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

[steveintoronto]

NYC DOES NOT run commuter trains on the same tracks as it does it's subways

PATH does, but I don't need to go there. London and Paris certainly do. Where do you think the term "RER" came from? I've linked the Crossrail and Thamslink info many times here, as well as Tramtrain, Karlsruhe model, etc, etc.

For London alone:

Track Sharing

• Hammersmith (Met) - Near Aldgate [Circle Line / Hammersmith & City Line].
• Just east of Baker Street - Near Aldgate [[Hammersmith & City / Metropolitan Line]
• Just east of Baker Street - Aldgate [[Circle Line / Metropolitan Line]
• Southern side Circle Line [Circle Line / District Line (main section)].
• Western side Circle Line [Circle Line / District Line (Edgware Road - Wimbledon service)].
• ‡Harrow-On-The-Hill - Moor Park - Amersham [Chiltern Railways / Metropolitan Line].
• *(Barons Court) - Acton Town - Ealing Common [District Line / Piccadilly Line].
• Rayners Lane - Uxbridge [Metropolitan Line / Piccadilly Line].
• Queens Park - Harrow & Wealdstone [Bakerloo Line / Euston-Watford London Overground].
• §Aldgate East - Barking [District Line / Hammersmith & City Line].
• Richmond - Gunnersbury [District Line / North London Line London Overground].

http://citytransport.info/Shared.htm

In London's case, where the Underground uses a unique four rail system (supply and drain are two separate rails) there's even a long established (almost a century ago) compromise to run the trains along with the mainline 'third rail electrics' (mostly ex Southern Region south of the Thames) to ensure compatibility electrically as well, as of course, the standard gauge tracks and platform height and distance from the rails to render them standard for use for both systems.

Electrification

The older Metropolitan line train A Stock bound for Amersham
The lines are electrified with a four-rail DC system: a conductor rail between the rails is energised at −210 V and a rail outside the running rails at +420 V, giving a potential difference of 630 V. On the sections of line shared with main line trains, such as the District line from East Putney to Wimbledon and Gunnersbury to Richmond, and the Bakerloo line north of Queen's Park, the centre rail is bonded to the running rails, as the electrical return from National Rail trains is via the wheels.[8] This was first used in the early 20th century, the isolated traction current return allowing a train's position to be detected using DC track circuits, and reduced any earth leakage currents that could affect service pipes and telephone cables.[9]
[...]

http://citytransport.info/Shared.htm

"Newfangled"? My God...how stuck in the past is Toronto?

 

[hw621]

that being (in effect) "RER with closer stops within the City".

You just said it.

 

[nfitz]

Vancouver's Canada Line manages an extremely high frequency, but suffers from very short platforms and trains.

It's been claimed that the Canada line can do a very high frequency, but the reality is they've never purchsed enough vehicles for that. At peak it's best is only once every 3 minutes in the central portion, and only once every 6 minutes at the airport. And from there it drops to once every 10 minutes in the central portion late at night, and once every 20 minutes at the airport.

Reality is that both Line 1 and Line 2 in Toronto, and most of the Montreal Metro lines have been running a higher frequency at peak for decades!

Translink is very good at reporting detailed ridership data, listing hourly numbers for over 55,000 different rail and time Skytrain segments (for both 2016 and 2017) in their annual report - https://www.translink.ca/Plans-and-...twork/Transit-Service-Performance-Review.aspx

The highest Canada line segment (passengers per hour per direction) is only 5,911 passengers northbound from King Edward to Broadway in AM peak - which is a healthy increase from 5,638 riders in 2016. This compares to 14,071 on the Expo line from Commerical-Broadway to Main Street (northbound in AM peak).

 

[steveintoronto]

Be aware that Jonathan English, who's written a number of excellent articles for UT (more recently, the interviews with Verster) has some well written and researched articles up on subways et al:

Jonathan English

• @ENGLISHRAIL
• FEED

Jonathan English is a Ph.D. candidate in urban planning at Columbia University.
Why Public Transportation Works Better Outside the U.S.
The widespread failure of American mass transit is usually blamed on cheap gas and suburban sprawl. But the full story of why other countries succeed is more complicated.

1. JONATHAN ENGLISH

OCT 10, 2018

Why Did America Give Up on Mass Transit? (Don't Blame Cars.)
Streetcar, bus, and metro systems have been ignoring one lesson for 100 years: Service drives demand.

1. JONATHAN ENGLISH

AUG 31, 2018
Why New York City Stopped Building Subways
Nearly 80 years ago, a construction standstill derailed the subway’s progress, leading to its present crisis. This is the story, decade by decade.

1. JONATHAN ENGLISH

APR 16, 2018

https://www.citylab.com/authors/jonathan-english/

 

[Kitsune]

Canada Line currently runs at 3m 20s giving a 6100 pphpd capacity after the split. They are adding additional train sets starting this summer to decrease that to 2m 30s, providing 8100 pphpd. Max is roughly 15000 pphd / 1m 30s with a additional 10m C car (the platforms can be extended from 40m to 50m). The Broadway subway is being built with 80m platforms.

 

[crs1026]

I do take issue with the assumption that "all the work the City has done so far will be wasted". It doesn't help that the 'engineers' aren't the talking heads on this. I suspect at least half of the preliminary work can and will be used.

Assuming the downtown portion of the route doesn't change, then all the discovery data - geotechnical stuff, water, utility location, etc is quite usable. However I worry that a change to the assumed tunnel dimensions might throw some things back to the drawing board. This would be especially so if the bore has to increase - which might be the case to accommodate some sort of overhead transmission on a heavy rail size vehicle.

We are speculating almost to the point of a Rorschach analysis, and I'm reluctant to go further. But the two potential options that seem to emerge are either a) a Vancouver-style smaller carbody system, which we assume to mean smaller tunnels and cheaper construction or b) a heavy rail compatible system, possibly the actual template that ML has been advancing for RER all along. It's hard to see how the latter would not require larger tunnels (I'm too lazy to research actual dimensions just for this post) and in that case anything involving curves, clearances, and costs is in the dustbin.

One poster suggested an iOn-like system of gantlet trackage on the Bala Sub. The one thing I would bet money on is that CN will NOT, repeat NOT, tolerate any serious intrusion onto its main lines either at Doncaster or northwards towards Richmond Hill. So don't asume shared tracks. How much of their ROW they might shave off for a separate RT alignment we don't know, but they will predictably err on the side of leaving more room for their own operations. This is the heart of their Ontario assets, they aren't gonna just move over.

- Paul

 

[tiffer24]

Strange times when this is a serious question...

https://twitter.com/x/status/1111296930309722113

 

[BurlOak]

I'm also putting aside bias against Ford et al, although politically, that endures. And to facilitate doing that, I have to keep reminding myself and others that this isn't a Ford Fandangle...it's a Metrolinx manifestation. And oddly, we're hearing nothing directly from them. Quick thought on that: Are they miffed that this has been blabbed to the public prematurely purely for political points? What's clear to me is that without this initiative (whether technically good or not) nothing was going to happen with the status-quo. The City just doesn't have funding for a City plan. On this and many other things.

Same as with the Eglinton -Scarborough Crosstown. It wasn't a (Rob) Ford plan. It was a Metrolinx plan. Somehow the shock of having Ford in power got Metrolinx to go forward with their preferred plan. Remember, during the 2010 campaign and before, Ford wanted the B-D extension. He was willing to compromise when he saw the better plan. The Liberals seemed on board as well. Then, when the Ford started getting into drug problems, the Liberals abandoned their own (and Metrolinx's) plan just to go against Ford. Quickly they realized that the "Transfer LRT" was not what the public wanted - and they couldn't go back to the preferred plan, since it would be admitting that Ford was right. So instead, we got the SSE.

This is the same case. It's not a Ford plan, but a Metrolinx plan. Metrolinx must be so frustrated, as they likely were in 2012, that for a half decade, the Liberals did nothing to promote their plan or treat their expertise with respect. They were just an arm of the Liberal Party to be used for political means. The Liberals sat back and allowed the City to waste time and money advancing the preliminary design of something (DRL Short) that would not solve the problem to any great extent. I would guess that Metrolinx has been working on this "Fantastic bonanza" plan for some time and they would be ecstatic that a government is finally respecting their expertise.

 

[Allandale25]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1111226469307408384

Ben's other tweets provides an even stronger hint.


"Yurek confirms that one of the benefits of building the Relief Line with different technology is that is would be "cost effective" for taxpayers. Claims it could be completed sooner than city's version of the line, which has been in planning for five years."

"We'll commit to having the Relief Line up and running before the Yonge extension," Yurek says. (Again, I asked his spokesperson that same question yesterday and there was no commitment)."

 

[Midtown Urbanist]

There is nothing particularly new about any of the technologies we have heard around here. I have no issue with orphan trainsets iff they are used extensively - the issues that concerns me are the alignment, the location of the stations - things that really determines the nature of this new "relief line"; and the finer details - who is paying whom, and what are the terms of those arrangements. The necessary details for a truly meaningful assessment that can't be communicated in a few tweets and vaguely worded letters.

AoD

True, they will have to pay for that - but that seems like an expense they won't be able to avoid one way or another. At this point, I am content with a wait and see approach - but iff only meanignful information is forthcoming (instead of hagiographic BS).

My main concern is dramatic shifts in alignment that does not serve the core (e.g. using a Don Valley alignment with stations that barely connect to anything)

AoD

What Alvin describes here is still the sticking point for me.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter what technology it is, which track gauge is used, or how it looks. What matters is if it achieves the goals of the Relief Line.

Which are to recap in no particular order: (1) to provide relief to Bloor-Yonge Station; (2) to provide relief to the downtown streetcar network from the east; (3) to provide access to the east-end of the Old City of Toronto and East York, including some priority neighbourhoods along Overlea; (4) to provide relief to the Yonge Line by intersecting the Eglinton Crosstown and the major arterial bus routes feeding Yonge from the east; (5) to reduce commute times to the major downtown job centre and economy for North York east and Scarborough commuters; (6) to free up the necessary capacity to enable the construction of the Yonge North extension.

This line is projected at 20,000 pphd. We can't screw this up with a bad alignment (ala Spadina Line).

 

[BurlOak]

I suspect the present work done on alignment and route will be retained, albeit some of the curves might have to be of a greater radius and platforms lengthened. The southern "Don Valley alignment" is valuable not as the prime route, but as an adjunct to it, even as single track, as a by-pass for double-decker 'express' from Don Mills south non-stop to Union in peak to allow a more direct connection to other GO routes. Off peak, RER single deck EMUs off of the northern reaches in Markham would take the Relief Line route to the core, with a transfer at Gerrard or the subway to continue to Union if wanted. The line would still head to Osgoode and then later, west to rejoin extant RER corridors.

I always thought the jog on Carlaw was a waste put in by City Planning to make the public happy, but adding great expense. As I recall the drawings, there was a major sewer main along Carlaw, and it force the line to be 6m+ deeper to avoid this. Maybe this is the opportunity to remove it.

 

[Forgotten]

This line is projected at 20,000 pphd. We can't screw this up with a bad alignment (ala Spadina Line).

 

[pdcstream]

Has anybody checked out the new Jakarta MRT? It might not seem extraordinary but it has train speeds of 100 km/hr elevated and 80 km/hr underground according to this video (@ 0::52):

 

[smallspy]

PATH does, but I don't need to go there.

PATH absolutely does not.

PATH has some grandfathered FRA oversight due to historical quirks. But they absolutely, positively don't run on the same tracks as the commuter or other heavy-rail trains.

Dan

 

[steveintoronto]

This would be especially so if the bore has to increase - which might be the case to accommodate some sort of overhead transmission on a heavy rail size vehicle.

But the two potential options that seem to emerge are either a) a Vancouver-style smaller carbody system, which we assume to mean smaller tunnels and cheaper construction or b) a heavy rail compatible system, possibly the actual template that ML has been advancing for RER all along. It's hard to see how the latter would not require larger tunnels (I'm too lazy to research actual dimensions just for this post) and in that case anything involving curves, clearances, and costs is in the dustbin.

As posted prior on the Class 700 Thameslink going totally ATO in the "core" section of London, and the Class 717, a fully underground enabled version, with end doors for escape in emergency, and third rail as well as overhead catenary, we see the tunnel bore is considerably less than that of the TYSSE @ 5.75 metres.

Despite being built using similar methods to the tube network then under construction, the tunnels were built large enough to take a main-line train, with an internal diameter of 16 feet (4.9 m), compared with those of the Central London Railway with a diameter less than 12 feet (3.7 m).
Termini: Finsbury Park; London Moorgate
Electrification: 25 kV 50 Hz AC OHLE (Drayton ...
Locale: Greater London
Track gauge: 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) standard ...[...]

Northern City Line - Wikipedia

For the Thameslink ATO: (opened to public on Monday)
https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2018/06/04/main-line-ato-becomes-a-reality/

Crossrail is a more modern tunnel, built state-of-the-art, and a larger diameter partly for higher speed use.

A network of new rail tunnels have been built by eight giant tunnel boring machines, to carry Crossrail's trains eastbound and westbound. Each tunnel is 21 kilometres/13 miles long, 6.2 metres in diameter and up to 40 metres below ground. [...]

Railway tunnels - Crossrail
www.crossrail.co.uk/construction/tunnelling/railway-tunnels/

Crossrail has stated that the new trains will be based on existing designs to minimise costs associated with development. They will run at up to 140 km/h (90 mph) on certain parts of the route.

Crossrail - Wikipedia

Tunnel bore size is NOT a problem, unless Toronto, being so backward and dated in thinking, wants to make it one. Off-the-shelf stock can be had from many providers, cheap, tested and trued by many other cities. I bite my fingertips to not type further comment on that.

Here's a typical metro sized bore, this one in Budapest, article is over ten years old, ostensibly for an Alstom Metropolis stock:

Budapest's fourth metro line, commenced its job on 3rd April, 2007 accompanied by a brass band and blessed by a Catholic priest. Work began at Kelenföld station and is now scheduled to reach Keleti station in 2010. This is the first of a pair of 6,050 mm nominal diameter EPB shields needed for the project. This is the north tunnel TBM to be launched first. The second, south TBM is due to be launched on 27th April, 2007. The north TBM will drive a 5,500 m tunnel while the south TBM will excavate 5,640 metres of tunnel. The tunnel's inner diameter will be 5.2 metres when its outer diameter will be 5.8 metres [...]

https://tunnelbuilder.com/News/Herr...o-Lines-in-Athens-Sao-Paulo-and-Budapest.aspx

We're splitting hairs on what can be done, and what others have done years ago.

For what it takes to bore for a TTC subway stock, we can be using state-of-the-art rolling stock as is being used in London and many other places. London is using German built Siemens. I guess it takes a world vision to embrace looking abroad for solutions. London voted to stay in the EU, the rest of Blightyland (save a few rational pockets) voted for Brexit.

That same thinking is alive and well in Toronto it seems. If Toronto wants to pay for it, then Toronto can do as she wishes. If Ontario pays, or offers the scheme to private initiative to serve the greater region, then so be it. I see no such embrace of a such a solution from the City.