Open Trench - Montreal West, Train de l'Ouest
1
3 Rail configuration design options have different costs, advantages and burdens. We must remember that the AMT proposes to run a lot more trains through our Town, and we do have a say. Let’s try to understand what is at stake and then get involved to obtain the best solution for our Town, whose founders were railway leaders who never compromised the inter- ests of MW. What it involves The new rail scheme will involve a vertical separation of the vehicle road bed from the train rail line. All informa- tion we’ve seen suggests that this would entail excavating a trench which would lower the rail tracks in order to allow vehicles to pass over on some sort of bridge structure. The following guidelines from the AREMA manual for Railway Engineering would need to be respected (the AMT specifica- tions should be very similar): • Approx. 23 clear feet is required for train clearance (top of rail to underside of structure above); • Minimum width of 3 rail lines would be approx. 40 feet; • Maximum grade for embankments would be approx. 45 degrees; • A heavy rail grade would be greater than approx. 1.8 %. There are various ways to accomplish the new rail and road structure configuration. At the risk of oversimplifying the problem, the accompa- nying sectional sketches will illustrate what a tremendous impact this project will have on our Town. Section A Section A depicts an Open Trench (30 ft. deep) with bridge at grade (no hump). The distance between the start of the slopes on each side would be +/- 100 feet. In our situation it would start at the sidewalk on Sherbrooke St. and reach the sidewalk on Broughton for the full dis- tance between Westminster and the existing train station, extending approx. 1500 feet further in both directions. If the trains are powered by diesel electric motors, the exhaust discharge would be at street level. A six-foot high fence would close off the entire depression and one wonders how they would accommodate a train station. This is a relatively inexpen- sive solution, but a less expensive approach (Section B – Open Trench – Bridge 10 ft. above grade) is even more offensive aesthetically and in its encroachment footprint. Section B Section B shows a humped bridge overpass in order to meet the minimum clearances for a shallower trench. The bridge ramps could begin their incline on the north side near the video store and on the south side near the Community centre. If anyone has a problem conceptual- izing this design, you only have to stand on top of the “hump” bridge on Westminster North and look down. Clearly the Town could not tolerate being split through the middle of its core. Regretfully, this solu- tion was imposed in the past and it cannot be allowed to happen again. Section C Section C – Covered Trench, the safest solution (especially considering the very large number of trains proposed), shows a straight structural walled trench cov- ered at grade for the entire length of the passage through Town, rendering the trains and tracks invisible. Access to the station platform below would be integrated into the trench structure. The use of the covered surface would probably be a negotiation with the railway, but options include green space, parking and even small buildings. The area reclaimed between Westminster and Brock (area presently occupied by rail lines) is approx. 60,000 square feet. Among other requirements would be the probable need for existing dual fuel technology (diesel and/or electric) or simply electric powered locomotives, a concept being promoted by Peter Trent, the mayor of Westmount. This Option C, in addition to being the safest solution, is clearly the only option that ensures the integrity of the Town core. Make our needs known; get involved The covered trench, Option C, is the progressive solution that is in everyone’s best interest: it offers safety, aesthetics, an elegant access to the train platforms, and responsible urban develop- ment. We cannot afford to sell ourselves short. Get involved in the Town discus- sions and support our elected officials in their battle to defend our interests! from Tim Goforth and Carlo Cattelan Exploring options before Train de l’Ouest becomes entrenched in Montreal West The future of the quality of life in MoWest is on the line. The AMT commuter line proposal regarding the projected augmented rail service presents the opportunity to improve our centre of Town or ruin it aesthetically and restrain it economically, depending on the solution chosen.
description
http://montrealgazette.com/metnews . Posted by Andy Riga, Montreal Gazette
Transcript of Open Trench - Montreal West, Train de l'Ouest
3
Rail configuration designoptions have different costs,advantages and burdens. Wemust remember that the AMTproposes to run a lot moretrains through our Town, andwe do have a say. Let’s try tounderstand what is at stakeand then get involved toobtain the best solution forour Town, whose founderswere railway leaders whonever compromised the inter-ests of MW.
What it involvesThe new rail scheme will
involve a vertical separationof the vehicle road bed fromthe train rail line. All informa-tion we’ve seen suggests thatthis would entail excavating atrench which would lower therail tracks in order to allowvehicles to pass over on somesort of bridge structure. Thefollowing guidelines from theAREMA manual for RailwayEngineering would need to berespected (the AMT specifica-tions should be very similar):• Approx. 23 clear feet isrequired for train clearance(top of rail to underside ofstructure above);
• Minimum width of 3 raillines would be approx. 40feet;
• Maximum grade forembankments would beapprox. 45 degrees;
• A heavy rail grade would begreater than approx. 1.8 %.There are various ways to
accomplish the new rail androad structure configuration.At the risk of oversimplifyingthe problem, the accompa-nying sectional sketches willillustrate what a tremendousimpact this project will haveon our Town.
Section ASection A depicts an Open
Trench (30 ft. deep) withbridge at grade (no hump).
The distance between thestart of the slopes on eachside would be +/- 100 feet. Inour situation it would start atthe sidewalk on SherbrookeSt. and reach the sidewalk onBroughton for the full dis-tance between Westminsterand the existing train station,extending approx. 1500 feetfurther in both directions. Ifthe trains are powered bydiesel electric motors, theexhaust discharge would be atstreet level. A six-foot highfence would close off theentire depression and onewonders how they wouldaccommodate a train station.This is a relatively inexpen-sive solution, but a lessexpensive approach (SectionB – Open Trench – Bridge 10ft. above grade) is even moreoffensive aesthetically and inits encroachment footprint.
Section BSection B shows a humped
bridge overpass in order tomeet the minimum clearancesfor a shallower trench. The
bridge ramps could begintheir incline on the north sidenear the video store and onthe south side near theCommunity centre. If anyonehas a problem conceptual-izing this design, you onlyhave to stand on top of the“hump” bridge onWestminster North and lookdown. Clearly the Towncould not tolerate being splitthrough the middle of itscore. Regretfully, this solu-tion was imposed in the pastand it cannot be allowed tohappen again.
Section CSection C – Covered
Trench, the safest solution(especially considering thevery large number of trainsproposed), shows a straightstructural walled trench cov-ered at grade for the entirelength of the passage throughTown, rendering the trainsand tracks invisible. Accessto the station platform belowwould be integrated into thetrench structure. The use of
the covered surface wouldprobably be a negotiationwith the railway, but optionsinclude green space, parkingand even small buildings. Thearea reclaimed betweenWestminster and Brock (areapresently occupied by raillines) is approx. 60,000square feet. Among otherrequirements would be theprobable need for existingdual fuel technology (dieseland/or electric) or simplyelectric powered locomotives,a concept being promoted byPeter Trent, the mayor ofWestmount. This Option C, inaddition to being the safestsolution, is clearly the onlyoption that ensures theintegrity of the Town core.
Make our needs known;get involved
The covered trench,Option C, is the progressivesolution that is in everyone’sbest interest: it offers safety,aesthetics, an elegant accessto the train platforms, andresponsible urban develop-ment. We cannot afford tosell ourselves short. Getinvolved in the Town discus-sions and support our electedofficials in their battle todefend our interests!
from Tim Goforthand Carlo Cattelan
ExploringoptionsbeforeTrainde l’Ouestbecomesentrenched inMontrealWest
The future of the quality of life in MoWest is on the line. The AMT commuterline proposal regarding the projected augmented rail service presents theopportunity to improve our centre of Town or ruin it aesthetically andrestrain it economically, depending on the solution chosen.
