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

blacksquirrels said:
so this would put the Ontario Line's max capacity at roughly 20k pphpd ?
Click to expand...
No, that is assuming trains (not to mention capacity) much smaller than what Metrolinx has openly spec'd
blacksquirrels said:
90 seconds is probably not happening. 120 seconds is much more realistic.

Taipei Metro Circular Line uses EMU101's. EMU101's 4 car sets have a capacity of 650 people. 650 x 30 = 19.5k.

If the OL might use 6 car sets then it would be 975 x 30 = 29250 pphpd. 1 car length = 16.76 m. 6 car length = 100.56 m
Click to expand...
90s for new build is absolutely doable - its done on a bunch of lines out there even a few lines with better signalling retrofitted.
The Taipei EMUs are no comparable, a 4 car set is less than 70m long (we know that OL is planned for up to 100m) the OL trains will also be 3m wide as opposed to the relatively narrow (2.65m) Taipei trains
sunnyside said:
Aren’t they designing it for 60tph? Could’ve sworn Reece Martin talked to someone on the project stating that was the internal design goal to ‘ensure they can hit 40tph’ or something to that effect. I don’t think they’d attempt to operate at 60 second headways, but who knows how much demand there will be between Queen and Pape at rush hour.
Click to expand...
Big systems do not do 60tph, that might be possible with VAL but not a steel wheeled system with big trains.
T3G said:
Is it even physically possible to run 60 second headways? I seem to recall reading some such discussion or other that said that 90 seconds is pretty much the ceiling on an operation like this. Can anyone confirm this?
Click to expand...
90s (40tph) is about the ceiling for a regular service, so service can (and needs to be able) to operate a bit higher 42-44 tph to catch up during delays etc. you can find metro lines out there with scheduled departures <90s apart,
 
ARG1 said:
A more apt comparison would be Rome Line C, which at 109m long trains (and mind you has train specs similar to what Metrolinx has been claiming would have) has a capacity of 1200 passengers, multiplying that by 40TPH gives us an alleged capacity of seemingly 48000PPHPD (I'm probably wrong because these seems kinda sus, but if it's true, wow this is amazing).
Click to expand...
This has always been the problem with Metrolinx's numbers. They are suspicious, and frankly not very realistic when compared to real world numbers.

The TTC uses a capacity of 1100 people for a 6-car T1 train. This is in order to allow for "bulges" in traffic flow, and to allow people to relatively easily get on and off of the trains.

Metrolinx suggests that they are going to get 1200 people in a train that is about 1/3 shorter, and potentially narrower. There is no way that is going to be possible on a regular basis.

Bombardier claims a capacity of almost 1500 in a TR with 1.8ft^2 per standee.....how much room do you think those 1200 people in an Ontario Line train will have?

Dan
 
When the T1s are replaced I want them to order Movias (Train product family that the TR is a part of.) that look more like the C30s on the Stockholm metro. Futuristic rather then a stainless steel look.
 
New Ontario Line renders.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1570341475606577152

1663280127559.png


1663280148359.png


1663280163678.png
 
Coolstar said:
New Ontario Line renders.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1570341475606577152

View attachment 427126

View attachment 427127

View attachment 427128
Click to expand...

I guess metrolinx didn't get the memo about making the footprint on Osgoode hall grounds smaller. In fact it looks like this entrance building is larger than the one initially in the plans.

Why am I not surprised.

Also, let me be the first to say yuck to the grey literally everywhere!!! Do you guys think the designers of Metrolinx are all living in a black-and-white make believe world without any colour at all?!?
 
fanoftoronto said:
I guess metrolinx didn't get the memo about making the footprint on Osgoode hall grounds smaller. In fact it looks like this entrance building is larger than the one initially in the plans.
Click to expand...
I don’t get why it’s so big either. Looks like we will be loosing a bunch of nice tall trees.
 
fanoftoronto said:
I guess metrolinx didn't get the memo about making the footprint on Osgoode hall grounds smaller. In fact it looks like this entrance building is larger than the one initially in the plans.

Why am I not surprised.

Also, let me be the first to say yuck to the grey literally everywhere!!! Do you guys think the designers of Metrolinx are all living in a black-and-white make believe world without any colour at all?!?
Click to expand...

This is what they were originally showing for the entrance box:
1663281622044.png


At least this one had some colour to it!! Compared to what they have now:

1663281662269.png


Or better yet do the following and negate the use of the Osgoode hall grounds at all!!

1663281749780.png
 
smallspy said:
This has always been the problem with Metrolinx's numbers. They are suspicious, and frankly not very realistic when compared to real world numbers.

The TTC uses a capacity of 1100 people for a 6-car T1 train. This is in order to allow for "bulges" in traffic flow, and to allow people to relatively easily get on and off of the trains.

Metrolinx suggests that they are going to get 1200 people in a train that is about 1/3 shorter, and potentially narrower. There is no way that is going to be possible on a regular basis.

Bombardier claims a capacity of almost 1500 in a TR with 1.8ft^2 per standee.....how much room do you think those 1200 people in an Ontario Line train will have?

Dan
Click to expand...
To be fair, these numbers aren't from Metrolinx, but from whatever agency runs the Rome Metro. I'm only using them because as I said, the Rome C Line is the closest line we have that uses Hitachi ALM trains that can be compared to the specs that Metrolinx has stated they want (100m length, 3m width). I see this 1200 number all over the place so I'm using them. Whether or not they are realistic, I can't really say. What can give some benefit of the double is perhaps maybe some more efficient use of space to maximize capacity, for instance use of longitudinal seating unlike what we see with the TRs. Perhaps that's what can make the difference compared to a 1500 capacity on a TR? Plus a 6 car TR 139.14m (23.19m cars * 6) since remember, they don't take up the entire platform length, so that would make a length difference of 127% between these trains, and if we take the crush load capacity of the TR of 1458 (according to Wikipedia), compared to 1200 that's a 122% increase. Putting all this together, I don't think the number is THAT unreasonable.
 
Last edited:
smallspy said:
This has always been the problem with Metrolinx's numbers. They are suspicious, and frankly not very realistic when compared to real world numbers.

The TTC uses a capacity of 1100 people for a 6-car T1 train. This is in order to allow for "bulges" in traffic flow, and to allow people to relatively easily get on and off of the trains.

Metrolinx suggests that they are going to get 1200 people in a train that is about 1/3 shorter, and potentially narrower. There is no way that is going to be possible on a regular basis.

Bombardier claims a capacity of almost 1500 in a TR with 1.8ft^2 per standee.....how much room do you think those 1200 people in an Ontario Line train will have?

Dan
Click to expand...
Where does Metrolinx claim this? Iirc the business case assumed 750 people a train or so.. with the capacity being made up by more frequent service.

Edit: yup - PBC assumes 750 passengers for 100m trains and even details how it aligns with the passenger densities the TTC assumes on the TRs.
 
Adjei said:
For Osgoode station, isn't the previous picture from the summer while this new one looks like its winter so not surprised it looks more grey.
Click to expand...
Yep, and I'd also argue the second render is slightly less detailed when it comes to the building. For example, the glass isn't shown as distinct panes like in the original render. I don't think the differences between the two are at this point, worth anyone freaking out about at all. The building is the same shape, same scale (it's just that the original used a 3/4 view that slims the width of the structure), same overall design. Even the underside of the roof looking more grey most likely comes down to lighting conditions. They're still showing plenty of the use of wood at Exhibition in these renderings, it would be weird if it somehow got ditched specifically from Osgoode when we know how much Metrolinx values having consistent design and materials across the stations on a line.
 
APTA-2048 said:
I don’t get why it’s so big either. Looks like we will be loosing a bunch of nice tall trees.
Click to expand...

The original render was pretty Escheresque. The interior looked bigger than the exterior.
What’s disturbing is the lack of significant change in plans despite major pushback from the city. Apparently our strong mayor isn’t that strong after all.

- Paul
 
innsertnamehere said:
Where does Metrolinx claim this? Iirc the business case assumed 750 people a train or so.. with the capacity being made up by more frequent service.

Edit: yup - PBC assumes 750 passengers for 100m trains and even details how it aligns with the passenger densities the TTC assumes on the TRs.
Click to expand...
My apologies then - I was assuming that the previous poster was using the correct numbers.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top