ouest-de-lîle REM - Antenne Ouest

[SameGuy]

Here’s one on the other side of Jean-Yves, atop the first regular column after the station we see the lonely, longer legs waiting for Anne to catch up. Between the high station on the east side and the catwalk and ground level structure on the west side, this will be one massive station!

Just now, go_habs_go said:

Really impressive. It'll be the highest structure in the area (until the redevelopment of the Colisée area?).

Pretty much! Certainly for now the highest west of St-Charles other than the Veterans’ Hospital (and the old, forlorn Future Electronics building in Vaudreuil).

[Rocco]

1 hour ago, SameGuy said:

And another couple showing LG-1 Anne’s progress at Kirkland. Each span between the station saddles takes significantly longer than the regular spans, because the saddles aren’t lowered into place like on the regular columns. This requires different adhesive and tensioning techniques, and much closer tolerances (because there are no gaps over the columns that give some leeway).

So high its almost ridiculous. I mean, come on.

[SameGuy]

 

1 hour ago, Rocco said:

So high its almost ridiculous. I mean, come on.

Sure, and that was supposed to be the original height of the entire West Island branch — which would have allowed for many more options in rebuilding the three boulevards’ A-40 overpasses as well as a future Stillview/Somerset overpass (and even the A-440/40 interchange).

Now if they put that same voussoir profile at that height on René-Lévesque Ouest (with perhaps slightly more refined columns), IMO few people would complain other than for the sake of complaining.

[JB667]

On 2021-06-02 at 5:50 PM, SameGuy said:

 

Sure, and that was supposed to be the original height of the entire West Island branch — which would have allowed for many more options in rebuilding the three boulevards’ A-40 overpasses as well as a future Stillview/Somerset overpass (and even the A-440/40 interchange).

Now if they put that same voussoir profile at that height on René-Lévesque Ouest (with perhaps slightly more refined columns), IMO few people would complain other than for the sake of complaining.

I’d be ok with an aerial train on RL if it was made of steel with long spans like the curve the REM does after Victoria Bridge . 

[SameGuy]

That structure is frankly hideous, concrete columns and beams topped by a concrete deck. The few places they used steel beams is for longer reaches (such as the CN flyover) and it isn’t prettier. At least the voussoirs in the west have a somewhat more organic profile.

[Internist]

The West Island structure is significantly less ugly, but that sure doesn’t make it any prettier… it mostly speaks of how hideous they managed to make the PSC segment… Even the old Champlain bridge piles look somewhat elegant in comparison… 

They indeed managed to make it a «signature» project: an architectural statement piece that reads «we give absolutely zero f**k». Can’t believe it is supposed to be their model project to showcase the world…

That being said, I remain a supporter of the REM-A as a whole, and I care very little about the ugliness of the West Island aerial structure, as it blends perfectly in the highway’s overall superior ugliness, and it doesn’t ruin the potential (or future potential) of entire neighborhoods. Contrast that with the PSC segment, where you have a neighborhood ripe for redevelopment and some historical sites to beautify (ex: Lachine Canal), and superimpose a massive structure that looks like a botched brutalist project from the sixties, and you get a durable scar that will drag the area down (or keep it down). Sure, I love that they are building a massive new metro system, but just like we love the original metro and still criticize abundantly the STM, I have a fair share of criticisms toward the CDPQi. And just like I would with the STM, I will only believe in their promises that they «have changed» when I will see concrete evidence. 

[danny12345]

7 hours ago, SameGuy said:

That structure is frankly hideous, concrete columns and beams topped by a concrete deck. The few places they used steel beams is for longer reaches (such as the CN flyover) and it isn’t prettier. At least the voussoirs in the west have a somewhat more organic profile.

The structure is definitely steel when it is curving and getting above the CN

 

If my math is correct, there are 8 transitions from concrete to steel, or the opposite.  Each are quite ugly and shows a total absence of esthetical considerations.  So much for the all signature bullshit

 

[SameGuy]

Don’t get me wrong, I think the curving “signature“ bridge over the Nuns Island channel looks pretty cool, but it is massive, and would be quite horrible on any Boulevard downtown.

[danny12345]

20 minutes ago, SameGuy said:

Don’t get me wrong, I think the curving “signature“ bridge over the Nuns Island channel looks pretty cool, but it is massive, and would be quite horrible on any Boulevard downtown.

Indeed it is massive, but I'd take any massive steel structure before a massive concrete structure

 

I am not a structure engineer but on the top of my head here are a few advantages to steel vs concrete.

• Steel is stronger in flexion (it bends instead of cracking), thus allows longer and more nimbler spans
• Steel can be painted more easily than concrete
• When deteriorating, Steel doesn't look as bad as concrete.  Look under the Metropolitan or the Van Horne viaduc
• It is much easier to replace a steel section than a concrete section
• Steel structure allows more light as it is not filled as a concrete beam is
• Steel allows for a wider variety a shapes than concrete

[crosbyshow]

il y a une heure, danny12345 a dit :

Indeed it is massive, but I'd take any massive steel structure before a massive concrete structure

 

I am not a structure engineer but on the top of my head here are a few advantages to steel vs concrete.

• Steel is stronger in flexion (it bends instead of cracking), thus allows longer and more nimbler spans
• Steel can be painted more easily than concrete
• When deteriorating, Steel doesn't look as bad as concrete.  Look under the Metropolitan or the Van Horne viaduc
• It is much easier to replace a steel section than a concrete section
• Steel structure allows more light as it is not filled as a concrete beam is
• Steel allows for a wider variety a shapes than concrete

Juste à regarder n'importe quel viaduc aux USA ou même maintenant sur la 20....un viaduc en acier est vraiment plus beau.

 

Au moins la couleur peut varier...du béton rlleste du béton.

 

Le Rem sur René Levesque devra être au minimum en acier