[Leo_Chan]

That design appears to complicate any option to run additional tracks thru the Gardiner underpass on the north side..... although the centre line of future tracks is shown, not much is done to rough in the necessary guideway.

- Paul

Do you mean this? How long ago was that built?

 

[bearcat]

Do you mean this? How long ago was that built?
View attachment 625847

Looking at old aerial photos here (https://map.toronto.ca/torontomaps/) it appears to have been built sometime before or in 1978.

 

[Metroscapes]

That design appears to complicate any option to run additional tracks thru the Gardiner underpass on the north side..... although the centre line of future tracks is shown, not much is done to rough in the necessary guideway.

- Paul

It appears aligned with where the future tracks would go, not understanding the complication?

 

[crs1026]

It appears aligned with where the future tracks would go, not understanding the complication?

Maybe I'm overthinking/misreading, but it's not clear how much of the structure is at track grade where the two added tracks would go, and is what's being built intended to support those tracks, or would ML have to come back and install supports or move what's there in order to put in a guideway over the station. The tunnels and head structure on the northeast side have clearly been spaced to allow the added tracks, the west side structure appears to sit right where the tracks would go.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

@crs1026

I had a good look at the docs............I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

I have modified the architectural drawing below by highlighting in black the location of the new side platform.

The tracks would be interior to this location.

The new side platform is simply a smaller version of the one being built initially without any island platform.

So there are stairs and a canopy etc.

The tracks will go below (in this image) or to the south of the new side platform.

An alternate drawing and view:

Here I have again highlighted the final north platform edge; but this time I have highlighted the new tracks - centreline in red.

 

[crs1026]

Ah.... thank you. Now I see it a lot better!.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

As you can only get 4 tracks through Exhibition GO, I'm not sure why you'd make the capacity wider at Park Lawn.

It's interesting to see that there's two streetcar platforms. I assume that spells the end of regular use of Humber loop.

 

[11th]

As you can only get 4 tracks through Exhibition GO, I'm not sure why you'd make the capacity wider at Park Lawn.

It's interesting to see that there's two streetcar platforms. I assume that spells the end of regular use of Humber loop.

It still provides scheduling flexibilities because this in effect acts as a passing loop in addition to being a stop.

 

[Northern Light]

As you can only get 4 tracks through Exhibition GO, I'm not sure why you'd make the capacity wider at Park Lawn.

I assume the intent is still to deliver at least one dedicated track as a shuttle track between Mimico and the USRC. That said track would not be able to be dedicated through Exhibition Station is again, a reason that I opposed this version of the Relief line because it foreclosed on too many future needs and imposed too many future capacity constraints for short term cost savings and expediency.

Additional track west of Exhibition would still provide some additional capacity (deadheads don't have to conflict with in-service trains within the extra track area), but obviously the benefit is not as great with the truncation.

 

[drum118]

I assume the intent is still to deliver at least one dedicated track as a shuttle track between Mimico and the USRC. That said track would not be able to be dedicated through Exhibition Station is again, a reason that I opposed this version of the Relief line because it foreclosed on too many future needs and imposed too many future capacity constraints for short term cost savings and expediency.

Additional track west of Exhibition would still provide some additional capacity (deadheads don't have to conflict with in-service trains within the extra track area), but obviously the benefit is not as great with the truncation.

You need a 5th west of Park Lawn to service both GO and VIA yards to Bathurst as GO still hold trains in that area to not block/backup access to URSC. 6 tracks west of Park Lawn is a must with 5 east of it.

Remaining 4 tracks as is, is opening the door to an operation problem once service is down to 15 minutes or less service as well having express trains and attempting to get trains in/out of service at the same time.

 

[Northern Light]

Remaining 4 tracks as is, is opening the door to an operation problem once service is down to 15 minutes or less service as well having express trains and attempting to get trains in/out of service at the same time.

I agree. I openly opposed the Ontario Line as conceived for that reason and other similar reasons.

It's not the a relief line is a bad idea, but this one has caused so many prospective problems, because of poorly thought out cost-cutting..........

 

[PL1]

I agree. I openly opposed the Ontario Line as conceived for that reason and other similar reasons.

It's not the a relief line is a bad idea, but this one has caused so many prospective problems, because of poorly thought out cost-cutting..........

It's almost like the back of a napkin isn't the best way to design a transit line..
(Yes, I realize that's not really what happened, but...)

 

[crs1026]

I agree. I openly opposed the Ontario Line as conceived for that reason and other similar reasons.

It's not the a relief line is a bad idea, but this one has caused so many prospective problems, because of poorly thought out cost-cutting..........

It sure seems that these would be enough width at Exhibition to have designed a layout with those two added GO tracks, and still squeeze in the subway. Seems like there was haste and a desire to put out a subway station design that missed a few things.

I’m curious what the plan was west of Exhibition, however. The only way I can imagine six tracks thru Sunnyside is with some expensive bridgeworks at Dunn and then some ugly retaining walls and loss of the green space along King east of Roncy.

Certainly, doubling the yard leads out of Willowbrook and extending them even as far as Windermere would help with congestion, but there would still be awkward crossing over for equipment moves leaving Willowbrook - as it’s pretty clear that the current Track 1 is intended for westward local trains.

For that matter, I’m not clear how tracks would be aligned from Fort York over to Bathurst if there were six tracks all the way thru.

Perhaps someone has seen a drawing or two from earlier designs.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

It sure seems that these would be enough width at Exhibition to have designed a layout with those two added GO tracks, and still squeeze in the subway. Seems like there was haste and a desire to put out a subway station design that missed a few things.

I’m curious what the plan was west of Exhibition, however. The only way I can imagine six tracks thru Sunnyside is with some expensive bridgeworks at Dunn and then some ugly retaining walls and loss of the green space along King east of Roncy.

Certainly, doubling the yard leads out of Willowbrook and extending them even as far as Windermere would help with congestion, but there would still be awkward crossing over for equipment moves leaving Willowbrook - as it’s pretty clear that the current Track 1 is intended for westward local trains.

For that matter, I’m not clear how tracks would be aligned from Fort York over to Bathurst if there were six tracks all the way thru.

Perhaps someone has seen a drawing or two from earlier designs.

- Paul

@smallspy is the most likely to have those.......in theory........or perhaps @drum118 .....but @Willybru21 has the most curious collection of artifacts.....

There are a couple of others here.......but as they would rather everyone not know.........if they have something....................my inbox is available.

 

[drum118]

It sure seems that these would be enough width at Exhibition to have designed a layout with those two added GO tracks, and still squeeze in the subway. Seems like there was haste and a desire to put out a subway station design that missed a few things.

I’m curious what the plan was west of Exhibition, however. The only way I can imagine six tracks thru Sunnyside is with some expensive bridgeworks at Dunn and then some ugly retaining walls and loss of the green space along King east of Roncy.

Certainly, doubling the yard leads out of Willowbrook and extending them even as far as Windermere would help with congestion, but there would still be awkward crossing over for equipment moves leaving Willowbrook - as it’s pretty clear that the current Track 1 is intended for westward local trains.

For that matter, I’m not clear how tracks would be aligned from Fort York over to Bathurst if there were six tracks all the way thru.

Perhaps someone has seen a drawing or two from earlier designs.

- Paul

Working on the Waterfront plan for the Lake Shore Blvd redevelopment along with the LRT ROW as well the old TTC plan for taking taking the Exhibition Line west to the Queensway, we were told a number of times the GO Corridor would be expanded to 5 tracks from Bathurst St to Willowbrook and a possible 6th track to service VIA yard.

1-2 new bridges would be built over the Humber River with the existing piers length for them.

I have seen a few drawings showing the 5th track, but nothing for the 6th, but nothing that has handed out at meetings. If I have plans, they are bury in 2 constrainers on transit and don't have the time to go looking these days. A retaining wall would be built next to the existing property line on the north side with the removal of of the slope area.