fanoftoronto
Active Member
30,000 vs 29,360 is "a lot more capacity"?
Also, if you read my post correctly, when Ontario Line opens, it's running 80 m trains with 600 capacity.
600 x 40 trains = 24,000
I don't need to check my math.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
30,000 vs 29,360 is "a lot more capacity"?
Also, if you read my post correctly, when Ontario Line opens, it's running 80 m trains with 600 capacity.
600 x 40 trains = 24,000
I don't need to check my math.
Tristen
New Member
You do need to check your math, the measuring method is different.
1458 passengers per train on Line 1 is a maximum capacity (crush load) while 750 passengers on 100m Ontario line train is a theoretical capacity, the crush load is usually 33% more than theoretical capacity, so a 100m Ontario line train can hold at max 1000 passenger at once.
This is the REM capacity, already 780 passengers on a 76.2m train, so the Ontario line capacity is definitely more that that with a 100m train
superelevation
Active Member
fanoftoronto
Active Member
I agree. Which is why I used 1,200 as my lower limit on the subway calculation. Even with 1,200 per train, the capacity on the Yonge subway is 24,000 pphpd which is the same as the theoretical max of the OL at the opening of the line with 80 m long trains.
My point again is that Metrolinx is planning for a line that is set to be full in 10 years of opening (2041). Sure we can use longer trains and get another 25% capacity to 30,000 pphpd, but that's it, that's our upper limit. What do we do when we reach 30,000? Build another "relief" line for the Ontario Line?
For comparison, the Yonge subway can handle 48,000 passengers at the 90 second headways once ATC is installed and current train size which is a lot more capacity than the Ontario Line. TTC was also looking at adding a 7th car, smaller than the usual cars to get an extra ~8% - 10% of capacity making the theoretical maximum as almost 52,000.
We're building this much capacity in Scarborough and Yonge North but somehow the highest ridership subway currently under construction gets a "light" metro with a gimped maximum capacity.
Again, I'm not against building the Ontario Line as a relief line for Yonge-Bloor station is extremely necessary, I'm only pointing out the massive flaw in this design, and also pointing out the hypocrisy of the suburbs getting the high capacity heavy subway while the core downtown is getting the light subway.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
The 7th car could be inserted in the middle of the train.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
And the front and end of the trains could be inside the tunnels, but the doors will still open with the platforms. The seventh car does not have to be the same length as the current cars.
MrGoose
Active Member
Yes.
Of course that is what we should do. It is what we should have been doing from the start.
Or do you think that a metropolis of 5 million people should only have 2 radial metro lines running into the city center?
If we had kept spending money on subway infrastructure instead of neglecting it for 50 years, then we wouldn’t need a “relief line”, we would just need another line running through downtown.
Undead
Senior Member
I understand the capacity concerns for OL versus traditional TTC subway, but that 50k+ PPHPD figure is way off.
The TTC uses 1,100 passengers per car as the upper limit; 1,400 is the absolute crush load which begins to decrease the line's capacity because the platforms and stations cannot handle the passenger volume. This issue will also manifest even more acutely as frequencies increase.
Besides, I believe Steve Munro has calculated the TTC loses about 10% of capacity due to operational issues.
And I don't think there are plans to get Line 1 to 40 TPH; 33-35 is the highest I recall seeing, but I could be wrong on this.
So the real capacity is more like 1,100 x 35 x .9 = approx 35k.
The TTC uses 1,100 passengers per car as the upper limit; 1,400 is the absolute crush load which begins to decrease the line's capacity because the platforms and stations cannot handle the passenger volume. This issue will also manifest even more acutely as frequencies increase.
Besides, I believe Steve Munro has calculated the TTC loses about 10% of capacity due to operational issues.
And I don't think there are plans to get Line 1 to 40 TPH; 33-35 is the highest I recall seeing, but I could be wrong on this.
So the real capacity is more like 1,100 x 35 x .9 = approx 35k.
ARG1
Senior Member
The problem with using the 80m long train numbers is that the platforms are still going to be 100m long - they're just going to run shorter trains in order to save on how many vehicles they need to deploy. Should they ever have the need for more capacity, the only work they need to do is just... couple another train. The PSDs and platforms will already be supporting 100m long trains from the offset - its not like the Confederation Line where they're "leaving room" for platform expansions (and even then the underground stations on the Confederation Line are already built to their max lengths). As such, comparing the Yonge Subway to 80m long trains is basically a moot point. The question here being asked is "does the line have enough capacity to deal with the demand", and the answer is yes. The fact that they're thinking of running 80m long trains changes absolutely nothing - only shows that they don't think they'll need to full capacity when the system launches.
Last edited:
EnviroTO
Senior Member
Not technology! It's the station capacity and train width and length. The technology of the Yonge line until the ATO upgrade is brought online is ancient, but the station capacity and train width and length is very large so even with antiquated technology the capacity is great.
Station capacity, train width and length, automated train control, and ROW isolation are the factors affecting capacity. It doesn't matter if it is above ground, heavy or light, standard propulsion, pulleys, or maglev. What matters is frequency and capacity.
Above ground and under ground are city building decisions that have no impact on capacity. Above vs below are about the communities we want to live in... noise vs silence, visible structures that can't be ignored vs small entrances that fit in with the local context, public space in the shadows or with clear sky, and taking up space with transportation vs leaving space for other uses that create destinations, places to live and work, and improve the quality of life.
Above ground vs below ground are obviously also financial decisions. Below ground is more expensive, but below ground frees up space. In places tight on space going underground can be a cost offset by the better land use, but in an area where space is abundant it makes little sense to go underground.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
If it gets too crowded then that's an excuse to add more downtown lines, perhaps one that serves Dundas and Gerrard.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
where in the world did you get 48,000? Everything I've seen is the TTC is planning for a design capacity of about 34-36,000 on Line 1 following ATC upgrades.
The Ontario Line really isn't low capacity - you paint it to run over capacity in 2041 but it's design capacity is roughly triple projected initial demand.
Projected peak loads in 2041 are well within the 30k peak capacity. The line will still have room for 50% ridership growth at that point.
And as I've discussed before, shifting to Toronto Subway tech only grants you a small amount of additional capacity, bumping you from 30k to 34-36k. It's not worth doubling the project cost.
fanoftoronto
Active Member
where in the world did you get 48,000? Everything I've seen is the TTC is planning for a design capacity of about 34-36,000 on Line 1 following ATC upgrades.
The Ontario Line really isn't low capacity - you paint it to run over capacity in 2041 but it's design capacity is roughly triple projected initial demand.
Projected peak loads in 2041 are well within the 30k peak capacity. The line will still have room for 50% ridership growth at that point.
And as I've discussed before, shifting to Toronto Subway tech only grants you a small amount of additional capacity, bumping you from 30k to 34-36k. It's not worth doubling the project cost.
Apologies, I didn't know that YUS is being planned for only 34,000. 1:55 headways.
Any reason they can't run the trains at 90 second headways with ATC? 90 second headways are definitely possible for subway systems in other parts of the world. So I don't see why a newly built subway style OL can't be 48,000 max or even higher.
Per your own graph, and my point for this argument, is that by 2041 they're already running 90 second headways at 20,000 pphpd. Necessitating an increase in capacity soon after to 100m trains. Where do you go from there? With the Yonge line, they didn't have to do anything for decades because the capacity increase was built in.
What document did you get the graph? I'm interested in learning more about the current design.
The Yonge line wasn't at 20,000 pphpd until 40 to 50 years since opening. Honestly, I am speculating about this number as we're at capacity at 2:30 headways with pphpd of 26,400 only in the last 2 decades. If the OL is already at 20,000 at year 10 then how high will it be at year 20 or 30? They would probably extend the line up to Sheppard and Don Mills further increasing the ridership and pushing the line up to the 30,000 pphpd hard limit.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
My understanding of it is that it's restricted to longer frequencies due to practical capacities of unloading passengers at stations and turn around times at terminii.
The OL business case projects capacity to be adequate to at least 2077.
The Yonge Line with it's initial design capacity was facing issues for capacity by the 1980's, only 30 years after opening. this was negated by years of declining ridership in the 90's though.
There is no point doubling a project budget to provide capacity for a line which won't be required for another half century. There are too many variables in that equation and if the line does end up running over in the 2070's, there are other solutions.
Toronto's Rocket subway trains are some of the highest capacity subway trains on the planet. There really isn't a need to hold to that design. If you want to design the OL to actually be able to handle 48,000 PPHD as well, you would be looking at building massive stations with huge pedestrian circulation spaces to handle thousands of passengers exiting trains and clearing them all from the platform before the next train arrives 90 seconds later. There's just no point, it's better to just build a second subway line in the 2070's when the OL runs over.
nfitz
Superstar
I thought 48,000 was the ultimate capacity with 90-second service. Which will require significant upgrades to reduce dwell times, including a second platform at Bloor Station, and upgrades at the terminals.
Sure, the shorter trains on the Ontario Line can meet the required capacity about 10 years after it opens. But what about 40 years after it opens?