King-Victoria Transit Hub

[tomh009]

"Just drop the tracks" - Giggle!

It's easy to write the words -- but if the roof cannot be raised, can the floor be lowered to fit the trains in?  It's actually a serious question, I don't know what is under these tracks.

[Markster]

It's easy to write the words -- but if the roof cannot be raised, can the floor be lowered to fit the trains in?  It's actually a serious question, I don't know what is under these tracks.

This:



Realistically, this "problem" is probably easily solved by using Rigid Catenary, as opposed to the wire-suspended version commonly used.

[tomh009]

Thanks! It seemed like a simple solution, didn't realize they were building a shopping concourse down there!

[ookpik]

Drop the tracks by 10-20 cm?  That should give them sufficient clearance, right?

RTFA: "Another is to dig up the tracks and lower them a bit, so the trains can fit under the arches, but there is only so far builders can dig before they hit the thick supporting slab underneath the shed."

ISTM that a backup battery in each loco would provide the least expensive solution. It would also solve similar, no catenary available, situations on other sections of track.

[jamincan]

The rigid caternary system mentioned above would probably work, but if not, couldn't they just have locomotives specifically engineered to fit? That seems to be par for the course for an operator the size of GO.

[DHLawrence]

I called this when electrification was first announced. You just have to look at a photo of a GO train under the Bush shed to see that there's not enough room for traditional catenary. I'm surprised it's only come up now. Good to know they have workarounds, though.

[Canard]

Drop the tracks by 10-20 cm?  That should give them sufficient clearance, right?

RTFA: "Another is to dig up the tracks and lower them a bit, so the trains can fit under the arches, but there is only so far builders can dig before they hit the thick supporting slab underneath the shed."

ISTM that a backup battery in each loco would provide the least expensive solution. It would also solve similar, no catenary available, situations on other sections of track.

RMFP: I already suggested this. Bombardier TRAXX with Last Mile.

[ookpik]

RMFP:  I already suggested this.  Bombardier TRAXX with Last Mile.

Which is what I was referring to. Must we now give attribution to you by name every time we do that?

[Canard]

No, I just thought "RTFA" was a bit harsh/rude, and felt like calling you out on it. It's all good, mate!

[ookpik]

RTFA=Read The Fine Article

I realize the F can have another, more vulgar meaning. But in this sort of usage the acronym is usually just shorthand for "the answer to your question is in the article I linked to." There are many other acronyms that use that vulgar F that aren't considered vulgar or rude in common usage, e.g. SNAFU and FUBAR.

[MidTowner]

I had to look up "RMFP"...I wouldn't have known "RTFA" if not for ookpik providing the definition. This forum never ceases to be extremely informative.

By the way, I do consider FUBAR to be vulgar, but maybe it's not. I always learned that SNAFU meant "Situation Normal (All Fouled Up)".

[jamincan]

I wish there was a nicer acronym, but RTFA always has an aggressive, irritated tone in my books.

Adding to the list of acronyms containing the letter F: LMFAO.

[MacBerry]

"Just drop the tracks" - Giggle!

It's easy to write the words -- but if the roof cannot be raised, can the floor be lowered to fit the trains in?  It's actually a serious question, I don't know what is under these tracks.

To lower the tracks would mean lowering the platforms to meet train door entrances and as they lower the tracks and then lower signals and rehabilitate the whole train level infrastructure, drainage, electrical infrastructure and, and, and, ...

[ijmorlan]

To lower the tracks would mean lowering the platforms to meet train door entrances and as they lower the tracks and then lower signals and rehabilitate the whole train level infrastructure, drainage, electrical infrastructure and, and, and, ...

The platforms are already way too low — they should be at the level of the lower level of a GO coach, with the possible exception of a few platforms for VIA. So they wouldn’t need to be lowered.

Everything else, though, makes the idea of lowering the tracks probably a non-starter.

I think the rigid contact system idea is probably the way to go. It’s still a screw-up that this is a matter for discussion now; electrification has been a project for long enough that no renovation should have been undertaken without planning for it. Unless it’s not really; maybe what is really going on is detail design or something, or maybe the reporter asked somebody who doesn’t know what the plan is and they started speculating.

[clasher]

I listened to the evening CBC host interview the metrolinx person and the spokesperson seemed to convey the idea that they were aware of this issue from the get-go and that's part of the reason they didn't put the roof back on the shed. I was also driving so I didn't pay full attention to the interview. One of the points the spokesperson also made is that funding for electrification wasn't in place when they started planning the renovation so that's part of their reason for ending up in this little quagmire.