run.
 
Last edited:
jordanmkasla2009 said:
It is often less expensive to go for something like ASTM A588 structural steel that is designed to weather in this fashion than to get another grade of non-weathering structural steel and have it painted (and repainted as needed). Weathering steel has been known to have a safe lifespan of 120+ years, just imagine the number of times you'd have to repaint a painted steel bridge to get that kind of life out of it.
Click to expand...
The bridge's location can also have something to do with how a structure is built, in terms of materials and techniques.

I would bet you in this case that the decision was made to use "weathering steel" on the bridge over CP as accessing it for paint will be difficult at best. CP is not going to want to shut down its line just so Metrolinx can paint it.

Meanwhile, the structure over Wallace is likely painted as the City is more amenable to closing down half of the street every 10-ish years for paint and other work. They certainly have no issues allowing it elsewhere in the City.

Dan
 
drum118 said:
It is also known as Corten/Cor-Ten and is prefer to bridges or things over water for environment concerns. Also for things that are hard to repaint over time as well looks.

It is also more expensive than G50 steel until you add in painting the G50 steel over its life cycle.

Down side to Corten/A588, it leaves rust stains where they are in contact with concrete.

As note, hard to see structural issues that have paint on them or a number of coats compare to no painted items. Have to more inspection with painted items as well time that is costly in the long run.
Click to expand...
Question: why didn't they just continue the concrete beam over the cp corridor or wallace?
 
If one looks at ML bridges that have been expanded or rebuilt, you will find either concrete or Corten, with Corten being the main chose.

Not surprise to see Corten over CP tracks and surprised that paint was used on Wallace bridge. Bloor overpass saw Corten and will be the same when the 2nd one is built. Lansdowne saw Corten used for bridge replacement.
 
Wonder if any of the old bridges will be transported and reused elsewhere?

The Sir Isaac Brock Bridge is a steel Warren truss bridge in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. It lies along Bathurst Street over the railway tracks between Front Street and Fort York Boulevard.

From link.

The steel truss bridge was built in 1903 and used for the Great Western Railway over the Humber River (northside of then Lakeshore Road at mouth of the river). It was dis-assembled and re-located in 1916 to Bathurst Street and converted for road traffic.
Click to expand...
Humber-bridge-1910.jpg

Sir Isaac Brock Bridge over Humber River in Toronto, 1910

In 1931, the bridge was moved and re-aligned (Bathurst Street was at an angle south of Front Street) to support streetcar service south of the railway tracks at that location. A new bridge south of the bridge was constructed to connect the south end of the bridge, connecting Bathurst to Fleet Street. Fort York lost its road access in the change, and a footbridge to the east entrance was constructed.
Click to expand...
1280px-Bathurst_Street_Bridge.jpg

The Sir Isaac Brock Bridge

From
.
1921-PlanofOldFortShowingConditions-Streetcar.jpg

Plan of Old Fort Showing Present Conditions and Location of Original Buildings
Toronto Harbour Commission - Drawing No. 6973 Sept 13, 1921. Additions by dTAH, 2007
Image courtesy Toronto Harbour Commission Archives.

bathurstbridge-star.mar4-31-1.jpg

This last graphic illustrates the work done to re-align the Bathurst St. Bridge in 1931.
 
dullturtle06 said:
Question: why didn't they just continue the concrete beam over the cp corridor or wallace?
Click to expand...
Because the strength of the girder comes from the sides, rather than the bottom, allowing it to be thinner under the tracks than the concrete beam. So the tracks over the CP crossing can be lower, and by extension the entire viaduct can be shorter.
 
Sky High Arch said:
looks like they moved the track from one side of the building structure to the other.
Click to expand...

That’s just a quirk of the photography. In that day, there were two tracks - one mainline and one service track. The service track was probably ballasted differently - or the main track got more dirt and grime. The mainline is still where it was.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top