Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[syn]

His biggest mistake was not being able to sell his legacy project to anyone but policy wonks.

Seems to have sold pretty well since the only other projects we have in progress are from TC.

 

[Streety McCarface]

That's a massive difference - and I'm assuming it's using the best case number for the OL, which may not be reasonable in a real world scenario.

It'd most certainly be a best-case scenario for both technologies. Subways are larger but they don't have infinite capacity.

It's interesting to note that the subway now, which are over a third larger than the proposed OL trains, can barely get by with 2:20 frequencies on average. Getting frequencies down another 50 seconds is far more challenging than running a better signalling system. What people don't realize is that you reduce dwell times, and decrease the buffer zone that exists today. It's great for getting more trains on a line, but it means that things are a lot worse when things go wrong. Stand at a downtown station during rush hour, and you can get trains running 100, 90, or even 80 seconds apart, meaning there are small delays throughout the system at all times. There's chaos involved with running transit systems; people aren't really predictable. The Ontario Line, while it may be able to better space trains apart, will still deal with the same issues, whether it's track geometry, a huge spike in passenger usage, a suicide, track workers, or even a piece of garbage that increases that 90-second timeframe to 120 seconds or more, creating knock-on effects throughout the rest of the line.
The point is that theoretical capacity and practical capacity are completely different. Engineers don't build bridges with theoretical loading in mind, they include safety factors to ensure it doesn't fail. Talking about theoretical capacity doesn't help us here.

 

[asher__jo]

Getting frequencies down another 50 seconds is far more challenging than running a better signalling system. What people don't realize is that you reduce dwell times, and decrease the buffer zone that exists today. It's great for getting more trains on a line, but it means that things are a lot worse when things go wrong.

Having lived in Vancouver for 2 years and taken the Canada line, generally have low dwell times is fine. It can be somewhat problematic during rush hour though. With greater frequencies and increased demand, I can definitely see the CL suffering from service interruptions by 'cramming capacity'.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Having lived in Vancouver for 2 years and taken the Canada line, generally have low dwell times is fine. It can be somewhat problematic during rush hour though. With greater frequencies and increased demand, I can definitely see the CL suffering from service interruptions by 'cramming capacity'.

People also have to remember that all these cities that tout frequencies like this have insanely small rolling stock compared to other cities. The Canada Line has insanely tiny trains and lots of doors. It can handle short dwell times, but when you increase the train's length by 150% (for OL trains, 200% for conventional TTC rolling stock) and reduce the number of entrances, you need more time at stations. Vancouver also doesn't really have the transfer crowding problem the TTC has. For reference, Bloor-Yonge, St George, Sheppard Yonge, and Union Stations are the busiest train stations in Canada.

 

[Neutrino]

It'd most certainly be a best-case scenario for both technologies. Subways are larger but they don't have infinite capacity.

It's interesting to note that the subway now, which are over a third larger than the proposed OL trains, can barely get by with 2:20 frequencies on average. Getting frequencies down another 50 seconds is far more challenging than running a better signalling system. What people don't realize is that you reduce dwell times, and decrease the buffer zone that exists today. It's great for getting more trains on a line, but it means that things are a lot worse when things go wrong. Stand at a downtown station during rush hour, and you can get trains running 100, 90, or even 80 seconds apart, meaning there are small delays throughout the system at all times. There's chaos involved with running transit systems; people aren't really predictable. The Ontario Line, while it may be able to better space trains apart, will still deal with the same issues, whether it's track geometry, a huge spike in passenger usage, a suicide, track workers, or even a piece of garbage that increases that 90-second timeframe to 120 seconds or more, creating knock-on effects throughout the rest of the line.
The point is that theoretical capacity and practical capacity are completely different. Engineers don't build bridges with theoretical loading in mind, they include safety factors to ensure it doesn't fail. Talking about theoretical capacity doesn't help us here.

Indeed, Steve Munro once calculated that in real world operations, the Yonge line delivers only about 90% of stated capacity.

 

[NoahB]

The Ontario Line, while it may be able to better space trains apart, will still deal with the same issues, whether it's track geometry, a huge spike in passenger usage, a suicide, track workers, or even a piece of garbage that increases that 90-second timeframe to 120 seconds or more, creating knock-on effects throughout the rest of the line.
The point is that theoretical capacity and practical capacity are completely different. Engineers don't build bridges with theoretical loading in mind, they include safety factors to ensure it doesn't fail. Talking about theoretical capacity doesn't help us here.

Note that both the Relief Line South and Ontario Line are expected to have platform edge doors.(unless cost-cutting spoils that) That would help prevent garbage/fires on tracks, suicides, and acceleration/safety problems.

I agree with everything else you said.

 

[rbt]

Note that both the Relief Line South and Ontario Line are expected to have platform edge doors.(unless cost-cutting spoils that) That would help prevent garbage/fires on tracks, suicides, and acceleration/safety problems.

It's almost guaranteed underground stations will have platform edge doors. The price of those stations increases up to 10% when they are removed as cheap central vertical supports in the middle of the station are replaced by expensive horizontal spans supported closer to the edges.

Spadina extension removed the doors (and redesigned/moved the station supports) due to fears the ATO signalling project would not be complete; not an unreasonable fear as at the time of the design change the original ATO tender was being abandoned as unworkable.


Retrofitting doors into older stations is an entirely different ballgame, particularly when airflow for the smoke ventilation system is expected to enter via station entrances; asbestos in the platforms doesn't help either.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

We also now have some numbers on the projected capacity.

View attachment 212219

Hard to judge these numbers without stated frequencies and passenger density. Last time Metrolinx produced capacity numbers, there was some questionable manipulation of the numbers going on, with unrealistically high frequencies

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

Every technology is fundamentally different:
1. The subway is at the Toronto gauge with a specific width.
2. The RT is at Standard Guage (I believe) with LIMs, so the track is completely different
3. The streetcar network runs at the TTC gauge
4. The LRT lines run with the Standard Gauge
5. GO Transit utilizes the standard gauge and adheres to TCs heavy rail guidelines
6. The Ontario line would be basically a narrower subway with standard gauge.

As you can see, there's is an overlap of 3 particular types of trains: Heavy Rail Regional Rail, Subway/Metro, and Light Rail Vehicles. While one could argue that the SRT has its place as an ICTS, you could still make the argument that the line it serves could be more easily run with Light Rail or subway. We already have standards for subways in this city, use them. Stop trying to make every single new line unique, it makes systematic compatibility a lot harder in the long term.

The TTC gauge isn't that different from the Standard gauge, as a result, rolling stock procurement costs aren't actually that different, if at all different. No subway train model for any city is "Off the shelf" by any means. Every system's track geometry is different, every line supplied voltage is different, a lot of track gauges are different, top speed requirements are different, seating layouts and platform heights are different, power collection systems are different, signalling systems are different, Tunnel geometry is different, door requirements are different, HVAC requirements are different, etc etc etc. The only real way you can save money on rolling stock is to purchase a lot of it at once. When you have many different lines with different technologies, you cannot purchase any significant amount of rolling stock at a given time, you cant interoperate them between lines (like when a fleet has a major problem), and training for mechanics, drivers, cleaners, etc is different. It just adds costs.

The costs may be justified if the OL was to have much less ridership than existing lines, but it's not. It's literally acting as a partial replacement of the Yonge line. There is no reason to change technologies for this line.

This is why I'm not buying the trope that the TTC track gauge causes crazy increase in construction and operation costs. But then Ford MOGA

 

[p_xavier]

This is why I'm not buying the trope that the TTC track gauge causes crazy increase in construction and operation costs. But then Ford MOGA

That's not what Bombardier said about the gauge. Their main issue from the streetcars was cause by that gauge and radii.

Poor planning at the start bedevilled Bombardier’s delivery of streetcars, TTC meeting hears

Bombardier had to “North Americanize” the production, including shifting vital welding work to Mexico from the German facilities where the company had built Flexity cars for almost two decades. “The magnitude of that (work) was, I think, underestimated,” said David Van der Wee, COO for...

www.thestar.com

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

That's not what Bombardier said about the gauge. Their main issue from the streetcars was cause by that gauge and radii.

Poor planning at the start bedevilled Bombardier’s delivery of streetcars, TTC meeting hears

Bombardier had to “North Americanize” the production, including shifting vital welding work to Mexico from the German facilities where the company had built Flexity cars for almost two decades. “The magnitude of that (work) was, I think, underestimated,” said David Van der Wee, COO for...

www.thestar.com

So Bombardier was not aware that Toronto is in a winter climate and streetcars should be protected against corrosion. To me the article sounds like more excuse making by Bombardier for failing to prepare adequately for the TTC's streetcars, than it was that the TTC is such a unique environment that no on expected or told Bombardier about the lengths that would be needed fulfill the order.

All the information that Bombardier claims the failed to plan for was available at the time of bid.

And remember we are talking about the proposed subway/OL not streetcars

 

[robmausser]

It's interesting to note that the subway now, which are over a third larger than the proposed OL trains, can barely get by with 2:20 frequencies on average. Getting frequencies down another 50 seconds is far more challenging than running a better signalling system. What people don't realize is that you reduce dwell times, and decrease the buffer zone that exists today. It's great for getting more trains on a line, but it means that things are a lot worse when things go wrong

This is why full platform screen doors are almost mandatory on high frequency systems, because they help stop many of the things that go wrong (jumpers, accidental falls, trash lighting fires on the track, etc)

 

[mdrejhon]

This is why full platform screen doors are almost mandatory on high frequency systems, because they help stop many of the things that go wrong (jumpers, accidental falls, trash lighting fires on the track, etc)

Don't forget daily mudane events like full platforms -- Platform doors contains an overcrowded platform & chops off the passenger flow quicker, so a full train can depart quicker. They behave like insistent elevator doors (inner and outer doors) -- you literally have to clear the way even if there's a long lineup for full elevators. You can see how train departures are slowed down when passengers try to cram onto an overflowing train.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I would add the requirement of platform doors on the Ontario Line.

 

[syn]

It'd most certainly be a best-case scenario for both technologies. Subways are larger but they don't have infinite capacity.

It's interesting to note that the subway now, which are over a third larger than the proposed OL trains, can barely get by with 2:20 frequencies on average. Getting frequencies down another 50 seconds is far more challenging than running a better signalling system. What people don't realize is that you reduce dwell times, and decrease the buffer zone that exists today. It's great for getting more trains on a line, but it means that things are a lot worse when things go wrong. Stand at a downtown station during rush hour, and you can get trains running 100, 90, or even 80 seconds apart, meaning there are small delays throughout the system at all times. There's chaos involved with running transit systems; people aren't really predictable. The Ontario Line, while it may be able to better space trains apart, will still deal with the same issues, whether it's track geometry, a huge spike in passenger usage, a suicide, track workers, or even a piece of garbage that increases that 90-second timeframe to 120 seconds or more, creating knock-on effects throughout the rest of the line.
The point is that theoretical capacity and practical capacity are completely different. Engineers don't build bridges with theoretical loading in mind, they include safety factors to ensure it doesn't fail. Talking about theoretical capacity doesn't help us here.

I realize subways don't have infinite capacity. Overall I think the percentage gap in capacity might actually be larger when all of the variables and practical considerations you mentioned are factored into the equation.