HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #101  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 3:36 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
CP also has some say in this. Maybe they don't want the bridge pier in there so the arch option is presented. I'm not sure, but yes it is functional.

For this location and Winnipeg's history of ugly (normal looking, non architectural) bridges, this location is perfect for a plain old bridge. It's a rail yard, not a downtown gathering place. Although I do like the arch more of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #102  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:18 PM
cheswick's Avatar
cheswick cheswick is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: South Kildonan
Posts: 1,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
CP also has some say in this. Maybe they don't want the bridge pier in there so the arch option is presented. I'm not sure, but yes it is functional.

For this location and Winnipeg's history of ugly (normal looking, non architectural) bridges, this location is perfect for a plain old bridge. It's a rail yard, not a downtown gathering place. Although I do like the arch more of course.
Yeah, the north end doesn't deserve nice things.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #103  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:32 PM
MG922 MG922 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 132
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
^ Fair enough if you want a good looking bridge, but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that we're buying some kind of functional improvement with that arch.
I'm all for the arch, as it definitely looks better. It's also definitely functional. You don't need the center pier as the arch spans longer. Don't need to worry about constructing the pier in between CP tracks, don't have maintenance of the pier, don't have the safety concern if there's a derailment that hits the pier.

Anything that reduces the amount of work really close to rail lines is a win. Working beside rail lines is incredibly inefficient, as there can be no work whenever trains pass by.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #104  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:39 PM
buzzg buzzg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 3,159
^Yeah. I'd be curious to know if they studied having 2 or 3 arches to eliminate many of the piers. Seems like it would be more functional and look way nicer, not just one small arch in the middle of a massive bridge.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #105  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:49 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
That rail yard is hardly pressed for space.... Take a closer look next time you go over the bridge and you will see that removing a pier will make little difference when there is already a fair bit of unused space.

I'm sure CP would appreciate one less pier to deal with, but I doubt it really makes that much of a difference to them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #106  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:52 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheswick View Post
Yeah, the north end doesn't deserve nice things.
I don't think this is going to be Esplanade Riel here with a single arch in the middle of a rail yard. This won't change the skyline like they mentioned.

I made the comment I like the arch and it does look neat. If it goes ahead, great. If not, I won't be heartbroken.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #107  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 4:54 PM
bomberjet bomberjet is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 6,678
Quote:
Originally Posted by esquire View Post
That rail yard is hardly pressed for space.... Take a closer look next time you go over the bridge and you will see that removing a pier will make little difference when there is already a fair bit of unused space.

I'm sure CP would appreciate one less pier to deal with, but I doubt it really makes that much of a difference to them.
You'd be surprised what the railways will make you do. The pier would be near their main track. And even though there is lots of space, railways can't turn like a roadway. Things get stretched out really quick. Although I see your point it would seem to be lots of room to have the pier in there.

Constructability is also a huge part of this work. CP will not accept closure to basically any of their tracks. The city had planned to cover the entire yard around the bridge in gravel to come in and demolish the bridge. CP told them to pound sand. CP is already closing one of the spur lines coming out of the yard on the south side to maek the approach grades work. Without that, the project is either dead or way more expensive as they'd need to go over Logan with Arlington.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #108  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 5:11 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
Quote:
Originally Posted by bomberjet View Post
I made the comment I like the arch and it does look neat. If it goes ahead, great. If not, I won't be heartbroken.
This is where I'm at with it. It looks good and I'd welcome it, but it certainly wouldn't bother me if the arch was left out especially given that I remain convinced it is purely decorative in nature... I defy anyone to show how that one pier makes the tiniest whit of difference to CP.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #109  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 6:30 PM
drew's Avatar
drew drew is offline
the first stamp is free
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hippyville, Winnipeg
Posts: 5,593
It doesn't need to be some sort of extravagant piece of bridge architecture - but IMO to replace the Arlington bridge with some straight featureless raised road bed just seems, I dunno - pointless, insulting, opportunity lost... or maybe a combination of all that?

Right now, I look forward to driving over that bridge. It's cool (mostly because I try to catch "air" on those ramps). The bridge doesn't exactly lead to a nice area on either end, so why not jazz it up a bit?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #110  
Old Posted Jan 31, 2018, 7:05 PM
esquire's Avatar
esquire esquire is online now
Think about Winnipeg.
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 18,559
^ Nicer is always better, especially if the thing is going to be around for the next hundred years. But I have to admit I still love driving over the Slaw Rebchuk Bridge for the views even though the bridge itself is pretty plain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Manitoba & Saskatchewan
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.