innsertnamehere
Superstar
Why the heck is a Kawartha Lakes newspaper publishing articles on road deaths in Scarborough? odd.
|
|
|
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Assuming Line 2 does not get upgraded train set by 2026, when the SSE opens, and the SSE is only built with ATC and not conventional signals, would it be possible to have every other or every third train on Line 2 be TR's, which the T1's will turn back at Kennedy while the TR's will continue to STC? This is obviously not possible if no trains turn back, but it would make knowing which train to get on much easier if you're going to STC, rather than getting off at Kennedy and waiting for a train that continues.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Actually the T1s would all terminate at Kennedy and if you want to continue to STC everyone would have to transfer at Kennedy to continue on with an ATC capable train that would only run from Kennedy to STC.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
I know you're joking, but would there be crossover tracks east of the Kennedy Station platform to allow for trains to turn around on the far side so that the next train can get into the station?Actually the T1s would all terminate at Kennedy and if you want to continue to STC everyone would have to transfer at Kennedy to continue on with an ATC capable train that would only run from Kennedy to STC.
rbt
Senior Member
Bloor/Danforth runs 45 trains. Scarborough has 6 trains on the books for it; which includes a spare.
So, it would be closer to every 1 in 9 trains; or one train every 18 minutes during rush. Clearly not enough capacity on the extension for the extension trains to run the full route.
Worse I think. Since the 5/6 train purchase for SSE could not run the full Bloor/Danforth route and provide equal capacity to the current SRT in the extension, they'll need to turn back much earlier. From rough timing, Pape is about as far as 6 trains (zero spares) would be able to wander and match current SRT capacity.
Most likely is T1s would terminate on one platform at Kennedy and the SSE trains would terminate on the other platform. All passengers continuing would transfer by walking across the platform.
A full fleet replacement seems like a pretty hard prerequisite for SSE extension if ATO is required.
Last edited:
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Until the T1s are replaced maybe they could run the current SRT cars in the SSE extension and transfer to and from them at Kennedy.
Kyle Campbell
Active Member
Given the huge width differences "mind the gap" would take on a new meaning.... Or you would need platform extenders.
I'm sure Scarboroughians would love it: "you got a subway, just like you asked for. What are you complaining about, you didn't specify you wanted subway trains, I only heard subway"
Rainforest
Senior Member
There may exist one more routing option for SSE, mostly utilizing the Uxbridge Sub corridor, but not exactly the one included in the previous studies.
Of course, this is only relevant if the corridor is still available for non-RER rail. If Metrolinx has decided, unofficially but firmly, to reserve the corridor exclusively for RER, then this option is moot.
Details:
- A new Kennedy station (underground), located west of the Uxbridge corridor and oriented diagonally to the street grid;
- Past the new Kennedy station, the line veers north until it aligns with the west side of the Uxbridge corridor, then emerges;
- There would be a 3 km long surface section, that includes a Lawrence East subway station on the bridge over Lawrence Avenue;
- About 500 m south of Ellesmere, the lines goes under, then veers east towards STC.
Advantages:
- Hopefully a cost reduction, as the tunneled length (including new Kennedy Stn) would be approx. 3.5 km, versus 6.5 km for the McCowan route. We can expect a 20-25% cost reduction.
- Lawrence East station is back.
- The location of the STC station might allow the existing bus terminal to be reused.
Unlike the studied "SRT" route that includes an elevated section approaching STC, this proposal has a tunnel to STC. That avoids problems with the turning radius from N-S to E-W, and with the elevated guideway's width. Concerns about the visual disruption caused by the guideway would be moot as well (although I don't regard that to be a show-stopper in the first place).
Of course, this is only relevant if the corridor is still available for non-RER rail. If Metrolinx has decided, unofficially but firmly, to reserve the corridor exclusively for RER, then this option is moot.
Details:
- A new Kennedy station (underground), located west of the Uxbridge corridor and oriented diagonally to the street grid;
- Past the new Kennedy station, the line veers north until it aligns with the west side of the Uxbridge corridor, then emerges;
- There would be a 3 km long surface section, that includes a Lawrence East subway station on the bridge over Lawrence Avenue;
- About 500 m south of Ellesmere, the lines goes under, then veers east towards STC.
Advantages:
- Hopefully a cost reduction, as the tunneled length (including new Kennedy Stn) would be approx. 3.5 km, versus 6.5 km for the McCowan route. We can expect a 20-25% cost reduction.
- Lawrence East station is back.
- The location of the STC station might allow the existing bus terminal to be reused.
Unlike the studied "SRT" route that includes an elevated section approaching STC, this proposal has a tunnel to STC. That avoids problems with the turning radius from N-S to E-W, and with the elevated guideway's width. Concerns about the visual disruption caused by the guideway would be moot as well (although I don't regard that to be a show-stopper in the first place).
Attachments
Last edited:
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Instead of having it on the surface/elevated, would it be possible to build it cut-and-cover IN the rail corridor? This would allow for potential cost saving from having the TBMs go all the way along McCowan, and it would allow the double/triple/quadruple tracking the rail corridor ABOVE the subway tracks. It could also have a shared ST/RER and Subway Lawrence East Station, with platforms stacked.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I'd think so. I recall reading that there are few if any utilities under rail corridors.
sixrings
Senior Member
So it was politically not feasible to shut down the RT line to convert it to LRT but somehow it will be politically feasible to shut down the RT line as well as the GO line to save a few bucks cut and covering? This is the new fantasy thread?
Rainforest
Senior Member
Potentially yes, but I am not sure that in the cut-n-cover case, there will be enough saving (compared to the McCowan route) to justify the whole exercise.
People keep saying cut-n-cover is cheaper and that's probably correct, but how much cheaper? On the other hand, we are adding the cost of building the new Kennedy station.
Rainforest
Senior Member
My proposal is surface where not tunneled; not cut and covering. That should result in both a greater amount saved, and no need to shutdown the GO line.
RT would have to be shut down and that's an inconvenience, but you can't have a perfect solution that keeps all stakeholders absolutely happy. Some sacrifices will have to be made, one way or another.
syn
Senior Member
Yep.
This isn't a project based on transit reality, it's based on what people want so they can feel better about themselves.
That's why politicians keep pushing it. That's why there are those who support this no matter what the cost - a cost which reached the point of insanity quite some time ago.