ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Markster]

They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains.  Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them.

There are physical limitations at a number of the stations that would not allow three-car trains. Notably, both of the core stations on Charles Street: Victoria Park would not have enough space between Gaukel and the Manulife building; Queen would not have enough between Queen Street and the slope up to Benton. Others have less restrictive geometry but lengthening the platforms would require rebuilding roadways a second time to allow enough space, on top of realigning many stretches of track (which would shut down the line, at least partially). I don't think this would be a straightforward undertaking.

I pointed out the example of Victoria Park, which agrees that extendability to 3 platforms is not a mandated requirement.  We shall see about Queen, as there is nothing there yet. The block is long enough.  Cedar and Borden appear to be able to extend without such massive rebuilding of track, which was my point.

 My point is, all this 3-LRV's coupled together thing is coming from is one picture from the UoW bridge where you can see there's a gap that looks about as long as one train between the end of the current platform and the next pedestrian road crossing.  It's a bit of a wild jump in my mind that this automatically means the Region is planing for it.  

That was the picture I posted yes.  However my "wild" statement is based on consistent observations at Conestoga, R&T, UW, Seagram, Caroline, Cedar, and Borden. Especially Borden, where Charles St has been drastically realigned, and there is now a nice long 120m straight stretch where there wasn't one before.


I agree with you that there's no obligation for Grandlink to extend the platforms. That platform extension is probably 30 years away at least. That one station, Victoria Park, would have to be scrapped/moved. But you're replying to my observations by pointing at a piece of paper, saying that it's not written down.  I'm pointing at concrete and saying it's there.  

You could just as easily say "Oh, they're planing on making 401 20 lanes wide through Cambridge" because the nearest house just happens to be set way back or whatever.

The size of a road's right of way, coupled with advantageous property acquisition is the same kind of "we don't need it yet, but we might in the future, so let's make decisions now to make it easier" is the exact kind of planning for the future I'm talking about.


Anyway, taylorbb confirmed that it was thought about, which would explain why there are many considerations in place, but they are not universal.

Markster, to answer your comment about three car trains, when I spoke to Nancy Button years ago she said they were designing to allow for future expansion to three car trains. I've never seen any reference in the project agreement, and a lot has changed since she was in charge, so who knows what that means now. But it definitely was on their radar at some point.