Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

[EnviroTO]

We really don't know what equipment the Ontario Line might use. It could be very similar to the equipment on Line 5. When you look at Edmonton line's elevated section in testing... what is the big difference really?

Elevated Valley Line in Testing

There is a place for big hulking subways that need that much capacity on a single train to handle the types of crush loads seen downtown, but the rest of the city is served better by lighter equipment that can run in a tunnel or on an elevated guideway to be express, or on the street to be local.

 

[gwimmer]

The equipment on the Ontario Line (5 car train) will be vastly different from Line 5 or Edmonton's Valley Line. A much higher capacity is required.

 

[afransen]

I haven't seen evidence that an extension of Line 4 from Don Mills to McCowan is cheaper than a different subway option. On the contrary.

How would elevated not be cheaper?

 

[afransen]

We really don't know what equipment the Ontario Line might use. It could be very similar to the equipment on Line 5. When you look at Edmonton line's elevated section in testing... what is the big difference really?

Elevated Valley Line in Testing

There is a place for big hulking subways that need that much capacity on a single train to handle the types of crush loads seen downtown, but the rest of the city is served better by lighter equipment that can run in a tunnel or on an elevated guideway to be express, or on the street to be local.

We definitely know that OL won't be using low floor LRVs. That's just ludicrous.

 

[kamira51]

We really don't know what equipment the Ontario Line might use. It could be very similar to the equipment on Line 5. When you look at Edmonton line's elevated section in testing... what is the big difference really?

Elevated Valley Line in Testing

There is a place for big hulking subways that need that much capacity on a single train to handle the types of crush loads seen downtown, but the rest of the city is served better by lighter equipment that can run in a tunnel or on an elevated guideway to be express, or on the street to be local.

That rolling stock looks really cool, who made it?

 

[Rainforest]

I haven't seen evidence that an extension of Line 4 from Don Mills to McCowan is cheaper than a different subway option. On the contrary.

I don't have the numbers, but the general idea is this:
A. The cost of converting the existing line is constant (all 5.5 km have to be converted at once)
B. The cost reduction from using the more agile technology for the new section is roughly proportional to the length of that new section

Thus, for a short new section, A will outweight B (existing technology is cheaper). For a long new section, or multiple new sections, B will be greater and A will be the same. Thus, B will outweight A (new technology is cheaper).

 

[afransen]

I don't have the numbers, but the general idea is this:
A. The cost of converting the existing line is constant (all 5.5 km have to be converted at once)
B. The cost reduction from using the more agile technology for the new section is roughly proportional to the length of that new section

Thus, for a short new section, A will outweight B (existing technology is cheaper). For a long new section, or multiple new sections, B will be greater and A will be the same. Thus, B will outweight A (new technology is cheaper).

There is option c: extend with the dreaded linear transfer, and use lower cost solution without retrofit. That would be cheapest in cases.

 

[44 North]

We really don't know what equipment the Ontario Line might use. It could be very similar to the equipment on Line 5. When you look at Edmonton line's elevated section in testing... what is the big difference really?

Elevated Valley Line in Testing

There is a place for big hulking subways that need that much capacity on a single train to handle the types of crush loads seen downtown, but the rest of the city is served better by lighter equipment that can run in a tunnel or on an elevated guideway to be express, or on the street to be local.

Something like that is the last type of train we'd want. It's lower capacity per sf, it's heavier per sf, and it's not the type of train to use for a subway/metro line. They're meant for being in the street, which although a great mode, isn't really what's being discussed.

Where OL still has some wiggle room for changes is panto or no panto. I think it should be no panto, a feature that would work well for Sheppard conversion. Among a myriad of other reasons.

 

[Rainforest]

There is option c: extend with the dreaded linear transfer, and use lower cost solution without retrofit. That would be cheapest in cases.

This option should be cheapest, but it will be less appealing / less popular, whether you take the big-picture view or the next-step view.

If one wants a long line that spawns from the Rouge Hill GO station to say Rexdale, then a continuous line is clearly more appealing, and the cost of converting the existing 5.5 km tunnel (15% of the total length) should look trivial.

If one wants to just extend from Don Mills to McCowan, then it is even less appealing to design a transfer at Don Mills and end up with 2 stubways instead of 1 stubway.

I't be very surprised if MX ends up extending a grade-separated route (not LRT) in the Sheppard corridor, and yet designing it with a linear transfer.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Something like that is the last type of train we'd want. It's lower capacity per sf, it's heavier per sf, and it's not the type of train to use for a subway/metro line. They're meant for being in the street, which although a great mode, isn't really what's being discussed.

Where OL still has some wiggle room for changes is panto or no panto. I think it should be no panto, a feature that would work well for Sheppard conversion. Among a myriad of other reasons.

From link.

Most metros are operated with dc power either at 750V with third rail or 1.5kV with third rail/overhead contact line. Operating metros on 25kV ac overhead is a relatively new phenomenon and there is a lot of debate about the value of this adaption due to the importance of traction power to a system's performance.

A conventional electrification system provides electrical power to the trains by means of the traction power supply, distribution, and traction power return systems. Third rail always uses dc power with a variety of voltages in use around the world including 600V on the Tokyo metro, 750V, which is the most common use, 825V in Moscow, 1.2kV in Berlin and 1.5kV in Guangzhou.

Overhead traction has also evolved from 1.5kV dc, 3kV dc, and 15kV ac in early applications to 25kV ac (or 2x25kV ac) which is now widely used and more often than not the traction system of choice for new mainline and high-speed railways. High-voltage ac electrification has also been applied on S-Bahn systems in Germany (15kV) and on part of the RER network in Paris where mainline commuter lines have been connected with new underground sections in the city centre.

The fundamental difference between ac and dc is that on a dc network each substation includes transformers and rectifiers which condition the power to the relatively low voltage required for direct use by vehicle propulsion equipment. In ac systems the power is supplied by the substations directly without rectification. This necessitates further transformation onboard the rolling stock so the voltage is suitable for use by vehicle propulsion equipment.

Both systems offer distinct advantages and disadvantages, but with Delhi Metro using a 25kV ac rigid catenary system both above and below ground, which is encouraging other new metro projects in India to follow suit, it seems appropriate to consider what they might lose or gain by copying this example.

In theory adopting a 25kV ac traction system could be one way of achieving greater capacity because it allows the operator to use longer trains more frequently. For mainline and high-speed railways 25kV ac is now the most proven and widely used system. It offers a number of advantages, including reducing the cost of power supply equipment, improving efficiency, and using energy from braking more effectively which are all potentially attractive features to metro operators. Power supply efficiency on a line equipped with 25kV ac overhead contact wire is also 98% although this may vary depending on rolling stock.

 

[afransen]

This option should be cheapest, but it will be less appealing / less popular, whether you take the big-picture view or the next-step view.

If one wants a long line that spawns from the Rouge Hill GO station to say Rexdale, then a continuous line is clearly more appealing, and the cost of converting the existing 5.5 km tunnel (15% of the total length) should look trivial.

If one wants to just extend from Don Mills to McCowan, then it is even less appealing to design a transfer at Don Mills and end up with 2 stubways instead of 1 stubway.

I't be very surprised if MX ends up extending a grade-separated route (not LRT) in the Sheppard corridor, and yet designing it with a linear transfer.

If we want to extend it to Rescale go over on Finch. I would not suggest running to McCowan. STC is the logical place for such an extension to pass through. There is an effective linear transfer planned at mcCowan/Sheppard. I'm suggesting we leave it at Don Mills.

 

[EnviroTO]

We definitely know that OL won't be using low floor LRVs. That's just ludicrous.

Both the Ottawa and Edmonton lines were put out to bid by consortiums who chose the vehicle used to meet the requirements of those systems and both ended up with LRV. Ottawa doesn't have any sections running on the street, and Edmonton has a history of high floor LRV. I wouldn't assume that LRV will not be what is used on the Ontario Line unless you have read something in the RFP that has terms that would exclude LRV. The only comment I have read regarding the vehicles are that they are lighter than metro.

 

[afransen]

There is absolutely no reason to use LRVs. They would degrade interior circulation and are designed for lack of grade separation. It would be quite astonishing if the proponent uses LRVs.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Both the Ottawa and Edmonton lines were put out to bid by consortiums who chose the vehicle used to meet the requirements of those systems and both ended up with LRV. Ottawa doesn't have any sections running on the street, and Edmonton has a history of high floor LRV. I wouldn't assume that LRV will not be what is used on the Ontario Line unless you have read something in the RFP that has terms that would exclude LRV. The only comment I have read regarding the vehicles are that they are lighter than metro.

Ottawa's plans WERE a direct descendent of proposals that were less than fully grade separated, while Edmonton's was explicitly for a low floor "urban" system from very early in the studies.

 

[ARG1]

Both the Ottawa and Edmonton lines were put out to bid by consortiums who chose the vehicle used to meet the requirements of those systems and both ended up with LRV. Ottawa doesn't have any sections running on the street, and Edmonton has a history of high floor LRV. I wouldn't assume that LRV will not be what is used on the Ontario Line unless you have read something in the RFP that has terms that would exclude LRV. The only comment I have read regarding the vehicles are that they are lighter than metro.

To add on to what @Bureaucromancer said, the only reason why the Confederation Line uses LFLRVs is due to a long history of last minute decision changes to plans, and an unwillingness to change other aspects of plans as needed. Originally the line was going to run at grade on street downtown similar to Waterloo, however after an accident where a VIA train smashed through a bus killing several, they chose to grade separate the downtown section. They still kept it low floor because the assumption was it would run on street out in the suburbs. By the time they changed their mind on that, they were already deep enough in the design process, and didn't want to switch modes.

The Ontario Line doesn't have this problem, we know from the outset that it will be a fully automated metro, and as such there is no reason to even consider running something as low capacity or as maintenance heavy as LFLRV.