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

Can you not use that word "lie"? Being incorrect or misunderstanding something does not make somebody a liar or deceitful. There's no need to attack somebody's integrity because they made an error.

Looking back on it, the use of the word "lie" was harsh, and I apologize. I'm certainly not suggesting that Paul is maliciously and purposely spreading a falsehood.

I didn't make this up, but the people who made the comment to me were probably not in the room for the management review. So if the official story is otherwise, I stand corrected. It certainly seems plausible that the existing run-through building at Greenwood is getting a little tight, and if a yard were built at Kipling the maintenance would be revisited. And some of the workstations and drop pits etc are still configured for 2-car pairs or even single cars. There isn't a lot of room at the end of that building to add on. Maybe people are applying wishful thinking and dreaming of a better facility some day. If you know otherwise, I will write this off as a sandhouse rumour.

- Paul

There are certainly space constraints at Greenwood in the near and long run, but when I asked a friend who's an engineer at the TTC about this months and months ago about this continually being stated by others, he looked at me with some incredulity. Greenwood is far too important a facility for the TTC to consider shutting down for any period of time, nevermind a tear-down and rebuild which would take years. Just like at Wilson, they would expand the buildings as necessary to fit what they need, and would work around the construction as best they could.

Remember, as well as being the primary storage and running maintenance facility for the B-D, Greenwood is also the heavy maintenance facility for the entire subway system. There just isn't a need to duplicate this kind of facility elsewhere on the network.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Isnt it possible the heavy maintenance facility could move to the new Kipling Yard... allowing for a new modern facility.
 
Isnt it possible the heavy maintenance facility could move to the new Kipling Yard... allowing for a new modern facility.

There's no benefit to doing so. It doesn't need to be expanded. The current facility has been upgraded over the years, and is certainly not even remotely out-of-date or obsolete.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
My guess is that Kipling/Obico Yard is going to be used for storage and perhaps light maintenance, primarily for Line 2 trains. Greenwood will be for storage, primarily for the DRL trains, while continuing to provide heavy maintenance for the whole system. There might be an expansion of the Greenwood maintenance facilities to cover the increasing fleet size, which would consume some storage space.

When DRL is expanded north, we'll probably see a storage yard somewhere along the route.

Of course, this also means that any plans to use an alternative fleet for the DRL Short (LRT, RER, ICTS, etc...) is not feasible, without extending the DRL north to allow for a new yard to maintain a separate DRL fleet.
 
The obvious option {which is why in Toronto it won't take place} is to have the DRL using BOTH 3rd rail and catenary. This is done on a few lines in London and even New York for small sections of track usually on old interurban ones where the trains use catenary on the old suburban lines and switch to 3rd rail in the downtown tunnels. This would also serve another purpose............it would give catenary powered RER trains and alternative thru downtown as opposed to having every train going thru Union. This will be essential as RER ridership and frequencies increase and Union can no longer handle all the increased capacity and offer an alternative to Union in case of a Union emergency or power failure.

They would have to buy trains where both catenary and 3rd rail can use the same platforms but that shouldn't be much of an issue. In short, they would be killing 2 birds with one stone and the difference in price would be nearly insignificant when compare to the entire price of the project. I bet they would also have an easy time getting money from the province/feds as the DRL could be presented as a regional project and not just a downtown one.

Has anyone suggested this to the TTC/Metrolinx and if not, why not?
 
Has anyone suggested this to the TTC/Metrolinx and if not, why not?
Different rail and loading gauge. In the event, I can't see how this would be built to TTC gauge. For every reason posters state to use Greenwood, the same tunneling and associated cost would connect the Lakeshore Line to the DRL, and allow Lakeshore East trains to access the ostensible 'Osgoode Station' (and others still to Union)...to huge advantage for everyone concerned. Trains running north along the northern leg of DRL would connect to the Richmond Hill line, and supplant the necessity for yet another boondoggle subway north on Yonge. Rolling Stock would go in and out of service along the Lakeshore Line until a dedicated storage yard could be built to the north, and maintenance done at the two present depots (one about to open) even after a storage/light maintenance yard is built to the north.

Not to mention Metrolinx is financing the whole shebang of DRL via QP, and taken over the planning, with the City and TTC co-operating.
For storage I don't think it's a huge issue, but maintenance for sure. I guess I should've added that the concept was more an addon to Brainfreezed's post about single phase Long RL (which was to have a new inline yard). However it can still be done without such a facility I think. For major repairs Line 3 has its vehicles trucked offsite (Greenwood), so this theoretical Prov-owned line could do something similar and ship to their own yard for repairs. Could even use mainline rail to transport depending on how close Long RL is to Bala or CP Midtown.

I don't actually support this, and agree compatible Toronto subways should be first choice. But I do believe we may get some degree of unconventionality with the line, particularly if the Prov/Metrolinx finds it to save time/money.
This is sensible, albeit we differ on the priorities that will come to bear on this.

There are far too many advantages to building this 'RER in tunnel', not to mention forward compatibility with rapid, efficient, *standard* regional transport. And compatible also with LRV's, as is done in other nations, the only real compromise for street and RER running is the optimal wheel profile, but that is being addressed in a number of locales doing this, Sheffield being the latest:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...sheffield-tram-train-track-connection-/167947

The Tram-Train concept allows a railway vehicle to run in two operational modes; as an on-street tram serving city centres but also as a commuter train running on the existing local rail network. This dual operation concept provides great flexibility and efficient use of railway infrastructure and connections.

Tram-Train first became popular in Germany and is now spreading rapidly through Europe. The Sheffield-Rotherham Tram-Train scheme represents the UK’s first trial of the concept and has provided the project partners, the Department for Transport, Network Rail, Northern Rail, Stagecoach Supertram (SST) and South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive with many challenges. [...]
https://www.railengineer.uk/2013/12/06/making-the-wheel-rail-interface-work/

Introducing the UK's first Tram-Train
The tram-train concept allows a railway vehicle to run as an on-street tram serving city centres and also as a commuter train running on existing local rail networks. Julian Turner gets the inside track from the University of Huddersfield’s David Crosbee on the pioneering, £60m Tram-Train project, which promises to transform the transport network in the city of Sheffield, UK.

David Crosbee is a senior research fellow at the University of Huddersfield's Institute of Railway Research. Previously, he was a dynamics and suspension engineer at Bombardier Transportation, before joining the Rail Technology Unit at Manchester Metropolitan University, where he specialised in railway vehicle dynamic modelling and wheel-rail interaction. In 2012, the Rail Technology Unit transferred to the University of Huddersfield to form a new group specialising in railway research.[...]
http://www.railway-technology.com/f...n-project-sheffield-irr-network-rail-4149853/

At a time when the TTC wallows in its grossly over-budget and questionable forays of 'subways to nowhere', (And City planners are proving no better) and Metrolinx is riven with Il Duce's toying with Hydrail, 'trams' running on RER purposed RoWs makes perfect sense until such time as demand or factors allow connecting the RoW into the greater RER network. The platforms, signalling and catenary supply are all fully compatible, even for inter-running LRVs and RER emus.

But what do the Europeans know about running subways, RER and tram systems, eh? Even the Ozzies are now doing it. Struth...
 
Last edited:
This is sensible, albeit we differ on the priorities that will come to bear on this.

There are far too many advantages to building this 'RER in tunnel', not to mention forward compatibility with rapid, efficient, *standard* regional transport. And compatible also with LRV's, as is done in other nations, the only real compromise for street and RER running is the optimal wheel profile, but that is being addressed in a number of locales doing this, Sheffield being the latest:
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...sheffield-tram-train-track-connection-/167947


https://www.railengineer.uk/2013/12/06/making-the-wheel-rail-interface-work/


http://www.railway-technology.com/f...n-project-sheffield-irr-network-rail-4149853/

At a time when the TTC wallows in its grossly over-budget and questionable forays of 'subways to nowhere', (And City planners are proving no better) and Metrolinx is riven with Il Duce's toying with Hydrail, 'trams' running on RER purposed RoWs makes perfect sense until such time as demand or factors allow connecting the RoW into the greater RER network. The platforms, signalling and catenary supply are all fully compatible, even for inter-running LRVs and RER emus.

But what do the Europeans know about running subways, RER and tram systems, eh? Even the Ozzies are now doing it. Struth...

I don't think mainline rail compatibility would be able to offer the tighter rapid transit station spacing and frequencies for the growing demand of the east/south/west area of the central city like a subway would offer (or some iteration of a subway). I know that such RER system could offer the exact same service. It's just that I don't see the requirements being achieved with the Prov's plans, nor its evolution over the coming decades.

I'll predict right now that the current RER vision is fanciful and will see major downgrades. This isn't a shot at the current Prov party, or any future party, that's just how it seems to go with grand plans. But even accepting the promise at face value, in my eyes it's nowhere close to the SBahn/RER type systems found in Paris, London, Sydney, etc. The concept behind SmartTrack came close, but that has devolved to very little. And even then we're still limited by at-grade crossings, existing freight use, other services, etc.

Then there's the seeming premium aspect that few want to talk about. The trains will be fairly plush, and have washrooms, so by default they will cost a bit more than typical public transit. Obviously most will want it to have the exact same low fare as a bus or municipal service. But outer suburban riders, whom politicians seem to cater to disproportionately, may prefer a ride that has higher fares to avoid urban riffraff.

What I am open to for any expansive Queen Subway is using some rail/utility/hwy ROWs for cost-effective subway expansion in the outer sections (space permitting); tho still 100% separate from mainline rail. Not unlike the GO Urban plan of yesteryear, or some sections of our current subway network. And I think LRVs and tram-trains could be looked at since they have huge potential. However with street-running portions effectively capped at <100m trains, and the varying services and volumes we'd see, such thing may call for something like 4 tracks in the central trunk section. Obviously doable, and desirable, but perhaps quite costly and complex.

All things considered I think some form of subway/metro system is the way to go. Not worried if it's unconventional to cut costs, "orphan" as some might say. But this clearly isn't some ugly tract of suburban field we're dealing with. It's a huge area of multiple high density nodes that make up central Toronto. A 24h alpha city that needs at least a second subway line through its heart. We were already shortchange with Bloor/Danforth bypassing the core, and the time for dillydallying is well past. And ultimately I haven't seen a map/diagram of what you're describing to grasp things like station spacing, portals, or general nuances. So it's a bit hard to gauge how I feel about it.
 
Likewise, I have significant doubts that RER will materialize in any form. I'd rather not have RER and DRL tied to each other, lest one of them is cancelled.

Furthermore, it's not as if going with traditional subway equipment prevents RER-style running to RHC (in terms of service patterns, stop spacing, grade separation). If we desire to extend the Relief Line Subway north to RHC, we could use the surface corridor available just north of Finch and Don Mills to bring the DRL there. This would be providing RER-style service on the corridor in every way, except vehicle type. Furthermore, this arrangement would allow for narrower tunnel sizes and smaller stations in Old Toronto, which would significantly reduce the costs of any westward extension. Indeed, what I describe was once an official proposal (I believe back in the 1970s, I'd have to double check to be certain).
 
It should be recognized that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line to RER levels gains us very little (currently, the UPX puts the RH-GO line to shame in ridership) and would be a very costly upgrade requiring a totally new alignment south of Eglinton.

Moreover, between the DRL-North and Yonge North Subway Extension, we would be effectively duplicating service for the few riders that are interested in RH-GO.

Now, there are interesting things we could do with the RH-GO corridor, such as a relatively cheap northern extension of the DRL-North to Richmond Hill, as @TheTigerMaster mentioned.
 
I don't think mainline rail compatibility would be able to offer the tighter rapid transit station spacing and frequencies for the growing demand of the east/south/west area of the central city like a subway would offer
Already under every two minutes for Paris RER, and London Crossrail opening central section at 2.5 mins, 10 car trains, capable of 12 car later due to length of stations and a 2 min headway or better. The technology is certainly there and proven.

in my eyes it's nowhere close to the SBahn/RER type systems found in Paris, London, Sydney, etc.
But it could be, it's the political will that's absent. Plus initially, since if it will be fully forward compatible to full RER later, it can be run LRV, and that can be interconnected with the Metrolinx LRTs. All models of LRVs including the Alstom can be ordered bi-mode power (750vdc and 25kVAC) to both street run and operate on RER. This is exactly how many European, Ozzy and some US cities are doing it (San Diego been doing it for over three and a half decades, albeit catenary is 1500vDC. Runs on mainline rail tracks to the Mexican border as well as street running, although freight is temporally separated)

The trains will be fairly plush, and have washrooms, so by default they will cost a bit more than typical public transit.
It depends, since they haven't been ordered yet. Crossrail, since it will host a number of services, will have toilets on some trains, not on others:
Andrew Gwilt 03/06/2017 at 10:02

Well that's why TfL have ordered new trains with no toilets with Bombardier manufacturing the new Class 345's.

The Class 710's for London Overground will also not feature toilets as these new Class 710's trains will be operated & used on the soon electrified Gospel Oak-Barking line, London Liverpool St-Cheshunt, Enfield Town via Seven Sisters/Edmonton Green & Chingford via Clapton Lea Valley lines, Romford-Upminster line and London Euston-Watford Junction DC line services.
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/launch-of-crossrail-trains-pushed-back-by-tfl

Video here:

But this clearly isn't some ugly tract of suburban field we're dealing with. It's a huge area of multiple high density nodes that make up central Toronto.
And London and Paris have even denser nodes, albeit London, surprisingly, on average is half the density of most large European cities. London is densifying in nodes, however. Croydon was one of the first, and soars above the London core, thus the Croydon Tramlink and new Overground services there as well as Network Rail services.

It should be recognized that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line to RER levels gains us very little (currently, the UPX puts the RH-GO line to shame in ridership) and would be a very costly upgrade requiring a totally new alignment south of Eglinton.
Depends where you do it, where to, and how. Metrolinx, surprise, surprise, cooked the outcome of their last study. That will be revisited, not least because their own obviously bogus reports put them in a bind. Deja Vu! Vaughan and region, politically swaying Metrolinx. Who could imagine such a thing?

It should be recognized that upgrading the Richmond Hill GO Line to RER levels gains us very little (currently, the UPX puts the RH-GO line to shame in ridership) and would be a very costly upgrade requiring a totally new alignment south of Eglinton.
That's exactly the point! If you're going to bore a tunnel for toy subways, then do it Crosstown size and run LRVs through it first stage, LRV in trains next, and then RER when the demand presents itself. Do you mean to tell me that that an RER demand from the northern ex-burbs that's now clogging the 400 series hwys doesn't exist? The proposed DRL tunneling will make the SSE look like a bargain. At the very least, overbuild it for forward compatibility and into extant regional networks to the north. That ain't TTC gauge...unless Toronto wants to pay for it. Good luck with that...

Now, there are interesting things we could do with the RH-GO corridor, such as a relatively cheap northern extension of the DRL-North to Richmond Hill, as @TheTigerMaster mentioned.
You've just gone full circle. The initial proposal for the Spadina extension was for LRT. TTC Planning said no, do it subway. Council caved.

Do it big (to RER standard), or go home. It would be cheaper to build RER surface rail than subway 3rd rail surface rail, and considerably cheaper to build stations.

Furthermore, this arrangement would allow for narrower tunnel sizes and smaller stations in Old Toronto,
Tunnel bore makes little to no difference in cost since this is going to be *deep tunneling*, not cut and cover or shallow tunnel and cut and cover station boxes. The only problem a larger gauge (tunnel bore) would present is needing softer curves due to the length of carriages for RER.

RER in tunnel is actually, and proven to be, cheaper than conventional subway, which is why it is the mode of choice of new projects in most cities now. Not to mention run-through from the regions, and the savings that entails. Stations for RER in tunnel/LRT, assuming they're low-level platform (which is what Calgary and Edmonton are now adopting) are considerably cheaper to build.
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach - Railway Age
[...]
Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents. [...]
 
Last edited:
Already under every two minutes for Paris RER, and London Crossrail opening central section at 2.5 mins, 10 car trains, capable of 12 car later due to length of stations and a 2 min headway or better. The technology is certainly there and proven.

But it could be, it's the political will that's absent. Plus initially, since if it will be fully forward compatible to full RER later, it can be run LRV, and that can be interconnected with the Metrolinx LRTs. All models of LRVs including the Alstom can be ordered bi-mode power (750vdc and 25kVAC) to both street run and operate on RER. This is exactly how many European, Ozzy and some US cities are doing it (San Diego been doing it for over three and a half decades, albeit catenary is 1500vDC. Runs on mainline rail tracks to the Mexican border as well as street running, although freight is temporally separated)

For sure, I didn't mean it couldn't or isn't done elsewhere. Rather from what can be gleaned about "RER" or ST (RER+) going forward, it'd more like it wouldn't. That being said the original concept behind ST was interesting, which I guess was some kind of subway-like vehicle (high platform, level boarding, single floor) - but also with spurs branching along rds/hwys. The latter may've pointed to i) a tram-train system with street-running capability; ii) a more subway/metro system using a guideway separate from traffic and mainline trains; iii) a conventional mainline inter/intracity passenger system. Others had great ideas too like SmartSpur - a branch to Scarb Ctr using Line 3's ROW.

But then it kinda came down to earth a bit, while still seeming grandiose. So yeah it could be done, and 1:1 mimic an expansive Relief Line + central tunnel. But I have trouble believing such thing happening over the coming decades. For GO and USRC's future capacity I think we're more likely to see a short 4-track tunnel below Union, as well as satellite hub like East Harbour. For the most part though when it comes to GO I'd rather see gradual upgrades and electrification where originally promised pre-2013, but without losing sight of continued outward expansion to areas underserved by commuter rail (e.g Brantford, Cambridge, North Durham, etc).
 
Huh? There are literally hundreds of millions of dollars of tenders out for RER projects, along with some that have already been awarded.

Like for all provincial transit projects, I'll believe it's coming when the contracts are signed. 50+ years of seeing dozens of transit proposals ushered in and ultimately canceled should make us all highly skeptical that any of these plans will materialize. All these transit proposals, including RER, can easily evaporate in a change of government. We're a lot better at musing about building transit than actually doing it.
 
Like for all provincial transit projects, I'll believe it's coming when the contracts are signed. 50+ years of seeing dozens of transit proposals ushered in and ultimately canceled should make us all highly skeptical that any of these plans will materialize. All these transit proposals, including RER, can easily evaporate in a change of government. We're a lot better at musing about building transit than actually doing it.

Many contracts have been signed. RER is underway. Some projects necessary to facilitate RER have even been completed.

I understand the skepticism, but the time for reasonably claiming that RER isn't real has very obviously passed. Extent is certainly another question, given that another government could whittle it down.
 

Back
Top