Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, dowlingm said:

The UPX cars, I believe, lack traps for low platforms, so if they would be non-trivial to add, not much use for VIA. 

Well since the cars are short they could just make part of the platform higher so that passengers can board.  Kinda like the GO platforms for the accessible coach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Shaun said:

Well since the cars are short they could just make part of the platform higher so that passengers can board.  Kinda like the GO platforms for the accessible coach. 

That would require Via to modify every platform in the Corridor.

(unless they were isolated to a single route like Sudbury <-> White River or *Ottawa <-> Montreal *which currently has High platforms at 2 of the stations ) 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The routes with Less ridership are Sarnia VIA Kitchener. They are looking at a new route near Halifax, and maybe if that becomes a reality they can be used there.

I am more concerned about the fact that the current terminal is setup for high floor boarding, and the curves are very tight.  Are they planning on building a new terminal building? The way it is currently designed is very convenient for everyone. Why change it if it's not broken?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Shaun said:

I am more concerned about the fact that the current terminal is setup for high floor boarding, and the curves are very tight.  Are they planning on building a new terminal building? The way it is currently designed is very convenient for everyone. Why change it if it's not broken?

The trains are over-crowded, the current vehicles aren't electrified, and at best they need to buy more rolling stock to run 3-car trains. And a single platform at Union is problematic.

I'd think lengthening and modifying the current Pearson platform would be the biggest issue. I suppose there's cost for modifying Union - but they'll need to add capacity there one way or another anyway.

I wonder if there's a way with the upcoming rebuilds of the convention centre and the Skywalk, to put two dead-end tracks for 6-car trains north of Platform 3.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shaun said:

Why not just extend the high platform to platform 3.  One more car length would be possible since the locomotive usually takes up that space when a GO train is there.

I don't see how you'd increase frequency just by extending the platform (which yes, could be extended ... in the other direction as well).

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shaun said:

Why not just extend the high platform to platform 3.  One more car length would be possible since the locomotive usually takes up that space when a GO train is there.

The train length issue is principally a Pearson problem, I think? To add length you would have to significantly alter the APM terminus, if not get rid completely.

image.thumb.png.292db85c28dfca8dc978ec74f2f934c0.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

They could build a new station at Viscount and have people take the APM. If they are going to build a new hub at Pearson, they really have to decide where this hub will be located. Terminal 1 would be an ideal location for air travellers but more difficult to access commuters to access the train service. Buses won't have to run around in circles just to get to the terminal.

They also have to move away from two doors per car to at least 4 doors to get people on faster.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, dowlingm said:

The train length issue is principally a Pearson problem, I think? To add length you would have to significantly alter the APM terminus, if not get rid completely.

image.thumb.png.292db85c28dfca8dc978ec74f2f934c0.png

Is there no space between the building and the cross over? Why not move the cross over to farther down the bridge. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shaun said:

Is there no space between the building and the cross over? Why not move the cross over to farther down the bridge. 

And put it into the middle of the curve?

 

Why not spend a minute on Google Maps and see what the lay of the land is?


Dan

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, smallspy said:

And put it into the middle of the curve?

 

Why not spend a minute on Google Maps and see what the lay of the land is?


Dan

couldnt the crossover be on the curve? or cross after the curve. How much does the station need to be extended ideally?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Ber said:

couldnt the crossover be on the curve? or cross after the curve. How much does the station need to be extended ideally?

The railroads try their damnedest to avoid putting any specialwork in curves. Besides the obvious geometric difficulties with doing so, it prevents the use of standardized hardware and fittings, and also requires more maintenance to ensure that everything stays within tolerances - plus, those tolerances may very well be tighter to boot. If you ever see a switch on a curve, that is because there is simply no other place to put it.

 

(Even the TTC knows this and does this on the subway. Check out how many curved or non-standard switches there are on the subway system - you can probably count the number on two hands.)

 

As for how much the station needs to be extended - no one knows. That's dependent on what kind of equipment GO ends up picking up upon electrification, and whether it will also be suitable for this kind of purpose.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
  • 6 months later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...