Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

It should be possible, and might be advisable, to extend the OL to Sheppard and then convert the existing Sheppard stub to the OL line's technology:
- Will make extending the Sheppard line further east and west more affordable.
- The extensions would be fully grade-separated, and afford same speed as the subway. The converted line will have less capacity, but that lesser capacity may be sufficient for Sheppard for a very long time.
- Conversion from TTC subway to the high-floor OL rolling stock should be a lot cheaper than conversion to low-floor LRT.

That would likely require a jog over to Victoria Park at some point in order to make the turn westward to meet up with the existing Sheppard Line at Don Mills. That way, you would also hit the Consumers Rd density cluster. Maybe build next to the CP mainline to get from Don Mills to Victoria Park.

Either that, or you elevate over the DVP and then dip into a tunnel somewhere between the 401 and Sheppard.
 
The frequency cited was always trains per hour per direction so it would actually be every 5 mins in the worst case. In any case, a definite downgrade. The value engineering has begun!

Further discussion on this point.

1608223599960.png
 
There is a need to be able to bring trains from Wilson Yard to the east side of the line in a more timely way.

This would make it easier to start service earlier/run it later as well; right now a lot of time gets soaked up by run time from Finch (soon to be #7) all the way back to Wilson.
Surely there is a more cost effective solution (a yard on the Yonge end of the line) than spending a few billion tunneling Sheppard W.
 
Surely there is a more cost effective solution (a yard on the Yonge end of the line) than spending a few billion tunneling Sheppard W.

The cost of a large yard on the Yonge side has a B in the price as well.

A bit cheaper? Probably; but you pick up zero new stations in the process.

A new railyard, in Richmond Hill, also isn't going to create any new land value; and if it did, Toronto wouldn't capture it.

I'm agnostic here; this is not my preferred project; but I think the evidence points in the direction of it happening; probably in the mid to late 2030s.
 
Surprise, surprise. Well, cheapening out on a needed build to fund unnecessary underground tunnelling elsewhere.

AoD
How is it cheapening out if service levels won't need that at the beginning of completion. Makes perfect sense to me and there are provisions to support the future service levels needed, 100m platforms and probably will have an option to get more vehicles.
 
How is it cheapening out if service levels won't need that at the beginning of completion. Makes perfect sense to me and there are provisions to support the future service levels needed, 100m platforms and probably will have an option to get more vehicles.

100m platforms are pathetic in the first place. That's ECLRT scaling. Was there any estimates with assumption of a northward extension in the IBC for example? I don't see any.

AoD
 
Last edited:
Why is the maximum train speed 80 km/h? There are many straight parts of the line where the train could definitely go at least 100 km/h. This makes no sense.
 
Why is the maximum train speed 80 km/h? There are many straight parts of the line where the train could definitely go at least 100 km/h. This makes no sense.

Not much point if the distance between stations aren't far enough part to benefit from that highest top speed (you still need to accelerate to, and decelerate from - and that will eat up part of that distance). 80kph seems to be fairly common.

AoD
 
Why is the maximum train speed 80 km/h? There are many straight parts of the line where the train could definitely go at least 100 km/h. This makes no sense.
Wikipedia says TRs have max speed of 88 km/h and max revenue speed of 75 km/h.
 

Back
Top