Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

if they provide construction contract to a Chinese company, I believe they could finish Ontario line in 4 years..I was Beijing 2017 asked railway company guy how long you can complete subway line.. He told me.. we can finish 25 km subway line within 4 years..
 
Last edited:
Lyphe said:
The new DRL plan makes so much more sense than the original short line.
Not only does it link major draws such as the science centre, exhibition, and ontario place ... but it'll be long enough to get real use. Love this new plan.
Click to expand...
The Exhibition a major draw? Have you stood there at rush hour? Not sure how Ontario Place comes into this other than being a 10-minute walk from the GO interchange shown in the figure.

Existing proposed line went further than Eglinton. Not sure how that is short and the excrement that was dropped today was long.

Adding a station or two west of Osgood's on Queen or King certainly be useful.
 
Lyphe said:
he didn't mince words on funding and getting it done. He said he expected all levels of gov to pay, but that he'd build it solo if needed.
Click to expand...
He hasn't a clue on how to finance this. If he has, then reference it.

I'm going to give you a $Million...trust me. It's my commitment, but first, lend me your car. Sign for it? No, my word is good...
 
ahmedyusali said:
if they provide construction contract to a Chinese company, I believe they could finish Ontario line in 4 years..I was Beijing 2017 asked railway company guy how long you can complete subway line.. He told me.. we can finish 25 km subway line within 4 years..
Click to expand...
If only they would do that.... in all honesty I would rather them contract it out to the Chinese, get it built with Canadian spin offs and reap the rewards 10 years sooner than what will be the projected date currently.
 
Haljackey said:
As an outsider of Greater Toronto, I think you guys need whatever you can get as fast as possible. It may not be exactly want you wanted or needed, but it is something.

This is what Douggie is trying to do. He is going around the city, environmental assessments, community engagement, etc. as that stuff slows you down.

Is this the right way of doing things? No, but it's the most efficient.

Get shovels in the ground ASAP and get'er done.
Click to expand...
In a way despite me disliking the fords the notion of getting it done asap for transit is something I'd back. Too much time is wasted due to overly excessive studies lobbying, eas, and town halls. You're never going to appease everyone so why bother trying to cater to every tiny demand. A simple majority should be enough to make a decision yet these days it seems like minority interest groups are distorting our democracy.
 
You have to look at the OL route and design to see that the lighter trains are the way to go. Some of this line will be elevated and as I stated earlier, lighter trains allow for thinner concrete supports and fewer of them saving time and money. They also are far less obtrusive on the urban environment than elevated heavy subway. Smaller and lighter trains also have sharper turning radiuses and can climb steeper inclines both of which are crucial in a line like this were it will go from tunnel to elevation and have sharp turns off Queen.

For this particular line, the decision between standard subways and thinner ones isn't even a competition..............the thinner trains are a VASTLY superior choice.
 
ssiguy2 said:
... lighter trains allow for thinner concrete ...
Click to expand...
Light rail refers to the capacity not the weight. With some designs favouring short wide trains over long narrow trains, there's little actual change to the track structures (but significant reductions in platform length making stations shorter).
 
ahmedyusali said:
if they provide construction contract to a Chinese company, I believe they could finish Ontario line in 4 years..I was Beijing 2017 asked railway company guy how long you can complete subway line.. He told me.. we can finish 25 km subway line within 4 years..
Click to expand...
They will have to bring along the Chinese government and Chinese workers. The former can print money like it's nothing. The latter have no union, work unpaid overtime and will be denied any labour claims by the former.
 
robmausser said:
Agreed. Totally possible btw, the REM is only 2 car sets so they can run 1 car sets during late hours/weekends

Not needed on a line predicted to be as busy as this one.

Heres the same rolling stock for REM, but a longer 6 car 3rd rail variant. I suspect the Ontario Line would be more like this

1280px-GVB_metro_M5%2C_109.jpg
Click to expand...
That looks like a modern-day Scarborough Rapid Transit line, or the Zoomobile. I thought weather delays were a big issue for raised transit like this, which is a benefit of true underground subways.
 
Lyphe said:
We finally have the big plan we wanted. Now lets support and push it forward instead of trying to pull it apart.
Click to expand...
Where were you when Transit City was the big plan we wanted, with three level government funding agreed upon?

Anyway, the challenge will be DoFo’s government is at best a two term machine. I predict a slim majority for DoFo in 2022, and then Ontario swings back to Liberal hegemony as the NDP collapses and graft, sweetheart deals, infighting and the public’s distaste for “efficiencies” and austerity disable the PCs, same as we saw with Harris. PCs haven’t won’t more than two elections since the 1970s. So, DoFo had better get his transit irrevocably or nearly finished before his loss in 2026.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Light rail refers to the capacity not the weight. With some designs favouring short wide trains over long narrow trains, there's little actual change to the track structures (but significant reductions in platform length making stations shorter).
Click to expand...
Not only that, as the REM modelling as explained at Catbus.com showed, once the vehicles are full, the weight of the load adds significantly to the overall load rating on structures. One implication of that is that expansion of the system for passenger capacity using many smaller vehicles to handle what a larger one could with less frequency really doesn't equate to cost savings.
An investigation into how the New Champlain Bridge is being built for only very light railway axle loads, and how this would make it difficult to build an integrated regional rail system shared between REM, AMT and VIA, but not impossible.
Click to expand...
The New Champlain Bridge – Barely Built for Rail - Catbus

nfitz said:
(but significant reductions in platform length making stations shorter)
Click to expand...
This relates to @crs1026 ' point on building (at least tunnelling) to the present TTC subway bore size (5.4 m as proposed for the DRL) and station length/capacity. Even the TTC's parameters were too frugal. To go any less is complete madness in the name of frugality.
 
Last edited:
Admiral Beez said:
That looks like a modern-day Scarborough Rapid Transit line, or the Zoomobile. I thought weather delays were a big issue for raised transit like this, which is a benefit of true underground subways.
Click to expand...
REM is mostly outside, and a proven and winter-proofed vehicle and system design used in at least three northern cities.
I thought weather delays were a big issue for raised transit like this
Click to expand...
SRT's major problem is LIM, not the standard gauge tracks or vehicle size.

Also:
PROBLEMS DEVELOP
Although the SCARBOROUGH RT attracted more people than buses could comfortably serve, it soon ran into some criticism and controversy. Some of the problems which cropped up were due to the design changes that occurred halfway through construction. Others were due to teething pains with the equipment. Still more were due to poor design, plain and simple. In September 1986, the TTC went to the Province, asking for $27 million to repair these problems. These included:

  • "Between $6 million and $15 million to rebuild the turning loop at Kennedy station, which has been blamed for one 'minor derailment in normal operation' and for extensive wear and tear on wheel and rails.
  • "$1.5 million to buy a machine to re-grind worn wheels. So-called 'flat wheels' have been blamed for much of the noise caused by the RT.
  • "$500,000 to eliminate wear on the rails that supply power to the RT cars.
  • "$840,000 to heat the rails so ice won't form on them during the winter, shutting down the cars.
  • "$450,000 to put covers on the power rails, again to prevent icing.
  • "$1 million to solve a flaw in the computer system that guides the trains. Trains travelling too slowly or stopped in certain spots on the line lose contact with the computer unless complicated 'reentry' procedures are started.
  • "Another $1.5 million to repair other communication problems between the cars and the central computer.
  • "$5.9 million for land costs."
Click to expand...
Use a proven system, one used in some 80 cities and counting now.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top