Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[TheTigerMaster]

That WYE would have to be built regardless of Obico, otherwise DRL trains couldn't travel the rest of the system without travelling through Greenwood yard.

 

[jcam]

That WYE would have to be built regardless of Obico, otherwise DRL trains couldn't travel the rest of the system without travelling through Greenwood yard.

What I'm saying is, given that Metrolinx might want to own the relief line, they could avoid being beholden to TTC gauge and rolling stock by NOT connecting to the rest of the system, and working out an agreement where TTC sells the Greenwood Yard to metrolinx who could give it over to a consortium that builds, provides rolling stock and maintains the DRL. Like Canada Line in Vancouver...it's not an interchangeable system. No reason it has to be. I recognize that's a bold change from the past, but its probably the only solution that would attract Infrastructure Bank dollars.

 

[44 North]

It actually doesn't make sense for it to be different gauge as if they keep TTC gauge for it they can easily interchange vehicle in the event of operational issues like for example there have been a couple of incident at Greenwood yard like for example a collision between tow trains and also a fire at the entrance to the yard. Both times they moved sapre trains from Line 1 to line 2 for the morning rush and part of the day until things were called up. Alos last summer when they had a large number of T1's out of service with various problems with the AC units on them they sent a handful of unused Toronto Roct trains to run on Line 2 each day. Having a connection to other parts of the system can be very important as that's one of the reasons why the 509 streetcar was built as well to provide redundancy for Spadina in the event of problems. If you recall well they were doing work on Bathurst Street between Bathurst station and Sat. Calir they actually stored extra CLRVs in the middle of Bathurst Street as they couldn't get them into the rest of the system do to only having the one route to and from St. Clair.

No question it's way more optimal to have wyes, or from a system standpoint to be able to share vehicles with Lines 1,2,4. Not really denying that. But let's say from a political standpoint, would it be expected that the Prov-owned vehicles and infrastructure would be interoperated with Toronto's vehicles and infrastructure (and vice versa). My gut kinda tells me no.

I guess this question is posited with the assumption that we've expanded the overall project to include RL Long/North as a single unified project.

The TPAP for this line is well underway. This TPAP includes a wye at Pape Station and absolutely no provisions for any yard facilities, meaning that whatever vehicles this line is using will be stored and maintained at TTC facilities elsewhere on the network.

A last minute change in vehicle type (necessitating a yard and removal of a wye) would delay the project substantially and increase costs. The chances of this happening are near zero.

Wouldn't there be an inevitable delay if we decide to combine work with Long/North, which seems the direction we're headed? If we do significantly expand the scope, then I think the opportunity for a new East York or North York yard may present itself. Right now, this early on for a project slated to run between Osgoode and Pape only, obviously the line can only really use Toronto subway rolling stock. Not really saying otherwise, and this is what I was told by City/TTC staff. But for a much longer line, one owned by the Prov/ML no less, I personally think it's quite possible they'll consider a new standalone fleet.

For one I've yet to see a concept of how an RL Line 2 wye would look, and can only surmise that if done at Pape/Danforth that it will be a massive undertaking involving sizable expropriation and feather ruffling. Nothing wrong with this in theory, and is decades late. But considering more recent precedents I think this would be avoided if it could. Cost/logic be damned.

But then let's say for general constructability. If the Prov/ML is building a new line through downtown, perhaps the benefits of a new fleet could present itself. Narrower vehicles than our 3.14m-wide behemoths equating to narrower tunnel/station footprints, more articulation points for lower turn radii, lighter weight for better efficiency... And who knows, even if it was set it stone that we'll use Toronto's existing subways, maybe a new maintenance/storage facility around Don Mills would be considered regardless.

 

[jcam]

...maybe a new maintenance/storage facility around Don Mills would be considered regardless.

Thinking really outside of the box, I'd propose (think I posted this before) handing over George Vanier school to build an underground yard, with a new school and parks (and maybe a development or two) going back overtop of it. Only other option is really going all the way to the 407.

 

[44 North]

What I'm saying is, given that Metrolinx might want to own the relief line, they could avoid being beholden to TTC gauge and rolling stock by NOT connecting to the rest of the system, and working out an agreement where TTC sells the Greenwood Yard to metrolinx who could give it over to a consortium that builds, provides rolling stock and maintains the DRL. Like Canada Line in Vancouver...it's not an interchangeable system. No reason it has to be. I recognize that's a bold change from the past, but its probably the only solution that would attract Infrastructure Bank dollars.

This kinda makes sense. If the Prov/ML is doing a P3 DBFM (with only the O going to TTC), then I can't really picture system interoperability with the rest of the subway system. Things start pointing toward it being a standalone line. And yeah what you mentioned about a Greenwood yard via an underground connection following the rail ROW seems quite logical.

 

[steveintoronto]

The TPAP for this line is well underway. This TPAP includes a wye at Pape Station and absolutely no provisions for any yard facilities, meaning that whatever vehicles this line is using will be stored and maintained at TTC facilities elsewhere on the network.

For one I've yet to see a concept of how an RL Line 2 wye would look, and can only surmise that if done at Pape/Danforth that it will be a massive undertaking involving sizable expropriation and feather ruffling. Nothing wrong with this in theory, and is decades late. But considering more recent precedents I think this would be avoided if it could. Cost/logic be damned.

Investing in a 'captive' orphan system like the TTC's subway makes little sense when being viewed in a "Regional" context, being paid for by the Province, and being forward compatible for expansion and through-running. New subway lines per-se are rare in the progressive world right now. Extensions, yes, new-builds, no. There's a reason that RER is supplanting subway in many/most instances: You get a lot more yield per investment, and you get vehicles that can and do run at a much higher speed, and run-through *without having to transfer* to outer regions of cities.

The cost and size of boring the gauge of tunnel needed for RER stock is the same as for the present Metrolinx Crosstown. In fact, some RER systems use a slightly smaller tunnel, but Cdns are used to larger sized double deck cars. That is a discussion in itself, but if you start planning "Wyes" and ramps off to Greenwood (which btw, in the present configuration, can't accommodate the new unit trains), you might as well stone many birds with one kill and run RER across mid-core downtown, relieve Union Station, relieve the subways, relieve having to transfer for many passengers in the core, and avoid having to start knocking the present subway infrastructure apart yet again to expand interchange points. Overhead 25kVAC catenary systems are also more efficient and capable of driving traction motors with a much lower source impedance (roughly known by most as 'line sag'). It also allows the use of track sharing with bi-modal LRVs, as done in a number of European, Australian and Asian cities. These can then branch off onto the Metrolinx LRT lines (Crosstown, etc).

Things start pointing toward it being a standalone line.

"Standalone" from the TTC, fully interconnected with RER and eventually completely a loop through the central core from east to west and back onto the Georgetown corridor, perhaps a link to Lakeshore West, and easily, if persons talk of "Wyes" and "ramps" to Greenwood, doing the latter for Lakeshore East RER running initially to the Osgoode terminus, and later all the way through out to the west of Toronto in a "through-running" manner.

This is being furthered in many cities, all with world leading systems.
http://www.rethinknyc.org/through-running/

 

[M II A II R II K]

If only there were a wye for Bloor Yonge. You could close down and rebuild that station and temporarily have the Line 1 trains interchange at Lower Bay. Which would also happen to be better than the interchange that there is now.

 

[steveintoronto]

If only there were a wye for Bloor Yonge. You could close down and rebuild that station and temporarily have the Line 1 trains interchange at Lower Bay. Which would also happen to be better than the interchange that there is now.

I disagree on the practicality of doing that, but Bloor-Yonge epitomizes short-term thinking revisited time and again. Why not just leave it and all the other stations save for easy tweaks, and put the scarce investment dollars into a complete by-pass "standalone" line other than added passenger tunnels to connect them? This completely avoids shutdown for years to doing it, and renders prior investments as paying for themselves for much longer.

It underscores what is bothering me, and evidently QP about the present City's DRL approach: That it is one more truncated and unfinished concept ending up serving only the "Pape Entitlement" more than it does "relief". Build it big and expandable right from the start, with "forward thinking", not yesterday's.

 

[WislaHD]

It underscores what is bothering me, and evidently QP about the present City's DRL approach: That it is one more truncated and unfinished concept ending up serving only the "Pape Entitlement" more than it does "relief". Build it big and expandable right from the start, with "forward thinking", not yesterday's.

Hence DRL-North, no?

We all know that the Relief Line provides very little relief to the system unless it reaches Sheppard.

DRL-South merely serves to avoid catastophe-scenario at Bloor-Yonge in the context of providing relief.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Are diamonds rarely built for Subways/underground rail? One at Bloor-Yonge would be kind of beneficial, but I would guess that th cost to benefit of it would be tiny. A wye would probably be a bit more cost beneficial, but probably still not as much as triple platforming both levels.

Do we know if Danforth-Pape will be triple platform or not yet? And I guess no connections are planned to connect Line 1 and DRL due to being in the DT core .

 

[ssiguy2]

It should be built as part of RER with catenary subway trains. It could be expanded much faster using Don Mills rail corridor than yet another idea for a tunnel down DM to Sheppard which will never get built.

The section from Bloor {or Eglinton} thru to downtown will be the same price but will be able to take advantage of the RER station being built at Unicor instead of creating a new one to serve 3rd rail. Probably most important is that Toronto has a very small subway system for it's size and if they do pay per km for all systems then RER could very easily in 30 years have higher ridership than all the subway lines combined and this is quite common in large cities like Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires. Due to this Toronto MUST have a RER alternative thru the downtown that does not rely on Union.

If all RER have to go thru Union combined with GO commuter trains than Union will be too busy both in train and passenger flow greatly reducing potential frequency levels to subway levels which will definitely happen. If something were to go wrong at Union then the entire system comes to a halt and at least a downtown RER Queen tunnel would create some form of relief. An eventual further extension downtown to Queen West/Liberty Village could mean a true relief and offer thru trains to completely avid Union altogether {ie Lakeshore East/West as thru routes completely avoiding Union.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If only there were a wye for Bloor Yonge. You could close down and rebuild that station and temporarily have the Line 1 trains interchange at Lower Bay. Which would also happen to be better than the interchange that there is now.

I don't know what benefit a B-Y wye would bring to the current situation. Yonge Line would still be over capacity and unreliable. Maybe we should stop shoehorning so many people into one station.

 

[steveintoronto]

Hence DRL-North, no?

We all know that the Relief Line provides very little relief to the system unless it reaches Sheppard.

DRL-South merely serves to avoid catastophe-scenario at Bloor-Yonge in the context of providing relief.

You missed the preceding qualifier:

It underscores what is bothering me, and evidently QP about the present City's DRL approach:

And the City still has no funding to build the southern leg, let alone doing the northern leg too. Subways are far from optimal to serve outer "regions". RER is what's needed for (to quote Metrolinx a number of times in their latest publication) "Regional" needs.

Toronto has a very small subway system for it's size and if they do pay per km for all systems then RER could very easily in 30 years have higher ridership than all the subway lines combined and this is quite common in large cities like Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires. Due to this Toronto MUST have a RER alternative thru the downtown that does not rely on Union.

Metrolinx has been planning a Union by-pass loop for some time, the need is inevitable unless they radically alter the signalling/train control system for the USRC and/or double stack tracks going into Union. The Relief Line is a perfect opportunity to combine many needs into one line, even serving Richmond Hill and alleviating the load on Line 1. It would mean leaving the subway pretty much as is and recouping investment in a manifold better way.

Maybe we should stop shoehorning so many people into one station.

Exactly. It wasn't that many years back that Yonge and Bloor was radically altered and rebuilt, at massive costs and inconvenience. Just leave it, save for small things like better pedestrian access, and *alleviate the crush* on it and the lines feeding it.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Off topic.

MoD

 

[aquateam]

Are diamonds rarely built for Subways/underground rail? One at Bloor-Yonge would be kind of beneficial, but I would guess that th cost to benefit of it would be tiny. A wye would probably be a bit more cost beneficial, but probably still not as much as triple platforming both levels.

Do we know if Danforth-Pape will be triple platform or not yet? And I guess no connections are planned to connect Line 1 and DRL due to being in the DT core .

One of the major benefits of the DRL is that it saves $1 billion+ in disruptive reconfiguration of Yonge-Bloor. Rather than spending all that money and not moving anyone a meter further by rapid transit than today, the DRL reduces transfer volumes to a fraction of what they are today. It wouldn't make sense to build a DRL and still reconfigure Yonge-Bloor.

Building a wye/diamond is also out of the question, Yonge-Bloor is hemmed in by supertall buildings now and by the Bay, there's no room to excavate all the space needed for a wye.

Pape station would have a wye to reach Greenwood yard. I don't think design is at a stage where you could say what the platform configuration would be, but I would expect it to be expandable to a full Spanish solution, just like how Sheppard-Yonge station has two platforms but has room for a centre one roughed out.