crs1026
Senior Member
Which is why condo warranty and construction defect litigation is a growth industry for the legal profession.
- Paul
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Which is why condo warranty and construction defect litigation is a growth industry for the legal profession.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Just up:
syn
Senior Member
Condos are routinely delayed. Do they get built on budget? They often do, but they can also continually increase prices based on demand - and let's not pretend they don't cut corners.
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
Wait, wth. That section literally just ended on the telly. Guess TVO online is pretty good for uploading so promptly, and preemptively.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Keesmaat seems very fond of the SkyTrain. Too bad she didn't say anything about this earlier. Also, too bad that no talk of just extending the existing SRT with SkyTrain (although there was mention of just updating the SRT vehicles).
The other thing she said at the end was that she would have put more planners and more communication into building the DRL faster. I always thought that she viewed this as a planning exercise, while I viewed it as an engineering exercise. That's also why I suspect that small modifications to the route can save some money.
Last edited:
Mercenary
Active Member
Ontario Line should continue from Ontario Place going back up to King and queen and eventually linking up with Dundas West and then continue until it links up with Mount Dennis.
It should also not stop at Ontario Science Center but continue north upto Don Mills.
It should also not stop at Ontario Science Center but continue north upto Don Mills.
steveintoronto
Superstar
I can't speak specifics to that, but she has certainly distanced herself from a number of Council ones, and ostensibly, some of her own. I'm hesitant to list, want to be able to quote her. Will later..
Matti Siemiatycki was very focused and reserved but upbeat. Had some very good comments. Murtaza Haider unpredictable but also interesting. O-Line beside (which is a moving target to be fair, no-one really knows the details...no-one talking, anyway) the stance on the SRT by all three in agreement is refreshing.
When viewed with the paltry amount of funding being on offer, frugality ain't no f-word.
More later, well worth watching folks! I'm going to watch again later to get some quotes. Not being mentioned, although Paikin brought it up but didn't get to finish the point, is larger bores and what you can do with them. If you're tunnelling deep, doing a large bore and sub-dividing after offers many advantages, not just stations, but also dividing into four running segments, two large loading gauge mainline, and two smaller loading gauge local stopping metros nestled in the normally wasted space..
I still stand by London's latest (Thameslink is proving it, as is Great Northern) The Class 700/710/717 running in tunnel, and ATO in sections. Mainline trains in tunnel bores less than TTC standard. Similar BBD Class 345 vs these Siemens trainsets are being used on Crossrail.
THAT is the technology on the cutting edge, not metros, and it's an advanced form of RER, but I digress...I suspect the Feds or the InfraBank might have a say in accommodating VIA HFR in those tunnels too. After all, they will be footing roughly a 1/3 of the bill.
https://www.systracanada.com/en-pro...e-hfr-via-trains-on-montreal-s-reseau-express
REM utilizes the most popular metro rolling stock in the world, Alstom Metrolis, used in 20 major cities, three of them 'northern' and many smaller cities. Competitors build more. This is the most likely "metro" choice for Toronto.
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
One concern is that Ontario Line will end up being conceptually undersized, while technically fitting the selected demand predictions.
Say, the line is expected to open in 2028, and the projected 2038 demand (10 y after) is 18,000 per hour per direction if the line only goes to Eglinton. Then they will build a line with 22,000 max capacity, technically meeting the demand and retaining ~20% spare capacity.
But the fact that the demand will continue to grow after 2038, and can jump even higher if the line is extended from Eglinton to Sheppard, will be ignored because that kind of analysis is not included in the study.
The city might find itself in a sticky situation. Accepting an undersized RL means capacity shortage in 15-20 years, while rejecting the plan outright means waiting 3 to 7 years until a better deal might (but not necessarily will) be offered. While waiting, the price of RL in any configuration will increase even further due to the cost inflation.
IMO, the city should aim at ~ 30,000 pphpd capacity, and negotiate with the province if it tries to sell a lower capacity. Some other elements of the provincial plan may have to be deferred in order to direct the funding towards a robust RL. Either Eglinton West might be deferred, or a section of Ontario line itself (west of University).
Say, the line is expected to open in 2028, and the projected 2038 demand (10 y after) is 18,000 per hour per direction if the line only goes to Eglinton. Then they will build a line with 22,000 max capacity, technically meeting the demand and retaining ~20% spare capacity.
But the fact that the demand will continue to grow after 2038, and can jump even higher if the line is extended from Eglinton to Sheppard, will be ignored because that kind of analysis is not included in the study.
The city might find itself in a sticky situation. Accepting an undersized RL means capacity shortage in 15-20 years, while rejecting the plan outright means waiting 3 to 7 years until a better deal might (but not necessarily will) be offered. While waiting, the price of RL in any configuration will increase even further due to the cost inflation.
IMO, the city should aim at ~ 30,000 pphpd capacity, and negotiate with the province if it tries to sell a lower capacity. Some other elements of the provincial plan may have to be deferred in order to direct the funding towards a robust RL. Either Eglinton West might be deferred, or a section of Ontario line itself (west of University).
vic
Senior Member
To me, it just seems strange to dip all the way down to OP/CNE only to come back up to King or Queen to go further west. They should just keep the DRL/OL along Queen/King, and let OP/CNE be serviced by RER at Exhibition Station, which you could transfer to from the subway anyway. Plus a waterfront LRT.
If they want to save money and speed up construction, they should cut off the OP/CNE section and come up with a better plan.
Hopkins123
Senior Member
To me, it just seems strange to dip all the way down to OP/CNE only to come back up to King or Queen to go further west. They should just keep the DRL/OL along Queen/King, and let OP/CNE be serviced by RER at Exhibition Station, which you could transfer to from the subway anyway. Plus a waterfront LRT.
If they want to save money and speed up construction, they should cut off the OP/CNE section and come up with a better plan.
It's still possible to have the line swing up to Mt Dennis from Ontario Place. Logistically Ford's Ontario Line could work out looking like this:
That the western extension could largely be trenched or elevated would make it attractive from a cost savings perspective. (Note: I added a phantom Dufferin alignment layout on here just to illustrate what it'd look like as an extension of Phase 1, however I don't recommend it as it'd be fully tunneled and require too many stops to be financially viable)
JSF-1
Active Member
I think it looks good. The only critic I would give is dropping the station at Mortimer. Its only about 400m from Cosburn and I don't think that area has anywhere near the density to support such close stop spacing. If anything stops and both Cosburn and Mortimer would cannibalize each others ridership.It's still possible to have the line swing up to Mt Dennis from Ontario Place. Logistically Ford's Ontario Line could work out looking like this:
That the western extension could largely be trenched or elevated would make it attractive from a cost savings perspective. (Note: I added a phantom Dufferin alignment layout on here just to illustrate what it'd look like as an extension of Phase 1, however I don't recommend it as it'd be fully tunneled and require too many stops to be financially viable)
BurlOak
Senior Member
Agree with no Mortimer.
The DRL West thread debated for years on alignment, but no clear winner emerged. Thus, I really don't know which way this should extend. I do think that you Ex Station and Ontario Place station be merged - likely beside BMO Field. Regarding the Dufferin alignment, Dundas and College are 300m apart. I would likely put the station in the middle and have a 100m underground walk to reach either. I might drop Davenport as well.
hw621
Senior Member
^fantasy mode on.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I think some thought needs to go into the extension, so they can figure out the alignment of the terminal station. I don't think anyone is suggesting to build this now.
steveintoronto
Superstar
It's so symptomatic of Toronto (at least Toronto today, and QP and the GTHA) for short-term thinking. The days of building Prince Edward Viaducts with capacity for full sized mainline trains under the deck are gone. (In the event, the present subway use taps just a fraction of the capacity available. It was thought CP trains would run across there).
There is anything but 'future proofing' in the Ontario Line as proposed. Metros are wonderful, but for the purpose intended, the eventual demand is greater than the present Yonge Subway. Here's the opportunity to render the need for massive and expensive work done on Line 1 moot, and yet the present talk is about buying a compact car instead of a truck for the growing business, because it will 'save money'.
Not to mention the cost to build a driveway for a truck vs for a car really isn't that much different.
London UK is often mentioned in the 'sell' for 'metro' type of operation. Except London, other than extending a few subways and the DLR (metro) is no longer building that way.
Here again is what they are building, at a little more than what it costs for metro type vehicles, with a massive increase in capacity, speed and comfort, let alone running distance out on the mainline once out of tunnel, and in certain sections, running automatically (ATO) at two minute headways and up to 85 mph with the 717 variation that has emergency escape doors at each end of the train to run safely through tight tunnels like this, smaller than the standard TTC ones:
https://www.railwaygazette.com/news...w/great-northern-class-717-emus-unveiled.htmlGreat Northern Class 717 EMUs unveiled
03 May 2018
UK: Siemens has unveiled the Class 717 Desiro City electric multiple-units which it is building for Govia Thameslink Railway.
Being built at the Siemens plant at Krefeld in Germany, the 25 six-car units are scheduled to enter service from September on GTR’s Great Northern commuter services from Welwyn Garden City, Hertford and Stevenage to London’s Moorgate station. All units are due to be in service by January 2019.
The dual-system 750 V DC third rail/25 kV 50 Hz overhead Class 717 EMUs will replace 44 three-car Class 313 units dating from 1976-77. Ridership on the route has doubled in the last 14 years, and the new units have full-width inter-car gangways to increase capacity as well as 2+2 seating with wide aisles and wide doors for rapid boarding and alighting. Total capacity is 943 passenger per unit, with 362 seats including 64 priority and 15 tip-up seats; there are no seat-back tables. There are two wheelchair spaces.
The EMUs are fitted with Liebherr air-conditioning, real-time information systems and power points, and there will also be wi-fi, although with limited coverage in the Moorgate tunnels. There is provision for ETCS, although GTR said ‘timescales are now unclear’ for this to go live on the route. ETCS is expected to improve reliability by allowing the removal of mechanical tripcocks and older lineside equipment.
The Class 717 is similar to the Siemens Class 700 ordered by the Department for Transport for GTR’s longer-distance Thameslink services. Differences include cab end doors with extending ladders for emergency evacuation in the single-bore tunnels on the Moorgate route; this requires the driver’s seat to be on the left of the cab rather than central, and some instruments can be swung inwards. There is an additional priority seat per doorway in place of the luggage area, one power socket per seat pair compared to none on the Class 700s, no first class or toilets, and revised software.
‘We have designed and built the trains with one goal in mind – to transform passenger journeys to and from London by ensuring that services are reliable and offer as much space as possible’, said Richard Carrington, Director of Rolling Stock Projects at Siemens, on May 2.
GTR selected Siemens to supply the fleet in December 2015. The operator organised a separate competition to finance the order, and a deal worth more than £200m was signed by the Rock Rail Moorgate joint venture of Rock Rail Holdings and Aberdeen Standard Investments in February 2016. According to Siemens, this is the first time that UK rolling stock financing is being provided through a direct long-term investment by pension and insurance companies.
And it's not just a case of even higher more modern tech than most metros in this procurement, it's also about the financing model:
"The operator organised a separate competition to finance the order, and a deal worth more than £200m was signed by the Rock Rail Moorgate joint venture of Rock Rail Holdings and Aberdeen Standard Investments in February 2016. According to Siemens, this is the first time that UK rolling stock financing is being provided through a direct long-term investment by pension and insurance companies."
There's no reason for Toronto to 'cheap out' on doing this right. If the insistence of QP is to keep referring to 'London', then for God's sakes, be up-to-date about it. Metrolinx staff must know all about this. Too bad the F boys, Fedeli and Ford, haven't a clue as to what it means.
This would effectively be GO RER running in subway sized tunnels. In fact the third rail running is not forward thinking, but backward compatibility. It would be cheaper in the long term and far better for total ATO (Automatic Train Operation) to be 25kV catenary only operation in tunnels the size of the Eglinton Crosstown. And that model does over 100 mph. That should get you there in good time...
Here's the future QP!
Main Line ATO Becomes a Reality | Rail Engineer
Last edited: