Allandale25
Senior Member
And here's when we'll see the rest.
Ontario Line
A 15.6-km subway line in Toronto that will run from Exhibition Place to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
www.metrolinxengage.com
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
And here's when we'll see the rest.
turini2
Active Member
In a way, it's good that the line will be a clean sheet of paper - with fully automated trainsets - rather than copying and pasting outdated technology. This presentation from Sydney provides great information of what is possible from a new build line from scratch... Sydney Metro - Australia's First Fully Automated Metro
The 6 car Alstom Metropolis sets used on Sydney Metro have a capacity of 1150+, with fully automatic (unattended GoA4) operation of 25tph. So when fully complete, it will have capacity of around 28,800 phd. It has been safeguarded for 8 car and 30 tph operation giving a capacity of 40,000+....
If Sydney is using a 6 car full size metro trainset to achieve similar numbers (around 30,000phd) to the Ontario Line.... don't count your toy train chickens!
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
That's the key point (bolded for emphasis) - and even the most demanding of us aren't even calling for that level of future-proofing - just a level of future-proofing in our builds that is congruent with our legacy lines. OL as proposed (underlined by the business case) is a far less visionary than what Sydney Metro is.
Sydney Metro - Wikipedia
OL? It is counting on running smaller trains with higher frequency (90s) to reach its' ultimate capacity - and Sydney aren't nearly as sanguine about using a 90s headway as we are to get there.
AoD
Last edited:
Coolstar
Senior Member
Locations of Exhibition Station, the tunnel portal, King/Bathurst and Queen/Spadina.
rbt
Senior Member
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Where is the yard for these trains
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Who cares if the environmental pages say next to nothing? I think it's a great thing.
Seriously, it's going under and over current roadways so what does it matter? Environmental reviews have become a politicians best friend. They take so ridiculously long and have morphed community events that they are great way for politicians to make it look like they are doing something but by the time they are done, the government has changed and it's back to the drawing board.
When a government is trying to rush thru useless environmental reviews and unending community feedback, they are actually far more intent on getting the damn thing built.
As far as the technology, I don't think 99% of Torontonians give a shit. All they want is fast, frequent, high capacity, reliable, and safe transit regardless if it's 3rd rail or horse & buggy.
Seriously, it's going under and over current roadways so what does it matter? Environmental reviews have become a politicians best friend. They take so ridiculously long and have morphed community events that they are great way for politicians to make it look like they are doing something but by the time they are done, the government has changed and it's back to the drawing board.
When a government is trying to rush thru useless environmental reviews and unending community feedback, they are actually far more intent on getting the damn thing built.
As far as the technology, I don't think 99% of Torontonians give a shit. All they want is fast, frequent, high capacity, reliable, and safe transit regardless if it's 3rd rail or horse & buggy.
Coolstar
Senior Member
NoahB
Active Member
The Ontario line is planned with much shorter trains. So we are not getting nearly as much capacity as the Syndey Metro. But the rolling stock will be strikingly similar. You have my word one that.That's the key point (bolded for emphasis) - and even the most demanding of us aren't even calling for that level of future-proofing - just a level of future-proofing in our builds that is congruent with our legacy lines. OL as proposed (underlined by the business case) is a far less visionary than what Sydney Metro is.
Sydney Metro - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
OL? It is counting on running smaller trains with higher frequency (90s) to reach its' ultimate capacity - and Sydney aren't nearly as sanguine about using a 90s headway as we are to get there.
AoD
60-year-old lines have been retrofitted to allow for trains every 100 seconds in London. New build lines can easily be built for 90-second headways. I'm not going to write it all over again. I'm linking my old explanation below...
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
No one is doubting you can run it with 90s headway - what I am doubting is the wisdom of cheapening out on the builds and using headway to compensate. And yes, please educate me how much easier it will be to elevate in the burbs in the future - we did it with Eglinton West (and what did Metrolinx say about elevating there?). We also had no trouble with elevated lines or even having them at grade/in a ditch even with our legacy heavy rail - and yet we chose not to do that with our recent extensions, so the ease of grade separation is a red herring argument to start.
Sydney is a forward looking system for a growing city - OL? It's a cheap job.
AoD
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Could be supplemented with additional relief lines instead of longer trains on one line.
Last edited:
NoahB
Active Member
The Sydney Metro is actually a commuter rail line that is using metro/subway rolling stock. It replaced a line that had bi-level trains, and the stations are spaced in such a way that would make the old 1-stop Scarborough subway plan blush.
I'm confused. Do you call the TTC cheapening out for targeting 2-minute headways with ATC? What matters here is capacity. If they built it with 90-second headways and 100m trains, the Ontario Line will have a higher future 'no construction needed' capacity than Line 2. Old style trains simply cant stop and accelerate/clear stations fast enough to reach 90-second headways without passenger discomfort. Only shorter trains can do that. I wouldn't call that cheapening out. It's simply a different way of achieving the same thing.
About burying lines, that is simply the political will of the day — a completely separate topic. The guideways that would handle TR trains are much bulkier than what new systems use, and the legacy subway rolling stock cant handle steeper grades.
Last edited:
north-of-anything
Active Member
Why do the tracks come above ground and stop right before Dufferin? That would effectively make any kind of westwards expansion impossible. There will be a need for another north-south line to connect here, guaranteed.
officedweller
Senior Member
The line is stated as being "at-grade" there - at the same level as the GO tracks.
At that point Dufferin is on a bridge over those GO tracks so there would be clearance for Ontario Line trains too.
However, that bridge would probably have to be rebuilt to widen the railway underpass if the Ontario Line were extended to the west.
************
Glad to see they got rid of the previous concept of "straddling the GO line" with one-way elevated guideways at Exhbition
(shown by the "previously studied" dashed lines).
I'm surprised that Exhibition station is at grade (as opposed to elevated which would allow easier circulation in the station area),
but I suppose that if there is already an underpass for the Go line access, they would piggyback on the use of that for this station as well.
Last edited: