BurlOak
Senior Member
Agree with both.
Can you imagine 1 suspicious package (or water leak, or structural concern) at St. Clair shutting down the entire Yonge Mega line. You need redundancy.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Can you imagine 1 suspicious package (or water leak, or structural concern) at St. Clair shutting down the entire Yonge Mega line. You need redundancy.
Woodbridge_Heights
Senior Member
I figured you were in your 20's based on tone and content from earlier posts. Ah well. I struggle with following the thread because you quote and link bomb every one your reply's, and I don't have the time or the inclination to click through previous posts or links, read through them and attempt to understand the context within the greater thread. Perhaps you should focus on responding to one or two major posts rather than quoting every post that has occurred since your last post, and maybe even reduce your reply production.
I will try to summarize my understanding of our interactions:
- The Ford Government announces that they will build the DRL on it's own but that it will use "new" technology and will not be compatible with Line 2. Ford claims this new technology caused his jaw to drop when he saw it and quotes being able to move many thousands of riders.
- I questioned Ford's statement both on the basis of;
2. Given the specs quoted, and the fact that they are very similar to the TTC's current subway/metro system and similar to modern subway/metro trains. So what is this new technology?
- You quote bombed me talking about how the TTC's narrow gauge rails is an anachronism and it's subway. You linked to a number of foreign mass transit systems that look and feel like metros/subways with the implication that they were way beyond the TTC's system
- I provided the TR1 trains as an example of a modern metro/subway trains that have been adapted to the TTC's unique track gauge. So the track gauge is not a barrier to using new modern metro/subway trains
- You then repeated the trope, equating the TTC metro/subway system to a 20 yr old buick.
- I, now frustrated, provide GO transit's decades old diesel locomotives as a similarly ancient technology. GO Transit is under direct arms length control of the Government of Ontario via Metrolinx, so I suggested rather than attack Toronto's metro/subway network that the Ford Government instead focus on modernizing GO transit's fleet of trains (ex electrification, RER, etc)
I don't know what you have against Toronto's subway/metro but you certainly seem to.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I definitely think so, not only for immediate relief, but as an investment for combining it with a Relief Line as an express by-pass and continued use of the present infrastructure for DD coaches, which would not fit into the usual diameter tunnels. DD and diesel locos would continue to run down to Union in peak, RER EMUs which would share the double tracked RoW north of Don Mills up to Steeles would go underground in tunnel in Don Mills, and down to Pape and south. North of Steeles, since the RH line is CN track, an option would be to use elevated guideways to service Markham/York Region.
This is critical! Time and again, the University Loop has proved invaluable in getting in/out of the core when one leg is down for whatever reason.
I see another redundancy in combining the RH line and Relief Line in a similar way. The alternate leg can't completely replace the blocked one, but it can provide a workable solution when needed.
Tuscani01
Senior Member
I meant make sense in terms of construction and timing lining up with the Yonge extension (And the plan to expand Bloor-Yonge). Though we already know the PC's don't rely on common sense with everything else they've done - so this would fit the bill as a great idea to them!
steveintoronto
Superstar
I see, it's all my fault. Do me a favour, block my posts, please. Have a nice day. And thanks for the compliment of appearing to be in my twenties. I credit the drugs myself. And good jeans (sic).
smallspy
Senior Member
There's no need - it's your usual straw man argument.
The Riverline will never, ever come close to meeting the capacity of PATH. Nor will it come close to meeting the needs of the DRL. I'm frankly not sure why you would bring it up when your original argument is about the PATH system, which was incorrect in any case.
If you can't even get the most preliminary points of your argument correct, there's not much point in trying to comprehend and therefore argue for or against the rest of them.
Dan
steveintoronto
Superstar
Both express/speed and local service can be done on the same pair of tracks using passing loops within the station boxes. This avoids ever needing more than two tunnels.
The cheapest....the most cost effective...way to do this is to do as much as possible with a pair of twin tunnels. And in my opinion, that includes making the tunnels VIA HFR compatible too. Once provision is made for RER compatibility (albeit single deck EMU with high platforms) then it can serve HFR too, and the problem of which way for HFR to enter Toronto is addressed. Not only that, it will allow much easier access to catch HFR by taking local/RER to a station on the same line to an HFR stop. It also means greater sharing of the costs to build, always a good thing.
steveintoronto
Superstar
The point was never capacity. It was compatibility of inter-operation of 'subway' and 'mainline' rolling stock. Speaking of "strawman arguments". Thus a 'standard track gauge' being a pre-requisite. I suggest you read the string before commenting, or at the least, quote me exactly. Add to that the FRA's willingness to allow grant waivers to even without full temporal separation is striking compared to TC. I made that all clear in what I posted, but alas...some see only what they want to, then complain there's either too little or too much information.
Tell me, why would I link to all the US DOT published examples like the San Diego Trolley et al as examples of different modes sharing the same tracks? And examples of the London Underground sharing not only tracks, but combining both third and fourth rail supply to do it? And the Paris RER cross mode examples sharing track?
"The Riverline will never, ever come close to meeting the capacity of PATH". You kinda missed it...
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
I thought that no matter what we had to build a new carhouse for the DRL, that there isnt room in the greenwood or other yards.
robmausser
Senior Member
He simply said when he saw the plan his jaw dropped. Not that it was the technology that made his jaw drop.
His jaw dropped when he probably saw the North extension of the line being possible with the savings from the DRL being separate from the rest of the subway system; because it meant the DRL became a transit line for north of Toronto, where his voter base lies.
robmausser
Senior Member
The Ford government has said on the record that their change in technology would not alter the current Queen/Pape alignment
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-subway-plan-1.5074713
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Did they actually say it though? Or was it one of those misinterpretations that seem to pretty pervasive around this topic? Surely there is a record of it if they did somewhere.
AoD
steveintoronto
Superstar
And not just no room, but massive complications compounding by trying to squeeze it in.
If the line is built in sections, the southern section, if built first, can emerge at Millwood into the Don Valley, and either a yard is built there, or a track connection to the existing RH line to allow shuttling to a yard up or down that line. The northern section of the Relief Line can then be a continuation back into tunnel on the northern/western bank of the valley under Thorncliffe Park and north, ostensibly to connect with the RH alignment again in Don Mills on doubled track up to Steeles. A decision could be made whether to establish a new alignment, perhaps elevated guideway into York Region since the CN ownership of the RH line starts just north of Steeles. There's no way CN will allow catenary on their tracks, plus it's time to avoid CN/CP whenever, wherever possible.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Even if they did, and even with an exact quote, it's still nebulous. Truth be told, I don't think those blabbing on this know themselves. They got a flash view of what Metrolinx have in the oven, and can only put into words what Rorschach allows them to.
Metrolinx might either be killin' themselves laughing, or shidding bricks that they'll blow the cover on the concept/plan. That doesn't mean though that we can't examine what is possible and what isn't. There are some truths that narrow down the possibilities, the massive one being no money from City Hall or QP!
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Considering the superlatives already dished out for that unknown plan, certainly. It might just be a loose hinge in his jaw.
AoD