I don't think mainline rail compatibility would be able to offer the tighter rapid transit station spacing and frequencies for the growing demand of the east/south/west area of the central city like a subway would offer
Already under every two minutes for Paris RER, and London Crossrail opening central section at 2.5 mins, 10 car trains, capable of 12 car later due to length of stations and a 2 min headway or better. The technology is certainly there and proven.
in my eyes it's nowhere close to the SBahn/RER type systems found in Paris, London, Sydney, etc.
But it could be, it's the political will that's absent. Plus initially, since if it will be fully forward compatible to full RER later, it can be run LRV, and that can be interconnected with the Metrolinx LRTs. All models of LRVs including the Alstom can be ordered bi-mode power (750vdc and 25kVAC) to both street run and operate on RER. This is exactly how many European, Ozzy and some US cities are doing it (San Diego been doing it for over three and a half decades, albeit catenary is 1500vDC. Runs on mainline rail tracks to the Mexican border as well as street running, although freight is temporally separated)
The trains will be fairly plush, and have washrooms, so by default they will cost a bit more than typical public transit.
It depends, since they haven't been ordered yet. Crossrail, since it will host a number of services, will have toilets on some trains, not on others:
Andrew Gwilt 03/06/2017 at 10:02
Well that's why TfL have ordered new trains with no toilets with Bombardier manufacturing the new Class 345's.
The Class 710's for London Overground will also not feature toilets as these new Class 710's trains will be operated & used on the soon electrified Gospel Oak-Barking line, London Liverpool St-Cheshunt, Enfield Town via Seven Sisters/Edmonton Green & Chingford via Clapton Lea Valley lines, Romford-Upminster line and London Euston-Watford Junction DC line services.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/launch-of-crossrail-trains-pushed-back-by-tfl
Video here:
But this clearly isn't some ugly tract of suburban field we're dealing with. It's a huge area of multiple high density nodes that make up central Toronto.
And London and Paris have even denser nodes, albeit London, surprisingly, on average is half the density of most large European cities. London is densifying in nodes, however. Croydon was one of the first, and soars above the London core, thus the Croydon Tramlink and new Overground services there as well as Network Rail services.
It should be recognized that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line to RER levels gains us very little (currently, the UPX puts the RH-GO line to shame in ridership) and would be a very costly upgrade requiring a totally new alignment south of Eglinton.
Depends where you do it, where to, and how. Metrolinx, surprise, surprise, cooked the outcome of their last study. That will be revisited, not least because their own obviously bogus reports put them in a bind. Deja Vu! Vaughan and region, politically swaying Metrolinx. Who could imagine such a thing?
It should be recognized that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line to RER levels gains us very little (currently, the UPX puts the RH-GO line to shame in ridership) and would be a very costly upgrade requiring a totally new alignment south of Eglinton.
That's exactly the point! If you're going to bore a tunnel for toy subways, then do it Crosstown size and run LRVs through it first stage, LRV in trains next, and then RER when the demand presents itself. Do you mean to tell me that that an RER demand from the northern ex-burbs that's now clogging the 400 series hwys doesn't exist? The proposed DRL tunneling will make the SSE look like a bargain. At the very least, overbuild it for forward compatibility and into extant regional networks to the north. That ain't TTC gauge...unless Toronto wants to pay for it. Good luck with that...
Now, there are interesting things we could do with the RH-GO corridor, such as a relatively cheap northern extension of the DRL-North to Richmond Hill, as
@TheTigerMaster mentioned.
You've just gone full circle. The initial proposal for the Spadina extension was for LRT. TTC Planning said no, do it subway. Council caved.
Do it big (to RER standard), or go home. It would be cheaper to build RER surface rail than subway 3rd rail surface rail, and considerably cheaper to build stations.
Furthermore, this arrangement would allow for narrower tunnel sizes and smaller stations in Old Toronto,
Tunnel bore makes little to no difference in cost since this is going to be *deep tunneling*, not cut and cover or shallow tunnel and cut and cover station boxes. The only problem a larger gauge (tunnel bore) would present is needing softer curves due to the length of carriages for RER.
RER in tunnel is actually, and proven to be, cheaper than conventional subway, which is why it is the mode of choice of new projects in most cities now. Not to mention run-through from the regions, and the savings that entails. Stations for RER in tunnel/LRT, assuming they're low-level platform (which is what Calgary and Edmonton are now adopting) are considerably cheaper to build.
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach - Railway Age
[...]
Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.
Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents. [...]
