Ontario Line North of Eglinton (was Relief Line North) (Speculation)

[micheal_can]

I don't even think it would be physically possible to run the line under the Don Valley. The distance from the future Mortimer/Cosburn station to the valley is at most just over a kilometer and iirc the TTC says its maximum grade for its trains is something like 3% so is it even possible to drop that much altitude in what is at most a kilometer? We aren't using rubber tire or LIM for the line so we are pretty hamstrung on this. Of course there is also the absurd cost of tunneling that deep for what is in this case literally no reason.

EDIT: as well bridging the valley would allow the RLN to be shallower which has obvious cost and construction benefits. Can you imagine if the BD was planned to be built under the Don. There probably wouldn't be a BD since the tunneling alone would have eaten nearly the entire budget.

Ok you math wizards, the depth of the Don Valley in that area seems to be about 100+m. Lets add 20m to be below the river. So, lets say you need to drop 120m How far at a 3% grade could it be done in?

 

[Streety McCarface]

Ok you math wizards, the depth of the Don Valley in that area seems to be about 100+m. Lets add 20m to be below the river. So, lets say you need to drop 120m How far at a 3% grade could it be done in?

4 km.

However, if we assume that the tunnels are already 10 meters below the surface, that number decreases to 3.67km.

This would literally be the biggest waste of electricity for daily usage. It would take 225,500,000 Joules just to go up that hill without considering the rotational kinetic energy or linear kinetic energy necessary to get the train up to 70 km/h. If it takes the train 120 seconds to go the 2 km from Bloor-Pape to the edge of the don valley, the train needs a power input of 1,900 kW, which is >65% of what the motors can theoretically handle. If we factor in linear Kinetic energy (39 MJ (Linear)) (I'm not dealing with rotational stuff), with a need to accelerate to that speed in say, 20 seconds, that's another 1,950 kW, so that would be far too much for the motors, and would probably burn them out even if we extended the distance to 4 km.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Ok you math wizards, the depth of the Don Valley in that area seems to be about 100+m. Lets add 20m to be below the river. So, lets say you need to drop 120m How far at a 3% grade could it be done in?

4km long. So start decending at Gerrard Station, extra deep Pape Station transfer, and almost impossible Cosburn Station depth.

 

[micheal_can]

4km long. So start decending at Gerrard Station, extra deep Pape Station transfer, and almost impossible Cosburn Station depth.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenalna_(Kiev_Metro)
Arsenalna Station is 105.5m deep.
The station was opened along with the first stage and is currently the deepest station in the world (105.5 metres (346 ft)).[1] This is attributed to Kiev’s geography where the high bank of the Dnieper River rises above the rest of the city.

That station would become the new deepest station. But maybe not, as it would not be at the bottom of the incline.

 

[JSF-1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsenalna_(Kiev_Metro)
Arsenalna Station is 105.5m deep.
The station was opened along with the first stage and is currently the deepest station in the world (105.5 metres (346 ft)).[1] This is attributed to Kiev’s geography where the high bank of the Dnieper River rises above the rest of the city.

That station would become the new deepest station. But maybe not, as it would not be at the bottom of the incline.

Basically its not worth the price or the headache. Plus we would then need another 4km to ascend for a station at Thorncliff Park and then descend and ascend yet again to cross over to Flemingdon Park and/or Science Centre.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Would a Mortimer/Cosburn Station serve routes along O'Conner as well, or would the city allow high-density in the area to accommodate a separate O'Conner Station (north of O'Conner). If the NIMBY's wouldn't go with high-density, then a Mortimer/Cosburn Station would have to serve the entire medium-density area.

 

[44 North]

Why am I getting 2.3km, and even then it should be less than that since it's not starting at 0 (ground level). Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Oh wait I put in 3deg, not 3%. Derp. But yeah if we have cut-cover and bridges between Danforth and Gateway Blvd that section could come in with reasonable per km costs. And be some of the most dynamic subway-building in +30yrs.

 

[nfitz]

4 km.

However, if we assume that the tunnels are already 10 meters below the surface, that number decreases to 3.67km.

That settles it! It's not even close - no point looking for any further precision. A bridge it is for sure.

Would a Mortimer/Cosburn Station serve routes along O'Conner as well, or would the city allow high-density in the area to accommodate a separate O'Conner Station (north of O'Conner).

Presumably the 100 Flemingdon Park service on O'Connor would be eliminated by this line. All that leaves is the very low use 8 Broadview. The answer is probably that it doesn't really matter, nor would be a design factor for the station location. For east-west service a bigger question would be what would the current Cosburn and Mortimer buses do?

I suspect the answer will depend on where the station is, and the feasibilty/desire for a bus terminal. Other options include extending the 504 service to this new station - perhaps creating a proper-size terminal.

 

[BurlOak]

EDIT: as well bridging the valley would allow the RLN to be shallower which has obvious cost and construction benefits. Can you imagine if the BD was planned to be built under the Don. There probably wouldn't be a BD since the tunneling alone would have eaten nearly the entire budget.

Shallower, shorter construction time, less disruption at shallower stations, less cost, easier access to platform level.
How much did planners prioritize these points in the DRL south.?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

This should all be built as one line. Why do things take so long in Toronto.

 

[Neutrino]

We run on TTC (Toronto Time on Clock)

 

[W. K. Lis]

In 1910, there was a city referendum, "Are you in favour of the City of Toronto applying to the legislature for power to construct and operate a municipal system of subway and surface street railway, subject to the approval of qualified ratepayers?", where the voters supporting the proposal by a count of 19,268 to 10,697. We could have had both a Yonge and Queen Subways in operation decades before our current Yonge Subway. However, the new mayor at the time, George R. Geary, opposed subways, so we had to wait another 40 years before anything happened with subways.

Again, it's politicians who slowed everything down. See link

 

[micheal_can]

This should all be built as one line. Why do things take so long in Toronto.

Due to the Don Valley, this line makes sense to be broken up into 2 chunks. They could be done simultaneously or consecutively, but separating them makes sense.

My bigger question would be - When they build DRLN, how far north will it go to in the initial construction?

 

[44 North]

Due to the Don Valley, this line makes sense to be broken up into 2 chunks. They could be done simultaneously or consecutively, but separating them makes sense.

My bigger question would be - When they build DRLN, how far north will it go to in the initial construction?

Or how far *east*. Considering one of the alignments has it heading dead east on Sheppard from Don Mills to Vic Pk, with another travelling toward and up Vic Pk. Lots of neat opportunities, and potential political support since it could straddle NY/Scarb border or take the form of a Sheppard extension.

 

[aquateam]

It wouldn't even be a good idea for it to be tunneled north of Danforth, the only logical reason it would be is because of noise and vibration complaints. Even then, I would think the City would start zoning Pape north of Danforth for Mixed Use Development given an eventual need for density along RLN.

The city proactively downzoned all of Queen for RLS, so if you're expecting land use and transportation planning to have any relationship to each other then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.

By "tunneled" I think you mean 'bored', because there is no alternative to tunneling between Danforth and the Don Valley.

4 km.
However, if we assume that the tunnels are already 10 meters below the surface, that number decreases to 3.67km.
This would literally be the biggest waste of electricity for daily usage. It would take 225,500,000 Joules just to go up that hill without considering the rotational kinetic energy or linear kinetic energy necessary to get the train up to 70 km/h. If it takes the train 120 seconds to go the 2 km from Bloor-Pape to the edge of the don valley, the train needs a power input of 1,900 kW, which is >65% of what the motors can theoretically handle. If we factor in linear Kinetic energy (39 MJ (Linear)) (I'm not dealing with rotational stuff), with a need to accelerate to that speed in say, 20 seconds, that's another 1,950 kW, so that would be far too much for the motors, and would probably burn them out even if we extended the distance to 4 km.

I'm not going to check your math because I'm not your MECH102 TA so I'm just going to point out the obvious stuff:

• 225 500 000 J is the energy stored in about 5 litres of gasoline. Adding all those zeros makes it look astronomical but without any context (what is the typical electricity consumed by a train over its route? what percentage of operating costs is electricity compared to everything else?) that information is useless
• Presumably, the TTC wouldn't say the design standard is 3% grade if running on that incline would mean burning out all their motors. So a sanity check is needed for your numbers on power.
• The power needed to go from Bloor-Pape to below the bed of the Don Valley is less than what you would need if it were running flat because it is 0 W. Similarly;
• The potential and kinetic energy change in going down and back up 120 meters to rest is 0 J. Any number you calculate other than 0 involves information that you don't have about friction, air resistance, component efficiency, etc.