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

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We're assuming here a tunnel under the LSE corridor, which would put the portal around, here?

I can't speak for certain but I don't recall this part of the line being considered that flood prone, not to mention this entire area is being redeveloped already so I believe flood mitigation is already being built.

I think it is in the floodplain right now, but the Lower Don project currently being built will alleviate that risk. It might still be prudent to install floodgates though just in case.

AoD

 

[evandyk]

The city still expects regular flooding in that area, which is why they just installed those huge gates on Bayview.

 

[Allandale25]

The community-funded Health Impact Assessment has been released. It was prepared by the South Riverdale Community Health Centre. In one image, the show the existing tracks and their claim for what the proposed tracks will look like. I don't think their interpretation of the proposed is correct. The "GO Expansion" to Oshawa over just two tracks implies that just those two tracks will be used to go to Oshawa. It doesn't mention the Bowmanville Extension and it doesn't recognize that all four tracks could be used for GO Expansion/electrification, and the diesel trains to Bowmanville, and the VIA trains. The cross section created is also not to scale. I think it also implies that the existing three tracks will stay where they are but I thought there is going to be some shifting per the graphic even the group provides from Metrolinx. See the yellow lines (I think there is a better version of this somewhere else). Update: better view on the roll plan available here.

 

[nfitz]

Well ye, GO is a much smaller and less used network, however overtime with new stations and upgrades it can definitely be like Crossrail or RER.

I don't think it does, because it's too Union-centric, and at best you have one or two mildly-used stations (compared to London/Paris/Seoul) on each side.

Though perhaps there's hope for the Barrie line if they add some more stations, where it intersects Line 2, Line 5, Line 4 (somehow), Finch LRT, Liberty ...

 

[DirectionNorth]

I don't think it does, because it's too Union-centric, and at best you have one or two mildly-used stations (compared to London/Paris/Seoul) on each side.

Though perhaps there's hope for the Barrie line if they add some more stations, where it intersects Line 2, Line 5, Line 4 (somehow), Finch LRT, Liberty ...

Downtown station spacing should be like this for it to be a proper RER or Crossrail. I would love (and no doubt others) to see this: (I just made this quickly).

 

[sche]

Obviously, every subsequent pair of tracks will bring less incremental benefit then the previous pair. I don't see much need for the 7th and 8th track, and they wouldn't fit in the rest of corridor anyway. That doesn't prove the 5th and 6th tracks are not needed.

"how a 5th/6th track will help with the 2nd point at all": for example if the VIA platforms are on the south side and the GO platforms are on the north side, then with 6 tracks in total, you can use the 2-nd (counting from the north) for GO Express westbound, 3-rd for GO Express eastbound, 4-th for VIA westbound, 5-th for VIA eastbound. VIA trains never cross paths with GO Express. If you only have 4 tracks and the 2 central tracks are used for both GO Express and VIA, then the westbound VIA has to cross paths with the eastbound GO Express just east of Union.

"right, so let's invent a scenario where we allocate platforms in a way that introduces conflict, then use that as the reason why two extra tracks are needed to avoid the conflict that was caused by the poor platform allocation that we invented"

Seriously? At least come up with a better argument than that.

Organization > electronics > concrete. Put VIA platforms in the middle, problem solved.

 

[Rainforest]

"right, so let's invent a scenario where we allocate platforms in a way that introduces conflict, then use that as the reason why two extra tracks are needed to avoid the conflict that was caused by the poor platform allocation that we invented"

Seriously? At least come up with a better argument than that.

Organization > electronics > concrete. Put VIA platforms in the middle, problem solved.

If the VIA platforms are in the middle, and all express and local GO trains run through, then probably yes, can do with 4 tracks.

But almost every other scenario will see conflicts between the westbound and eastbound operations, that could be avoided if you had more tracks and more flexibility. For example, some of the GO trains turn back at Union instead of running through, then they have to cross the VIA path either on the way to Union or on the way from Union.

 

[Rainforest]

Well ye, GO is a much smaller and less used network, however overtime with new stations and upgrades it can definitely be like Crossrail or RER.

Well then why don't you explain why its needed, and I mean needed and not "a nice to have".

That requires building the stations from the start in a very large and possible space inefficient way that would allow for many configurations to be run, especially since you're accounting for non standard track setups.

We're assuming here a tunnel under the LSE corridor, which would put the portal around, here?

I can't speak for certain but I don't recall this part of the line being considered that flood prone, not to mention this entire area is being redeveloped already so I believe flood mitigation is already being built.

Well ye, GO is a much smaller and less used network, however overtime with new stations and upgrades it can definitely be like Crossrail or RER.

Well then why don't you explain why its needed, and I mean needed and not "a nice to have".

That requires building the stations from the start in a very large and possible space inefficient way that would allow for many configurations to be run, especially since you're accounting for non standard track setups.

We're assuming here a tunnel under the LSE corridor, which would put the portal around, here?

I can't speak for certain but I don't recall this part of the line being considered that flood prone, not to mention this entire area is being redeveloped already so I believe flood mitigation is already being built.

The spot marked with the red cross on your map is probably fine. But where will the other portal go? A short tunnel would have to emerge in the Bala Sub corridor, and would be very close to the river and at risk of flooding. In order to avoid the flood area, you would need to continue the tunnel to at least north of Gerrard and perhaps even further.

 

[asher__jo]

I don't think it does, because it's too Union-centric, and at best you have one or two mildly-used stations (compared to London/Paris/Seoul) on each side.

Though perhaps there's hope for the Barrie line if they add some more stations, where it intersects Line 2, Line 5, Line 4 (somehow), Finch LRT, Liberty ...

Eventually there will have to be a heavy rail crosstown line, whether that's along the midtown CP rail corridor or further north along Sheppard.

 

[ARG1]

The spot marked with the red cross on your map is probably fine. But where will the other portal go? A short tunnel would have to emerge in the Bala Sub corridor, and would be very close to the river and at risk of flooding. In order to avoid the flood area, you would need to continue the tunnel to at least north of Gerrard and perhaps even further.

As I said the tunnel is under the LSE corridor - the way this discussion started is by discussing the limited trackspace east of the don river caused by the existence of the Ontario Line corridor. Its about making a tunnel that can dive under the Don River, and can give enough space on the surface for the OL and LSE before resurfacing where there's enough room to continue. The only real issue I can thing of is how feasible it is to clear the river. Now from what I can find, the maximum grade of HSR is 4% (although this assumes that the train is already moving quickly enough to make such a steep incline I believe, and there's probably even more in the way for this), and assuming such a grade descending under the Don that only leaves around a drop of 26.67m which I'm not certain is enough to pass under the river (It might be possible to keep the tunnel subsurface until a block - say parliament-sherbourne, but that depends on how many utilities are under these streets so how much room there is for the tunnel to rise), so this tunneled express idea might require to build underground platforms at Union.

Of course this is very basic napkin math, and for all I know I'm completely off-base with my calculations.

 

[sche]

If the VIA platforms are in the middle, and all express and local GO trains run through, then probably yes, can do with 4 tracks.

But almost every other scenario will see conflicts between the westbound and eastbound operations, that could be avoided if you had more tracks and more flexibility. For example, some of the GO trains turn back at Union instead of running through, then they have to cross the VIA path either on the way to Union or on the way from Union.

What other scenarios?

Again, poor organization is not a justification for infrastructure. That hypothetical reversing service should not exist in the first place.

Reversing services are slow and interfere with all through service on the same platforms (e.g. your hypothetical reversing service would interfere with both eastbound and westbound through running GO service). Service should be run through Union whenever possible, because reversing service severely limits capacity. (the alternative is to make dedicated reversing tracks and platforms so that reversing services don't interfere with other services, but since Union has close to equal space on both sides, and because reversing platforms have much less capacity than through running platforms, this does not make sense).

There are far more GO services from the west than the east, so some service from the west has to reverse somewhere. However, reversing service coming from the east is just dumb, since doing that will also necessitate more reversing services from the west, and the net result is just lower capacity.

Looking at pretty much any European rail system where tracks for through running exist, this is fairly obvious: Paris RER through runs all services, Berlin Hauptbahnhof only has 1 reversing service which is the airport express, while all other S-Bahn and RegionalBahn service runs through Hauptbahnhof and services that have to reverse do so at stations other than Hauptbahnhof, Madrid's Cercanias through runs all service, etc.

 

[Rainforest]

What other scenarios?

Again, poor organization is not a justification for infrastructure. That hypothetical reversing service should not exist in the first place.

Reversing services are slow and interfere with all through service on the same platforms (e.g. your hypothetical reversing service would interfere with both eastbound and westbound through running GO service). Service should be run through Union whenever possible, because reversing service severely limits capacity. (the alternative is to make dedicated reversing tracks and platforms so that reversing services don't interfere with other services, but since Union has close to equal space on both sides, and because reversing platforms have much less capacity than through running platforms, this does not make sense).

There are far more GO services from the west than the east, so some service from the west has to reverse somewhere. However, reversing service coming from the east is just dumb, since doing that will also necessitate more reversing services from the west, and the net result is just lower capacity.

Looking at pretty much any European rail system where tracks for through running exist, this is fairly obvious: Paris RER through runs all services, Berlin Hauptbahnhof only has 1 reversing service which is the airport express, while all other S-Bahn and RegionalBahn service runs through Hauptbahnhof and services that have to reverse do so at stations other than Hauptbahnhof, Madrid's Cercanias through runs all service, etc.

OK, let's hope it works.

I am wary of placing the constrain on the eastern approach to Union and having to organize the future more frequent service around that constrain. But, maybe it is doable.

 

[superelevation]

TRs are more massive than a typical subway train, but not absolute outliers. If I get it correctly, London Crossrail trains are 2.77 m wide (vs TR's 3.2 m), but are 200 m long (vs TR's 150 m). Paris RER trains are 2.4 m wide, but can be up to 240 m long.

It is amazing that we are now comparing subway rolling stock to mainline rolling stock with massively different specifications, in terms of speed, door / interior layout, etc. as a way to suggest we *must* have lines with massive trains. As others have mentioned, we're covered - GO has 300-meter trains larger than either of those systems if we NEED massive capacity in the future.

Obviously, every subsequent pair of tracks will bring less incremental benefit then the previous pair. I don't see much need for the 7th and 8th track, and they wouldn't fit in the rest of corridor anyway. That doesn't prove the 5th and 6th tracks are not needed.

"how a 5th/6th track will help with the 2nd point at all": for example if the VIA platforms are on the south side and the GO platforms are on the north side, then with 6 tracks in total, you can use the 2-nd (counting from the north) for GO Express westbound, 3-rd for GO Express eastbound, 4-th for VIA westbound, 5-th for VIA eastbound. VIA trains never cross paths with GO Express. If you only have 4 tracks and the 2 central tracks are used for both GO Express and VIA, then the westbound VIA has to cross paths with the eastbound GO Express just east of Union.

It will be difficult to build a tunnel for the Don Yard shortcut, the line to the Don Yard (same as Bala Sub / RH GO) runs on the west bank of Don and the tunnel portal will be vulnerable to flooding. It should be noted that both OL portals are located quite a bit further from the river; at least they got that part right.

The issue as "sche" puts it is that you should not solve your problems by spending money but, by designing better operations. One saves you ton of money in the long one, the other does the reverse. One of the reasons everything costs so much to build is crazy overbuilding, this also makes us lazy and then we get worse at operations and the cycle continues.

"right, so let's invent a scenario where we allocate platforms in a way that introduces conflict, then use that as the reason why two extra tracks are needed to avoid the conflict that was caused by the poor platform allocation that we invented"

Seriously? At least come up with a better argument than that.

Organization > electronics > concrete. Put VIA platforms in the middle, problem solved.

Beautiful to see this on UT, thought I'd never see the day

 

[Rainforest]

It is amazing that we are now comparing subway rolling stock to mainline rolling stock with massively different specifications, in terms of speed, door / interior layout, etc. as a way to suggest we *must* have lines with massive trains. As others have mentioned, we're covered - GO has 300-meter trains larger than either of those systems if we NEED massive capacity in the future.

Never said we "must" use massive trains. Just that TTC trains are not outliers, and therefore are a valid option rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

The issue as "sche" puts it is that you should not solve your problems by spending money but, by designing better operations. One saves you ton of money in the long one, the other does the reverse. One of the reasons everything costs so much to build is crazy overbuilding, this also makes us lazy and then we get worse at operations and the cycle continues.

Placing a hard constrain on one part of operation is not ideal. Possibly it will still work well if there are no other constrains / conflicting requirements, but we will not know that for sure until much later. Meanwhile, the corridor space is gone.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The original Toronto Gloucester cars were "off the shelf" models from Great Britain.

From link.

Using wood extensions on Gloucester cars to model, the TTC designed subsequent subway cars to be longer and using aluminum. The length was measured to fit the curves in the existing tunnels. This resulted in the longest subway cars, at the time (1950-1960's).

From link.

From link.

Looks like they are redesigning the Ontario Line cars to "fit" their restrictions.