Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[EastYorkTTCFan]

We’re 99% sure that the Relief Line won’t have any track to track connections to Line 1 right? Otherwise, this phasing plan would work (in our eyes).

Current planning seems to only indicate that line 2 would be connected so that Greenwood yard could be used for it. Unless you want to go with the people that seem to think it will be aport of the Go RER network and it will not connect with the subway system and be a completely different type of train altogether.

 

[Fred.S]

I don't know if it makes the most sense versus connecting to Line 2 and using Greenwood Yard, but I sort of wish that they would plan and build the Relief Line from Don Mills Station to downtown in one shot, using modern standard-gauge driverless vehicles, with platform edge doors. If we're going to build a brand new line, why not go for the world standard for new subways? Would require it's own yard, but that would probably be needed eventually anyway...

 

[innsertnamehere]

It likely will be built as driverless with platform doors, but with TTC gauge. Don't understand why you would even want Standard Gauge, compatibility with the existing system would be hugely important.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Probably 100% that it won't connect to Line 1 in any way. I've never seen such a thing in official proposals in the past, nor does it seem possible. Then again the Line 2 connection seems to be glossed over quite a bit for the existing proposal. Somewhat O/T but I've envisioned the City buying the small block at the NE corner of Pape/Danforth to build a proper interchange then redevelop overtop.

What do you mean by over the top interchange at Danforth/Pape?

 

[jcam]

My guess is that it'll be integrated into Line 2 because it NEEDS Greenwood Yard...there's nowhere else to build a dedicated yard on the initial alignment. That, plus the fact all work/maintenance trains are TTC gauge, means TTC gauge.

 

[44 North]

It likely will be built as driverless with platform doors, but with TTC gauge. Don't understand why you would even want Standard Gauge, compatibility with the existing system would be hugely important.

If it's Metrolinx owned and largely planned, which kinda seems the direction we're headed, I think TTC compatibility would be a nonissue for them.

What do you mean by over the top interchange at Danforth/Pape?

Oh whoops I meant a track wye interchange. And by overtop I meant that the area within Pape-Eaton and Lipton-Danforth would be expropriated (by the City or Prov), excavated, build the wye/station, then try to recoup some costs by redeveloping the site.

 

[syn]

Related to the comment above by Ponyboy, has there been a comparison or evaluation of extending the DRL North past Sheppard to Hwy 7 with building the Yonge extension from Finch to Richmond Hill?

A couple of thoughts on why a DRL super long (DRL-SL) to Hwy 7 might make sense:
- It would service Seneca College at Don Mills and Finch.
- If routed under the 404, it could have a stop at Woodbine and Steeles. There must be more than 10,000 jobs (IBM, BMO, Extendicare, etc) within walking distance.
- A stop around Esna Park/John Street would improve transit for 000's more workers
- A final stop at Highway 7 would connect with Viva and provide reasonably quick access to Markham City Centre, Richmond Hill City Centre
- A DRL-SL would act as a feed to Downtown, similar to the TYSSE in Vaughan. It would better serve downtown bound transit users in NW Scarborough.
- If aligned closer to the 404, a DRL-SL would be an option for downtown bound commuters who use the 404/DVP.

This seems like a reasonable option when compared with the Yonge Subway extension which would primarily service residential and retail stops on Yonge street north of Finch. People who live near Yonge in Richmond Hill or North York would have 3 options to downtown - go south to the Yonge Finch station, west to the TYSSE or go east to the DRL-SL. The Yonge corridor north of Finch, could serviced by an LRT (similar to the Hurontario LRT) that could be extended north to Newmarket.

Based on this plan, it might make sense to scrap any Yonge Line extension to Richmond Hill altogether, at least for a long while.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

My guess is that it'll be integrated into Line 2 because it NEEDS Greenwood Yard...there's nowhere else to build a dedicated yard on the initial alignment. That, plus the fact all work/maintenance trains are TTC gauge, means TTC gauge.

Exactly it would be like the London underground building a new line that only has a third rail for power and not the current four (they have one for positive and one for negative isnted of using one of the regualr rails as the gound and negative.)

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

If it's Metrolinx owned and largely planned, which kinda seems the direction we're headed, I think TTC compatibility would be a nonissue for them.

Is Metrolinx planning it or just funding it, in a way it seems more like the province is just giving their share of the cost through Metrolinx, I wouldn't be surprised if the Scarbrough extension at some point doesn't haveMetrolinx branding attached to it if Metlonx survives to when it's built that is.

 

[innsertnamehere]

If it's Metrolinx owned and largely planned, which kinda seems the direction we're headed, I think TTC compatibility would be a nonissue for them.



Oh whoops I meant a track wye interchange. And by overtop I meant that the area within Pape-Eaton and Lipton-Danforth would be expropriated (by the City or Prov), excavated, build the wye/station, then try to recoup some costs by redeveloping the site.

It's a huge issue as you need somewhere to store the trains. The current plan is to shift Bloor trains to a new yard near Kipling, and use Greenwood. Gotta be the existing subway standard to do that.

 

[crs1026]

It's a huge issue as you need somewhere to store the trains. The current plan is to shift Bloor trains to a new yard near Kipling, and use Greenwood. Gotta be the existing subway standard to do that.

Greenwood is just too small to store all the trains for Line 2 any more, so a new yard at Kipling or somewhere is inevitable. But Greenwood's shops will have to be razed and rebuilt from the ground up, assuming Line 2 moves to fixed consist trains. There would be a logical efficiency if both lines used the same fleet and could have heavy maintenance done in one new shop eg Kipling. That leaves Greenwood as a storage and cleaning base. If there is cheaper real estate on the RL somewhere, great.... but one backshop is cheaper than two, and the cheaper land likely sits on a later phase of the RL so isn't accessible for decades.

When you look at the transition of Line 2 when the T1 fleet wears out and ATC goes in, the interdependencies to the RL are substantial.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

But Greenwood's shops will have to be razed and rebuilt from the ground up, assuming Line 2 moves to fixed consist trains.

- Paul

This lie needs to stop being repeated.

No, the shops do not need to be razed. There will work that needs to be done to the facilities, and it will make it difficult to maintain the fleet for a short time while this happens. But the buildings are just fine where they are and will be expanded upon for any fixed length trains.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[44 North]

It's a huge issue as you need somewhere to store the trains. The current plan is to shift Bloor trains to a new yard near Kipling, and use Greenwood. Gotta be the existing subway standard to do that.

For storage I don't think it's a huge issue, but maintenance for sure. I guess I should've added that the concept was more an addon to Brainfreezed's post about single phase Long RL (which was to have a new inline yard). However it can still be done without such a facility I think. For major repairs Line 3 has its vehicles trucked offsite (Greenwood), so this theoretical Prov-owned line could do something similar and ship to their own yard for repairs. Could even use mainline rail to transport depending on how close Long RL is to Bala or CP Midtown.

I don't actually support this, and agree compatible Toronto subways should be first choice. But I do believe we may get some degree of unconventionality with the line, particularly if the Prov/Metrolinx finds it to save time/money.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

This lie needs to stop being repeated.

No, the shops do not need to be razed. There will work that needs to be done to the facilities, and it will make it difficult to maintain the fleet for a short time while this happens. But the buildings are just fine where they are and will be expanded upon for any fixed length trains.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Can you not use that word "lie"? Being incorrect or misunderstanding something does not make somebody a liar or deceitful. There's no need to attack somebody's integrity because they made an error.

 

[crs1026]

This lie needs to stop being repeated.

No, the shops do not need to be razed. There will work that needs to be done to the facilities, and it will make it difficult to maintain the fleet for a short time while this happens. But the buildings are just fine where they are and will be expanded upon for any fixed length trains.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I didn't make this up, but the people who made the comment to me were probably not in the room for the management review. So if the official story is otherwise, I stand corrected. It certainly seems plausible that the existing run-through building at Greenwood is getting a little tight, and if a yard were built at Kipling the maintenance would be revisited. And some of the workstations and drop pits etc are still configured for 2-car pairs or even single cars. There isn't a lot of room at the end of that building to add on. Maybe people are applying wishful thinking and dreaming of a better facility some day. If you know otherwise, I will write this off as a sandhouse rumour.

- Paul