Richard White said:
Another thing where they will not replace the bulbs if they go out. These sorts of installations are nice but they need proper maintenance which does not include the word annual.
Click to expand...
DonValleyRainbow said:
And they're LEDs, they need far littler maintenance than incandescents.
Click to expand...
Properly installed, with high quality LEDs, they definitely need nearly no maintenance.

The big problem arises with:
-- Cheap LED circuits that fail in the freeze-thaw cycles. The LEDs survive, but the LED driving electronics don't
-- Cheap LED controller circuits (For color-change lights). Failures can manifest itself in mis-colored LED light sections.


As long as they stick to industry standards it can be very easy to replace. Often comes in standardized 5 meter reels and are wildly popular industry standard (voltages, color temps, lumens, etc). A 5 meter section of 5050 LED ribbon is really cheap (~$20 off eBay). Pay maybe five times the price, and you get something ruggedized, in double enclosure (Waterproof ribbon inside a waterproof clear "conduit style" case) that can also last the Canadian temperature ranges ($100-$150 probably). Does not include labour, obviously.

Deploy two or three ribbons in parallel for failure redundancy, and you've got durable industry-standard LED accent lighting that may not need to be maintained more than once every few years. Adjustable color temperature and dimming will also allow equalizing of new ribbon with old ribbon (e.g. manufactured by different manufacturer). And since it's and industry standard ribbon that also comes in waterproof/weatherproof formats, with standardized double-casing methods for additional protection, it will be replaceable years in the future, like once-every-few-year maintenance for dead ribbon sections that won't be too noticeable if redundant parallel strips are used.

It's only as good as implementation -- LED can be crap and LED can be amazing.

Don't know what tech they used (proprietary single-manufacturer LED, or industry standard replaceable ribbon) for the Union outdoor accent lighting. Hopefully it's industry standard ribbon in a ruggedized durable format (not the cheap stuff).
 
Last edited:
Once the concourse renovation is complete, commuters will still facing be a lengthy period of disruption at the station. The Metrolinx work at track level to accommodate increased GO transit service is expected to last for years.
Click to expand...

Except that you can't divorce concourse and platform work if you fundamentally rearrange how the space is used; access will have to be modified and that by default will affect the concourse. This project is utterly pathetic - basically deciding that the requirements will have to change when the project is halfway through - and lord forbid they don't come up with a compromised sh*tjob because of things you can't modify anymore, limited by work that has already been done.

AoD
 
Last edited:
From this link.

The TTR supervised construction of the new station which began in 1914...
the new station's headhouse and east and west office wings (the station building visible from Front Street West) were completed in 1920, it did not open to the public for another seven years...
Although the station was incomplete, its building was complete and the station was opened on August 6, 1927 by the Prince of Wales...
was not fully completed until 1930 when the train shed was completed...
Click to expand...

So no surprises about completion dates.
 
The article clearly implies that ML either forgot to do something, or changed its mind on something, or added scope after the fact. Those quoted are clearly going out of their way to not make an issue over this. The question is, can they afford to continue to take the heat for ML if someone more adversarial - DF being the perfect example - pokes at this issue on a sustained basis? And what is gained in the relationship if, after having downplayed the booboo, the City decides later not to take the heat, and throws ML under the bus by pointing fingers at ML?

Personally I don't feel any loyalty or empathy to ML that would make me applaud this bit of playing nice. ML seems to continually evade accountability, and gets away with it. If there was an oops here, the planning process will work better if ML fesses up. At this point it's not a big overage as a % of project scope, and a few months more won't matter. And if the City does feel the change has merit, why won't they say what it is and tell why they think it's worth the cost and delay?

Seems like a case where continued obfuscation invites someone to make the issue bigger than it may be, when a transparent explanation, which may involve a small mea culpa, would defuse it.

- Paul
 

Attachments

  • 8957DFAE-4D7B-4E91-8EBE-98C05602F1AA.jpeg
    8957DFAE-4D7B-4E91-8EBE-98C05602F1AA.jpeg
    153.4 KB · Views: 651
Construction will linger at Union for years to come, with Metrolinx soon starting construction on the new platform and electrification coming. The interior construction for the station concourses will be done in a year or two however.

The impact of the construction is going to get much lower in the future.
 
innsertnamehere said:
Construction will linger at Union for years to come, with Metrolinx soon starting construction on the new platform and electrification coming. The interior construction for the station concourses will be done in a year or two however.

The impact of the construction is going to get much lower in the future.
Click to expand...

Don't bet on that - they will have to punch new access points from the platforms into the concourse given the nature of some of the upcoming and proposed changes. Is it as disruptive as closing a concourse entirely? Probably not. Is it going to be largely painless? Doubtful.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top