Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[aquateam]

Very short on time, will comment in detail later, but just received this link in my email, and I suspect a Cdn take on this in the press shortly, make that a *Toronto* take, other systems in Canada are vastly ahead on this:


https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/01/...t-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This applies to Cdn passenger rail too, and GO RER! Think Union Station as much as the subway when reading this.

Yes, "Crossrail again" folks. Suck it up, New York gets it...

Line 1, yes, already running two minute headway. USRC? Not that I can ascertain. It has been mentioned in connection with RER and electrification, and appears in some GO reports two years old. I'm unaware of any move to establish CBTC.

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...new-signalling-system-metrolinx-funded.21002/

Dwell on those figures for a moment. Inside the GTA there's more people outside of Toronto than in. The "downtown" in "relief line" has been dropped...due to the realization that relief is not needed so much within Toronto's border, but outside of it.

"Downtown" has been dropped from the name for branding purposes, not because people have decided that riders on the Yonge line are A-okay not being able to get on a train because it's so packed with people and that luring suburban drivers out of their cars is a worthier goal.

Any body kept entirely off the subway system is one less crush load. RER looped where the "Queen line" always should have been can and would do that.

I've shown you that this is false, multiple times, but you still repeat it. Please repeat after me: ENHANCED GO SERVICE DOES NOT ADDRESS CAPACITY ISSUES ON THE YONGE LINE.

So that is the catchment to service to relieve all subway lines. And building a subway, (initially to be run with four car trains) is not going to do it.

Again with you and the 4-car trains...

 

[Cobra]

Can we stop talking about "half-assing" the Relief Line? It's subway. Period

 

[smallspy]

steveintoronto said: ↑I'll dig out details specific to UPX later, but for now, here's what the Nippon-Sharyo's came equipped with:

Please feel free to try to. There is no mainline CBTC installation anywhere in Canada.

Perchance you are confusing CBTC with PTC, which are not the same thing.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/union-station-rail-corridor-new-signalling-system-metrolinx-funded.21002/

It's an improvement, not even close to heavy rail CBTC or other higher order signalling and control systems. Perhaps you'd care to offer some details and reference rather than just posting a link?

"Downtown" has been dropped from the name for branding purposes, not because people have decided that riders on the Yonge line are A-okay not being able to get on a train because it's so packed with people and that luring suburban drivers out of their cars is a worthier goal.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here's another:

“Downtown” Relief Line

The DRL has progressed into the level of a detailed review pending a Transit Project Assessment, and $150 million was provided by Queen’s Park for detailed study of the route. From a political point of view, the line faces two major challenges. First, it continues to be portrayed by many politicians as a sop to “downtown” even though the primary beneficiaries will be those from the inner suburbs now jammed onto the BD and YUS subways. The benefit will be particularly strong if the route goes north to at least Eglinton, if not beyond to Sheppard.

However, work on this line, even if it can overcome political hurdles, won’t start until well into the 2020s and this is beyond the scope of any funding promises we might see in current budgets.

https://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/28/a-contrary-view-of-ontarios-2017-budget/#more-17489

I've shown you that this is false, multiple times, but you still repeat it. Please repeat after me: ENHANCED GO SERVICE DOES NOT ADDRESS CAPACITY ISSUES ON THE YONGE LINE.

It certainly does, which is exactly what I posted their report above. It many not do so completely, but you have no room for anything less than absolutes and invectives it seems.

Again with you and the 4-car trains...

So are you denying that the first phase (if ever built, let alone any subsequent ones) isn't projected to use four car trains? It's been agreed after some hesitance by some in this very string that it will, and reference posted. Feel absolutely free to reference the basis of your ire.

And the paper elephant in the tunnel still:
Tory says Downtown Relief Line won't happen without provincial money
by News Staff

Posted Apr 3, 2017 3:05 pm EDT

Last Updated Apr 3, 2017 at 4:14 pm EDT
http://www.citynews.ca/2017/04/03/t...ef-line-wont-happen-without-provincial-money/

Here we are, a month later. How's that looking?

 

[steveintoronto]

Please feel free to try to. There is no mainline CBTC installation anywhere in Canada.

Perchance you are confusing CBTC with PTC, which are not the same thing.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

steveintoronto said: ↑

The Nippon Sharyos even have the equipment on-board for a form of CBTC, but it remains idle since there's no corresponding track infrastructure to respond.

smallspy said: ↑

They have nothing of the sort.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Let me repeat the point, since there appears to be a problem reading correctly, let alone admitting the point:
"The Nippon Sharyos even have the equipment on-board for a form of CBTC, but it remains idle since there's no corresponding track infrastructure to respond." CBTC is a collective term, and what the Nippon Sharyos have on-board is a "form" of CBTC, which is communications based train control.

You exactly make the point, and I'll quote you exactly: "There is no mainline CBTC installation anywhere in Canada." The on-board CBTC has no "responders" to work with, therefore it is "turned off".[/QUOTE]

So while I have you 'on the line'...what form of "Train Control" is scheduled for the USRC new signalling?

Edit to Add: Here's the definition of CBTC:
Communications-based train control (CBTC) is a railway signaling system that makes use of the telecommunications between the train and track equipment for the traffic management and infrastructure control. By means of the CBTC systems, the exact position of a train is known more accurately than with the traditional signaling systems. This results in a more efficient and safe way to manage the railway traffic. Metros (and other railway systems) are able to improve headways while maintaining or even improving safety.

A CBTC system is a "continuous, automatic train control system utilizing high-resolution train location determination, independent from track circuits; continuous, high-capacity, bidirectional train-to-wayside data communications; and trainborne and wayside processors capable of implementing Automatic Train Protection (ATP) functions, as well as optional Automatic Train Operation (ATO) and Automatic Train Supervision (ATS) functions.", as defined in the IEEE 1474 standard.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communications-based_train_control

Here's what the Nippon Sharyos are equipped on board to do, and what SMART is utilizing:

[...]
SMART has spent $50 million on implementation of what is known as a “Positive Train Control” system on the line from downtown San Rafael to the Santa Rosa Airport, which will see passenger service later this year.

The system essentially controls movements on the rails electronically to slow or stop trains before certain types of accidents could occur.

In SMART’s case, a fiber optic network is used to “talk” to the train system to prevent a train from moving while sitting in a turnout while another train passes, maintain safe speeds in curves to prevent derailments and to slow speeds in work zones where workers are present. [...]
http://www.marinij.com/article/NO/20160617/NEWS/160619811

That's a form of CBTC.

 

[Euphoria]

It doesn't matter to the user whether it's RER or subway, as long as it meets capacity, speed, and frequency needs. I do think interoperability with existing GO (and future RER) infrastructure is important, as it trebles or quadruples the reach of the train sets that will be operating on the DRL. Why wouldn't we want maximum versatility, especially since giving the line regional reach beyond the small J between Pape and Osgoode better positions the line for provincial funding? It's just cost effective.

 

[steveintoronto]

Can we stop talking about "half-assing" the Relief Line? It's subway. Period

What is? TTC's proposal? That's all it is at this point, and being further explored by the $150M the province has contributed. "Half-assed" would be building something not forward compatible with the ever-increasing need for regional rail in and out of Toronto.

 

[Cobra]

What is? TTC's proposal? That's all it is at this point, and being further explored by the $150M the province has contributed. "Half-assed" would be building something not forward compatible with the ever-increasing need for regional rail in and out of Toronto.

It's called GO RER. The subway is for the inner city. They are both needed

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

What is? TTC's proposal? That's all it is at this point, and being further explored by the $150M the province has contributed. "Half-assed" would be building something not forward compatible with the ever-increasing need for regional rail in and out of Toronto.

What's your proposal? It doesn't even have any exploration before selected newspaper clippings and an SSRA report that couldn't even get the airport alignment right.

AoD

 

[steveintoronto]

What's your proposal? It doesn't even have any exploration before selected newspaper clippings and an SSRA report that couldn't even get the airport alignment right.

AoD

I've stated my *concept* many times, and yesterday I posted excerpts from the Metrolinx 2015 Business Report, which has very different information to the old Metrolinx info used in the City's "Relief Line" proposal. As to why they differ is a good question, one I've raised before. Considering the present tensions of QP to the City, it's reasonable to believe that RER will be pushed ahead of the City's preference, albeit the City can build their own preference if they raise funding for it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I've stated my *concept* many times, and yesterday I posted excerpts from the Metrolinx 2015 Business Report, which has very different information to the old Metrolinx info used in the City's "Relief Line" proposal. As to why they differ is a good question, one I've raised before. Considering the present tensions of QP to the City, it's reasonable to believe that RER will be pushed ahead of the City's preference, albeit the City can build their own preference if they raise funding for it.

That's your conjecture. Please, leave this thread for real news regarding the DRL as proposed and not as imagined or desired as part of some RER scheme that isn't even on any books.

MoD

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Did you not read my post Steve? Stop this nonsense quoting me bits and pieces of Metrolinx reports that have no tunnel for RER service (or citation, on that matter), some imagined relief with no engineering works and dictate the direction of this thread, which is specific to the current TTC, subway based proposal.

MoD

 

[aquateam]

It's an improvement, not even close to heavy rail CBTC or other higher order signalling and control systems. Perhaps you'd care to offer some details and reference rather than just posting a link?

No, because:
1. I've already sent a link to a reference for those who are interested
2. Posting screenshots of chapters of legal definitions and technical reports that are, at best, tangentially related to the topic, is a sure-fire way to ensure that people scroll past my post and to bury any point I wanted to make under pages of irrelevant trivia
3. If there was any place to post long-winded definitions of rail signalling technologies and rail passenger throughput, the thread that I linked to would be the place to do so. Not the DRL, Scarborough Subway extension, Yonge North, or any other unrelated threads.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here's another:

https://stevemunro.ca/2017/04/28/a-contrary-view-of-ontarios-2017-budget/#more-17489

That looks suspiciously like exactly what I said.

It certainly does, which is exactly what I posted their report above. It many not do so completely, but you have no room for anything less than absolutes and invectives it seems.

So are you denying that the first phase (if ever built, let alone any subsequent ones) isn't projected to use four car trains? It's been agreed after some hesitance by some in this very string that it will, and reference posted. Feel absolutely free to reference the basis of your ire.

It's also been explained, several times, that the train length and frequency would be tailored to demand even after construction, and there is no reason why a DRL would not be able to transport any fewer people than line 1. Four-car trains is not some kind of fundamental limitation of subway technology. It's like if you bought a mansion but complained that it only fits 2 because there's only one designated bedroom...

And the paper elephant in the tunnel still:
Tory says Downtown Relief Line won't happen without provincial money
by News Staff

Posted Apr 3, 2017 3:05 pm EDT

Last Updated Apr 3, 2017 at 4:14 pm EDT
http://www.citynews.ca/2017/04/03/t...ef-line-wont-happen-without-provincial-money/

Here we are, a month later. How's that looking?

The TTC hasn't constructed a subway line without provincial help since 1954 so I'm not sure how this is news.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Any further off topic non-subway DRL discussions along the lines of previous pages of postings will be deleted.

MoD

 

[Leo_Chan]

Will the Relief Line (Line 3) stations be built as 6 car or 8 car length? And will the trains when it opens be 4 car or 6 car? Or is this all up in the air?