Special Report: Light Rail

Old Wentworth Street Transportation Centre May Become New LRT Facility

The appeal of WSTC is that it already exists and is centrally located. The downside is the complexity and cost of converting it to rail use.

By John Thompson
Published February 18, 2016

This is an unusual story of a bus garage/shop/office complex that opened for business 26 years ago, on June 23, 1990 and closed a little over ten years later, but may reopen as a light rail vehicle (LRV) facility.

Wentworth Operations Centre, 330 Wentworth Street North (RTH file photo)
Wentworth Operations Centre, 330 Wentworth Street North (RTH file photo)

In the 1970s, it had become evident that the HSR's sole bus/trolley coach facility, the former streetcar complex at King Street East and Wentworth Street North, was hopelessly overcrowded and outdated. Replacement, therefore, was vital. Bus storage and maintenance space, as well as that for office staff, was woefully inadequate for the growing system.

The three principal buildings comprised: a main shop building from the late 1920s; a former carhouse, circa 1910; and an office block at 18 Wentworth Street North, also from the ca. 1927 era. Maintenance of both diesel buses and trolley coaches was performed at Wentworth Street.

History

Since the early 1950s, housing development to the south, on Hamilton Mountain, had been growing rapidly, and HSR service was increased concurrently. Thus, by the 1970s, the need was obvious for a garage on the mountain to reduce non-revenue (deadhead) mileage as well as provide an up-to-date maintenance and storage facility.

Several sites were investigated. The criteria included extra space for future expansion; ease of access; and a location remote from development, to avoid complaints of noise and fumes.

A location on the west side of Upper James Street (Highway 6), about a mile south of the-then city limits at Rymal Road, was selected. Ten of the Mountain bus routes and a few of the lower-city routes would be based here. Construction began in 1982 and was completed by early 1984.

The Wentworth complex continued in operation, as it was needed not only for trolley coaches but also most of the lower city diesel bus routes. However, its days were numbered, as planning began for a new garage in the general area. The new facility had to be close to one of the three trolley routes, for obvious reasons, and preferably in a central location to minimize deadheading to route termini.

After some searching, the choice fell on a mostly vacant industrial property about a half mile north of 18 Wentworth. Eight separate land purchases were necessary to assemble the required 16 acre site; the main purchase was that of the former National Sewer Pipe Manufacturing Company.

Challenging Construction

Construction of the garage, which began in June 1988, proved challenging, as part of it was sited on filled land: the old Sherman Inlet. Thus, a grade beam structure, supported on piles driven deep into quicksand to bedrock, was required for 20 percent of the floor area over the old inlet, which had been 35 feet deep. Therefore, the concrete slab floor in this area was extra thick.

Steel frames supported brick and block exterior walls; the upper portions of both garage walls were covered with steel siding.

The complex included a two-story office structure, a bus storage garage with space for 160 forty-foot buses, and a maintenance repair garage for both diesel buses and trolley coaches. Sixty-foot articulated buses, which HSR was planning to buy, were provided for, as four of the lifting hoists could accommodate them.

The Wentworth Street Transit Centre (WSTC) was situated approximately mid-way between Wentworth Street and Birch Avenue. Buses entered the garage on the east side, from Birch, and departed on the west, via Wentworth.

330 Wentworth Street North, overhead view (Image Credit: Google Maps)
330 Wentworth Street North, overhead view (Image Credit: Google Maps)

It was, of course, necessary to erect trolley coach overhead wires northward along Wentworth and Birch to the garage. However, as a cost-cutting measure, the HSR did not install overhead in the garage itself; instead, coaches were pushed in and out with heavy-duty trucks. This rather awkward arrangement lasted for just two years, as the trolleys were abandoned in late 1992.

The garage contained an electronic/electrical shop, where trolley coach motors and controls were overhauled. There was also a line crew shop.

Light Repair Shop

New Wentworth was set up as a light repair shop. Engine and transmission and heavy body repairs continued to be performed at Mountain. Some painting and body work, as well as brake repairs, lubrication, tire repairs, cleaning, washing, fuelling, etc. were carried out at Wentworth.

The garage could accommodate 20 rows, eight 40 footers per row, for a total of 160 buses. However, no more than 100 buses were ever assigned here; the garage was built for the future. At this time, HSR also operated 15 60-foot articulated diesel buses.

The two-storey office complex provided space for all of the HSR administrative functions, including Purchasing, Revenue Control, Safety Service and Adjusters, Marketing and Customer Services, Human Resources, Planning, Telephone Information, Engineering, and Computer Systems. There was also, of course, a traffic office (Dispatch) for Operators, as well as executive offices, meeting rooms, storage, a cafeteria, and employee exercise room. Sufficient parking was available for all WSTC staff.

The final cost was $25 million, and the WSTC entered service in late 1989. The life of the WSTC proved surprisingly short, however: just over ten years.

The facility had been planned in the 1980s partly on the basis that ridership, and the corresponding bus fleet, would grow significantly in the mid-term. However, this did not happen. HSR overall ridership has remained relatively stagnant until fairly recently. In addition, after the demise of the trolley coaches, it was no longer essential to have a division close to those routes, or so it seemed.

Operations Consolidated

A consultant's report was commissioned on the question of garage space. Among its findings was a recommendation that it would be more efficient and economical to consolidate operations at Mountain Garage. In addition, the City Water Works Department was coveting WTSC as a storage and maintenance facility for its trucks.

Current City facility at 330 Wentworth Street North (RTH file photo)
Current City facility at 330 Wentworth Street North (RTH file photo)

The decision was made to close New Wentworth, although most maintenance equipment was left intact. The last HSR buses departed on June 24, 2000.

Some HSR office employees, such as Planning, and Marketing and Customer Service, were transferred to Mountain Garage, where additional office space was built to accommodate them. Other staff members from WSTC were transferred to City Hall.

The drawback, of course, to closing WSTC as an operating facility has been that buses for the lower city routes must deadhead an average of at least five miles to enter service. This is very costly, not only in terms of fuel and vehicle wear and tear, but in staff salaries; Operators are "on the clock" from the minute they sign in at Mountain Garage, and thus drive their buses for at least half an hour without collecting any fares.

Since 2000, as well as the city works trucks, the DARTS disabled transit buses have been stored and maintained at 330 Wentworth. In addition, GO Transit buses serving Hamilton routes have been cleaned and fuelled here for years. GO, however, is moving out to its new Waterdown Garage.

HSR's bus fleet has been growing steadily in recent years, to the point that Mountain Garage is at capacity. The building could be expanded, although this would be a very costly solution.

During the past few years, consideration has been given by the HSR to reopening WSTC as an operating division for lower city bus routes.

However, there is a joker in the deck: the recently-approved Hamilton crosstown LRT line, which, of course, will require a storage area and shop. About 15 low floor LRVs will provide service.

LRT is Coming

The WSTC is one of three locations being considered for LRT purposes, the others being West Harbour and Frid Street. The appeal of WSTC is that it already exists and is centrally located. The downside is the complexity and cost of converting it to rail use.

For example, the garage floor might need to be strengthened, especially in the area over the inlet, to support 90-foot long LRVs. The roof may have to be raised to provide space for the overhead wires and maintenance platforms. Inspection pits would need to be excavated.

In addition, the shop would have to be redesigned and rebuilt for streetcars, with all of the related maintenance functions. The yard area on the east side of the garage might require expansion to allow for ladder tracks.

Speaking of trackage, about half a mile of access track would be required north from King Street. The most logical access point would be via Birch Avenue, which is grade separated from Canadian National's busy Toronto-Niagara Falls line that skirts the southern side of WSTC; Wentworth is hampered by having a level crossing.

From King, the access track could presumably proceed north on Sanford Avenue to Wilson Street; east to Birch Avenue; and north to Cannon, where the tracks could swing onto the power line right-of-way to the carhouse entrance. The irony is that most of this route was former HSR streetcar trackage until 1951.

2012 staff recommendation for spur line to Wentworth facility
2012 staff recommendation for spur line to Wentworth facility

The operational benefit of WSTC would be its location at the approximate centre of the LRT route. The other potential sites are in the city's west end. It could also have a railway siding for delivery of the light rail vehicles from the manufacturer.

The decision for the location of the LRV complex will likely be based on feasibility and cost. The latter could be a very important consideration, as Metrolinx has announced a firm cap of $1 billion for the Hamilton LRT project.

The location will likely be finalized this year, as construction tenders are to be solicited by 2018, with construction starting in 2019. Completion of the LRT is scheduled for 2023 or 2024.

If the Wentworth Street property is selected for conversion to an LRV facility, it would be a rare case of a bus garage being converted to rail instead of the other way around. We certainly live in interesting times.

John Thompson was born and grew up in Toronto, the city that, in the 1950s, bucked the trend and kept its streetcars. After high school, he took various courses in journalism and writing at the University of Toronto, Ryerson University, and Centennial College. In 1974 he joined a community newspaper in the Collingwood area as a reporter/photographer, subsequently being promoted to News Editor. Returning to Toronto in 1975, he worked for two years for a government agency as a Public Relations Officer. John's goal of working for the Toronto Transit Commission was reached in early 1977, when he joined the staff as Assistant Editor of the Commission's employee magazine, Coupler. Now retired and living in Hamilton, John is pursuing a career as a freelance writer, concentrating on transit subjects for trade publications.

26 Comments

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Read Comments

[ - ]

By Stanz (anonymous) | Posted February 18, 2016 at 09:55:43

Very thoroughly researched. Thank you.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By realitycheck (anonymous) | Posted February 18, 2016 at 11:08:07

On the topic of deadhead trips from the lower city to the Mountain garage, instead of costly deadhead runs from MacNab terminal to the garage, why not instead have some (all) of these buses make a southbound run as A-Line as they go out of service at MacNab after they finish the final run of their usual route? When the bus does that southbound run as A-Line, it can then go out of service and park at the garage, which is directly on the A-Line route anyway. Service on the express route would be increased with no additional cost, and instead of deadheading empty all the time, a few passengers may be able to drop a fare on the bus ride up to the garage.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By jim (anonymous) | Posted February 18, 2016 at 14:12:07

informative read, well written, it would be nice to see the WSTC re-purposed in this manner

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By highasageorgiapine (registered) | Posted February 18, 2016 at 16:16:06

as someone who often had to bring fleet vehicles to this garage for maintenance, i think it would be quite a good option. i doubt the roof would have to be raised and there are already numerous inspection pits.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted February 18, 2016 at 19:58:21

Excellent article, John!

For those interested in reading further, there is a preliminary study document listing multiple options of MSF (Maintenance & Storage Facility) locations, cost estimates, and routes between the B-Line and MSF.

MSF Connecting Track Route Option Evaluation -- June 2012) (hamilton.ca)

Also, we are possibly planning to add slides for the MSF to our existing Hamilton LRT presentation that we had at the Sherman Hub -- we are invited to some other Hubs in March to do this presentation again which captivated the audience. For those not aware, here's our presentation (by me and Alain H Bureau) at the monthly Sherman Hub Community Meeting:

Sherman Hub Presentation

Sherman Hub Presentation

Sherman Hub Presentation

(Keep an eye on the @ham_LRT twitter feed and Hamilton LRT facebook page for announcements of upcoming presentations, including Crown Point Hub in March, and other Hubs.)

(To John Thompson) -- You have some very interesting MSF knowledge to share! I didn't know about the history, such as the 1990s opening of the complex, for example. Given your interest and knowledge on the LRT, feel free get in contact with the Hamilton LRT citizen advocacy team at contact@hamiltonLRT.ca (or myself at mark@hamiltonLRT.ca). Your knowledge of the MSF history would be very interesting to all of us, and in keeping the presentation up to date as much as is feasibly possible, prior to official announcements (coming from City/Metrolinx later this year, possibly May). The MSF facility was a question that was often asked at the community, given many of the residents live near the potential MSF.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-02-18 20:08:18

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted February 18, 2016 at 20:11:22

Now a separate commentary on MSF routing:

In the study of MSF routes, I'm surprised that an additional route was not included in a cost/feasibility: Extending A-Line LRT eastwards down Burlington to reach the facility instead!

Perhaps this would be similiar cost, yet revenue-generating? (in light of waterfront revitalization)

Burlington route to MSF

This way, we have a fully-in-service LRT (even if not immediately, but later on, turn the A-Line LRT eastwards on Burlington) to accomodate long-term evolution of the eastmost section of Burlington.

Or perhaps this was ruled out as being too excessive in cost, not a good fit for the area, or too far out in the future of the waterfront redevelopment of the affected piers. Though, it seems this routing could make sense to be included in a study of multiple MSF routes, especially in the light of A-Line extension all the way to the waterfront.

Alternate idea: Active connecting LRT service on Wentworth-Barton-Birch (if this route chosen)

This is another idea. Personally I am not 100% sure that residents along Wentworth-Birch would be fully happy about being permanently unable to take advantage of empty out-of-service LRTs passing their households. Unless, of course, Wentworth-Barton-Birch also doubled as an in-service spur to shuttle residents between Barton/King -- something that ideally should at least be eventually considered (once the LRT fleet expands sufficiently to keep a vehicle doing the rounds on the spur) if this routing is kept. Residents will be staring at empty vehicles transiting this Wentworth-Barton-Birch route, and it would be great to be able to eventually offer connecting LRT service on this spur, even if there's only two stations or so.

It could be a catalyst for Barton BIA re-revitalization -- another go at this. With a station at Wentworth-Barton interlining with multiple HSR bus routes. Several isolated bright spots are already finally showing up near there, such as 541 Cafe & Eatery and other places, nearby this theoretical LRT stop, and this could help sustain the upswing of the long-depressed Barton area.

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-02-18 20:50:24

Permalink | Context

By John Neary (registered) | Posted February 18, 2016 at 23:47:19 in reply to Comment 116575

The other option that no one wants to explore is Barton from James (or wherever the A line runs) east to Birch. Not just as a utility connection to the storage facility, but as a functional (if short) route along Barton connecting to Hamilton General Hospital.

This could be done either in addition to running the A line to the waterfront, or instead of running the A line to the waterfront. There is currently insufficient density to warrant LRT north of the CN tracks.

Needless to say, all of these ideas would be moot if the A line is developed as BRT, which might very well be the better option.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 12:09:11 in reply to Comment 116576

The city has invested too much in the waterfront to make that optional, which is sad because I'd much rather a barton alignment... mostly because I work at HGH. Or to use some completely unused space, there's a narrow strip of parkland just south of Strachan that could be converted into LRT tracks, and that would get the train to Wellington where it would have to cross the CN tracks and follow Birge. A Victoria/Birge stop would be good for HGH and the new industrial/office park at Victoria/Ferrie.

A Burlington alignment would likely be the best compromise.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 12:36:31 in reply to Comment 116579

I like the idea of a Barton alignment, or even better, a loop along Barton as a future incremental extension. That way, it could go south somewhere later down Barton, to reconnect to Main/King.

The other reason I am surprised the Burlington option has not been considered (at least publicly) is it would potentially bypass the need to do too much work with the hydro pylons, if the yard is accessed from the west rather than on Birch. With a simple shelter for the under-Hydro portion of LRV parking (Faraday protection for the catenary) the LRVs could still safely park underneath the Hydro lines, in theory.

Though burying the lines all the way down Birch to Wilson would be a nice revitalization step, if the pylons needed replacing within twenty years anyway (What is their targeted end-of-life requiring tower rebuild?)

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-02-19 12:42:04

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Chrisx84 (anonymous) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 00:01:53

was totally thinking that the old HSR building down on wentworth would be the perfect building for LRT storage and maintenance.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 11:22:07

I seriously doubt that this site will be chosen unless the other sites are equally geographically hemmed in like this site and also have existing issues . You don't want the access to your LRT MSF (Maintenance & Storage facility) to be in a situation where you have to cut down local wires and transmission poles to bring in equipment. I have been in this area of Hamilton before and the site would present a difficult situation for the desperately needed but very large specialty construction equipment.

Keep in mind, when you build a LRT Yard you have to bring in truly massive pieces of construction equipment. For example, to keep cost down for most LRT Lines worldwide, the Traction Power Substations are provided as a single piece from the supplier, a long box like structure usually between 20-25 metres in length. These boxes have inside them, all the needed and ordered extra power control equipment required for the electrical operation for the LRT yard and the local portion of the LRT mainline(probably including the connecter tracks to the main line). Most LRT lines have one of these for every 1-3 kilometres of mainline. These TPSS's have a mass of between 50-180 metric tonnes each. They require very large portable cranes, the kind of crane you need to move large buildings, not just a single house. Any building site which has access limited by the need to cross active railway lines and or by pass existing bridges has several strikes against it already. These types of sites also have big construction and construction staging manging costs attached to them.

I have made this point before on this website, just because the building was built for buses, in no way does it make it suitable for modern LRV's. The sheer mass of a Light Rail vehicle requires massively reinforced floors (35-60 metric Tonnes each, compared to 6-8 for a bus). To accommodate the needed indoor railway equipment gantry cranes, you need 3-4 story high structurally reinforced roofs. One maintenance bay must be able to be actively air tight sealed (usually using positive air pressure sealing)for painting equipment and sand blasting of vehicle surfaces.

Modern LRV's are for the most part now all modular, they are delivered from their manufacturer in their component pieces and assembled "in shop". For example, a 5 section, 4 articulation joint equipped LRV, like the Flexity models form Bombardier or many other LRV builders, now require very large vertical mounted jigs (think giant clamps)to hold the component pieces together in place so they can be guided together at various controlled speeds to allow final manufacturing or removal as well as system testing. The "Jigs" go by many names but they are all very large and heavy. Usually requiring that they be structurally part of the floor or the load bearing outer walls of the building and or major load bearing interior walls. The advantage is that, if a particular LRV requires a new section so the vehicle can be made longer or the need arises for an out right replacement of an existing section due to mechanical or safety reasons, all the work can be done on site and the vehicle doesn't have to be shipped hundreds or possibly thousands of kilometers back to the closest factory. The new section just comes from the factory already complete. Ottawa is doing this right now with their Alstom Spirit Citadis LRV's at their new Belfast Yard.

This type of heavy maintenance equipment, including hydraulic lifts designed for vehicles that are between 30-45 metres long each, would force so many major rebuilds inside an existing structure that, unless the building was had this purpose initially in mind, it is most likely completely unsuitable. One more thing to think about, the diesel drainage and collecting system required for trucks and buses which is part of the floor structure would have to be removed and a EA done on the clean up of the contaminated concrete before the new floor could be structurally reinforced and installed. For all these engineering and cost associated reasons and many, many more that I can think that I didn't mention here, this site will probably not be chosen, in favor of a virgin site somewhere else with no or fewer prior issues.

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 22:16:13 in reply to Comment 116578

It sounds a lot like a steel warehouse. I used to work for Steelcare (now CareGo) and that sounds like their facilities. 10 tonne steel coils packed 3 layers tall, truck and rail loading bays, sky-high ceilings for overhead cranes, etc.

Hamilton is Steeltown and the industry is in decline. I wonder if there isn't a warehouse or transloading facility around town that could be purchased and repurposed as all or part of an LRT facility?

I mean, for comparison, this is the Aberdeen/Longwood rail yard Steelcare Plant 6. It's Steelcare's head offices and the biggest facility, so it's not a good example of a "disused" facility, but it's the one I worked the most at so I know it best:

Steelcare Plant 6 aerial photo

edit: Holy cats, Google informs me that CP Rail owns the steel warehousing/trucking Steelcare side of the company now, bought it last year. CareGo is now just a tech company.

Comment edited by Pxtl on 2016-02-19 22:34:07

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 12:34:17 in reply to Comment 116578

This be true. As far as I know, the choice of sites are not quite appealing and a decision needs to be made soon, to prevent delaying the LRT.

That is partially why I thought the Burlington route could actually work better to bring LRVs to the facility -- it would potentially eliminate the need to relocate the pylons or bury the transmission line, assuming an alternate LRT access routing from the west is used instead of Birch.

That said, burying the transmission line has other economic/revitalization impacts, which might be a good side project if we found a budget to do so. Are the pylons anywhere near their EOL and need to be rebuilt at some point in ten or twenty years anyway? (I am genuinely curious, as it looked quite rusting last Insaw the pylons -- although it could just need a simple galvanic coating treatment -- zinc anti-rust paint)... If they are in a need of eventual rebuild coinciding not too long after LRT, burying a bit early could be a good side beautification project to revitalize the area.

The CN railway corridor has plenty of room to bring in heavy equipment (entering the railway corridor from other level crossings that is not too much trouble to access from the Tesla Viaduct). Just pay CN enough and they are happy to oblige with a (one-time or two-time) oversize wide heavy freight load that can be reassembled onsite. So I think it is doable. And if the waterfront LRT extension automatically now makes Burlington spur much easier, this could elevate this site selection.

That is, if they were already secretly working on a Burlington spur option, prior to an announcement.

(There are many differing opinions on the MSF even among fellow LRT advocates)

The question is....Are there more appealing MSF locations that may have room for a larger LRT expansion, more cost effectively -- especially if they use a Burlington/Barton spur instead?

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-02-19 12:56:48

Permalink | Context

By ergopepsi (registered) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 14:46:04 in reply to Comment 116580

Maybe they should appropriate Cathedral Park?

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Sean Marshall (anonymous) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 13:20:49

Interesting article!

I read that the last batch of trolley buses (the E800s) had an auxiliary power unit that allowed them to enter the Wentworth Garage on their own diesel power. By then, the 3 Cannon Street bus was dieselized and the 1 King wasn't far behind. It was just close enough to Barton Street that the 2 Barton remained operated by trolleys right up until the end.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 13:27:32

The problem of bringing anything across the railway track for construction or construction staging (to site transport of materials/equipment and storage for later construction) is that an individual report/request for service interruption has to be filled with Transport Canada and the MTO every time you cross an active section of mainline railway track with even moderately heavy/large equipment. You don't have to do this if you use a legal railway crossing. However, legal crossings are very limited in size, weight allowances and time availability. Making their use almost as expensive/difficult as just crossing the tracks precisely where you need. However that means roughly each day you do this you have to file another report/request. They cost currently between $3200-$26000 a shot depending on what you are moving, how much material is crossing (amount and weight), when you are doing it and where you are crossing. This can become a deal breaker for construction budgets, unless very precise an exacting site construction scheduling/phasing is done. Even the best experts get screw this up. A friend of mine said it best, "its not an example of grand inefficiency, organized bribery, robbery and corruption, its just construction".

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 15:02:12 in reply to Comment 116583

Right -- are there any MSF locations that would be millions cheaper? Perhaps one of the disused pier areas, if we use the Burlington spur idea. The MSF and spur options are likely going to cost roughly a tenth of the LRT budget or thereabouts. You got lots of cons with each of the other seemingly obvious options too (e.g. Expropriating a park, and/or longer spur at even higher cost, and/or bigger decontamination task, etc). So a couple hundred thou extra for the transport in/out of the heaviest pieces (may only require two or four trips, with the rest of the stuff being brought in conventionally) if this ends up being a pick-your-poison choice...

The next few months, regardless, will be very interesting!

Comment edited by mdrejhon on 2016-02-19 15:04:27

Permalink | Context

By Pxtl (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 13:51:46 in reply to Comment 116583

Ouch. I guess if you went Burlington->Wellington->Ferrie you'd get it down to one single crossing across rail tracks. That would be easier to negotiate or even bridge. But then you've still got to figure out how to get from Wellington at Ferrie to Wentworth when you're boxed in by the CN/GO tracks to the South and those meandering industrial service tracks to the North. Under that cirumstance, though, Victoria at Ferrie as the official "Terminus" an then a narrow single-rail track down to the garage wouldn't be too bad. Wellington at Ferrie would be a fine end-point, servicing HGH, the east side of the North End, and the new Victoria Street industrial park.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/n...

Permalink | Context

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted February 24, 2016 at 08:58:48 in reply to Comment 116584

Meandering industrial tracks are different, they are not busy mainlines, they don't require all the paperwork/money given to Transport Canada to cross. However, you still have to make sure if the tracks are still active, when the tracks are in use and plan accordingly.

Permalink | Context

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted February 24, 2016 at 09:02:47 in reply to Comment 116615

Oh yes, you have to pay for any damage to the track or right of way that your construction equipment causes.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 14:15:11

Here is the promotional video by Alstom for Ottawa's Citadis Spirit LRV's That shows how modular modern LRV's are getting.

Note that OC Transpo will be operating 2 car trains (each 48 metres long) not one car trains shown in the video and that, most of the views are not actual views of the operating right of way although the very last shot of the LRV leaving the station at the end of the video looks a lot like what Lebreton Station (Now named Pimisi Station) is supposed to look like.

https://youtu.be/CxuIpmurXKg

The next video was last year about this time when the mock up was on display at the Aberdeen Pavilion in Lansdowne Park. The historic bus you see in background was the same model that replaced the last streetcars here in Ottawa in 1959.

https://youtu.be/m953e9EaUj8

Permalink | Context

By JasonL (registered) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 15:31:53 in reply to Comment 116585

would love to see good info videos like that put out by the HSR (or more realistically, Metrolinx) for our LRT project. Sell the public on all the benefits of moving into the future instead of leaving a void of information where trucking lobbyists like the Bay Observer and CHML guests can make stuff up and only look for problems, with no solutions.
Metrolinx needs to stay ahead of the game and keep Hamiltonians informed with a positive, forward thinking mandate.

Permalink | Context

By mdrejhon (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 14:57:52 in reply to Comment 116585

Good videos! Thanks for posting this.

Ottawa is my family's hometown and their LRT is something I am actively paying attention to.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Haveacow (registered) | Posted February 19, 2016 at 14:18:17

When passengers levels require it, Ottawa will add the 5th section for each LRV, making each one 55 metres long. The maintenance and storage facility at Belfat Yard has room for ultimately, 70 55 metre long LRV's.

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By HamiltonTransitHistory (registered) - website | Posted February 19, 2016 at 21:49:19

"From King, the access track could presumably proceed north on Sanford Avenue to Wilson Street; east to Birch Avenue; and north to Cannon, where the tracks could swing onto the power line right-of-way to the carhouse entrance. The irony is that most of this route was former HSR streetcar trackage until 1951."

It was HSR tracks from 1929 to 1951, from 1898 to 1929 it was the route of the Hamilton Radial Electric Railway

http://www.trainweb.org/hamtransithist/H...

Permalink | Context

[ - ]

By Motorhome (anonymous) | Posted February 23, 2016 at 08:59:56

Why not build a facility on the old City Motor site? Could expropriate land around it and it is the end of the line.

Permalink | Context

View Comments: Nested | Flat

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to comment.

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds