News   Mar 28, 2024
 126     0 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 287     1 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 653     0 

TTC Subway Track Replacement

A fine example of a subway using this type of track is the subway in Athens, known as the Athens Metro, a very fast subway.
 
Last edited:
But much louder. I don't find the current ride to be all that shakey or uncomfortable, and the trains don't go fast enough to warrant this sort of conversion.

The current track repairs at night are the bane of my existence. I can't imagine what it would be like if they had to shut down half the system to install this type of track.
 
But much louder. I don't find the current ride to be all that shakey or uncomfortable, and the trains don't go fast enough to warrant this sort of conversion.

The current track repairs at night are the bane of my existence. I can't imagine what it would be like if they had to shut down half the system to install this type of track.
Shutting down half the line maybe is unlikely. They'de probably have to shut it down in smaller sections, but put shuttle buses in it's place during it's contruction. Yes, it would be a drag during that time, but in the long run it would be very beneficial. As for the trains, at least the new TR ones and the current T1 have the potential to operate at 80 KMH, which is their max operating speed. I think the trains now operate at below 80 KMH...
 
Last edited:
Shutting down half the line maybe is unlikely. They'de probably have to shut it down in smaller sections, but put shuttle buses in it's place during it's contruction. Yes, it would be a drag during that time, but in the long run it would be very beneficial. As for the trains, at least the new TR ones and the current T1 have the potential to operate at 80 KMH, which is their max operating speed. I think the trains now operate at below 80 KMH...

Potential, yes, but in reality they would never reach that speed. The stop distance is too close, except for maybe a few sections on the extremities of the lines (between Vic Park and Warden for example). Either the trains would need to accelerate and decelerate at a pretty rapid pace (not likely, considering people standing would go flying forwards or backwards), or the trains travel exactly as they currently do. Potential speed is irrelevant if the operational environment doesn't allow it.

So overall, it isn't worth spending millions of dollars to save a few seconds on the extremities of the lines. There are much better ways to spend that money (updating stations for example).
 
They'de probably have to shut it down in smaller sections
Considering the cureing time and then the need to connect the new sections to the old sections to keep half the system open, they'd be likely to shut down Downsview to St.Clair at the minimum.

As for the trains, at least the new TR ones and the current T1 have the potential to operate at 80 KMH, which is their max operating speed. I think the trains now operate at below 80 KMH...

Even if they did get up to 80, this type of track is ideal for 200 kmh, seems a bit overkill, considering we'll get nowhere near 200, let alone hit 80.
 
Potential, yes, but in reality they would never reach that speed. The stop distance is too close, except for maybe a few sections on the extremities of the lines (between Vic Park and Warden for example). Either the trains would need to accelerate and decelerate at a pretty rapid pace (not likely, considering people standing would go flying forwards or backwards), or the trains travel exactly as they currently do. Potential speed is irrelevant if the operational environment doesn't allow it.

So overall, it isn't worth spending millions of dollars to save a few seconds on the extremities of the lines. There are much better ways to spend that money (updating stations for example).
Yes, the distances between the stations do play a very imortant role for speed. 1 kilometer distance between stations is ideal for the train to achieve full speed, with no need to accelerate and decelerate agressively. At least from my experience. I know some stations are spaced under 1 kilometer. Like the downtown stations for example. Vic Park and Warden are spaced approx 2.5 to 3 kms apart.
 
but in the long run it would be very beneficial.

I really wish people who come up with 'radical' proposals like this actually did a little thought before sharing with the world at large. In this case, sitting down with a pencil and paper and defining exactly what they mean by "very beneficial".

The poster talks about being able to operate at 80 km/h, but seems unaware at what maximum speed trains currently operate (pretty close to 70 km/h).

So lets do the math the poster neglected to do.

We'll assume we are only going to deal with the large station spacings, most of which are pretty close to 2 km (ie Downsview to Wilson, Eglinton to Lawrence, Lawrence to York Mills, York Mills to Sheppard). Eglinton W to St Clair W is probably closer to 3km.

We'll assume that we'll take 0.5km to accelerate and 0.5km to slow down so we don't throw people around the cars. That leaves us with about 1km to operate at whatever maximum speed we're using.

I'll be generous and use 90 km/h instead of the proposed 80. That 1km will take 40 seconds to cover.

If we stick with 70 km/h, that will take about 51 seconds.

Over the whole YUS run, we are now looking at about 11 seconds * 5 big station spacings or less than 1 minute over the entire loop.

Want to try explaining the "very beneficial" concept again?
 
Considering the cureing time and then the need to connect the new sections to the old sections to keep half the system open, they'd be likely to shut down Downsview to St.Clair at the minimum.
Something like that, yes.


Even if they did get up to 80, this type of track is ideal for 200 kmh, seems a bit overkill, considering we'll get nowhere near 200, let alone hit 80.
Definately this track supports ultra high speeds. I think this type of track is used in Japan for its' very high speed trains. Of course, an urban public transportation will never approach 200 KMH. But 80 KMS at a distance of1 kilometer approximately between stations is a definate yes. Other advantages of this track is that it lasts a life time, doesn't breakdown easily, etc. Anyhow, drains must be built for sure on the tracks so that the water from the track levels dissapears. I've seen water puddles between the tracks multiple times on stations.
 
I agree with Asterix (which doesn't happen very often, haha). For the seconds (and it is literally seconds, not minutes) that would be saved, the tens (possibly hundreds) of millions it would take to replace the tracks would be much better spent either a) creating NEW transit, or b) upgrading the state of some of the stations (like Yonge, ugh).
 
I really wish people who come up with 'radical' proposals like this actually did a little thought before sharing with the world at large. In this case, sitting down with a pencil and paper and defining exactly what they mean by "very beneficial".

The poster talks about being able to operate at 80 km/h, but seems unaware at what maximum speed trains currently operate (pretty close to 70 km/h).

So lets do the math the poster neglected to do.

We'll assume we are only going to deal with the large station spacings, most of which are pretty close to 2 km (ie Downsview to Wilson, Eglinton to Lawrence, Lawrence to York Mills, York Mills to Sheppard). Eglinton W to St Clair W is probably closer to 3km.

We'll assume that we'll take 0.5km to accelerate and 0.5km to slow down so we don't throw people around the cars. That leaves us with about 1km to operate at whatever maximum speed we're using.

I'll be generous and use 90 km/h instead of the proposed 80. That 1km will take 40 seconds to cover.

If we stick with 70 km/h, that will take about 51 seconds.

Over the whole YUS run, we are now looking at about 11 seconds * 5 big station spacings or less than 1 minute over the entire loop.

Want to try explaining the "very beneficial" concept again?
Besides the advantages I mentioned above, I would like to state some things more. I have riden a subway (outside of Canada) uncountable times that used to work with the wooden railroad tie. Now they're replacing it with the slab track. To make a long story short, at one section, a distance of 5.6 kilometers and 6 stations, with the old wooden railroad tie, it takes 10.5 minutes (counted multiple times) and with the slab track, it took just 9 minutes flat (counted multiple times too) for that section only. Amazing! Another section of the line: 3 kilomters and 4 stations distance (all under 1 kilometer distance apart in that particular section), 7 minutes with the wooden railroad tie, and 5.5 minutes with slab track. The very beneficial would be speed to name a few, and because of this, a new signal system can be installed that would allow fewer minutes between train intervals. Definately more minutes will be shaven off. By the way, how long does it take from Finch to Downsview or vice versa?
 
Last edited:
Besides the advantages I mentioned above, I would like to state some things more. I have riden a subway that used to work with the wooden railroad tie. Now they're replacing it with the slab track. To make a long story short, a distance of 5.6 kilometers and 6 stations, with the old wooden railroad tie, it takes 10.5 minutes (counted multiple times) and with the slab track, it took just 9 minutes flat (counted multiple times too) for that part only. Amazing!

Yes, but the only section of the TTC subway that I know of that uses wooden ties is the section from Islington to Kipling, which wouldn't even get up to full speed anyways, because of the cross-over tracks. So again, not enough benefit for the cost.
 
I have riden a subway (outside of Canada) uncountable times that used to work with the wooden railroad tie. Now they're replacing it with the slab track. To make a long story short, a distance of 5.6 kilometers and 6 stations, with the old wooden railroad tie, it takes 10.5 minutes (counted multiple times) and with the slab track, it took just 9 minutes flat (counted multiple times too) for that part only.

Your proposal wasn't for some unknown subway outside of Canada, but for the Toronto subway system. So it doesn't matter whether some other system has wooden ties or how much time you think you saved on it since we have to deal with the reality of the Toronto system which has very few stretches capable of surpassing the current max of about 70 km/h.

Unless you can demonstrate otherwise, we are left with a savings of just under one minute for the entire YUS run.

Do you qualify this time savings as "very beneficial"? Yes or no?

As for signal modifications, are you at all aware of the Toronto Rocket subway trains and the TTC's current work towards installing ATO on the YUS line?

If not, then I would suggest you research this before trying to use that as part of your argument about "very beneficial" benefits. Stop this gravy train spending proposal!
 
Yes, but the only section of the TTC subway that I know of that uses wooden ties is the section from Islington to Kipling, which wouldn't even get up to full speed anyways, because of the cross-over tracks. So again, not enough benefit for the cost.
Only Kipling to Islington section? I thoutght the rest of the BD and YUS lines used wooden ties...
 

Back
Top