k10ery
Senior Member
As if to prove nfitz's point, aren't those the lines with the worst performance in the London Underground? I always avoid them. Unless of course I am going to Earls Court!
|
|
|
DRL routing. Where would you put it?
- Thread starter dunkalunk
- Start date
As if to prove nfitz's point, aren't those the lines with the worst performance in the London Underground? I always avoid them. Unless of course I am going to Earls Court!
I'm not familiar with the Underground (only ever been to Heathrow, never actually been IN London), but I know that most of the Green Line's issues are due to capacity, not interlining. From an interlining perspective, from my experience it works pretty well.
nfitz
Superstar
The capacity is constrained by the interlining - which is particularly complex around Earl's Court. In fact, they've recently announced that the service to Olympia will now only be on weekends and for special events (which goes full circle to what it was years ago - though now that the Overground serves Olympia the case for serving it with the Underground isn't as strong), so that they can instead run more capacity on the Wimbledon branch. London Underground has worked over the years to reduce the amount of branching and interlining, to simplify services, and make them more reliable. We've seen the Stanmore branch removed from the Bakerloo line and instead run as the non-branching Jubilee line; some of the branches on the Metropolitan line converted into the non-branching Hammersmith and City line (which however still shares track with other lines); the Circle line loop broken ... and ironically interlined with the Hammersmith and City line out to Hammersmith. And there are proposals out there to break the Northern line into to different lines, to eliminate the complexities there ... along with transferring the Wimbledon branch of the District line (south of the Thames at least) to the proposed Chelsea-Hackney line, along with a branch of the Central line.
They certainly aren't trying to add branches! Though the interlining of the Hammersmith branch is new ... though in reality it was already interlined east of Paddington ... so really they are just extending it so both routes run the same service, and they aren't trying to merge traffic east of Paddington, which was creating problems.
Last edited:
Ryan
New Member
Yes, branching lines when they reach the suburbs is probably the best way to design a system, however it's probably too late for Toronto's network since it needs to be designed that way from the start.
(Unless we talk about future, hypothetical extensions...for example, the Bloor Danforth could have branched in the east, one up to Kennedy/Scarborough Centre, the other up Kingston Road. In the west it could have branched up the hydro corridor to Pearson, the other down to Mississauga).
This kind of thing would be better suited for the proposed suburban light-rail network (Transit City & variations). For example, Eglinton branching west to Pearson, and up Jane. Or an east branch running the RT route, the other branch running the Scarborough-Malvern line.
(Unless we talk about future, hypothetical extensions...for example, the Bloor Danforth could have branched in the east, one up to Kennedy/Scarborough Centre, the other up Kingston Road. In the west it could have branched up the hydro corridor to Pearson, the other down to Mississauga).
This kind of thing would be better suited for the proposed suburban light-rail network (Transit City & variations). For example, Eglinton branching west to Pearson, and up Jane. Or an east branch running the RT route, the other branch running the Scarborough-Malvern line.
Ryan
New Member
But on the topic of DRL routing...
In 1966 after the YUS and BD lines were built, the third line was supposed to be the Queen/Pape/Don Mills line, shown in the map I posted in this thread.
Jump to 1980's, when nothing but minor extensions had been built, The Network 2011 plan had subway lines on Sheppard East, Eglinton West, and a "DRL" routed through the rail corridor.
But why did they feel the DRL was needed? Because the original Queen/Don line wasn't built!
The rail corridor was suggested as an easier route, but you have to remember that the TTC and GO weren't talking back then, and barely acknowledged each other's existence.
These days, in light of the recent Metrolinx reports and with increasing integration, the idea of tunneling a new subway line underneath a rail corridor that is served by every GO line is almost as crazy as running a fully underground crosstown line with LRT cars.
(*We could literally put a GO station anywhere on rail corridor, right now if needed. Not every line would have to serve every station, for example, if it was felt stations at Rogers Centre, Lower Spadina, and Fort York were too close, one of those stations could be served by Lakeshore, the other by Georgetown, etc.)
The Queen/Don line is the missing link, the lost subway line; it's like Toronto's Second Avenue Subway. But hopefully it wont add up to $17 Billion in the end.
In 1966 after the YUS and BD lines were built, the third line was supposed to be the Queen/Pape/Don Mills line, shown in the map I posted in this thread.
Jump to 1980's, when nothing but minor extensions had been built, The Network 2011 plan had subway lines on Sheppard East, Eglinton West, and a "DRL" routed through the rail corridor.
But why did they feel the DRL was needed? Because the original Queen/Don line wasn't built!
The rail corridor was suggested as an easier route, but you have to remember that the TTC and GO weren't talking back then, and barely acknowledged each other's existence.
These days, in light of the recent Metrolinx reports and with increasing integration, the idea of tunneling a new subway line underneath a rail corridor that is served by every GO line is almost as crazy as running a fully underground crosstown line with LRT cars.
(*We could literally put a GO station anywhere on rail corridor, right now if needed. Not every line would have to serve every station, for example, if it was felt stations at Rogers Centre, Lower Spadina, and Fort York were too close, one of those stations could be served by Lakeshore, the other by Georgetown, etc.)
The Queen/Don line is the missing link, the lost subway line; it's like Toronto's Second Avenue Subway. But hopefully it wont add up to $17 Billion in the end.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I definitely agree that the 1980's rail corridor route was chosen to save money, and not because it was the preferred route. It cannot use that route (at grade since the corridor is now fully being used by GO. The curve from Queen to Pape is difficult - maybe back in the 60's it would have been easier to acquire (expropriate) land for this purpose. Even if the Queen to Pape curve could be made, the curve would force the nearest station to be Logan and Dundas - not that far from the rail corridor. The rail corridor is only being used for a short stretch (maybe 1.0 to 1.5km) to help make the curve to Danforth. A station here can be thought of as a connection node and not duplicate service.
On the west, most DRL proposals have the rail corridor being used for about 2.5km, again mainly to make the curve to the north possible. (A King to Roncesvalles curve may be possible, but there would not be a station at Queen since it is in the middle of the curve). Maybe the 1966 plan is better by ending the West leg at/near Queen and ? (shown as South Kingsway, but maybe something East could work like Roncesvalles) and then having this as a node between GO, Waterfront West LRT and Jane LRT (unsure how the line from get from Jane to this node).
There seems to be mistrust between TTC and GO. Will GO have adequate fare integration and will they actually build enough stations to make the systems fully integrated?
If I look at the poll results and split it amongst 3 routes (Queen, King, Front), voting is about 48% Queen, 38% King and 34% Front (for some reason the percentage adds up to 120% - the actual percantages at this time are 40%, 32% and 28%). So I think generally, the Queen-ish alignment seems to be preferred.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I guess it will lead to potential operational difficulties, but would these not be minimized using Automatic train operation (ATO), which would probably be in place by the time this was finished?
A number of Scarborough residents believe transfers are a big deterrent to that part of the city. In the Central area of North York, people take Bus to YUS to Downtown. In Scarborough, it is Bus to SRT to D-B to YUS to Downtown. Further north, this would have become Bus to Sheppard LRT to Sheppard subway to YUS to Downtown. This frustration was one of the issues that led to the Ford cancelling Transit City. The Ford solution to this frustration was to have the Eglinton LRT be continuous and underground from Scarborough Town Centre (STC) to Yonge. Ford's fixation with the Sheppard subway is also borne from this frustration. These solutions were chosen by Ford since they were the only options that have really been discussed in the years leading up to the election. So maybe interlining is not the ideal solution, but there are reasons why it would help and these issues affect the political decisions of other parts of the network.
Ryan
New Member
Yes, I think a western leg would be part of a future second phase. Or an alternative (maybe better) would be to add a couple stations on an electrified Georgetown/Kitchener line (such as Dufferin-Queen, Brockton, Liberty Village, etc.)
As you noted, the 66' plan shows the Queen line reaching to South Kingsway, but if a station was needed there it should just be on the Lakeshore line. Roncesvalles seems far enough west for the Queen line. Or even Dufferin is good enough for a first phase.
The Pape-Don Mills segment is where the a lot of the "relief" is going to happen, as people along Don Mills & Eglinton will be using this line as opposed to going across to Yonge. (There's also the well known issue that a Don Mills LRT would have have to be underground through that segment to reach the Danforth, so the DRL may as well extend to Don Mills to create a hub there.)
A potential issue, is that if the line meets the Bloor-Danforth at Pape, some people might say Queen East (Leslieville, The Beaches) is getting screwed, since the line will only stay on Queen street as far east as maybe Broadview, Carlaw or Jones. This can be solved by some future branch bypassing the curve and continuing further east on Queen, if necessary.
Considering the above points, I think the first segment that should be pushed as the entire Don Mills-to-Pape-to-Queen & Dufferin (or Roncesvalles). (I think it's important to include the Don Mills segment, because if the first phase ends at Pape/Danforth, the rest of it will probably never get built.)
I drew my map with the Line turning from Queen north towards Pape station using the rail corridor to align itself towards Pape. But really, I think the exact routing is going to have to be left for the engineers. It Doesn't really matter which station it connects with on the Danforth, as long as it makes it up through Thorncliffe & Flemingdon to Don Mills.
Worth mentioning, is that when I say Queen, I consider Richmond/Adelaide to be essentially the same thing. The exact routing isn't worth discussing since that is for the engineers to determine in their assesment.
As you noted, the 66' plan shows the Queen line reaching to South Kingsway, but if a station was needed there it should just be on the Lakeshore line. Roncesvalles seems far enough west for the Queen line. Or even Dufferin is good enough for a first phase.
The Pape-Don Mills segment is where the a lot of the "relief" is going to happen, as people along Don Mills & Eglinton will be using this line as opposed to going across to Yonge. (There's also the well known issue that a Don Mills LRT would have have to be underground through that segment to reach the Danforth, so the DRL may as well extend to Don Mills to create a hub there.)
A potential issue, is that if the line meets the Bloor-Danforth at Pape, some people might say Queen East (Leslieville, The Beaches) is getting screwed, since the line will only stay on Queen street as far east as maybe Broadview, Carlaw or Jones. This can be solved by some future branch bypassing the curve and continuing further east on Queen, if necessary.
Considering the above points, I think the first segment that should be pushed as the entire Don Mills-to-Pape-to-Queen & Dufferin (or Roncesvalles). (I think it's important to include the Don Mills segment, because if the first phase ends at Pape/Danforth, the rest of it will probably never get built.)
I drew my map with the Line turning from Queen north towards Pape station using the rail corridor to align itself towards Pape. But really, I think the exact routing is going to have to be left for the engineers. It Doesn't really matter which station it connects with on the Danforth, as long as it makes it up through Thorncliffe & Flemingdon to Don Mills.
Worth mentioning, is that when I say Queen, I consider Richmond/Adelaide to be essentially the same thing. The exact routing isn't worth discussing since that is for the engineers to determine in their assesment.
Last edited:
Paleo
Active Member
At grade through (then) empty fields, it was definitely a cost cutting move. Nowadays the rail ROW is way too valuable to be wasted on a penny pinching metro line. It's too valuable for GO service and theoretical future HSR.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
yes, the already existing GO Tracks that are exclusively for GO can also be used for Toronto Overground services. And a Queen LRT like Eglinton is getting would be nice too.
This is the position that I'm taking more and more. I think that if electrification is done properly (infill stations and decent headways), it can chew up a lot of the express to downtown trips that the DRL would have. This leaves the DRL to serve a more local function.
The 2nd reality is that the only way that this line is going to be extended beyond Eglinton, and maybe even beyond Bloor in some cases, is if it is surface LRT. Basically, the only shot we have of getting a second U that stretches almost as far north as the YUS U is through a combination of tunnelled LRT south of Eglinton, and at-grade LRT north of Eglinton.
The eastern leg of the DRL is pretty much set in stone, there are very few proposals that I have seen that have it going anywhere other than Pape-Don Mills. The western leg is up for debate, especially if it turns out to be LRT. North of Eglinton I envision it being the Jane LRT, but south of Eglinton the connection options to downtown are nearly limitless, with many of the options being varying degrees of good.
If it does end up being LRT, I think it should run under Queen, with stop spacing similar to Bloor or Eglinton.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
And a GO Local service would extend much further east into Scarborough than just a Don Mills line so riders can bypass the BD and Yonge Lines altogether.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I have great concerns that GO will not be able to break habits and will continue to focus on the long distance commuter, as they have for almost 50 years. They probably would like a nodal hub between GO and each subway line, but not much in the way of infill stations beyond that.
Would LRT have enough capacity? To run on surface (Don Mills) north of Eglinton, they would have to run 2 car trains. This would greatly reduce capacity as only 2 car trains would be traversing Queen. They would also have to entertain interlining or branching, which based on earlier comments in this post and the attitude of the TTC, is quite operationally difficult.
If the DRL is a true HRT subway, it should have several LRT's at the terminal. At Science Centre, this would be Don Mills and Eglinton. On the West, as is stated, there could be several options depending on whether the termination is Dundas/Bloor, Eglinton/Jane, or Queen/Roncesvalles.
If the HRT subway ends at only one LRT line, it would be too similar to the Danforth to SRT interchange which basically just adds a transfer to almost all passengers.
I think GO is in the commuter mindset right now because they're running really long diesel trains, which would make it hard to build infill stops without really affecting service. However, when you're using shorter electrified trains with a faster acceleration and deceleration, the possibility of implementing infill stops drastically increases, especially if these stops are to be located in good locations for integration with local transit systems (ex: new stop at Eglinton on the Barrie line to create a transfer with the Crosstown LRT).
I have also described a in a couple places on UT a system by which GO can serve both 905 and 416 commuters, using 3 route patterns on all lines during rush hour.
You can probably get 3 car train sets on Don Mills and Jane. Also, there's the possibility of short-turning longer train sets at Eglinton or Bloor-Danforth. The DRL is projected to be 17,500 peak hour, which is in the upper range of LRT, but still within it, especially when it's tunnelled. Ottawa's LRT is projected to hit 24,000 pphpd by 2031.
Using the DRL's projected peak usage, and 3 car train sets at crush load, you'd need 1 train every 2 minutes during peak to meet that demand. Run 3 car train sets at 1.5 min intervals and you're golden. You can have some of those short turn so they don't overload the at-grade sections further north.
I'm generally not a fan of linear transfers, especially when they're permanent like an LRT to HRT transfer. If it's something like a BRT to HRT transfer (for example, VIVA into Finch Station), I'm more accepting of it, because I know that the BRT is not meant as a permanent solution. The only place I'm ok with linear transfers is at major transportation hubs (ex: RHC or STC).
If LRT can handle the peak capacity of the line (and I do stress if, because in some cases it can't), and is more suitable for extension further out in the suburbs, I say go with that. Switching technologies halfway through a corridor I think should generally be avoided.
Last edited: