Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[superelevation]

1) No one is asking Metrolinx to do this.
2) & 3) None of this seemed to matter when they discarded the previous plan to build a new one (the OL). If Metrolinx had designed this plan in cooperation with local communities instead imposing their will on them, we'd probably see much less resistance.
4) It is important that communities are able to voice their concerns and that they're taken seriously. I'd also argue that many of their concerns are valid, especially when it comes to safety. I do not live in the area and I'm in favour of not using the GO corridor for practical reasons.

It seems people's idea of "cooperation" is just doing what the folks wanting a subway buried under a rail corridor want.

This is where the argument against burying it falls apart. The cost is relatively low compared to other projects (I believe it's at least $2 billion just to bury the EWLRT) and one could argue the benefit of keeping the GO corridor available for GO expansion has it's own significant value.

As if the cost would be low, 4 tracks is more than enough for GO

The same way the Downtown Relief Line was planned - by taking local considerations into account.

Planners have been doing this for ages. It doesn't make any sense to suggest Metrolinx couldn't do the same.


They are voicing their concerns after being told what will be done. It's not community input. It's "here's what we're going to do, hope you like it, and if not too bad.".


Exactly.

There were lots of criticisms community members had with the DRL, I think people are seeing the consultation there through rose colored glasses, that project is just looking good to the single family homeowners etc because it wouldn't inconvenience them with transit.

 

[Rainforest]

The Ontario Line is being allegedly designed around the projected demand for 30+ years, so by the time that happens we are going to be at a point where another new line is justified.

To quote you:
'We should learn from other places that run their rail service more efficiently than we do.'

Most cities don't build absolutely massive high capacity subway lines. The TRs on a global scale are absolutely MASSIVE in terms of capacity and size. If you ask any european city on how to properly build a new metro line, they'll all tell you the same thing. Smaller trains, Faster frequencies, more lines. Having more lines > Having fewer high capacity lines.

TRs are more massive than a typical subway train, but not absolute outliers. If I get it correctly, London Crossrail trains are 2.77 m wide (vs TR's 3.2 m), but are 200 m long (vs TR's 150 m). Paris RER trains are 2.4 m wide, but can be up to 240 m long.

 

[Coolstar]

Limited platforms? I think the current plan involves a platform per track. Also what congestion?

Current plan

Link: https://res.cloudinary.com/courbani...oad/v1/information_plans/szqbzxlrezjnfpix8eyf

 

[Rainforest]

It does, because any future tracks will be for super express services like HSR where there are literally no stations. With 4 tracks you can get away with having 2 local services and 2 express services. In order to justify having even more tracks, you need a scenerio where the existing express tracks are still far too slow and cause many bottlenecks for potential intercity services, and if you reach that point, a new tunnel is more than justified. Even if OL wasn't there, the cost of realligning the entire corridor to support these new super express tracks would still involve a massive amount of work and service disruptions.

More tracks means more operational flexibility in a number of situations, for example:
- Recovering from a previous service disruptions. When you have a backlog of local trains from both LSE and Stouffville services, the ability to use 2 tracks simultaneously for the westbound all-stop service will help clear the backlog faster.
- Dealing with the platform allocations at Union. If the VIA trains and the express GO trains need to use specific platforms due to ticketing requirements etc, then having more tracks will help get them to the desired platform.
- Dealing with the train movements to / from the new storage yard planned for the Don Branch. The Don Branch connection doesn't use the bridge, but the trains accessing that branch will be on the north side of the corridor and that may interfere with some of the 4-track arrangements.

I agree that the marginal benefits of the 5-th and 6-th tracks are not as great as the benefits of the 3-rd and 4-th. However, the 5-th and 6-th aren't useless.

 

[ARG1]

More tracks means more operational flexibility in a number of situations, for example:
- Recovering from a previous service disruptions. When you have a backlog of local trains from both LSE and Stouffville services, the ability to use 2 tracks simultaneously for the westbound all-stop service will help clear the backlog faster.
- Dealing with the platform allocations at Union. If the VIA trains and the express GO trains need to use specific platforms due to ticketing requirements etc, then having more tracks will help get them to the desired platform.
- Dealing with the train movements to / from the new storage yard planned for the Don Branch. The Don Branch connection doesn't use the bridge, but the trains accessing that branch will be on the north side of the corridor and that may interfere with some of the 4-track arrangements.

I agree that the marginal benefits of the 5-th and 6-th tracks are not as great as the benefits of the 3-rd and 4-th. However, the 5-th and 6-th aren't useless.

Well you can use the same arguments to argue for a 7th and 8th track. The question of course is, do you need them?

All of your scenerios here are incredibly specific and situational, and I fail to see how a 5th/6th track will help with the 2nd point at all, meaning we will have dormant trackspace that we have to pay to not only build, but pay to maintain in the offchance that SOMETHING goes wrong on the corridor.

If you need an express track to the layover yard, either for operation purposes or VIA, get a tunnel like the original DRL plan, only this time it will be much cheaper since you don't need to build 50m deep stations, meanwhile the people who need to use the Ontario Line have access to stations that are far more accessible and quick to access.

 

[ARG1]

TRs are more massive than a typical subway train, but not absolute outliers. If I get it correctly, London Crossrail trains are 2.77 m wide (vs TR's 3.2 m), but are 200 m long (vs TR's 150 m). Paris RER trains are 2.4 m wide, but can be up to 240 m long.

Except RER and Crossrail are regional rail services, not metros. They're the equivalent of the GO train for us, the Berlin S-Bahn, or the Moscow Central Diameters.

 

[nfitz]

Except RER and Crossrail are regional rail services, not metros. They're the equivalent of the GO train for us, the Berlin S-Bahn, or the Moscow Central Diameters.

Crossrail doesn't compare well to RER or GO. I'm not familiar with S-Bahn or Moscow frequencies, but GO and Paris are often no better than every 15 minutes.

The Elizabeth Line service on Crossrail will be up to every 2.5 minutes in the central section and much of the rest of it will be every 5 minutes. It's very much a Metro from Paddington to Liverpool Street. And heck, every 5 minutes is a Metro from Hayes east!

What it's most similar to, in my experience, is Subway Line 1 in Seoul - although the 41-station Elizabeth Line is only about half the length as the 97-station Subway Line 1.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

The Ontario Line is being allegedly designed around the projected demand for 30+ years, so by the time that happens we are going to be at a point where another new line is justified.

30+ years demand with, or without extensions? No one seem to be able to give me a straight answer on this. I am hoping of course for "with" in mind.

AoD

 

[ARG1]

Crossrail doesn't compare well to RER or GO. I'm not familiar with S-Bahn or Moscow frequencies, but GO and Paris are often no better than every 15 minutes.

The Elizabeth Line service on Crossrail will be up to every 2.5 minutes in the central section and much of the rest of it will be every 5 minutes. It's very much a Metro from Paddington to Liverpool Street. And heck, every 5 minutes is a Metro from Hayes east!

What it's most similar to, in my experience, is Subway Line 1 in Seoul - although the 41-station Elizabeth Line is only about half the length as the 97-station Subway Line 1.

Paris RER is actually extremely comparable to Crossrail. Crossrail only achieves these high frequency in the core tunneled section of the city, once the branches come in frequencies drop to 15 or 30 minutes. Its the same on the RER. RER A alone reaches frequencies of up to 4 mins in the core city section (which isn't Crossrail levels granted, but is still extremely frequent relatively speaking).

 

[ARG1]

30+ years demand with, or without extensions? No one seem to be able to give me a straight answer on this. I am hoping of course for "with" in mind.

AoD

So they're actually modelling for 60+ years out. Now Malcolm doesn't specify whether it does or doesn't include extensions, but if it doesn't, at most it will cut the capacity question in half, and that's being pessimistic.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

So they're actually modelling for 60+ years out. Now Malcolm doesn't specify whether it does or doesn't include extensions, but if it doesn't, at most it will cut the capacity question in half, and that's being pessimistic.

"Doesn't specify whether it does or doesn't include extensions" - which is the question in the first place - and where are the reports for them? This sort of thing is too important for some project manager coming up saying a few words before a fan video on Youtube and considering it a done deal.

AoD

 

[Rainforest]

Except RER and Crossrail are regional rail services, not metros. They're the equivalent of the GO train for us, the Berlin S-Bahn, or the Moscow Central Diameters.

RER and Crossrail provide much more service within the city than GO currently does, and their function partly overlaps with the function of local metro lines.

Anyway, there is no hard rule that regional services must use big trains and local services must use small trains. Either service should be sized for the future demand within a reasonable period.

 

[Rainforest]

Well you can use the same arguments to argue for a 7th and 8th track. The question of course is, do you need them?

All of your scenerios here are incredibly specific and situational, and I fail to see how a 5th/6th track will help with the 2nd point at all, meaning we will have dormant trackspace that we have to pay to not only build, but pay to maintain in the offchance that SOMETHING goes wrong on the corridor.

If you need an express track to the layover yard, either for operation purposes or VIA, get a tunnel like the original DRL plan, only this time it will be much cheaper since you don't need to build 50m deep stations, meanwhile the people who need to use the Ontario Line have access to stations that are far more accessible and quick to access.

Obviously, every subsequent pair of tracks will bring less incremental benefit then the previous pair. I don't see much need for the 7th and 8th track, and they wouldn't fit in the rest of corridor anyway. That doesn't prove the 5th and 6th tracks are not needed.

"how a 5th/6th track will help with the 2nd point at all": for example if the VIA platforms are on the south side and the GO platforms are on the north side, then with 6 tracks in total, you can use the 2-nd (counting from the north) for GO Express westbound, 3-rd for GO Express eastbound, 4-th for VIA westbound, 5-th for VIA eastbound. VIA trains never cross paths with GO Express. If you only have 4 tracks and the 2 central tracks are used for both GO Express and VIA, then the westbound VIA has to cross paths with the eastbound GO Express just east of Union.

It will be difficult to build a tunnel for the Don Yard shortcut, the line to the Don Yard (same as Bala Sub / RH GO) runs on the west bank of Don and the tunnel portal will be vulnerable to flooding. It should be noted that both OL portals are located quite a bit further from the river; at least they got that part right.

 

[nfitz]

Paris RER is actually extremely comparable to Crossrail. Crossrail only achieves these high frequency in the core tunneled section of the city, once the branches come in frequencies drop to 15 or 30 minutes. Its the same on the RER. RER A alone reaches frequencies of up to 4 mins in the core city section (which isn't Crossrail levels granted, but is still extremely frequent relatively speaking).

Yes, RER A and B are close right in the core - though off-peak on the branches is generally weaker - with 15 to 30 minute service. In London the service from Hayes eastward, all the way to Shenfield and Abbey Wood is at worse every 6 minutes off-peak. Yeah, the branch to Reading is only every 15 to 30 - but that's well outside of London - and the two-stop spurs into Heathrow, especially past Heathrow Central, are lower.

I guess why I'm not quite counting Paris RER the same, is the double-decker trains without enough doors (though some of the newer rolling stock looks better), and (at least the last time I took it), infrequent mid-day RER E service. And then there's the stations - RER B at least is truly dreadful through the core - I was really surprised how poor state the stations were. And the whole thing feels much more like a commuter line in the core than metro.

But Paris RER is much more metro-like than GO RER will ever be. I still think Seoul Line 1 is the better comparison.

 

[ARG1]

RER and Crossrail provide much more service within the city than GO currently does, and their function partly overlaps with the function of local metro lines.

Anyway, there is no hard rule that regional services must use big trains and local services must use small trains. Either service should be sized for the future demand within a reasonable period.

Well ye, GO is a much smaller and less used network, however overtime with new stations and upgrades it can definitely be like Crossrail or RER.

Obviously, every subsequent pair of tracks will bring less incremental benefit then the previous pair. I don't see much need for the 7th and 8th track, and they wouldn't fit in the rest of corridor anyway. That doesn't prove the 5th and 6th tracks are not needed.

Well then why don't you explain why its needed, and I mean needed and not "a nice to have".

"how a 5th/6th track will help with the 2nd point at all": for example if the VIA platforms are on the south side and the GO platforms are on the north side, then with 6 tracks in total, you can use the 2-nd (counting from the north) for GO Express westbound, 3-rd for GO Express eastbound, 4-th for VIA westbound, 5-th for VIA eastbound. VIA trains never cross paths with GO Express. If you only have 4 tracks and the 2 central tracks are used for both GO Express and VIA, then the westbound VIA has to cross paths with the eastbound GO Express just east of Union.

That requires building the stations from the start in a very large and possible space inefficient way that would allow for many configurations to be run, especially since you're accounting for non standard track setups.

It will be difficult to build a tunnel for the Don Yard shortcut, the line to the Don Yard (same as Bala Sub / RH GO) runs on the west bank of Don and the tunnel portal will be vulnerable to flooding. It should be noted that both OL portals are located quite a bit further from the river; at least they got that part right.

We're assuming here a tunnel under the LSE corridor, which would put the portal around, here?

I can't speak for certain but I don't recall this part of the line being considered that flood prone, not to mention this entire area is being redeveloped already so I believe flood mitigation is already being built.