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

In Toronto, GO rail lines operate as express trains within the city. They just need more service.

I made a trip the other day, Bloor GO UPX station to Rouge Hill GO via Union for work. I got there in less than 40 minutes. Much faster than the TTC or Driving during the day.

The TTC subway shouldn't focus on express service, it would be a vanity project. The DRL and all TTC subways should primarily be for relatively local travel as the subway is today. A subway uploaded to the province may change this and that is not a good thing. IMO.

However 3 platforms could work to improve capacity at Osgoode. Especially if it's to be the western terminus indefinitely.
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
The huge advantage I see for this, even as we may disagree on the bulk and type of vehicle specifics? *Express by-pass!* This pertains no matter what the vehicle type is. It allows local and express through the same tunnel without requiring a third one a la New York Subway of Chicago's CTA. So I'd say four tracks, two with platforms on the outer side of the station box, and the express run through the centre. (edit: The option to stop would still be present if fast and local share two island platforms) Highly sophisticated CBTC signalling might allow for three tracks, but your concept is excellent, and I think REM is proposing exactly this for within the Mount Royal Tunnel to allow VIA HFR to 'run-through' w/o stopping at the (formerly proposed deep station mid-tunnel) until Gare Centrale.

Obviously it means holding the local for a few minutes at times at the platform for an express by-pass, but this is already done on some Japanese lines with just two tracks. Other cities are getting state of the art signalling systems that do wonders, including deducing optimal timing for express by-pass at stations. It's time to start building it into new projects like this. Yet another reason not to do this conventional Toronto subway. Moving Block it ain't.
Click to expand...
Not quite. I was just proposing 2 track and 3 platforms for all door boarding. All door boarding would reduce the dwell time at the few critical stations so that they don't excessively limit the capacity of the line.
 
tayser said:
Aie, three tracks - they're ok when your peak frequency isn't all that 'rapid' (i.e 5-6 minutes for express and 5-6 minutes for a stopper), but with higher frequencies on either track or both: where do the trains 'go' once they reach the end of the line? Yeah, they can be turned but the opposite track (2 in one direction, 1 in the opposite) will get overloaded/sending trains down the line full of hot air (and not passengers).
Click to expand...
Hi Tayser! The key to making it work (and of course, it couldn't match discreet multi-tunnels) is state of the art signalling and ATO. Now that I know Sydney has this arrangement, I'll look for a study. Found this, bit dated, but might contain what you describe:
Information about the Rail Corridors Strategy ... - Transport for NSW Anything you could link most welcomed. As per third track express, it works reasonably well in NYC and Chicago for peak rush, to name a few.
Jaye101 said:
I made a trip the other day, Bloor GO UPX station to Rouge Hill GO via Union for work. I got there in less than 40 minutes. Much faster than the TTC or Driving during the day.
Click to expand...
Completely with you on that. UPX downtown from Bloor vs. subway is a complete no-brainer for me. I live steps away from Bloor Station, it gets me in/out of Toronto directly and effectively, my only complaint being outside of the day runs to Mt Pleasant, not having a transfer to bus through Pearson on the UPX. Which again raises the question, albeit somewhat surreal, of one massive tunnel divided vertically into two RER (single deck EMUs) sized tunnels, and in the space left at the sides, two local stopping tunnels with small metro vehicles. The cost would almost double, which then begs the question, would it be better to have two separate projects? And then the obvious one: We have enough of a challenge doing one, could we possibly do two? Highly doubtful at this rate. I think the bottom line is this: If it is to serve locals only, it should be funded by local government. Good luck on that. Toronto still hasn't figured out to pay for what few (six?) stations are left for SmartTrack.

I'm still completely of the view that for "relief"...we need "bypass" of the subway, not a secondary straw to bleed off a section and dump it back back downtown. We've got to have an alternative, fast, full capacity and serving the nether regions with minimal stops to downtown. The present RH GO service needs new routing from Don Mills south. It's crazy not to combine the two.
Jaye101 said:
The TTC subway shouldn't focus on express service, it would be a vanity project. The DRL and all TTC subways should primarily be for relatively local travel as the subway is today. A subway uploaded to the province may change this and that is not a good thing. IMO.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but what's the most pressing need for the Relief Line? Local service, or bypass? I think local for that route can be done with LRT/streetcar/bus feeding into fewer but major stops/hubs/interchanges.
BurlOak said:
Not quite. I was just proposing 2 track and 3 platforms for all door boarding.
Click to expand...
Semi Spanish Solution?
 
Last edited:
lead82 said:
I don’t think the length of our trains or platforms is a huge problem. The main cost driver is that fact we are building tunnels where they are not needed. The way I see it we have two cost drivers : tunnels and massive stations. TYSSE could have been on the surface or elevated with only small portions under ground such as in York U area.

The new stations we build are massive. All of the Sheppard stations (including Sheppard West) and the new TYSSE are massive overbuilds. Downsview Park has two giant buildings! Finch West has a useless bus terminal building where a simple loop would have sufficed. Pioneer Village has two massive bus terminals where 1 would have been more than sufficient. 407 station is a mistake and should have never been built. It’s too close to the other two and has no use outside of the small passenger lot. Pioneer Village could have absorbed all of its use and removed the silly transfer now introduced by Go Transit.

Toronto needs to get serious and build subways properly. The DRL should be simple stations but wide platforms to handle the crowds, especially at interchange stations. No need for any bus loops or terminals at the other stations. Maybe a simple bus/tram loop.

As for LRTs, we need more of them but we need them mode separated. In street LRTs are slow as they have to wait for lights. Build them elevated or separate them from the road.
Click to expand...

DoFo's goverment claimed that the size of the TYSSE stations were "Liberals waste spending", and that's a 50/50 thing I agree with.
 
steveintoronto said:
Semi Spanish Solution?
Click to expand...
Si.

I still haven't figured out if 3 platforms should mean all door boarding, or true "Spanish solution where 1 platform is for boarding and 1 for exiting (alighting is too fancy a word for me).
  • If true Spanish, then the boarding platform would be large (since people wait for the train and may not get on a full train) , and the exiting platform small (as people leave as soon as they get off the train). There is a bit of lag time between the doors opening for exiting passengers and later opening for the entering ones. Just a thought, but could the train doors be staggered on opposite sides of the train, so that the entering passengers from 1 side do not get in the way of the exiting passengers.
  • With all door boarding and exiting all platform must be somewhat larger to accommodate the waiting passengers, and possibly the exiting passengers that get caught in a maze of waiting passengers. There may be a bit of chaos as people are leaving and entering from all doors at the same time. But there is no lag in the exiting doors opening and the entering doors still being closed.
Now that i think about it, maybe the Spanish solution would be better.
 
I always thought there was a missed opportunity to make Bloor -> Eglinton triple tracked when they covered up the St.clair portion.

Previously that whole area was open in a trench

900b-yongestreet_before_subway_large.jpg


They should have included in the work of adding another track when decking over st.clair. It would have required to rebuild some bridges and cut and cover around stations, but minimal work compared to any of the tunneled areas. Luckily Davisville station is already setup for a third track. The trenched area was sloped so I do believe there is enough space in there to add a third track.

Having express trains bypass Rosedale, Summerhill, St.Clair and Davisville really would speed up the trip to Finch, and eventually beyond.
 
robmausser said:
I always thought there was a missed opportunity to make Bloor -> Eglinton triple tracked when they covered up the St.clair portion.

Previously that whole area was open in a trench

900b-yongestreet_before_subway_large.jpg


They should have included in the work of adding another track when decking over st.clair. It would have required to rebuild some bridges and cut and cover around stations, but minimal work compared to any of the tunneled areas. Luckily Davisville station is already setup for a third track. The trenched area was sloped so I do believe there is enough space in there to add a third track.

Having express trains bypass Rosedale, Summerhill, St.Clair and Davisville really would speed up the trip to Finch, and eventually beyond.
Click to expand...


St Clair and Davisville actions are busy, so mostly Rosedale and Summerhill?
 
thettctransitfanatic said:
St Clair and Davisville actions are busy, so mostly Rosedale and Summerhill?
Click to expand...

So what if they are busy? The GO train stations between Union -> Pickering are busy, but that doesnt mean there isnt an express train that bypasses them.

You think that none of these stations on the Red Line arent busy?

red.PNG


There would still be all stop service Davisville and Eg, with allstops service. You'd just run a handful of express trains for Finch and in the future, Richmond Hill
 
robmausser said:
So what if they are busy? The GO train stations between Union -> Pickering are busy, but that doesnt mean there isnt an express train that bypasses them.

You think that none of these stations on the Red Line arent busy?

View attachment 172541

There would still be all stop service Davisville and Eg, with allstops service. You'd just run a handful of express trains for Finch and in the future, Richmond Hill
Click to expand...

It's imporant that all stations get equal service. I believe this is a dumb TTC policy out there...
 
thettctransitfanatic said:
It's imporant that all stations get equal service. I believe this is a dumb TTC policy out there...
Click to expand...

They would get equal service.

The trains servicing Rosedale -> Davisville would be short turned at Davisville. Say in an hour you'd have 20 trains on the Rosedale -> Davisville segment and 20 on the Eglinton -> Finch segment.

Like the Go trains express operate.
 
Bureaucromancer said:
I thought it was fairly well established, if not politically at least among those following it, that it's the northern extension that actually makes a Yonge extension possible.
Click to expand...

From what I had understood. taking a bunch of the Line 2 East end travelers (me) out of using the Yonge/Bloor interchange was what would make the Yonge North a viable option to extend. Therefore making the Yonge/Bloor interchange a smidgen less busy.
 
tstormers said:
From what I had understood. taking a bunch of the Line 2 East end travelers (me) out of using the Yonge/Bloor interchange was what would make the Yonge North a viable option to extend. Therefore making the Yonge/Bloor interchange a smidgen less busy.
Click to expand...

That's only really enough to get Yonge/Bloor into some semblance of functionality with Eglinton in place by my understanding.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top