News   Dec 13, 2019
 967     16 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 1.5K     3 
News   Dec 13, 2019
 714     1 

Ontario Line (was Relief Line South, in Design)

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
1,738
Montreal metro trains weigh more because they are a rubber tyred metro and therefore have both a set of steel wheels, rubber wheels as well as guidewheels etc. They are much more complex than even the Toronto Rockets.

Perhaps a bad example on my part but you are focusing on the wrong thing; they are narrower but longer and still have the same capacity as the Toronto Rockets.


Their narrow design allowed the Montreal Metro to be a single bore project and thus was cheaper than the TTC tunnels to construct.You could do a single bore for the existing TTC subway system but due to their width the cost savings would be negligible since you would need such a big bore.

One of many ways a different technology than the current Toronto system can be more cost effective.
They have the same capacity because station platforms in Montreal are over 150 meters.

It makes absolutely no sense to extend the platforms 20 years after the line is built. The cost and time investment will be huge. I'm not even sure it'll be possible given the route they've chosen and the above ground sections.

100m lengths are being used to save money. Saving money is great, but it significantly lowers capacity. That's the dilemma.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,254
Reaction score
1,338
They have the same capacity because station platforms in Montreal are over 150 meters.

It makes absolutely no sense to extend the platforms 20 years after the line is built. The cost and time investment will be huge. I'm not even sure it'll be possible given the route they've chosen and the above ground sections.

100m lengths are being used to save money. Saving money is great, but it significantly lowers capacity. That's the dilemma.
When the Eglinton LRT was being presented there were quite a few pro subway people complaining that the lrt train length would reduce capacity and we should be forward thinking and just build a subway. Today those same people are on here saying arguing that train length isn't a issue. Good luck trying to get people to either admit they are wrong and or change their minds.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,836
Reaction score
2,829
I meant the physical track connection. It's a different type of train, so connection is not needed - save some money.
It would still be an interchange station.
So you save money by not building a track, but instead have to spend it on a brand-new heavy maintenance facility which costs more to build and run?

Doesn't seem like the best way to save money....

Dan
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
15,574
Reaction score
4,462
Location
Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
So you save money by not building a track, but instead have to spend it on a brand-new heavy maintenance facility which costs more to build and run?

Doesn't seem like the best way to save money....

Dan
Just as the Model T Ford was fine for its time. No side windows. No air-conditioning. No mirrors.


From link.

The Tesla Model E would be fine for today or tomorrow.


From link.

The bad news would be that there would be much more parts that could and will break down, and you can't fix it by yourself.
 

sixrings

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 19, 2009
Messages
4,254
Reaction score
1,338
I would support this plan and elevated transit if It meant things like Sheppard subway could be extended above ground. This city has been completely against elevated. We couldn't build elevated to Vaughan. Elevated to stc was shut down. And elevated Eglinton lrt wasn't even a option. So I'll take this plan with all its faults if it can actually get shovels in the ground and get other projects extended above ground.
 

blaixx

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 12, 2018
Messages
69
Reaction score
86
It's been a few years since I visited, but I seem to remember Tube trains sharing track with commuter/regional trains at several points in London. Wonder if something similar is planned for the Ontario Line/GO rail corridor integration, or if the OL will have it's own elevated guideway next to the tracks as
The business case mentions "cross-platform" (same level?) transfers at Exhibition for the possibility of further western expansion.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,960
Reaction score
1,284
How does your station sizing strategy work when evacuating a train larger than the station in which it is located? Or did you just kill 1/3 of the passengers? Just wondering.....
That's a valid concern. However:
- I've seen a few lines in other cities, that do not open all doors at all stations. They probably have some evacuation plans in place, that do not require all doors open.
- TTC has procedures for evacuating trains between stations, with no platforms at all. That's the reason they build emergency exits between stations if the stations are located far apart. In the one-stop SSE design, they have as many as 6 emergency exits between Kennedy and STC.
 

Rainforest

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,960
Reaction score
1,284
1) The anti-Fords want to revert to the Keesmat DRL subway.
2) The get-it-done crowd is ok with the Ontario Line.
Likely, there will be ~80% overlap between those two groups. People who would rather see a Relief Line with a higher capacity limit, but will not oppose OL for fear of not getting any relief capacity at all for several more years.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
1,394
Montreal metro trains weigh more because they are a rubber tyred metro and therefore have both a set of steel wheels, rubber wheels as well as guidewheels etc. They are much more complex than even the Toronto Rockets.

Perhaps a bad example on my part but you are focusing on the wrong thing; they are narrower but longer and still have the same capacity as the Toronto Rockets.

Their narrow design allowed the Montreal Metro to be a single bore project and thus was cheaper than the TTC tunnels to construct.You could do a single bore for the existing TTC subway system but due to their width the cost savings would be negligible since you would need such a big bore.

One of many ways a different technology than the current Toronto system can be more cost effective.
As @W. K. Lis said, Montreal metro trains lack air conditioning. Their more complex driving systems should be offset by the weight of an HVAC unit on each train. If you want to optimize materials (that will, in-turn, save weight), you have to widen trains. This is a grade 8 math concept.

Again, length equates to more expensive stations. The blue line extension is costing about a billion dollars a mile (4.5 billion total, with likely cost increases in the future), which is almost the same as the TYSSE or Crosstown per km of tunnel. Tunneling itself is far more complicated than saying that a single bore is cheaper. It may be, but their tunnels were mined. The real factors that will increase the cost of tunneling are soil type, groundwater pressure, and depth. Regardless of how you build the relief line, you're going to be building really close to Lake Ontario, and you will be building really deep. In Downtown Toronto, the soil is clay, which is somewhat easy to manipulate. In east york, it's sand and silty sand, bad news when building next to a lake.

Regardless, you're not going to be saving money on this project for tunnels, trains are pretty much the same width, and the tunnels will be built downtown, meaning that you need to twin them (Or risk hitting existing infrastructure).
Now we await the completion of the crosstown to either prove P3 can deliver a project on time or not. We all know ML can't make up their minds which lead to crosslinx suing ML. Hopefully ML can deliver after learning from a few P3s now.
The P3 model for the Crosstown is more acceptable because the TTC would be operating the line (as it should). With the Ontario line proposal, they want a third sector company (say Keolis) to operate and maintain the trains. That just screams zero integration with the TTC, and this is a line that badly needs to be integrated with the TTC.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
1,738
When the Eglinton LRT was being presented there were quite a few pro subway people complaining that the lrt train length would reduce capacity and we should be forward thinking and just build a subway. Today those same people are on here saying arguing that train length isn't a issue. Good luck trying to get people to either admit they are wrong and or change their minds.
Quite the dichotomy.

This is the one line where having a fullly fleged, full capacity subway should be the only option.
 

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,535
Reaction score
798
The P3 model for the Crosstown is more acceptable because the TTC would be operating the line (as it should). With the Ontario line proposal, they want a third sector company (say Keolis) to operate and maintain the trains. That just screams zero integration with the TTC, and this is a line that badly needs to be integrated with the TTC.
They wanted fully automated with no one will physically operate the line. Will TTC be given control over the trains or be able to monitor the network from Hillcrest is another question. I agree TTC should be able to dispatch more trains in emergency situations or shut the line down for safety reasons. That's the integration they need. They really don't need to have someone watch if the trains a running properly, that can be contracted.
Unless you're a TTC union's fan, having physical operators on board causes many management issues as they cannot maintain a schedule. All the annoying crew changes would be eliminated as there is no need to maintain a schedule but instead based on headways. Then you also eliminated the PTSD issue when subway operators witness and have to be on paid leave. The operating cost will be even more efficient than TTC having someone onboard themselves.

TTC might be efficiently at recovery cost but I don't see them being efficient with reliability. They more interested in making sure their operators finish their job on time than making trains full of people wait.
 

Streety McCarface

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 6, 2017
Messages
1,674
Reaction score
1,394
They wanted fully automated with no one will physically operate the line. Will TTC be given control over the trains or be able to monitor the network from Hillcrest is another question. I agree TTC should be able to dispatch more trains in emergency situations or shut the line down for safety reasons. That's the integration they need. They really don't need to have someone watch if the trains a running properly, that can be contracted.
Unless you're a TTC union's fan, having physical operators on board causes many management issues as they cannot maintain a schedule. All the annoying crew changes would be eliminated as there is no need to maintain a schedule but instead based on headways. Then you also eliminated the PTSD issue when subway operators witness and have to be on paid leave. The operating cost will be even more efficient than TTC having someone onboard themselves.

TTC might be efficiently at recovery cost but I don't see them being efficient with reliability. They more interested in making sure their operators finish their job on time than making trains full of people wait.
Disclaimer: I'm not necessarily against automation, but that doesn't mean I don't support the Union. The relief line would be far enough into the future that Automatic train running would be less of an issue overall for the Union and they'd have less leverage, but their current employees should still be supported.

A lot of crew change issues could be avoided if they moved them to the terminus stations, but it's just easier to perform them at Greenwood, Eglinton, and Wilson.

Most of the delays on the existing subway network are due to passenger incompetence or old infrastructure. I'm genuinely not sure if automation without Platform edge doors will allow for efficient operation, especially on a super busy line like this one. At least with drivers present, they can assess situations far better.

I'm more so worried about integration between the TTC surface routes and the Ontario Line. That is one of the best selling points for the TTC, and Metrolinx seems to be ignoring the legitimacy of this network characteristic (The Crosstown and Finch West LRT come to mind). I live in Waterloo with the iON light rail line, and one issue I've noticed with the contracted out system is that integration with the buses and trains are not timed properly, and not well integrated. This is obviously much less of an issue for the TTC since they have such a frequent network, but it's something planners don't really communicate effectively with each other.
 

syn

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
4,275
Reaction score
1,738
I would support this plan and elevated transit if It meant things like Sheppard subway could be extended above ground. This city has been completely against elevated. We couldn't build elevated to Vaughan. Elevated to stc was shut down. And elevated Eglinton lrt wasn't even a option. So I'll take this plan with all its faults if it can actually get shovels in the ground and get other projects extended above ground.
And this is where the Fords have held transit planning in Toronto back for over a decade.

A completed Scarborough LRT would've been terrific replacement for the RT and made the Sheppard extension (below or above ground) a much more reasonable proposition. There's no need for two full subway extensions in Scarborough.

It would be cheaper overall, and there'd be more money/political will to properly invest in a project like the DRL/OL.
 

Top