hw621
Senior Member
^or cut and cover instead of boring?
Still trying to translate "a different technology for the project"?
a different technology than that which is currently deployed on Line 2
Elevated monorail then? Or perhaps new horizontal ferris lines ... like the Emirates Air Line in London ... kill two birds with one stone.I imagine most stations on the DRL are going to have to be mined anyway - so what kind of technology reduces mining costs? that's where you will find savings.
Rolling stock for a start. Overhead electric supply for another. Compatibility with mainline. All done in modern cities far ahead of Toronto. Think Crossrail, Paris RER, and many others. Think "metro" type trains, by far the most popular and cost efficient way of providing the transit needed. And think "driverless".Still trying to translate "a different technology for the project"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_717[...]
A significant difference between Class 717s and the earlier Class 700s is the provision of emergency end doors. These are required for evacuation of passengers[6] while in the Moorgate tunnels.[14]
Siemens began testing the Class 717 units in Germany during June 2018.[15] The first unit operated a single preview service in late September 2018,[7] and, several months late, two units (717005 and 717006) entered full service on 25 March 2019, marking the start of the removal of the 43-year-old Class 313s from service.[8][...]
Premier Doug Plays With Toronto’s Train SetIn the continuing circus which is the Ford Family Transit Plan, the provincial government has advised Toronto and the TTC of its priorities for rapid transit construction. The Province is quite firm that since it will be paying for these lines, it will call the shots.
[...]
The Province wants the DRL to be completely free-standing in that it would not depend on Line 2 and the existing yard at Greenwood, but would be built completely separate from the existing subway network. Moreover, "alternate delivery methods" would be used for this project, a clear indication that this would be a privately designed, built, financed and operated line much as the Crosstown was intended to be before a deal was worked out to let the TTC drive the trains, at least for a time.
If you are going to suggest that the track gauge is a significant issue, how can we ever take any of your comments seriously?Standard gauge rail tracks. It is all a bit much for Torontonians to conceive of though.
Overground, Underground, TfL and Network Rail share tracks in many cases. Google "Class 717" and stop being so uninformed and wishing to inform others who provide reference.If you are going to suggest that the track gauge is a significant issue, how can we ever take any of your comments seriously?
In London the streetcars in Croydon and the subway that meets it in Wimbledon have the same gauge. It makes no difference. Neither rolling stock will ever appear on the other lines.
Why make mountains out of mole hills? Class 717 doesn't and will never run on the streetcar lines in London, despite being the same gauge. Nor is there anything particularly special about class 717 ... British Rail was running trains that used both overhead and/or third rail for over 40 years ... it's has no relevance to the discussion. We've been popping off similar suggestions relating to Line 4 extension now for about a decade!Overground, Underground, TfL and Network Rail share tracks in many cases. Google "Class 717" and stop being so uninformed and wishing to inform others who provide reference.
Right on cue, completely twisting what was written, and why.Why do you persist on making mountains out of mole hills? Class 717 doesn't run on the streetcar lines in London.
Many subway trains in Paris are completely incompatible with rail lines as well - and you can't even tweak each wheel there by an inch to make it work. The track gauge is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
And somehow Fitz conflates that to:Rolling stock for a start. Overhead electric supply for another. Compatibility with mainline. All done in modern cities far ahead of Toronto. Think Crossrail, Paris RER, and many others. Think "metro" type trains, by far the most popular and cost efficient way of providing the transit needed. And think "driverless".
I never said it did. Class 717 runs on the Underground (albeit the slightly larger bore Great Northern line) and mainline, dual mode, dual voltage. One of many examples of mode inter-operability used in progressive world cities. London hosts a number of instances of LU running on leased Network Rail sections and sharing third rail as well (with the LU centre rail supply strapped to the tracks for interoperability of supply)Class 717 doesn't run on the streetcar lines in London.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Île-de-France_tramway_Line_4[...]
Tram-train
A U 25500 between Bondy and Remise à Jorelle during the pre-inaugural trials. We can clearly see the train's ballasted tracks, which are unlike most tram rails. The line is a hybrid between a tramway and a train line.
Line 4 of the Île-de-France tramway was inaugurated on Saturday, 18 November 2006, and was free of charge the entire weekend. Its true commercial operation began the morning of 20 November 2006.
The T4 is the Île-de-France network's fourth line and France's first tram-train line.[5] It is the first of its kind to be operated by the SNCF. Unlike the other Île-de-France tramway lines, which are operated by the RATP, this line is operated by the SNCF, which may seem surprising. The SNCF left the ligne des Coteux (now T2), which was then in disrepair and highly unprofitable, to the RATP during the 1990s.
The SNCF's policy was to concentrate on heavy fluxes of passengers and thus on heavy rail transit. The success of tramway networks and the increasing popularity of peri-urban transportation made the SNCF change its focus.
There are no plans to extend the line to Noisy-le-Sec. This would allow passengers to reach this multimodal hub and connect with the T1, the RER E(both the Tournan and Chelles-Gournay branches), the Tangentielle Nord, and a fortiori toward Paris.
The RATP's expansion of the T2 from Puteaux to La Défense on existing roadbeds contributed to the enormous success of that line. Despite this, the ability to operate with a 25 kV catenary is needed to reach the Noisy-le-Sec depot. The trains' dual-current abilities (25 kV / 750 V) are not used, since the entire line is powered in 25 kV.
The line is used by fifteen tram-train cars, which run on the right[9] as mandated by the Code of Conduct.[10] It takes nineteen minutes to travel the eight-kilometre line. As stated in its regulations, the cars and stations are carefully analyzed to make them easily accessible for the disabled.
[...]
Yeah, I've been reading quite a few Twitter strings, and that's the present currency. I don't think Ford et al have a clue, just that Lindsay's here to save the day for them. And I don't think Lindsay wrote those two letters! That's something that someone should/will be digging on. To stretch a projection to a limit, I think this is all a smokescreen for a large entity already proposing to bid on the Relief Line, and if so, it will be for far more than just the purpose the TTC espouses. For the $4B and rising on just the southern leg, almost a whole line that could also host VIA HFR could be built. It's not the price tag per-se that's the showstopper, it's how little the TTC gets for it! Make it work for VIA, GO and the TTC in one fell swoop, much of it in tunnel, and you'll have international consortiums interested. THAT is Lindsay's background. I don't think Toronto's ready for it to be honest. Or QP. All Ford et al can understand is "Private Money". They don't understand how to drive the thing, let alone fix it. They just know they don't have to own it.Still no clarity on the province's plans for the relief line.
I'd quibble with the details, but totally agree with your thinking 'outside the box'. It HAS to do a hell of a lot more than four car subway trains toodling down the track like Toronto's done for...well..forever. In all fairness, Toronto used to do rail transit far better a century ago they today. The Radial Lines were an excellent example of that. Privately owned and run, btw. And standard gauge so they inter-operated with the railway companies. Guelph alone had three yards that interconnected with the railroads there at the time for freight onward forwarding. Edit: In all fairness, the TTC dreams are for 6 car platform lengths...OMG. It's still Mickey Mouse. For the sums of money being touted, that's piss-poor return per investment. Double that costing, and do magnitudes more, and spread the costs to far more operators for a 'business case index' of a hell of a lot more than "1", which is the latest Metrolinx assessment minus the latest 'double the costs'.Perhaps it could have higher capacity if it were like a Crossrail service or double decker trains.
My first instinct was to disagree on that...but I also have to stretch thinking. For the northern sections (up to York Region but not on CN tracks) I'd definitely agree. That's something York region would have to deal with though.Maybe they’d also make the whole thing elevated.
I agree - Toronto is not ready for it. It's not a Ford thing - it's every planner and consultant who can't even articulate a vision.Yeah, I've been reading quite a few Twitter strings, and that's the present currency. I don't think Ford et al have a clue, just that Lindsay's here to save the day for them. And I don't think Lindsay wrote those two letters! That's something that someone should/will be digging on. To stretch a projection to a limit, I think this is all a smokescreen for a large entity already proposing to bid on the Relief Line, and if so, it will be for far more than just the purpose the TTC espouses. For the $4B and rising on just the southern leg, almost a whole line that could also host VIA HFR could be built. It's not the price tag per-se that's the showstopper, it's how little the TTC gets for it! Make it work for VIA, GO and the TTC in one fell swoop, much of it in tunnel, and you'll have international consortiums interested. THAT is Lindsay's background. I don't think Toronto's ready for it to be honest. Or QP. All Ford et al can understand is "Private Money". They don't understand how to drive the thing, let alone fix it. They just know they don't have to own it.
I am a huge proponent of elevated, but even don't think it will work through the core. I still think cut-and-cover is the answer. But to be different from the 50's, use pre-cast concrete and other rapid construction techniques for the construction. Besides the rapid techniques, building a station 8 to 10m deep is much easier (cheaper, faster) than a 20 or 25m deep one. It's also more convenient for riders to access the platform from street level.My first instinct was to disagree on that...but I also have to stretch thinking. For the northern sections (up to York Region but not on CN tracks) I'd definitely agree. That's something York region would have to deal with though.
I'll link @BurlOak to add comment on that. It would save a bundle of cash, doubtless. Sharing parts of the present RH GO line also makes huge sense if this is to be regional (or more) in nature.
I simply asked about the gauge comments. You replied to that by (unnecessarily as far as I can tell) raising some foreign rail class using both pantographs and third rail.Here's what I wrote:
Please be civil. The root cause is that you give very long-winded, often irrelevant, replies, with way to many quotes and references, making the end result generally incomprehensible. A simple question is met by an answer about something completely different.And somehow Fitz conflates that to: