News   Mar 28, 2024
 923     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 529     2 
News   Mar 28, 2024
 830     0 

Transit Fantasy Maps

The route may be salvageable, but is it desireable? I feel like the extension will more likely go as far on Sheppard as possible before turning south to meet BD. Which I guess would be a clever way of them to get that last part of the BD that was cut....

Well the area is kinda a dog's breakfast in terms of planning/servicing, which I guess is par for the course when plonking a CBD in a industrial/warehouse area. But keeping the line within the SC planning district as much as possible seems like there's benefit. I'd say not doing this was one of the drawbacks of SELRT. Now I don't really 'support' this or a Line 4 extension in the conventional sense. But if it does become a priority again, which seems to be gaining momentum, I think cutting the costs considerably has its benefits.
 
Is it just the rolling stock that has become past it's useful life on the SRT, or has the infrastructure fallen apart as well? Using SRT elevated alignment sounds great, unless it's going to cost a lot to repair the infrastructure.
 
Is it just the rolling stock that has become past it's useful life on the SRT, or has the infrastructure fallen apart as well? Using SRT elevated alignment sounds great, unless it's going to cost a lot to repair the infrastructure.

I remember Keesmaat saying something along the lines of it's thirty years old, the whole line needs replacing. I don't believe that for a second. I'm sure it needs capital maintenance no different than any infrastructure, be it above or below ground. But by her logic we'd have to shut down and rebuild all our subway tunnels too.

For the existing E-W infrastructure itself there'd be relatively major capital going in, which was always part of the fleet upgrade or conversion to standard LRVs. The line was always undersized. So in this case it would be: lengthening platforms, some retooling of the guideway and conversion to TTC gauge, and expansion of the yard/maintenance facility. With existing Line 4 the stations would be accommodated for the narrower vehicles, so mostly platform widening of ~50cm. And hopefully the whole thing would use typical subway/metro vehicles procured and tendered openly, using conventional third rail.
 
Another quest
Is it just the rolling stock that has become past it's useful life on the SRT, or has the infrastructure fallen apart as well? Using SRT elevated alignment sounds great, unless it's going to cost a lot to repair the infrastructure.
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Which turn, the one near McCowan?

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

  • Untitled2.png
    Untitled2.png
    536.1 KB · Views: 657
Last edited:
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.


ili5d2xNPKRr6axtPUGlXRf8q8jgyvXLldALI9xazvwKbOn3G6UV4hRt33BY-6m4T7vp6KJ-YjS43g_EM_QZhinGxcYTVgfltPLdbnmYdaco5COH81Hnou57AkcI_BSQZUj75Ezl
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 

Back
Top