Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

CityStay said:
While I realise that you guys love arguing about alignments, station design, station names, tile patterns etc. (for 11 years)...

Would it not be prudent to wait and find out exactly what the Fat One is proposing before going on and on and on about...

Nothing?
Click to expand...
Because he's not going to tell us exactly what he is proposing. That's why he's being so secretive. There is no harm with speculation for such an important project, especially given this guy's track record in the transit realm. While some of us have expertise in the field or inside knowledge, ultimately, this is just a discussion forum for some of us to learn and share our opinions.
 
By building the downtown tunnel for GO RER using catenary there is absolutely no reason why Toronto couldn't also use it for a catenary DRL. Catenary Metro trains are Metro 101, there is absolutely nothing novel about them. On the other hand if Toronto builds a DRL using 3rd rail, it is useless for RER. It is far superior to having them be able to share the same tunnel and the DRL should be catenary regardless of whether GO builds a downtown tunnel as it means north of Eglinton it could be extended very fast and very cheaply simply by using the existing RH corridor.

As for a PPP and fare integration, the best example is the Canada Line and it is completely integrated. Outside of pathetic transit geeks like ourselves, no one even knows the difference and even fewer care.
 
ssiguy2 said:
On the other hand if Toronto builds a DRL using 3rd rail, it is useless for RER.
Click to expand...
No-one agrees more than VIA Rail:
Interoperability Study to Operate HFR VIA Trains on Montreal’s Réseau express métropolitain (REM)
VIA foresees the construction of a dedicated High Frequency Railway (HFR) for passenger transit along the Quebec City-Windsor corridor across the provinces of Québec and Ontario.
On the specific section between Montreal and Quebec City, VIA wishes to use the Mont-Royal tunnel to run along the north bank of the Saint-Lawrence river. However, the Mont-Royal tunnel will soon host the new REM automatic metro system. The need is therefore to evaluate the feasibility to share infrastructure in order to operate both urban and inter-urban trains.
The interoperability project takes place between Gare Centrale and Gare A-40 and is characterized by the following:
  • Cohabitation of two rolling stock fleets with different dimensions and mechanical characteristics;
  • A common electrical traction mode on the shared path: 1.5 kV DC requiring several traction modes on board VIA Rail’s fleet;
  • A common CBTC signalling system requiring dedicated communication modules on board VIA Rail’s fleet.
DESCRIPTION
VIA Rail gave to SYSTRA the mandate to evaluate the feasibility to operate its new HFR rolling stock fleet, soon to be procured for the Quebec City-Montreal-Ottawa section, on REM infrastructure.
The mandate execution consisted of delivering the following reports:
  • An operational impact study, including several track layout options to operate both fleets between Gare Centrale and Gare A-40.
  • A safety impact study addressing the Mont-Royal tunnel and including the study of different scenarios in nominal and degraded modes to manage a potential fire occurring and egress requirements. The study also addressed the governance management between REM and VIA Rail authorities.
  • A technical impact study highlighting the exhaustive list of sub-systems for which a specific interoperability assessment involving design and interfaces specifications shall be conducted at design stages for both REM and VIA Rolling Stock renewal projects.
Click to expand...
Some of my posts detailing compatible examples already running in London and elsewhere are considered heresy for some reading this forum string. It's unfortunate, as it just indicates the fetters so many Torontonians operate with when it comes to vision and awareness of what can be done, and is done elsewhere. This isn't rocket science. Even if third rail was used, the
British Rail Class 717 - Wikipedia
can be used in the size of tunnel the TTC has planned for RL South. And still run with catenary @ 25kVAC GO plans to use for RER, and VIA plans to use for their electric vehicles. They have just started service last week:

Excellent vids here:

See also:
https://www.greatnorthernrail.com/a...your-railway/new-trains-for-moorgate-services
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
To get to the other side.

If you want to pay for it, then do it the way you want. It's that easy. How's it coming so far? In the event, it will be paid for by private enterprise, it will be 'off the shelf' and it won't use side valve hand crank engines and 6V batteries. Why did VIA have to choose what it did instead of using forty year old designs? Steam engines would have been much better! And why replace the older streetcars with newer LRTs? And them buses, eh? Nothing wrong with the old GM two-strokes.

Flip the question over, and don't be so Toronto for a moment: Why is the 'metro' type vehicle by far the most popular transit mass people mover system in the world right now?

Here's cities that have adopted the Alstom Metropolis alone! And there are four major competitors and lots smaller who build them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

And then there's airplanes. Nothing wrong with DC-3s. What's with all these new fangled jets anyway?

There is irony though: Toronto was actually a leader with the SRT. And blew it ever since.
Click to expand...

The Rockets are modern and not some 40 year old design. They are based on the Movia, which were started in 2001. Sounds pretty modern.

The Skytrain is a system that is using ancient technolgy, but, they stick with it, except when the governments decide to mess with it - Canada Line. Their most recent extension, the Evergreen Extension is with the LIM tech. The future UBC will use it.
 
If you want to pay for it, then do it the way you want. It's that easy. How's it coming so far? In the event, it will be paid for by private enterprise, it will be 'off the shelf' and it won't use side valve hand crank engines and 6V batteries. Why did VIA have to choose what it did instead of using forty year old designs? Steam engines would have been much better! And why replace the older streetcars with newer LRTs? And them buses, eh? Nothing wrong with the old GM two-strokes.

Flip the question over, and don't be so Toronto for a moment: Why is the 'metro' type vehicle by far the most popular transit mass people mover system in the world right now?

Here's cities that have adopted the Alstom Metropolis alone! And there are four major competitors and lots smaller who build them:
Systems which use Metropolis cars
Production
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

And then there's airplanes. Nothing wrong with DC-3s. What's with all these new fangled jets anyway?

There is irony though: Toronto was actually a leader with the SRT. And blew it ever since.
micheal_can said:
Look at the fiasco with Line 3.
Click to expand...
In fact Line 3 was the best performing line by far at one point. The problem with the SRT was/is the linear induction system. It's attractive rather than repulsive. I won't confuse you with technology as to what the big difference is, but suffice to say one is self adjusting, the other sure ain't. And add ice and snow to that. Repulsive polarity is the back-bone of Mag-Lev, as well as linear induction that's intrinsically stable and dependable. Ontario bought the other.

Tell me this Michael: Why is it that it's worked so much better in other cities? The basics are now folded into 'metros' and the linear induction long ago dropped. Bill Davis was visionary, but that doesn't mean he had great vision.

Suggested reading:
Urban Transportation Development Corporation - Wikipedia
 
steveintoronto said:
Flip the question over, and don't be so Toronto for a moment: Why is the 'metro' type vehicle by far the most popular transit mass people mover system in the world right now?

Here's cities that have adopted the Alstom Metropolis alone! And there are four major competitors and lots smaller who build them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

And then there's airplanes. Nothing wrong with DC-3s. What's with all these new fangled jets anyway?
Click to expand...

I consider all of Toronto's Line 1, 2, 3, 4 to be metros. And that Alstom list doesn't tell the whole story. Sure it's listing cities, but many of those cities have lines using Siemens, Bombardier, etc, in conjunction with choosing Alsom for a line. And is the Metropolis really as off the shelf as you make it sound? Also the Movia list is pretty large too. Look at the Delhi order.
 
micheal_can said:
Look at the fiasco with Line 3. We do not need that happening again.
Click to expand...
micheal_can said:
The Skytrain is a system that is using ancient technolgy, but, they stick with it, except when the governments decide to mess with it - Canada Line. Their most recent extension, the Evergreen Extension is with the LIM tech. The future UBC will use it.
Click to expand...
As I suspected, offering answers and logic to you will just go in circles. You've just completely contradicted your first question.
Ditto:
44 North said:
I consider all of Toronto's Line 1, 2, 3, 4 to be metros.
Click to expand...
Oh boy, "metro" generically can even be a busway. I'm using the industry definition for the vehicle category.
44 North said:
And that Alstom list doesn't tell the whole story. Sure it's listing cities, but many of those cities have lines using Siemens, Bombardier, etc, in conjunction with choosing Alsom for a line. And is the Metropolis really as off the shelf as you make it sound? Also the Movia list is pretty large too. Look at the Delhi order.
Click to expand...
Thank you for making my point.
steveintoronto said:
Here's cities that have adopted the Alstom Metropolis alone! And there are four major competitors and lots smaller who build them:
Click to expand...
I call this "The Toronto Challenge": Why Toronto transit schemes just endlessly go in circles.
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
As I suspected, offering answers and logic to you will just go in circles.
Ditto:
Oh boy, "metro" generically can even be a busway. I'm using the industry definition.
Thank you for making my point.

I call this "The Toronto Challenge".
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure I'm using the industry standard when describing Lines 1-4 as metros. And on Bombardier's website under Metro, it leads to Movia. BBD is still part of the industry.
 
44 North said:
I'm pretty sure I'm using the industry standard when describing Lines 1-4 as metros.
Click to expand...
How do you mean, buses?
Here's how generic the term can be:
Worldwide, the term “metro” is in far broader use than it is in the United States. Here, the word is often used simply to refer to a metropolitan mass transit agency, even if it operates no rail transit at all: my hometown’s transit agency, the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, used to call itself “the Metro,” and all it runs is buses. (A separate agency operates the city’s downtown streetcar, and everything is now branded “RideKC.”)
Click to expand...
https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-metro-and-the-subway

For some odd reason, that's not what manufacturers refer to with their "metro type trains".
44 North said:
And on Bombardier's website under Metro, it leads to Movia. BBD is still part of the industry.
Click to expand...
And how many look as old as the TRs? "Movia" is as related to the TRs as "unibody" is to building car models. Most of the Movia platforms are far more advanced and flexible than the Ontario built TRs.

Some retrospect on your choice:
History
The order
In 2006, it was decided by then-chair Howard Moscoe to negotiate a deal solely with Bombardier to manufacture the subway cars. Other city councilors criticized the move and believed there should have been an open bidding process. While Siemens indicated they may have been able to produce the cars at a lower cost, Moscoe believed the province would benefit from Bombardier keeping jobs in Ontario.[1][2] In late September 2006, city council approved the contract with Bombardier.[3]

The initial order for 234 subway cars at a value of 710 million dollars and was signed in December 2006.[4] This would allow the TTC to replace all the H4 and H5 subway cars. On May 6, 2010, city council approved the purchase of an additional 186 cars which would allow for the replacement of the H6 subway cars and allow for increased capacity on the Yonge-University-Spadina line.[5]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toronto_Rocket

That era is over. For damn good reason. Even the Caisse refused to deal with BBD for the REM order, even though the Caisse owns a shade less than a 1/3 of BBD Transportation! Alstom Metropolis got the nod. Siemens has an issue with that, but that's another story, and trade deals or not, REM is private, and can choose whomever they like to supply stock.

Which bring things back to the Relief Line: Look for private investment to build it, run it, perhaps offer access to other users for overhead traffic (like VIA HFR, since inevitably it will be standard gauge track) and offer a franchise to Metrolinx for use either as prime tenant, or whatever may fancy them.

One thing is certain: It won't be City money financing it. It remains to be seen how much if any Provincial money goes into it. Very little probably. The Feds are far more likely via the InfraBank and direct infrastructure funding. They have an election they wish to win, and aren't doing great in the polls right now.

If BBD wants to enter a bid using Toronto gauge stock...then so be it. It's highly unlikely. I think a consortium already has made a deal and it's sitting on Metrolinx' table.
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
The real question is why the massive change of heart from Metrolinx? Verster has seen the Ghost of Christmas Future, and changed his tune. (In all fairness the tune is the Metrolinx one of Christmas Past)
Click to expand...

The reason might be much more pragmatic than seeing the Ghost. In the recent past, the daily capacity of all Metrolinx rail services was a tiny fraction of the TTC's subway capacity. If Metrolinx (at that time, GO Transit) made the service more attractive for riders within 416, their infrequent trains would be quickly swarmed by the demand creating operational issues, while the revenues could actually be down because long-range riders (paying higher fare) would be discouraged from taking crowded trains.

During the last 6-8 years, Metrolinx added a lot of trains and a lot of capacity, while TTC added very little (TR consists with no spaces wasted between the cars, a few more buses, a few more streetcars, but nothing major except the peripheral TYSSE). TTC is still ahead, but the ratio is not that huge any more. And, more of Metrolinx trains run during middays and on weekends, when overcrowding is not an issue normally. Much more room for riders within 416, thus more interest in attracting them.
 
^ I think there's a degree of 'unwritten rule' also being tossed aside: That they should never directly compete.

I started to search numbers to put a reference to your claim, since it's a good one, only to realize you make it even more specific:
Rainforest said:
the daily capacity of all Metrolinx rail services was a tiny fraction of the TTC's subway capacity...TTC is still ahead, but the ratio is not that huge any more
Click to expand...
Intuitively, I think you're right. Anyone have numbers? It really shifts the weight of argument on uploading just subways. And there's also the factor of not just passengers per day, but also distance X passengers per day and GO might actually be greater. And if GO rail is actually moving more people per distance than subway, the 'inter-operability argument' as per rail gauge also shifts.
 
Last edited:
Why did LIM work well in other places but not Toronto?

Because it was/is the only/majority of their system. That is why TTC gauge works only in Toronto.
 
^I’m definitely feeling conspiracy theory over this move.

Someone must believe there is untapped potential for ridership, even with the stations not optimally placed for it. Since GO’s budget is likely in jeaproady, any new market that builds revenue is a sensible business move, especially off-peak. (Makes no sense on peak, where a seat that empties at Weston is hauled all the way to Kitchener without generating further revenue)

Or, maybe all that is needed is an illusion. Giving Toronto voters a complementary - not competing - system, coincidentally delivered by the province, and contrasting with a crowded and unpleasant bus system (coincidentally delivered by the City)..... now, whose political interest does that serve? Hmmm....

My suspicion is that Verster has astutely figured out Ford’s thought process, and now he’s cleverly spinning the GO product towards things that will delight Ford and his utterly non-analytical cabinet. The product may be superficial and crass, but hey, if it makes seals clap, that’s all that’s required.

There has always been a case to be made that GO is biased towards the 905. Tory’s Smarttrack was proposed to exploit that sense of inequity. It may have been technically flawed, but Tory was politically on point. It can’t be a bad thing for GO to take a shot at addressing that perception, but GO is just not built in the right places to be more than an adjuct to a properly integrated system of higher order rail and local bus.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top