News   Jun 14, 2019
 584     0 
News   Jun 14, 2019
 708     0 
News   Jun 14, 2019
 533     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

44 North

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 8, 2010
Messages
3,136
Reaction score
1,417
Location
Ward 28
Another quest

Another question I have is if the SRT structures could handle heavy rail - they may have been designed with the smaller, lighter trains in mind and therefore be unable to support a heavy set of cars.
The weight I think should be fine. When it comes to rapid transit vehicles the terms "light" and "heavy" can be a bit misleading. The T1 subway and Line 3 MkI have similar weights, with the T1 actually being lighter per sq metre. Where weight would become a problem would be with standard LRVs - vehicles overbuilt with impact standards for operating in traffic. The Flexity vehicles are like tanks, and would no doubt pose a weight issue. Which I guess is why the Transit City SRT plan involved tearing down the elevated guideway, on top of modifying every station to have low platforms.

The train width could be slightly wider than the current Line 3 fleet (2.5m), but definitely not as wide as our massive subways (>3m). So perhaps in the 2.7m range, or with the same 2.5m floor width but 15-20cm wider at seat height. Track curves may be an issue, but the worst curves would be gone (Kennedy loop, Ellesmere tunnel). Either way a new train order could theoretically have greater articulation points as part its design.

Much of this was studied in the past, so it doesn't seem all that unfeasible to operate different trains. One thing I do wonder is whether the guideway can be fitted with third rail easily. But really even if we did decide to use conventional Toronto subways, building a new guideway and stations along the same alignment would probably be a fraction of the cost/time of a brand new all-underground design spec'd to 150m.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
594
The weight I think should be fine. When it comes to rapid transit vehicles the terms "light" and "heavy" can be a bit misleading. The T1 subway and Line 3 MkI have similar weights, with the T1 actually being lighter per sq metre. Where weight would become a problem would be with standard LRVs - vehicles overbuilt with impact standards for operating in traffic. The Flexity vehicles are like tanks, and would no doubt pose a weight issue. Which I guess is why the Transit City SRT plan involved tearing down the elevated guideway, on top of modifying every station to have low platforms.

The train width could be slightly wider than the current Line 3 fleet (2.5m), but definitely not as wide as our massive subways (>3m). So perhaps in the 2.7m range, or with the same 2.5m floor width but 15-20cm wider at seat height. Track curves may be an issue, but the worst curves would be gone (Kennedy loop, Ellesmere tunnel). Either way a new train order could theoretically have greater articulation points as part its design.

Much of this was studied in the past, so it doesn't seem all that unfeasible to operate different trains. One thing I do wonder is whether the guideway can be fitted with third rail easily. But really even if we did decide to use conventional Toronto subways, building a new guideway and stations along the same alignment would probably be a fraction of the cost/time of a brand new all-underground design spec'd to 150m.
The T1s cannot make the turn. Too sharp. So, they would need to get around that problem.
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
6,000
Reaction score
1,484
But by her logic we'd have to shut down and rebuild all our subway tunnels too.
Haven't we spent the last 4 years with teams rebuilding tunnels from Eglinton through to about North York? They were not only replacing the tunnel lining, but also adjusting the bore itself as soil around it had shifted and caused the tunnel to be misaligned.

This kind of maintenance work can and is done while open during evenings/weekends; but it costs more. Shutting down and rebuilding Yonge in-place would be quite a bit cheaper (capital wise but subtract excavations since that's already done) than 25 years of SOGR budget.
 

BurlOak

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 7, 2011
Messages
5,393
Reaction score
1,298
Which turn, the one near McCowan?

44North already addressed the Kennedy and Ellesmere curves - which would have to be replaced with almost any technology.
 

micheal_can

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2016
Messages
1,265
Reaction score
594
Suppose we could redesign Toronto's subway system like Mini Metro. However, we are only limited to five lines and five river crossings. All of the existing stations would have to be connected to the system.

How would you redesign the subway system to prevent overcrowding?
There is too much congestion already on the U south of Bloor. Doing anything like Muni would actually do more damage.
 

11th

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 21, 2011
Messages
700
Reaction score
164
...
possible routing using disused Line 3
View attachment 95628
Piggybacking on your proposal:

Untitled2.png


With the ways things are going, we will get RER and fare integration/reform before anything is built to SCC...

Repurposed #6 for a NE Scarborough/Malvern LRT line using rail ROW - full grade-separation from Kennedy to Malvern; they can do an on-street loop within Malvern if needed.

Yes, this is a fantasy because it will require the use of CP's corridor.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

bill r

New Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Messages
37
Reaction score
4
Plan B
(update to SmartTrack 2.0
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/transit-fantasy-maps.3005/page-292#post-1109076 )


Convert the GO Stouffville line to Electric Multiple Units (EMU) with 3-4 minute headways. EMU’s are like subway cars that run on railroad tracks. They accelerate and stop much more quickly than locomotive/coach trains. Metrolinx is selecting EMU’s because they are half the operating cost of locomotive/coach trains.


From the Stouffville line the route goes along the Lakeshore (4th track installed), to Eastern Avenue where it turns on to King Street. Four railroad lines are laid on King Street providing a bypass track for the EMU’s. The tracks meet up with the Union Pearson Express (UPX), which is then salvaged by converting it to EMU and add a few more stations and serve north-west Toronto.


It will be necessary to install bypass tracks on King St to provide sufficient train throughput through the downtown to feed the two suburban lines. The tracks are on the surface is the most economical. A better solution would be to elevate the tracks but apparently this is not aesthetically satisfactory. The best solution would be to place the tracks underground.


This route addresses the downtown section of the Downtown Relief Project. The upper portion would be addressed with a station at Pape and Gerrard. Likely an LRT route replacing the Don Mills bus.


The Stouffville and UPX lines provide backbone service for a hub and spoke system. The Sheppard LRT meets the Stouffville line.The Steeles, Finch, Agincourt, Lawrence stations will significantly shorten bus routes in Scarborough. Most Scarborough bus routes will run east/west to feed the Stouffville line. As the east/west bus routes run faster than north/south routes transit times will be shortened. UPX and Stouffville provide speedy service considering the distances they cover.


Rapid transit on King Street provides much needed service (Liberty Village) and an alternate east/west corridor alternative to the Bloor subway.


The lines provide a grid service to Toronto. This relieves the load at Yonge/Bloor. The route along King St also relieves the load at Union Station.


 

ssiguy2

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 3, 2010
Messages
2,929
Reaction score
664
EMU's that are similar to subway cars {basically just subway trains running on standard rail track with overhead catenary power supply} are VERY common throughout the world. Toronto closest subway neighbour, Cleveland, uses such trains. All of the Delhi, Barcelona, and Sao Paulo systems do as does most of Tokyo's and Hong Kong's as well as many other European and Chinese systems. Every subway manufacturer makes them as off-the-shelf vehicles.

Catenary subways are also superior to standard 3rd rail subways, when running outside, in both reliability and safety which is why they are more frequently used in such capacities.

More reliable due to flooding or snow/ice can greatly effect 3rd rail operations unlike catenary. Safer because when using current rail corridors for their operation which many do, it mean that work can continue on other adjacent rail tracks without fear of electrocution. When, for example, you have 4 track corridors yet 2 are 3rd rail and the other 2 catenary or non-electric, it is VERY dangerous to have people work on/fix the 2 other tracks while the 3rd rail system is still running. This is one of the reasons 3rd rail systems that use current rail corridors do so almost exclusively with elevation or at a minimum very high track segregation walls to prevent electrical accidents.

For all of the GO RER system, I think catenary subways are superior even to EMUs.
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,656
Reaction score
742
Plan B
(update to SmartTrack 2.0
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/transit-fantasy-maps.3005/page-292#post-1109076 )


...
It will be necessary to install bypass tracks on King St to provide sufficient train throughput through the downtown to feed the two suburban lines. The tracks are on the surface is the most economical. A better solution would be to elevate the tracks but apparently this is not aesthetically satisfactory. The best solution would be to place the tracks underground.
....
Rapid transit on King Street provides much needed service (Liberty Village) and an alternate east/west corridor alternative to the Bloor subway.


The lines provide a grid service to Toronto. This relieves the load at Yonge/Bloor. The route along King St also relieves the load at Union Station.
Surface heavy rail lines on King? Are you joking?

- How does traffic cross?
- Noise for the 100,000+ people that live or work along King
- Safety of pedestrian crossings?
 

Translude15

Frank the Tank
Member Bio
Joined
Aug 12, 2008
Messages
583
Reaction score
155
Surface heavy rail lines on King? Are you joking?

- How does traffic cross?
- Noise for the 100,000+ people that live or work along King
- Safety of pedestrian crossings?
Collateral damage. Metrolinx must run the trains at the expense of pedestrians/residents.
 

innsertnamehere

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 8, 2010
Messages
12,871
Reaction score
6,689
I'd love to see a 12 car GO train plow through a throng of jaywalking pedestrians at King and Bay.

Oh, and the financial core station would provide connections to both the St Andrew and King Stations at once! bonus! The downtown street grid will be shut down for 5 minutes, every 15 minutes, however, to allow for the trains to pass through.

The trains better watch for the drunks on King West on friday nights. They may throw their smokes puitine at the trains.

They better make sure the train goes around all those left turners at bathurst too.. takes quite a few light cycles to get through there most days.
 
Last edited:

Leo_Chan

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
2,992
Reaction score
1,781
Location
Richmond Hill
You guys think they actually put a GO train ROW in the middle of King Street? The more likely scenario is demoshing ALL the buildings on the North or South side of King in order to place double tracks. Cars need to have priority right?
 

Top