Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

Steering us back to actual O/L news.......

The O/L gets mention in the latest Transit Network Expansion Update, to next week's TTC meeting.


Some bits from the above:

1677101668905.png

***

1677101728127.png
 
44 North said:
Time to repeat a gripe of mine, and it's a general one. No more pantos for OL. They'll make the line cost more, but more importantly they make the line uglier. Think about it. It's supposedly a sleek small train. Ok. But it will a have a large size due to the panto. Now that requires a much larger tunnel. And think of the guideway. There's nothing sleek about catenary infrastructure. Just look at the Crosstown viaduct for proof...poles and wires everywhere.

Rebuttal: but with pantos we can buy it "off the shelf". I don't know about that.
Click to expand...
Pantos function much better in Winter conditions. From a technical perspective, pantos are far better than 3rd rail in virtually every metric other than needing to use larger tunnels. That being said, that's why most of the line won't be tunneled. The fact that so much of the line will be above ground means its a lot more reasonable to use pantos.
 
ARG1 said:
Pantos function much better in Winter conditions. From a technical perspective, pantos are far better than 3rd rail in virtually every metric other than needing to use larger tunnels. That being said, that's why most of the line won't be tunneled. The fact that so much of the line will be above ground means its a lot more reasonable to use pantos.
Click to expand...

Seems to me they're more vulnerable. Less rugged. More maintenance-intensive. And any kind of greenery along the guideway will have to be kept well back to nonesxistent. Then the aesthetics. For an urban subway system, open-air or underground, I think third rail is superior. Should cost less too.
 
smallspy said:
In 8 years? It's completely possible.

With Metrolinx overseeing the construction on the other hand? That's a completely different question.

Dan
Click to expand...
I believe it's possible. 3/4 of the project will be above ground or at grade with the GO train. The only part that will probably go nuts is the underground section in the downtown core. That part I heard it'll be as deep as 100 feet below so won't be disruptive to the current infrustucture of downtown.
 
Jonny5 said:
I love how you're trying to grant Metrolinx absolution, but you still couldn't avoid putting consultation in quotes, because it wasn't consultation, it was declaration and a box-ticking exercise by some nobody PR staff who the decision makers probably have never even met before or since.

Just because they said they consulted doesn't mean they considered the results of it in any way shape or form. Please don't tell me you're so naive to actually think they ever did. The organisation as a whole is so weak and cowardly to ever accept the possibility they could be fundamentally wrong on anything. They even have to pay "influencers" (using quotes here deliberately) to tell everyone they are correct about everything. These are the actions of organisations with very sad cultures. I would think it an embarassment to work for Metrolinx.
Click to expand...
lets put it another way.
1.5 years ago metrolinx told the jimmie simpson park people that the joint corridor will happen and "consulted with the community". in that consultation they basically just asked them "this will happen, the ontario line will be above ground, we will not look at any other option, (including one done by steve munro) what can we do to make this work for you". After eventually giving up the jimmie simpson park quetly asked metrolinx for public art fencing and input on that design. Which they got someone can dig up the rfp if they have the time. riverside is still angry that they "werent being consulted".

so, lets pose this question:

lets say metrolinx comes directly to you and basically says the above "this will happen, the ontario line will be at osgoode hall, we will not look at any other option, (including one done by parsons report) what can we do to make this work for you"

What is your response? what would satisfy you?

or....

Was metrolinx's response to the save jimmy simpson park org unacceptable? how much further in depth should they have looked at that underground alignment?
 
generalcanada said:
lets put it another way.
1.5 years ago metrolinx told the jimmie simpson park people that the joint corridor will happen and "consulted with the community". in that consultation they basically just asked them "this will happen, the ontario line will be above ground, we will not look at any other option, (including one done by steve munro) what can we do to make this work for you". After eventually giving up the jimmie simpson park quetly asked metrolinx for public art fencing and input on that design. Which they got someone can dig up the rfp if they have the time. riverside is still angry that they "werent being consulted".

so, lets pose this question:

lets say metrolinx comes directly to you and basically says the above "this will happen, the ontario line will be at osgoode hall, we will not look at any other option, (including one done by parsons report) what can we do to make this work for you"

What is your response? what would satisfy you?

or....

Was metrolinx's response to the save jimmy simpson park org unacceptable? how much further in depth should they have looked at that underground alignment?
Click to expand...
Or they could have just taken the Carlaw alignment from the DRL. Still could have been above ground plus there are like no people along Carlaw/Eastern to complain in the first place. Another unforced error.
 
denfromoakvillemilton said:
Or they could have just taken the Carlaw alignment from the DRL. Still could have been above ground plus there are like no people along Carlaw/Eastern to complain in the first place. Another unforced error.
Click to expand...
Lets just keep building transit that noone complains about.

How did that work for the Eglinton Crosstown and the Leslie stop? The underground cathedrals of the Spadina Extension. The underground Eglinton West extension?
 
MrGoose said:
The underground cathedrals of the Spadina Extension.
Click to expand...
Some should have been above-ground. But cathedrals?

Stations in dense urban areas may be less spacious because underground mining is cheaper than digging down, because of all the utilities.

But isn't it cheaper to dig down, leaving a big huge hole, out in the burbs? Or should they have spent more money to fill the hole back in, and build a much stronger structural ceiling?

It will interesting to compare the Ontario Line tunnelled versus dug-down stations.
 
ARG1 said:
Pantos function much better in Winter conditions. From a technical perspective, pantos are far better than 3rd rail in virtually every metric other than needing to use larger tunnels. That being said, that's why most of the line won't be tunneled. The fact that so much of the line will be above ground means its a lot more reasonable to use pantos.
Click to expand...
Operationally, there is no advantage or disadvantage to pantographs over third rail. Both can problematic in differing weather conditions, but both have means to mitigate that.

The only advantage to catenary is that it can handle much higher voltages than third rail. 1500V is about as high as can be pushed through third rail, and even that is exceedingly rare.

There are advantages and disadvantages to different voltages, but those are largely independent of the means of conveying that power to the trains themselves.

Dan
 
Northern Light said:
Steering us back to actual O/L news.......

The O/L gets mention in the latest Transit Network Expansion Update, to next week's TTC meeting.


Some bits from the above:

View attachment 458145
***

View attachment 458146
Click to expand...
The closing of Queen Street from Victoria to Bay will be a HUGE mess no matter what but it might have been slightly better for transit users if the Metrolinx Gang had got their acts together to build their part of the Adelaide Street and York Street tracks. (The TTC and the City managed to finish the tracks in their section - York to Spadina - a bit early and are now working on the new overhead.) No doubt the City cannot refuse to close Queen until they get the detour tracks up and running but ....
 
ARG1 said:
Pantos function much better in Winter conditions. From a technical perspective, pantos are far better than 3rd rail in virtually every metric other than needing to use larger tunnels. That being said, that's why most of the line won't be tunneled. The fact that so much of the line will be above ground means its a lot more reasonable to use pantos.
Click to expand...
especially longer term as eventual extensions are unlikely to be tunnelled much if at all.

The OL is still quite expensive, but a northern extension could likely be done very, very affordably as it can be elevated.
 
Northern Light said:
Steering us back to actual O/L news.......

The O/L gets mention in the latest Transit Network Expansion Update, to next week's TTC meeting.


Some bits from the above:

View attachment 458145
***

View attachment 458146
Click to expand...
seems like the detour work will take almost 2 years before theyre up and running.
2 years of shuttle busses instead of streetcars going down adelaide
 
innsertnamehere said:
especially longer term as eventual extensions are unlikely to be tunnelled much if at all.

The OL is still quite expensive, but a northern extension could likely be done very, very affordably as it can be elevated.
Click to expand...

Longer term is a point in favour of third rail. Think about it. When planning future extensions/branches in an urban realm we want a line that can be nimble - i.e allow for planning of grade changes and tight turns with ease. Flyunders and flyovers, short tunnels, deviations from road ROW to rail ROW to greenspace etc... pantos will make that more difficult. Why? Because the train's profile is that much bigger. Infrastructure has to be more expansive to allow this. This is one reason I've been an advocate of ~2.75m wide train for RL rolling stock, with a commensurate longer train to compensate for the narrowness. Now with pantos we're effectively getting bigger trains.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top