nfitz
Superstar
They indicated where the next train on each platform as going. I don't believe they indicated when they were going, or which would arrive first - which is now easy.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
11th
Senior Member
You can say OL is a product of that narrative of doing things "more efficiently, more affordably, and faster".
I doubt the cost/km for the original RL plan is lower than OL (adjusted for inflation and various other factors).
Besides, how will they extend it north from Eglinton with current TTC rolling stock specs? TBMs once more?
DirectionNorth
Active Member
Let's take the $19 billion dollar number for the 15.6 km Ontario Line. That gives you about $1.2 billion/km.
Let's take $6.8 billion in 2019, and put it through the inflation calculator. That's a value of $7.7 billion for 7.4 km of subway, or $1.05 billion per km. But the inflation calculator doesn't account for infrastructure inflation, which is far more than regular inflation (look at Ottawa, or Edmonton, or indeed, our own projects.) And I suspect (though the article was paywalled and I just saw a Google text summary) that it doesn't include operations either.
Certainly, RL was not close to being U/C. Even with some delays, I doubt that any government would have had both RL North and RL West U/C by the mid-2020s or finished by the early 2030s.
What do you mean with
Uh, by extending it? It's a train. It can have non-TBM portals and then go elevated, if the government (sigh) wants to do that, or it could be tunneled.
rbt
Senior Member
For a number that includes 30 years operations, that's not terrible. There's ~$6.5 billion in revenue (using 50% of farebox collection for each rider) over that period too.
That said, it puts into perspective just how much cheaper upgrading an existing surface rail corridor is.
REM looks like it'll cost Quebec government about $180M/km over a 30 year period (based on 72 cents/km/rider).
GO Expansion at 3 minute frequencies for the central portions (capacity about half that of Ontario Line) is between $70M/km and $160M/km, depending on whether you only consider the central portion (I.e. Oakville/Aurora to Union) or the entire all-day service (I.e. West Harbour/Allandale to Union).
dullturtle06
Active Member
Ya the rail, systems, and maintenance contract is 9 billion but that includes 30 years of maintenance. so the consortium probably needed to account for future inflation. I think if the government just showed the construction cost and the maintenance cost separately it would look more favourable.
IRT_BMT_IND
Active Member
There were also signs at Bay and St. George with arrows that lit up to direct passengers for the correct platform for the next eastbound and westbound train respectively.
This photo shows one at Bay:
nfitz
Superstar
That just looks like standard TTC signage (of the day - though certainly some of this still around).
I don't see that the arrows light up individually. Both appear on as far as I can see in that image.
officedweller
Senior Member
The signs on the platforms were flip signs that changed the name of the terminus station as the particular train entered the station and a bell rang as the sign flipped. I recall reading that people would stand on the stairs to see which platform their train would be on, so it wasn't an arrow directing them to a platform - it would have been them being alerted by the bell and reading the flip signs.
Some of them were operational even into the 1990s.
This is a pic of an updated one (as Kipling did not exist in 1966):
That time the subway went from anywhere, to anywhere
Most people know that Toronto has a lost subway station--the infamous Lower Bay--but what's often left out of the story is how it got abandoned by th…
www.blogto.com
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
Ozman
Active Member
The two arrows that are to the right of "EASTBOUND" in that photo could flash. So the one that was flashing meant that platform's train would be leaving next. That photo just happened to catch the arrow in the "on" phase of its flash. Presumably it was the arrow pointing to the right that was flashing in that picture as the train is clearly visible at that platform.
nfitz
Superstar
If they could tell which one was coming first from the flashing, why would they be on the stairs?
There might still be signage at Woodbine - it's my regular station, and it was certainly there when I moved here. I'll have to open my eyes to see if it survived the renovations.
11th
Senior Member
I made the assumption that their current train stock might pose more challenges (weight, size, gradient limits) if they do decide to go elevated - compared to the trains they seem to be proposing for OL.
officedweller
Senior Member
I don't know of the "flashing" that Ozman mentioned. I just know of the bell like an old-fashioned elevator arriving.
Because that "Next Train" sign and the bell were only on the platform the train arrived on, so you wouldn't know if you were on the other platform. From the stairs, presumably you could hear and see both platforms (?).
nfitz
Superstar
Okay.
I'll repeat my original comment, that seemed to create so many objections:
I suppose if ATC had existed in 1966, then they might have been able to pull off the original configuration.
Deadpool X
Senior Member
People are saying Relief Line West, not Ontario Line West. Those are two different things.
It's being referred as 3 projects to distinguish with the smaller RL. Ontario Line adds some mileage towards the north and west of the original RL and it's easier to say RL west instead of saying Osgoode-Exhibition, and RL north instead of Pape-Science Centre. If a longer OL is being delivered instead of a shorter RL, then showing it as 3 projects for purely ease of discussion is by no means fudging.