asher__jo
Active Member
A great example of why the Relief shouldn't use TTC gauge.
|
|
|
Ontario Line Extension West of Ontario Place (Speculation)
- Thread starter thettctransitfanatic
- Start date
RyLucky
Active Member
I hadn't considered literally sharing track with CN/GO; just stealing a bit of at-grade ROW and sharing station resources at Dundas-West.
However, you bring up an interesting idea. Given how far off this entire project seems, there are a lot of out-of-the-box possibilities. A Paris-style RER that leads to the heart of the Queen instead of Front would probably have a dramatic impact on the GO network. GO is so underutilized wrt land use, it's crazy. I'm hopeful, though not optimistic, that this trend of looking at transit more regionally (uploading TTC, metrolinx, etc.) will improve how all these operations cooperate. Plus, it seems to me that anything but standard gauge is senseless nowadays. Queen also happens to be near where the various western GO branches come together. Beginning at Queen and University, you could have something like...
Spadina, Bathurst, Trinity, Dufferin, Sauroran, Bloor-Dundas, DuPont, St Claire, Eglinton-Mt Dennis, Weston, etc, towards Pearson or Kitchenner
Or...
Spadina, Bathurst, Trinity, Dufferin, Sauroran, Bloor-Landsdowne, etc, towards Downsview, YorkU, and Barrie.
Either way, standard gauge is the way to go.
BTW, does anyone know why line 1 and 2 aren't standard gauge? Is it to match streetcars from the 1930s or something? Also, why did they build Line 3 in standard gauge when it obviously would make more sense as an eventual extension of Line 2? And, Why did they make like 3 non-standard when it obviously could never interline with Line 1? Oy!
However, you bring up an interesting idea. Given how far off this entire project seems, there are a lot of out-of-the-box possibilities. A Paris-style RER that leads to the heart of the Queen instead of Front would probably have a dramatic impact on the GO network. GO is so underutilized wrt land use, it's crazy. I'm hopeful, though not optimistic, that this trend of looking at transit more regionally (uploading TTC, metrolinx, etc.) will improve how all these operations cooperate. Plus, it seems to me that anything but standard gauge is senseless nowadays. Queen also happens to be near where the various western GO branches come together. Beginning at Queen and University, you could have something like...
Spadina, Bathurst, Trinity, Dufferin, Sauroran, Bloor-Dundas, DuPont, St Claire, Eglinton-Mt Dennis, Weston, etc, towards Pearson or Kitchenner
Or...
Spadina, Bathurst, Trinity, Dufferin, Sauroran, Bloor-Landsdowne, etc, towards Downsview, YorkU, and Barrie.
Either way, standard gauge is the way to go.
BTW, does anyone know why line 1 and 2 aren't standard gauge? Is it to match streetcars from the 1930s or something? Also, why did they build Line 3 in standard gauge when it obviously would make more sense as an eventual extension of Line 2? And, Why did they make like 3 non-standard when it obviously could never interline with Line 1? Oy!
44 North
Senior Member
Line 3 was built quick, cheap, and dirty. An undersized experiment. My guess is since it lacked a true maintenance facility for its vehicles (likely due to the Prov's thriftiness in building a showcase) it was decided to use TTC gauge so it could use TTC facilities for overhauls. Which it does (trains are trucked to Greenwood I believe).
My view for the RL is it doesn't really matter what gauge, tho TTC would likely be optimal as a safeguard. But that doesn't have to mean Line 1, 2, 4 trains and their girthy profiles. I'd be down with something similar to Line 3. Narrow and can handle tight curves. Not under-capacity...stations would obviously be lengthened accordingly to accommodate any loss in width. With smaller profiles and tighter turning I think there are savings going forward (e.g smaller tunnels = quicker, easier, cheaper tunneling; narrow profile = more optimal guideways if at/above grade). I've obviously said this before, and not saying Line 1, 2, 4 stock wouldn't make more sense. But think smaller trains has merit no different than those touting standard gauge pantographed mainline trains.
WislaHD
Superstar
4) South Etobicoke
RyLucky
Active Member
That probably is the highest density of parking lots, I mean, greatest potential for TOD per distance to downtown.
Maybe we should build a sneltrein/stoptrein double track. Run express service that links up with GO on the inside track and stops every 1200 m on the outside track.
By the time this thing is built we will need a quadruple track.
Rainforest
Senior Member
Yes, they built the original Yonge subway with the gauge that exactly matches the existing streetcars, and apparently made use of some equipment commonality.
Of course one can ask why the streetcars aren't standard gauge. I don't know, but would guess that no "standard" existed when the first streetcars were introduced to Toronto, and every rail company was choosing any gauge they liked.
Back to this day; mainline compatibility isn't just about the gauge, other factors are the car profile, the power collection method, the voltage, and the collision strength. The latter determines if the passenger trains are allowed to run on mainline tracks alongside with freight trains.
The optimal parameters for the mostly underground subway trains aren't same as for the mostly surface-running electric commuter trains. For the subways, you want car profiles closer to circular or squared (easier to build tunnels), 3-rd rail power (fits the profile), voltage equal to several hundred Volts (more safe than several-thousand Volts). For the commuter trains, you'd rather have tall and relatively narrow cars (saves the corridor width), overhead catenary (more safe), high voltage (results in smaller transmission losses, which matters more at greater distances traveled).
Surely you can put a commuter train in a tunnel, but it will only be cost-effective if the tunnel section is relatively short and the cost of building it is eclipsed by the benefit of using the existing rail corridors to reach the outer areas.
Rainforest
Senior Member
First of all, it depends on the choice of the rolling stock. If the Relief Line is built as part of RER (not very likely, but isn't ruled out), then we have to use the existing rail corridors. Thus, one branch via Dundas West, and possibly another branch in the Lakeshore West corridor.
If the Relief Line is built as a conventional TTC subway, rather than a part of RER, then my preference is the Dufferin route. That would both connect to Bloor and address the overload of the Dufferin bus.
RyLucky
Active Member
I suppose a main challenge with possible RER-style would be providing power: Does the entire line get third rail or overhead catenary?
It seems to me that it's worth at least considering doing a new line with an overhead catenary.
What are GO's future power specs like after they switch from diesel?
Last edited:
WislaHD
Superstar
I can't imagine the RL not being TTC subway at this point. I look forward to the choice of rolling stock being finally confirmed by the Relief Line South project so that we can advance discussion from that.
Rainforest
Senior Member
If it is RER-style and runs to the fringes of 416 and beyond, then probably overhead catenary. Although it is possible to use dual-power trains, third rail in the tunnel / overhead on surface, most of other systems just design a tunnel that can host overhead catenary with the required voltage.
Don't know about our specs, but usually the commuter rail systems use something like 25 kVolts, give or take.
Rainforest
Senior Member
TTC-specs trains are much more likely at this point, but nothing is final until the contracts are signed.
Strategic benefits of a RER-compatible Relief Line are substantial. The question is whether the authority in charge will be willing to bear the somewhat higher initial cost, for the sake of benefits that will become evident in a more distant future.
blaixx
Active Member
This is what I read on Wikipedia: "According to the TTC, the City of Toronto feared that the street railway franchise operator [...] would allow the operation of steam locomotives and freight trains through city streets, as was common practice in Hamilton, Ontario (until the 1950s)"
Sourced from The Star
RyLucky
Active Member
I think there’s a decent chance that by the time a RL is operational, TTC, GO, UPX, VIA, and 20 other agencies might be rolled into 1-2 operators. Transit in Ontario should strive to be like Germany, France, or China. And all of it should be give land-use authority for the entire Golden Horseshoe!
W. K. Lis
Superstar
There remains the problem of different widths of the carriages. Some freight train cars are much w-i-d-e-r than transit cars.
Waterloo LRT has to use gauntlet tracks to allow freight trains to have clear from the platforms without causing damage.
From link.
From link. A shot of the gauntlet tracks at Seagram station, looking north along the Waterloo Spur. The switches are used to give freight cars extra clearance to pass the station platform. This photo was taken on August 20, 2016 by Iain Hendry.
RyLucky
Active Member
It could be worth considering low-floor trains too.