Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[steveintoronto]

View attachment 179057

@BurlOak

It was only just reading Wisla's post above that I realized I hadn't clicked on the map you'd provided.

With options increased at both ends, and east-west ramps as an option at Gerrard to connect to the LE line (if built RER compatible) you've almost exactly caught the routing I've been touting. Ramps at Gerrard would not only facilitate stock movement on-off for service and storage somewhere along the LE route (space still exists just east of Danforth station for that) it would also allow LE RER to alternate terminating at Osgoode as well as Union, and later through running as per depiction to Barrie and Georgetown corridors.

That depiction is an excellent reference to use and repost. It's downloaded and saved to my desktop.

 

[steveintoronto]

How the hell did you get that from what I posted? JHC.

@steveintoronto Even if we were to take all the commuters who drive and park at Finch off the subway, that would only amount to 2-3 thousand people, or 2-3 trains. Wouldn't make a dent in the Bloor Yonge crush. Plus many who park at Finch are fellow Torontonians, not nasty 905ers taking up our spaces on the train. So that reduces the number of 905 commuters (and relief effect of kicking them off) even further. I really doubt that kicking off a few 905ers from Line 1 will alleviate crowding in the slightest.

The exurbs are better served by GO if and only if those commuters are heading to the financial district. I imagine many have destinations other than in vicinity of Union. Any relief line will need robust last mile bus service otherwise it will flop. Goes for both standard TTC subway and through running RER. But if relief is operated by Metrolinx, that throws more wrinkles into the picture. We've seen what a bitch it was doing something relatively minor like moving Oriole station to Leslie. Inspires no confidence they will get something large like 5-10 major bus routes right. On top of that we saw what happened and continues to stink up the joint with fare integration on TYSSE. TTC local bus routes connecting with a provincially operated through running RER sounds like a disaster to me. Perhaps ECLRT can serve as a good model to follow in terms of city/province governance and ownership. Regardless, issues of ownership will have to be hammered out in advance and once again I have no confidence given how incompetent all parties involved in Toronto transit have been over the years.

So let's reset the question since my original one was ambiguous:

Do you favour extending Yonge leg of Line 1 to Richmond Hill before or after a Relief Line is built? And subsequent to that:
"The exurbs are better served by GO if and only if those commuters are heading to the financial district. "

The map @BurlOak provides is almost exactly what I'm espousing. What he and I haven't agreed on is by what means that line is built.

That alignment provides an exquisite delivery to the core of the city.

 

[smallspy]

LIM trains don't have motors, which saves a tremendous amount of space. This allows for narrower tunnels and theoretically cheaper project costs.

That's not specifically true. The lack of traditional motors does change how things are laid out underneath the cars. But the LIM "motor" underneath the ICTS cars is quite a bit bigger than a traditional traction motor in volume - it's about 4 feet long by 18 inches wide by 5 or 6 inches deep. The packaging certainly does change how things are arranged underneath the cars (and allowed for much smaller wheels), but they aren't really any smaller.

Dan

 

[Kyle Campbell]

I'm thinking the most likely possiblity is something REM like, in both design and funding in which case you won't know the vehicle until whatever consortium wins.

In which case maybe like REM you would lose part of the Go network so that they could reduce costs by using existing rail corridors.

 

[steveintoronto]

Crossrail might be the most significant and well reported transit project in the world right now.

It really is, for better or worse, since it isn't perfect. Those who herald it as a template for others cite the positive aspects. Those who have reason to not cite it point to the temporary failings of it's imperfection.

What the latter group fail to cite is Thameslink, which forms a north-south cross on the east-west Crossrail. Thameslink is not only already achieving the performance goals that Crossrail initially will achieve, both have the design capacity to achieve a headway of under 2 mins, as opposed to the 2.5 mins Thameslink is already achieving with very similar rolling stock. (Siemens and BBD). The major difference is that Crossrail is extensively in deep tunnel, and Thameslink is much more a surface and shallow tunnels routing through the core.

And Thameslink is transversing the core with ATO. Automatic Train Operation. Siemens is excelling at this right now....and I have a hunch it's Siemens that's made a massive proposal to Metrolinx for the Relief Line.

"ATO"? Transport Canada won't like that, let alone the unions, and have a through-running connection to GO? It means being federally regulated. It gets a lot more complicated still when involving the Infrastructure Bank as per financing and who regulates the project, but that's a separate discussion.

BBD also have competing state-of-the-art rolling stock and control systems, but they have very little cash to finance such a project, Witness REM going with Alstom, even while the CDPQ holds 30% of BBD Transport Div.

REM is also a "stand-alone" project, with one anomaly I can't find background reference to: The Mount Royal Tunnel. It still seems to be on the books as being federally regulated. I can't find record of the Deux Montagnes line of ever having application in to the CTA to abandon the line, and then regulate it provincially with a successful abandonment granting. But that's digressing.

There's more to "stand alone" than first meets the eye on the Relief Line, and I think it indicates an almost totally private project with tech not yet permissible by Transport Canada regs.

I'm thinking the most likely possiblity is something REM like

Yup, in terms of package, financing, control, service dynamics and time frame to build. The actual vehicles and modality may be different in detail, but not general concept. It makes perfect sense: "Here's what's worked in X cities, now including Montreal, it will work in Toronto, and we'll build it, pay for it, and at the end of (50?) years, it becomes yours".

That would make Ford's jaw drop alright...and get him aroused at the same time.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Like the REM I'm imagining shorter trains and stations to keep costs in line (the REM is only "light" rail because it's using 4 car trains rather than 9 cars like the metro). Think 80-90m platforms, though hopefully expandable to at least 120m.

 

[Streety McCarface]

@steveintoronto Even if we were to take all the commuters who drive and park at Finch off the subway, that would only amount to 2-3 thousand people, or 2-3 trains. Wouldn't make a dent in the Bloor Yonge crush. Plus many who park at Finch are fellow Torontonians, not nasty 905ers taking up our spaces on the train. So that reduces the number of 905 commuters (and relief effect of kicking them off) even further. I really doubt that kicking off a few 905ers from Line 1 will alleviate crowding in the slightest.

The exurbs are better served by GO if and only if those commuters are heading to the financial district. I imagine many have destinations other than in vicinity of Union. Any relief line will need robust last mile bus service otherwise it will flop. Goes for both standard TTC subway and through running RER. But if relief is operated by Metrolinx, that throws more wrinkles into the picture. We've seen what a bitch it was doing something relatively minor like moving Oriole station to Leslie. Inspires no confidence they will get something large like 5-10 major bus routes right. On top of that we saw what happened and continues to stink up the joint with fare integration on TYSSE. TTC local bus routes connecting with a provincially operated through running RER sounds like a disaster to me. Perhaps ECLRT can serve as a good model to follow in terms of city/province governance and ownership. Regardless, issues of ownership will have to be hammered out in advance and once again I have no confidence given how incompetent all parties involved in Toronto transit have been over the years.

Along Relief Line South, I'd argue a strengthening of the streetcar network is far more important (north of Danforth, buses will be king and they need to build bus terminals into every station). With the relief line, you're basically densifying Old Toronto to near-downtown levels of density, and I'd argue that some form of ease of connection between the numerous streetcar lines (including the 501, 504, 505 if possible, 506, and all future Portlands streetcars). Perhaps something like the old Bloor Station where the streetcar stop could be accessed from the subway in the fare-paid area yet still be on the street. Even something as simple as the Queens Park subway Station connection would probably be good enough for most lines, where you could just access the streetcar stop from the station itself.

 

[steveintoronto]

Like the REM I'm imagining shorter trains and stations to keep costs in line (the REM is only "light" rail because it's using 4 car trains rather than 9 cars like the metro). Think 80-90m platforms, though hopefully expandable to at least 120m.

As much as I favour the RER carriage gauge, a 'metro' type of vehicle (REM, etc) can be and usually is shorter, and the benefit there is being able to handle tighter curves, but as Alstom claim for their Metropolis, trains can be up to ten cars long...I'm at one of their sites now, and whoa...the flexibility of build on these is astounding:
(As per curves, the UPX does well on the airport spur for tight radii, there might be a template to copy there)

[...]
Manufactured by Alstom, the Metropolis trains are flexible and reliable high-tech rolling stock, which will serve 22 major cities, including New York, Paris, Barcelona, Amsterdam, London, Chennai and Singapore.

The trains are designed with small, medium and wide bodies and are offered in two to six car train-set configurations, depending upon the client’s requirements. The train can be fitted with fully automatic driverless system for unattended train operation (UTO) functionality.

More than 4,000 Metropolis cars are in service with more than 50 operators worldwide.

Metropolis train details
The Metropolis trains are designed to run at a top speed of up to 90km/h and are equipped for driverless automatic transport. The trains have a width ranging from 2.30m to 3.2m and a length between 13m and 25m. The car body is made of aluminium or stainless steel and is attached with either steel or rubber tire wheels depending upon the customer’s requirement.

The train is offered to customers as a complete turnkey system, including the train set and the entire signalling, track works and services.

Each car set is fitted with wide and customisable doors, wide gangways and modular seating arrangements for optimised passenger flow. Dedicated spaces are allocated for disabled passengers.

The trains are designed with a standard trainborne Ethernet backbone, which provides a strong broadband communication network for security and other subsystems, including optional public address and passenger information equipment.

An information and communication technology (ICT) system is installed to integrate the passenger information and entertainment modules within the security & communications subsystems. The advanced passenger information and surveillance system aboard the cars ensures better passenger comfort.

The TrainTracer online tool monitors the main components of the train and the real-time information of each train condition will be delivered to the depot and operational control centre (OCC).
[...]

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/alstom-metropolis-trains/

Not to give Alstom undue credit, Siemens, BBD and others produce very similar systems.

Here's the latest and perhaps closest parallel to Toronto's needs:
https://www.sydneymetro.info/northwest/project-overview

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/north-west-rail-link-sydney/

Debate over double decker trains - ABC News (Australian ...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-04/double-decker-debate/4109604
Jul 3, 2012 - A debate is raging over the New South Wales government's decision to use single decked trains on the north-west rail link.
Single-decker v double-decker trains: Barry O'Farrell's claim doubtful ...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-11/barry-ofarrell-sydney-trains.../5371446
Apr 11, 2014 - Single-deck trains will be returning to the Sydney rail network in the next five years on the North West Rail Link. NSW Premier Barry O'Farrell ...

Sydney's rail future under a cloud | Green Left Weekly

https://www.greenleft.org.au/.../sydney%C3%A2%C2%80%C2%99s-rail-future-under...
Sep 28, 2012 - Unfortunately, the plan is to bore North West Rail Link tunnels from Epping to ... Fast double-deck trains would require a bore of seven metres.
[...]

- : Google search

Note how the heavier double deck coach approach has been dropped for smaller tunnel profile for the Metropolis in the latter link above. For those who insist that "the TTC's planning has been wasted" on tunnel bore, it would be a moot point using 'metros'. They can be powered by third rail supply the same as the TTC's or 25kVAC like what GO is proposing to use (the de-facto int'l standard for heavy rail). That has implications for ease of 'through-running' onto GO RoWs, if not the actual tracks. (Gauge would be the same, Transport Canada via Transport Ministry would have to be convinced).

 

[Leo_Chan]

I do think that the most likely thing is single deck Go trains (Crossrail trains a good example) in a tunnel. You would hypothetically be able to build a yard for them somewhere along the Richmond Hill Line and could save tunneling from East Harbour to Pape Ave. Yurek saying look at whats out there seems to point this way, Crossrail might be the most significant and well reported transit project in the world right now.

Is there an estimated price for a station on the Richmond Hill Line with a transfer to Castle Frank Station or Broadview Station?

 

[steveintoronto]

Is there an estimated price for a station on the Richmond Hill Line with a transfer to Castle Frank Station or Broadview Station?

This is an excellent question that I'd asked a few years back of an 'expert' only to be rebuffed. The CP RoW is also still in situ , and I'd thought about building a 'loop' of it with the extant ex CN line, and using escalators to Castle Frank station from a 'run-through' platform(s) on that loop. The other end would connect to or through Union Station on the USRC. With the RH line now more heavily used, a 'loop' would be an unnecessary complication, and a station as described, perhaps with the tracks being moved further west at that spot (reference to which I've seen to straighten it) then there appears to be space and opportunity to revisit the idea.

It was pointed out to me at that time (roughly a decade back) that escalators couldn't work for that height...but lo and behold, that's roughly the height some stations are expected to be on the deep-tunnel TTC Relief Line, and even if longer than that, then a level can be built approx half way up to access a second flight of escalators.

Since the land the present Castle Frank station sits on is fill, digging within the soil, other than having to shore-up as you go, would be relatively simple, or even putting the escalators on the surface might be a better option, but I appreciate your point. It might be an ideal way to tie those two lines together for passenger interchange. The cost? Good question, but let's scale it by comparing costs for any of the other proposed TTC stations on the earlier DRL: Probably cheaper. The question is then: "By how much?"

In Toronto, I believe the Ontario Science Centre provides an example that may be scalable.

http://michaelmurray.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/d20110830_0307_thumb.jpg

 

[BurlOak]

Again the Richmond Hill Line in that area is horrible, we do not need a transfer there.

For connectivity, not as a destination. Of course only if the Richmond Hill line becomes a more frequent service.
Here is an example from Barcelona (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montjuïc_Funicular). This one is 800m long, 80m vertical change - and a 2 minute trip each way. At Castle Frank, the length and vertical are a bit less than half of each of these numbers - so about 1 minute trip. It would be a glorified version of the moving sidewalk transfer at Spadina & St. George.

 

[steveintoronto]

Again the Richmond Hill Line in that area is horrible, we do not need a transfer there.

You do realize that the RoW alignment is touted to be moved west to the other side of Bayview there? And that the need for "relief" is greatest at peak, when the diesel hauled DD are most frequent?

It may come to pass that the costs of doing an interchange there (as per @Leo_Chan 's query) are not justified in lieu of a beefy Relief Line being built that would intercept that demand further north, but no matter how you look at this, the cost would still be cheaper than building a station from deep tunnel to serve same. Castle Frank is a very underutilized station as is. A better cost to benefit comparison might be the manic enlargement scheme for Yonge and Bloor to this. Figures (estimates) are now at $700M and rising to yet again redo Y/B. And still with no redundancy if anything goes wrong. It's madness...

At a time where the City believes it's about to commit to a toy system to run from Pape Station to Osgoode (albeit it will thankfully never be built as touted)(it will be built as a real regional transit corridor, or not at all) then it makes sense to re-examine all possibilities, and this is a good one. Another very simple but ostensibly sensible stop would be at the Queen St bridge for both 501 and 504 passenger interchange. Due to the curve immediately south of there, trains travel at a slow speed, and a stop would lose very little insertion time. There was a stop there historically.

It would be a glorified version of the moving sidewalk transfer at Spadina & St. George.

Remember how we were told at the time as to how 'travelators' were no longer 'the thing' and highly unreliable, expensive to buy and then maintain, yada, yada..? And then the moving sidewalk was removed from Spadina station south to the northern section?

They're being installed in quite a few stations and airports yet again:
http://www.cpgroup.com.au/escalator...-are-their-advantages-in-the-modern-world.php

An Architecture Firm Wants To Turn The London Underground’s Entire Circle Line Into A Three-Lane Travelator

An Architecture Firm Wants To Turn The London Underground’s Entire Circle Line Into A Three-Lane Travelator

The title of this post is the headline on an article in the Independent. It is rather an old chestnut and I think it’s been suggested before and even tried out in at Montparnasse station in P…

anonw.com

This visualisation, shows what the new Bank station will look like.

link above

 

[Streety McCarface]

Found this on Facebook. Personally, I wouldn't mind hitching a ride on The Steve Munro Automated Swan Boat Lazy River. It'd be slow, sure, but at least it would be a less stressful way to commute.

 

[Neutrino]

Definitely party van

 

[44 North]

You do realize that the RoW alignment is touted to be moved west to the other side of Bayview there?

Wait, who's touting moving RH RoW west of Bayview? I'm pretty sure that's not the case for numerous reasons.

For connectivity, not as a destination. Of course only if the Richmond Hill line becomes a more frequent service.
Here is an example from Barcelona (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montjuïc_Funicular). This one is 800m long, 80m vertical change - and a 2 minute trip each way. At Castle Frank, the length and vertical are a bit less than half of each of these numbers - so about 1 minute trip. It would be a glorified version of the moving sidewalk transfer at Spadina & St. George.

Really little point discussing Castle Frank as a transfer point. You want to talk connections from the Valley the obvious answer is one station over: Broadview. Naturally requires RH line on Don Branch, station either under or adjacent to the viaduct, then connect to Broadview. Less horizontal distance, less vertical distance, it's above the floodplain, Broadview has way more interconnecting lines. That's the clear winner for a transfer station. But this isn't really a RL discussion at this point.