Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

robmausser said:
1. The original TTC rail is not standard gauge which increases costs. Custom vs off the shelf.
2. While the original TTC subway system is being upgraded to CBTC the track setup, configuration and design of the system is very antiquated and a similar system would need to be built to give backwards compatibility. Again not off the shelf, custom.
3. The weight of the rocket trains makes grade changes, elevation more difficult and costly.
4. CBTC is not the same as a fully automated line.
5. The Montreal REM has a platform length of 80 metres and 4 car trains, so I can only imagine 100m would allow for 5 car trains just doing simple math in my head.
6. There really isnt an advantage to making the line compatible with the rest of the system. Its not a branch line, and there isnt space in any of the existing rail yards for the Ontario Line, as well as the Yonge Line extension and Scarborough Subway extension. So you would have to build a new train yard anyways.

Its funny that people are complaining that an off-the-shelf system the conservatives propose for the Ontario Line were completely OK with the liberals proposing an off-the-shelf system incompatible with the streetcar network for Transit City....
Click to expand...
1. As numerous posters have said before, track gauge is a non-issue. The only reason bombardier streetcars were more expensive was that they were not an off-the-shelf model. They had fewer doors, different layouts, required 2 electric collection methods. The TTC gauge is really similar to the standard gauge, meaning that any cost increases due to materials or design characteristics are negligible.
2. By the time the Ontario line is completed, the next generation of rolling stock would be on the system (under the previous plan), and the entire network should be run with CBTC, not block signaling. The Relief line could be built with full ATC or CBTC from day one, but the rolling stock could still be compatible with the existing subway lines.
3. We don't know the rolling stock choice of the Relief Line, but I guarantee that any weight differences will be negligible. (A TR weighs 470 kg/m^2, an AZUR train weighs 622 kg/m^2, an ICTS Mark I weighs 488.25 kg/m^2. Of course, axle loading is what matters, but again, we don't know the axle configuration of the proposed rolling stock).

Speaking of grading, because this line will be traveling under Line 1 twice and line 2 once, the line will have to travel from a surface elevation to an underground level of at least 30 meters. That will take any train (except maybe skytrain) at least a kilometer to complete. Given the distance between parliament and Queen Station is only about 1.25 km, part of the line may have to be built cut & Cover to move utilities and actually launch the TBMs (If they decide to use them), adding a significant level of complexity to the project). This doesn't just happen at Queen station, but at Osgoode and the stretch between Gerrard and Pape. I wouldn't be surprised if Cosburn also required some steep grades. That's 4 km of steep grading on a 15 km line, increasing costs of electric infrastructure and complexity (in terms of utility interaction)>

4. It may not be, but the existing rolling stock technology has the potential to work with ATC. Again, why switch everything up?
5. REM is our equivalent of RER. We shouldn't be designing a RELIEF LINE to act as a suburban metro service. That makes no sense.
6. We're talking about Ontario Line vs Relief Line. There is enough space under the existing plan to store trains at Greenwood and in tail tracks. Parts compatibility, yard interactions, movements, and unplanned rolling stock replacements are all benefits of having a simplified network. Remember when the T1 AC systems crapped out and they used TRs on Line 2? That would never be able to happen on the Ontario line if something similar happened. Likewise, if all the rolling stock on the Ontario line had to be taken out of service for some mechanical issue or something (SEPTA Silverliner V shitfest for example), there would be another form of rolling stock to replace it. Finally, if there is room for storage along the Relief line corridor for additional trains, it could supply Line 2, Line 4, and Line 1 (theoretically) with additional train storage capacity, something we desperately need in our network. That flexibility is imperative to an efficient system like ours. Stop adding additional technology to our network, it doesn't help with logistics.
 
Last edited:
syn said:
The off-the-shelf system being proposed is significantly lower capacity than what would be possible with standard subway cars. That's where the problem lies.

That doesn't cut it for a line that will act as one of the backbones of the entire system.

The advantage of building another full subway is higher capacity for extensions too.
Click to expand...

Thats fine than increase capacity to the same as the current subway. That still doesnt make it right to use the same subway technology as Line 1, etc.

The question I was answering was why use a different technology than the existing subway system. And my answers still have merit even if you decide to make it the same capacity as the existing subway system.

Theres simply no advantages to building trackage and technology that began in 1954 and every advantage to using a more modern system.
 
robmausser said:
Thats fine than increase capacity to the same as the current subway. That still doesnt make it right to use the same subway technology as Line 1, etc.

The question I was answering was why use a different technology than the existing subway system. And my answers still have merit even if you decide to make it the same capacity as the existing subway system.
Click to expand...
Cities like New York, Philadelphia, London, Boston, etc would benefit a crap ton from integrated subway networks.
 
Allandale25 said:
Any idea on what page of the Initial BCA the Councillor is noticing this on? I haven't been able to find it.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1154448998645796866
Click to expand...
what a useless comparison. If you compared the same central section of the two lines, they would likely be more or less identical. Of course the section from Pape to Eglinton is going to serve less riders per km than a line running right through the densest employment area in the country.

How in the hell is a Relief line that is twice as long as the City's option seen as a negative? If you want to attack the Ontario Line plan, attack it from a perspective of it delaying a project already well underway.
 
Streety McCarface said:
Where you'd have to walk up some stairs, through a small concourse, and back down some stairs to change platforms. Given the length of the platforms, this would probably be as bad as the relief line (assuming they made the transfer correctly)
Click to expand...

That's how the transfer from SkyTrain to West Coast Express is configured at Port Moody, BC:

8677691.jpg

www.vancouversun.com

Vancouver Sun

Read latest breaking news, updates, and headlines. Vancouver Sun offers information on latest national and international events & more.
www.vancouversun.com www.vancouversun.com
 
It should just be fully elevated at this point and go over the rail corridor instead of Queen. Oh and make it a monorail!
 
robmausser said:
Thats fine than increase capacity to the same as the current subway. That still doesnt make it right to use the same subway technology as Line 1, etc.

The question I was answering was why use a different technology than the existing subway system. And my answers still have merit even if you decide to make it the same capacity as the existing subway system.

Theres simply no advantages to building trackage and technology that began in 1954 and every advantage to using a more modern system.
Click to expand...

How?

Their entire plan relies on using smaller, lighter trains. That's why it's cheaper. If you end up with the same capacity then all of a sudden cost isn't much of a factor.

It's cheaper and uses standardized trains - the trade off is lower capacity and a less efficient route.
 
My bottom line is, there isn't a lot to quibble with on a technical level, it's basically quite a doable project. But it's politically shameful, and opportunistic.

1) If at-ground/elevated is such a good idea, where has ML and the Province been in insisting that it be used in past (TYSSE) or currently in-planning projects (EWLRT, Line 2). How much money could be saved if the Line 2 extension were elevated instead of a deep bore? Wouldn't it make sense to redirect that project before it goes any further? And how about elevated construction on Eglinton across Ford Nation in Etobicoke?
2) The comparison between DRL South and OL is fundamentally dishonest. The RL was included all the way to Sheppard in the last revision to the Big Move. ML and Ford cannot be given the credit for proposing this. Verster has done so many about-faces in pitching this that I'm quite disgusted.
3) Ultimately, capacity is the biggest issue. There is no justification for saving a couple $B this decade and forcing construction in future decades if this line reaches maximum prematurely.
4) I continue to wonder if squeezing this line in next to GO will either prevent, or make more expensive, eventual RER expansion. If that is the case, then Durham Region and Stouffville/Markham will be shortchanged on their needs. This is a hugely nasty robbing of Peter. I worry that this may be kept under the radar and not appreciated by those to the East and North. If it were out in the open, the reaction from those regions would be enormous.

I suspect that the public will largely buy Ford's premise that.the RL planning was going nowhere and this project can fly through to opening day, so it must be better. There are plenty of reasons why that line is a crock, but politics is not a technical debate.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
My bottom line is, there isn't a lot to quibble with on a technical level, it's basically quite a doable project. But it's politically shameful, and opportunistic.

1) If at-ground/elevated is such a good idea, where has ML and the Province been in insisting that it be used in past (TYSSE) or currently in-planning projects (EWLRT, Line 2). How much money could be saved if the Line 2 extension were elevated instead of a deep bore? Wouldn't it make sense to redirect that project before it goes any further? And how about elevated construction on Eglinton across Ford Nation in Etobicoke?
2) The comparison between DRL South and OL is fundamentally dishonest. The RL was included all the way to Sheppard in the last revision to the Big Move. ML and Ford cannot be given the credit for proposing this. Verster has done so many about-faces in pitching this that I'm quite disgusted.
3) Ultimately, capacity is the biggest issue. There is no justification for saving a couple $B this decade and forcing construction in future decades if this line reaches maximum prematurely.
4) I continue to wonder if squeezing this line in next to GO will either prevent, or make more expensive, eventual RER expansion. If that is the case, then Durham Region and Stouffville/Markham will be shortchanged on their needs. This is a hugely nasty robbing of Peter. I worry that this may be kept under the radar and not appreciated by those to the East and North. If it were out in the open, the reaction from those regions would be enormous.

I suspect that the public will largely buy Ford's premise that.the RL planning was going nowhere and this project can fly through to opening day, so it must be better. There are plenty of reasons why that line is a crock, but politics is not a technical debate.

- Paul
Click to expand...
EWLRT could really be built with just cut and cover which wouldn't cost as much as deep tunnels with TBMs. I will await for more detail before making incorrect assumptions.

Line 2 East extension built on an elevated alignment is definitely not a go. Subways like TRs are heavier and wider. Elevating them cost more. The better question is: Where will you put the line 2 extension? If choose an elevated alignment, they would have to use the current SRT corridor which requires a relocation of Kennedy Station or a curve that swings eastwards. If they chose the proposed alignment, they'll have to put the structure on everyone's front lawn along Danforth Rd.

The IBC does claim the OL has enough capacity for the next 50+ years.

robmausser said:
1. The original TTC rail is not standard gauge which increases costs. Custom vs off the shelf.
2. While the original TTC subway system is being upgraded to CBTC the track setup, configuration and design of the system is very antiquated and a similar system would need to be built to give backwards compatibility. Again not off the shelf, custom.
3. The weight of the rocket trains makes grade changes, elevation more difficult and costly.
4. CBTC is not the same as a fully automated line.
5. The Montreal REM has a platform length of 80 metres and 4 car trains, so I can only imagine 100m would allow for 5 car trains just doing simple math in my head.
6. There really isnt an advantage to making the line compatible with the rest of the system. Its not a branch line, and there isnt space in any of the existing rail yards for the Ontario Line, as well as the Yonge Line extension and Scarborough Subway extension. So you would have to build a new train yard anyways.

Its funny that people are complaining that an off-the-shelf system the conservatives propose for the Ontario Line were completely OK with the liberals proposing an off-the-shelf system incompatible with the streetcar network for Transit City....
Click to expand...
At that point of time, the biggest dilemma was building the Eglinton MSF to support St Clair streetcars too. People didn't like the idea that ML took the project from the TTC and decided on standard gauge. Otherwise it wouldn't been a big issue except they can't share maintenance vehicles either. With a P3 doing that now, it's totally different than a traditional delivered project.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top