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

[steveintoronto]

^This and many more scenarios fit. All interesting, and including my own, none of them really add up. Even Keesmaat's Relief Line proposal is fluff. She knew enough to use the SSE to allow Ford to hang himself on, but then she stuck by the Relief Line for some odd reason. It doesn't make sense.

Nothing about any of this makes any sense in terms of adding up in a linear way. If Ford came out and declared his 'subway term was a generality, I now mean RER' it could all work. But he isn't. He's not bright enough to be able to think that through.

I realize the guy isn't in great physical shape, but even he will need only so many petards to hang himself with. I think he's already well past the critical number...

I can see they building the Yonge extenstion first without the relief line cause it cost too much money and people already have subways downtown.

Don't know if that's a typo or not 'can/can't' but if the Yonge line is extended before a Relief Line is built, it just won't work, plain and simple. It would be like funneling the 401 into highway 2.

 

[44 North]

DLR wouldn't meet safety standards for running out on mainline tracks. The Aventra (basis for the Class 345 and competing models) are and do. And Crossrail certainly is RER. And a little known fact is that like DLR, they can be run without a driver, not that Transport Canada would permit that on mainline track. Of course, DLR is much akin to the SRT, same signalling system basics. Crossrail trains are going to carry up to 1500 passengers per train. I'd call that "fast relief".

But that's why I'm saying I like the DLR, because it *doesn't run on mainline tracks and *is automated. In other words how I'd envision RL. Sections may use bits of former rail line that have been severed from the mainline but otherwise a wholly separate system. And yeah SRT is fairly neat and I think should be kept and expanded upon, heck it could even have been a branch of the RL. Still majorly upgraded, but the general idea I'm trying to get across is that I prefer grade-separated, automated, lighter, very high-frequency, agile trains for something like RL. Not mainline heavy rail commuter trains, nor hulking street-running tram LRVs that run on the street.

And yes Crossrail is 'RER', but certainly not the RER we're planning here. Naturally there's room for something Crossrail-esque in Toronto going forward, but I don't think we're getting that any time soon.

 

[Rainforest]

The Fords used to say downtown have too many subways. I can see they building the Yonge extenstion first without the relief line cause it cost too much money and people already have subways downtown.

York Region and the Liberals wanted the extension. Only the city and TTC were against it without the Relief line. By uploading it, they can avoid all the trouble and let York region fill up the trains. The city doesn't get to say they want a relief line anymore.

Though, downstream riders who no longer can squeeze into any train south of Sheppard will look for the culprit, and will find one. It will be the new nominal owner of the subway system. PC's got quite a few ridings in the north of 416 this time; their constituents will suffer, among others.

During the PM rush, everyone will suffer, even those new riders from north of Steeles. They won't have any advantage when boarding.

The trick would work best for the provincial government if the nominal ownership of the subways remained with the city. Then they could force the city's hand on Yonge extension and take the credit, then blame the resulting overcrowding on the city's failure to manage its transit.

If they take the formal ownership, it will be harder for them to shift the responsibility for operational problems.

I can't guarantee they won't actually build Yonge North before the Relief Line, but I am sure that if they do, it won't be a winning move for them.

 

[Kitsune]

If RER is so special... then why is Sydney converting some of its RER lines to Metro? Further - I doubt Queen is wide enough for a GO ROW underneath it.

 

[steveintoronto]

If RER is so special... then why is Sydney converting some of its RER lines to Metro? Further - I doubt Queen is wide enough for a GO ROW underneath it.

Crossrail is a smaller bore than the standard TTC bore. And the Sydney metro bores are equivalent to Crossrail's. The present Sydney ones are for DD trains. That's exactly the point! To go single deck fully automated.

Which brings us to: @44 North :

But that's why I'm saying I like the DLR, because it *doesn't run on mainline tracks and *is automated. In other words how I'd envision RL. Sections may use bits of former rail line that have been severed from the mainline but otherwise a wholly separate system. And yeah SRT is fairly neat and I think should be kept and expanded upon, heck it could even have been a branch of the RL.

Done as a metro, I agree. But is Toronto ready for this? Montreal certainly is with REM. The same vehicles could be used, it would make far more sense than using TTC gauge and yesterday's tech. Plus the rails of the SRT, which are standard gauge, would be perfect for retrofit.

I like RER best, but metro next, and metros still use the same platform height (in most cases) there's incredible diversity in what denotes a 'metro' . VIA is adamant that they can not only share the Mount Royal tunnel for HFR, but also the high platforms at Gare Centrale. And of course, shared track, signal and control systems, at least through the shared tunnel. And shared catenary!

The Alstom Metropolis is a family of electric multiple units built by Alstom designed for high capacity rapid transit or metro rail infrastructure systems. The trains are in service in 22 major cities around the world, representing more than 3000 cars, including Singapore, Shanghai, Budapest, Warsaw, Nanjing, Buenos Aires, São Paulo, Lima, Santiago, Chile, Barcelona, Istanbul, Santo Domingo, Chennai and Kochi. Amsterdam ordered 23 Metropolis trains; the first one came into operation June 2013. Xiamen also ordered some Metropolis trainsets for the Xiamen Metro. Trains can be run in configurations of 2 to 10 cars using manned or unmanned operations.

Systems which use Metropolis cars

• [...]
• Montréal REM (Starting from 2021)
• [...]

REM cars from Alstom:

[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alstom_Metropolis

And of course, the Sydney Metro:
Prototype of a Alstom Metropolis train set designed exclusively for Sydney Metro (*begins operation 2019)

 

[crs1026]

So, other than subjective preference - can anyone quantify what the incremental spend of constructing the DRL as a vanilla TTC subway line might be? I'm guessing it is not that material.

My personal belief is that the DRL should be vanilla TTC subway, with all its warts and oddities because

a) economies of scale for rolling stock, signalling, track materials
b) knowledge management and operatonal flexibility for operation and maintenance
c) we may need the capacity over 30 years and beyond,
d) the voter understands it, there being no successful higher-order transit line of any other type in Toronto yet

- Paul

 

[Leo_Chan]

So, other than subjective preference - can anyone quantify what the incremental spend of constructing the DRL as a vanilla TTC subway line might be? I'm guessing it is not that material.

My personal belief is that the DRL should be vanilla TTC subway, with all its wards and oddities because

a) economies of scale for rolling stock, signalling, track materials
b) knowledge management and operatonal flexibility for operation and maintenance
c) we may need the capacity over 30 years and beyond,
d) the voter understands it, there being no successful higher-order transit line of any other type in Toronto yet

- Paul

This is true. In addition to the uncertainties with GO RER, GO RER in an underground tunnel through the Downtown Core has even more uncertainties.

 

[smallspy]

Crossrail is a smaller bore than the standard TTC bore.

That's because TTC's rolling stock is larger than that used on Crossrail. Whatever the rolling stock used here, it will require a larger bore than Crossrail because it will be bigger.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Rainforest]

That's because TTC's rolling stock is larger than that used on Crossrail. Whatever the rolling stock used here, it will require a larger bore than Crossrail because it will be bigger.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Crossrail uses standard rail cars. If we chose to go with similar type of cars, we would need a tunnel of a similar diameter, not wider.

 

[Rainforest]

So, other than subjective preference - can anyone quantify what the incremental spend of constructing the DRL as a vanilla TTC subway line might be? I'm guessing it is not that material.

My personal belief is that the DRL should be vanilla TTC subway, with all its warts and oddities because

a) economies of scale for rolling stock, signalling, track materials
b) knowledge management and operatonal flexibility for operation and maintenance
c) we may need the capacity over 30 years and beyond,
d) the voter understands it, there being no successful higher-order transit line of any other type in Toronto yet

- Paul

I doubt (d) applies; the voters will be very happy when told that the central Relief Line tunnel can seamlessly connect to the outgoing mainline rail lines.

Not sure (c) applies, either. There is no reason the mainline-compatible Relief Line must have lower capacity than the TTC-gauge Relief Line.

Points (a) and (b) probably hold. And, it should be somewhat cheaper to build a tunneled 3rd-rail line (= vanilla TTC) than a tunneled mainline-compatible (= catenary-powered) line, because the former's train cross-section is more optimal for the tunnel.

But on the other hand, once we select a vanilla TTC Relief Line, we greatly increase the cost of any extension beyond Eglinton, as well as of having any branches.

 

[Rainforest]

Actually I am 80% sure the Relief Line will be vanilla TTC subway. But, not because of any solid technical reasons. Rather, because of the mindset of both our elected officials and the city departments' brass.

 

[smallspy]

Crossrail uses standard rail cars. If we chose to go with similar type of cars, we would need a tunnel of a similar diameter, not wider.

They're standard in the UK - and certainly not in North America. Why would or should we build something to a lesser standard than is capable of being utilized?

(And for the record, they're not even standard in the UK. They are using a 24m length carbody, because they will only ever be used on the Crossrail lines. The current standard in terms of being able to run everywhere in the UK is a 20m carbody.)

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ssiguy2]

I should have been more specific. When I said RER trains I meant single levels not the monster double-level GO commuter trains. Standard 100 to 120 meter stations running just as frequently as any subway but simply using catenary power supply so to be useful for RER and give a meaningful relief to Union. Build the DRL exactly as planned but use catenary subways like Cleveland. Catenary subways are totally off-the-shelf and many systems worldwide use them nearly exclusively such as Tokyo, Barcelona, and Hong Kong. They are exactly the same trains except they get they power on top as opposed to underneath.

I am not surprised this isn't being considered because it would require some form of cooperation between the TTC and GO who only begrudgingly even acknowledge each others existence. Keesmet's stupid proposal exemplifies this parochial thinking. This is what I liked about ST...…….it acknowledged a sharing of resources with GO and made use of existing infrastructure.

The change that is needed in Toronto in order for a true shift in transportation usage is for the TTC and GO to stop thinking what is best for their system but rather what`s best for the transit rider regardless of what colour bus or train they travel on.

 

[steveintoronto]

They're standard in the UK - and certainly not in North America. Why would or should we build something to a lesser standard than is capable of being utilized?

You make the argument for RER well. That's my first choice, and I fully agree with your parameters, RER will require accommodating wider bends than is being proposed for 'vanilla subway cars'. However, criteria for RER body gauge and length is not yet set. According to Verster, such details will be up to the terms of the P3 partner.

Btw, your claim on '24 metre coach length' being unique to the Class 345s is off.

[...]
The North’s new trains

Ian Hyde, Northern’s head of new trains, explained: “This is a once-in-a-generation chance to significantly improve the quality of rail services in the North; we’re enhancing the overall on-board experience. The introduction of these units will increase our fleet size allowing us to offer more and faster services.”

The age of many of its trains, which date back to the mid-80s and include the bus-like Pacer trains, makes it difficult for Northern to attract customers from their cars. This should change with these new air-conditioned trains that have 24-metre-long coaches with 2+2 seating and seats, which are cantilevered from the side of the coach, complete with armrests. The number of seats in the two, three and four-car units are, respectively, 123, 203 and 284.

Ian also explained that the intention was to provide the largest possible train. This required some standard components to be modified to fit within the UK loading gauge and may require some minor infrastructure alterations. He also advised that the amount of seat padding was determined from a passenger evaluation that considered three options.
[...]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/04/03/northerns-trains-from-spain/

 

[44 North]

I should have been more specific. When I said RER trains I meant single levels not the monster double-level GO commuter trains. Standard 100 to 120 meter stations running just as frequently as any subway but simply using catenary power supply so to be useful for RER and give a meaningful relief to Union. Build the DRL exactly as planned but use catenary subways like Cleveland. Catenary subways are totally off-the-shelf and many systems worldwide use them nearly exclusively such as Tokyo, Barcelona, and Hong Kong. They are exactly the same trains except they get they power on top as opposed to underneath.

I am not surprised this isn't being considered because it would require some form of cooperation between the TTC and GO who only begrudgingly even acknowledge each others existence. Keesmet's stupid proposal exemplifies this parochial thinking. This is what I liked about ST...…….it acknowledged a sharing of resources with GO and made use of existing infrastructure.

The change that is needed in Toronto in order for a true shift in transportation usage is for the TTC and GO to stop thinking what is best for their system but rather what`s best for the transit rider regardless of what colour bus or train they travel on.

The part I bolded is the problem. Seems every couple months you chime in and effectively say 'Toronto's so dumb, just put catenary on the subways then run them on GO tracks...like Cleveland'. But look at Cleveland's Red Line system, it's a subway. They bought former rail lines, severed them from the mainline, then upgraded them to rapid transit standards (mildly/lightly, but still it's a separate system). There seem to be no crossing over with general rail track (e.g Amtrak, freight), no switches to said tracks, and no level ped/auto crossings. That's not what's planned with RER here. Our RER will have level crossings, and tracks will be used by Via or diesel commuter trains or freight. In other words not at all like Cleveland, and not possible to put a modified Toronto Rocket onto. They'll be mainlines, not subway tracks.

Yes there is merit to optimizing portions of rail corridors, severing them, then upgrading them to subway standard for use of something like RL. But where, and what preexisting passenger service or freight usage will be abandoned to this? It's slim pickings since our rail corridors are very much in use. And again, systems like Cleveland's Red Line don't inter-operate with mainline trains so your idea that we can operate subway trains on GO tracks and vice versa is not realistic or relatable.