(05-10-2017, 01:15 AM)nms Wrote: A couple thoughts:
1. It looked like there will be a pedestrian crossing at the south end of the platform, but pedestrians will be crossing the gauntlets tracks with quite a significant gap between the rails.  Will there be some sort of rubber to prevent canes or ankles from getting stuck?
2. I took a look at the functional design drawings (PDF, circa 2014?) for the areas and they appear to show a pedestrian crossing where the internal park road crossing used to be.  Today, there was clearly a very complete chain link fence there and it looks (possibly), like the path is going further south than the drawings show (I didn't pause to look past the bulldozer).  Did the plan change? Or am I misreading the drawings?

(05-10-2017, 08:53 AM)clasher Wrote: On the Iron Horse at Borden there is some giant blob of concrete in the middle of the trail now, before the sidewalk. I guess it some sort of "traffic calming" island for the trail? It seems to be very contrary to maintaining an accessible trail. There was an orange tarp covering most of it so I don't know how big it actually is but it seems kind of silly as a concept... there's enough room for cyclists to whip by it and right into the path of a train if they so desire.

(05-10-2017, 09:05 AM)KevinL Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 08:53 AM)clasher Wrote: On the Iron Horse at Borden there is some giant blob of concrete in the middle of the trail now, before the sidewalk. I guess it some sort of "traffic calming" island for the trail? It seems to be very contrary to maintaining an accessible trail. There was an orange tarp covering most of it so I don't know how big it actually is but it seems kind of silly as a concept... there's enough room for cyclists to whip by it and right into the path of a train if they so desire.

Sounds like the base for something solid - like a signal bar.

(05-10-2017, 09:10 AM)clasher Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 09:05 AM)KevinL Wrote: Sounds like the base for something solid - like a signal bar.

In the middle of the trail? If I have time today I'll try to go back and snag a picture.

(05-10-2017, 05:12 AM)Canard Wrote: I'm not sure I understand your dilemma (bandshell?). I bike through here a couple of times a week (including yesterday afternoon/evening) and never have an issue... Maybe I am assuming you go here regularily but you haven't gone here for several months/years and haven't seen the new setup since the tracks were installed? If that's the case, I could understand your confusion. You just have to turn right, parallel to the tracks, and then cut through the new Parking lot on the "other" side of the tracks from where it used to be.

(05-10-2017, 10:47 AM)timc Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 05:12 AM)Canard Wrote: I'm not sure I understand your dilemma (bandshell?). I bike through here a couple of times a week (including yesterday afternoon/evening) and never have an issue... Maybe I am assuming you go here regularily but you haven't gone here for several months/years and haven't seen the new setup since the tracks were installed? If that's the case, I could understand your confusion. You just have to turn right, parallel to the tracks, and then cut through the new Parking lot on the "other" side of the tracks from where it used to be.

I think nms was coming towards the station platform from the west, and expecting to cross the tracks at the previous crossing, where the road to the tennis club is, but there is a fence there now.

If you're coming from the west, a right turn goes toward the TPSS and not much else at the moment. A left turn goes to Seagram Drive.

In the future, the crossing will be at the south end of the platform, although it seems there will also be one down by the TPSS.

The functional design does appear to show a crossing close to where it used to be, in drawing C-PP-031, but either I am not good at reading, or the design changed. It also doesn't show the crossing further south, near the creek.

(05-10-2017, 08:42 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(05-10-2017, 01:15 AM)nms Wrote: A couple thoughts:
1. It looked like there will be a pedestrian crossing at the south end of the platform, but pedestrians will be crossing the gauntlets tracks with quite a significant gap between the rails.  Will there be some sort of rubber to prevent canes or ankles from getting stuck?
2. I took a look at the functional design drawings (PDF, circa 2014?) for the areas and they appear to show a pedestrian crossing where the internal park road crossing used to be.  Today, there was clearly a very complete chain link fence there and it looks (possibly), like the path is going further south than the drawings show (I didn't pause to look past the bulldozer).  Did the plan change? Or am I misreading the drawings?

You're definitely not the first to have an issue here.  Frustrating, but East-West is a small enough traffic volume for me to accept the situation right now.

As for 1, I imagine some filling will be used, but I doubt it will be much better than the asphalt that has been laid on the road.  It appears grandlinq is unable/unwilling to fashion concrete plates for the gauntlet tracks, and the asphalt solution is not great.


[…]

(05-10-2017, 01:36 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: This is why the crossing should have been built slightly further down the track, just far enough from the platform that the gauntlet track was not an issue. Similarly, at UW, the path should just connect the end of the platform to the E5 crossing, instead of having a half-crossing just for the south end of the platform. There was no need to have crossings interacting with the gauntlet tracks at the south end of either platform.

I’m guessing that the concrete plates we use come in standard sizes, and the smaller pieces that would be needed in the gauntlet tracks aren’t among those sizes. I guess the need to put crossings in a gauntlet track section doesn’t come up very often. Although I did see one “brochure” website for a company that makes those plates that advertised custom plates, so a double track would have a single plate running all the way from one track to the next — so instead of rail, plate, concrete, plate, rail it would just be rail, plate rail. Very slick looking, but relied on measuring the exact as-built distance between the tracks so as to custom-fit the plate.