hw621
Senior Member
^or cut and cover instead of boring?
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
crs1026
Senior Member
After reading the ‘clarification letter’, which reads
I am speculating that the different technology is related to signalling. I wonder if the province wants totally automated operation, ie no one in the cab.
- Paul
nfitz
Superstar
Elevated monorail then? Or perhaps new horizontal ferris lines ... like the Emirates Air Line in London ... kill two birds with one stone.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Rolling stock for a start. Overhead electric supply for another. Compatibility with mainline. All done in modern cities far ahead of Toronto. Think Crossrail, Paris RER, and many others. Think "metro" type trains, by far the most popular and cost efficient way of providing the transit needed. And think "driverless".
But this is Toronto, and the inability to see how others do some things so much better is glaring.
Here's the new Class 717:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_717
The 717 uses both AC overhead electric and third rail DC. It runs on both subway supply and the overhead supply that GO proposes to use (the de facto int'l standard 25kVAC)
Lots of vids here:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=class+717
Oh, and the big one for 'different technology': Standard gauge rail tracks. It is all a bit much for Torontonians to conceive of though. That being said, it's wildly beyond Ford and gang, but someone with big boy pants (ostensibly Michael Lindsay, Special Advisor to the Cabinet) gave them words and letters to play with.
Premier Doug Plays With Toronto’s Train Set
There's nothing 'new' in tunnelling techniques other than increasingly efficient boring machines (pun not mined). Canada used to be a leader in that, but now imports it (often German or Swiss).
What's interesting is how Steve Munro himself has been caught 'off-guard' by this. He appears as unaware of modern methods of transit delivery as those he holds to account. Watch for the Montreal REM model to be dangled as a more modern approach (it is, but still not as modern as some European, Asian and Australasian examples...or even some South American ones)
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
If you are going to suggest that the track gauge is a significant issue, how can we ever take any of your comments seriously?
In London the streetcars in Croydon and the subway that meets it in Wimbledon have the same gauge. It makes no difference. Neither rolling stock will ever appear on the other lines.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Overground, Underground, TfL and Network Rail share tracks in many cases. Google "Class 717" and stop being so uninformed and wishing to inform others who provide reference.
I can't be bothered providing greater reference to you, you'll go on endlessly twisting the point and arguing.
Light rail - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail
Jump to Trams operating on mainline railways - Around Karlsruhe, Kassel, and Saarbrücken in Germany, dual-voltage light rail trains partly use mainline railroad tracks, sharing these tracks with heavy rail trains. In the Netherlands, this concept was first applied on the RijnGouweLijn. This allows commuters to ride directly into the city centre, rather than taking a mainline train only as far as a central station and then having change to a tram. In France, similar tram-trains are planned for Paris, Mulhouse, and Strasbourg; further projects exist. In some cases, tram-trains use previously abandoned or lightly used heavy rail lines in addition to or instead of still in use mainline tracks.
[...]
If the Relief Line is going to be "stand alone" (from the TTC system)...sure as hell it won't be TTC gauge. Metrolinx has already made that decision with the LRTs.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Why make mountains out of mole hills? Class 717 doesn't and will never run on the streetcar lines in London, despite being the same gauge. Nor is there anything particularly special about class 717 ... British Rail was running trains that used both overhead and/or third rail for over 40 years ... it's has no relevance to the discussion. We've been popping off similar suggestions relating to Line 4 extension now for about a decade!
Many subway trains in Paris and even Montreal are completely incompatible with rail lines as well - and you can't even tweak each wheel there by an inch to make it work. The track gauge is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Obviously if it's a completely stand-alone system, it's very unlikely that anyone would consider TTC gauge. But really - how is that relevant to the current discussion? It's a footnote at best.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Right on cue, completely twisting what was written, and why.
Here's what I wrote:
And somehow Fitz conflates that to:
I never said it did. Class 717 runs on the Underground (albeit the slightly larger bore Great Northern line) and mainline, dual mode, dual voltage. One of many examples of mode inter-operability used in progressive world cities. London hosts a number of instances of LU running on leased Network Rail sections and sharing third rail as well (with the LU centre rail supply strapped to the tracks for interoperability of supply)
The necessity for almost all inter-operability is sharing track gauge. And in this case and the others I've linked, that's 4'8.5". De facto world standard.
I'm now expecting a retort of something along the lines of "But the socks don't match when dreaming on Sundays after eating peanut butter..."
YOU were the one to raise Croydon Tramlink, a classic strawman argument, except in your case you raise it, pizz on it, then complain about the smell.
Addendum: Paris' Line 4:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Île-de-France_tramway_Line_4[...]
Tram-train
A U 25500 between Bondy and Remise à Jorelle during the pre-inaugural trials. We can clearly see the train's ballasted tracks, which are unlike most tram rails. The line is a hybrid between a tramway and a train line.
Line 4 of the Île-de-France tramway was inaugurated on Saturday, 18 November 2006, and was free of charge the entire weekend. Its true commercial operation began the morning of 20 November 2006.
The T4 is the Île-de-France network's fourth line and France's first tram-train line.[5] It is the first of its kind to be operated by the SNCF. Unlike the other Île-de-France tramway lines, which are operated by the RATP, this line is operated by the SNCF, which may seem surprising. The SNCF left the ligne des Coteux (now T2), which was then in disrepair and highly unprofitable, to the RATP during the 1990s.
The SNCF's policy was to concentrate on heavy fluxes of passengers and thus on heavy rail transit. The success of tramway networks and the increasing popularity of peri-urban transportation made the SNCF change its focus.
There are no plans to extend the line to Noisy-le-Sec. This would allow passengers to reach this multimodal hub and connect with the T1, the RER E(both the Tournan and Chelles-Gournay branches), the Tangentielle Nord, and a fortiori toward Paris.
The RATP's expansion of the T2 from Puteaux to La Défense on existing roadbeds contributed to the enormous success of that line. Despite this, the ability to operate with a 25 kV catenary is needed to reach the Noisy-le-Sec depot. The trains' dual-current abilities (25 kV / 750 V) are not used, since the entire line is powered in 25 kV.
The line is used by fifteen tram-train cars, which run on the right[9] as mandated by the Code of Conduct.[10] It takes nineteen minutes to travel the eight-kilometre line. As stated in its regulations, the cars and stations are carefully analyzed to make them easily accessible for the disabled.
[...]
Last edited:
salsa
Senior Member
Still no clarity on the province's plans for the relief line.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Perhaps it could have higher capacity if it were like a Crossrail service or double decker trains.
Maybe they’d also make the whole thing elevated.
Maybe they’d also make the whole thing elevated.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Perhaps it could have higher capacity if it were like a Crossrail service or double decker trains.
Maybe they’d also make the whole thing elevated.
Maybe they’d also make the whole thing elevated.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yeah, I've been reading quite a few Twitter strings, and that's the present currency. I don't think Ford et al have a clue, just that Lindsay's here to save the day for them. And I don't think Lindsay wrote those two letters! That's something that someone should/will be digging on. To stretch a projection to a limit, I think this is all a smokescreen for a large entity already proposing to bid on the Relief Line, and if so, it will be for far more than just the purpose the TTC espouses. For the $4B and rising on just the southern leg, almost a whole line that could also host VIA HFR could be built. It's not the price tag per-se that's the showstopper, it's how little the TTC gets for it! Make it work for VIA, GO and the TTC in one fell swoop, much of it in tunnel, and you'll have international consortiums interested. THAT is Lindsay's background. I don't think Toronto's ready for it to be honest. Or QP. All Ford et al can understand is "Private Money". They don't understand how to drive the thing, let alone fix it. They just know they don't have to own it.
I'd quibble with the details, but totally agree with your thinking 'outside the box'. It HAS to do a hell of a lot more than four car subway trains toodling down the track like Toronto's done for...well..forever. In all fairness, Toronto used to do rail transit far better a century ago they today. The Radial Lines were an excellent example of that. Privately owned and run, btw. And standard gauge so they inter-operated with the railway companies. Guelph alone had three yards that interconnected with the railroads there at the time for freight onward forwarding. Edit: In all fairness, the TTC dreams are for 6 car platform lengths...OMG. It's still Mickey Mouse. For the sums of money being touted, that's piss-poor return per investment. Double that costing, and do magnitudes more, and spread the costs to far more operators for a 'business case index' of a hell of a lot more than "1", which is the latest Metrolinx assessment minus the latest 'double the costs'.
My first instinct was to disagree on that...but I also have to stretch thinking. For the northern sections (up to York Region but not on CN tracks) I'd definitely agree. That's something York region would have to deal with though.
I'll link @BurlOak to add comment on that. It would save a bundle of cash, doubtless. Sharing parts of the present RH GO line also makes huge sense if this is to be regional (or more) in nature.
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
My "best case scenario" beyond swan boats for what this differing technology could mean, is that the province is impressed with the relatively low cost and large coverage of the REM project in Montreal, and want a similar technology for the Relief Line.
The advantage to using modern "Intermediate Capacity" system like that on the REM has several potential advantages:
1. Fully automated, modern signalling.
2. Lighter weight, tighter turning radius and grade change. Could mean that the project is cheaper by elevating in areas like over the Don river and Phase 2 past Pape over the Don Valley. I doubt the portion downtown on Queen would ever be elevated. I could see a significant portion of the north "phase 2" elevated using such a system however.
3. Potentially smaller tunnels (if third rail tech is used, not overhead like REM) that could be single bore like the Montreal Metro.
However the trains and platforms would have to be significantly longer to accommodate the ridership expected on the relief line. However a fully automated system could offer trains every 30 seconds during rush hour which would help.
The advantage to using modern "Intermediate Capacity" system like that on the REM has several potential advantages:
1. Fully automated, modern signalling.
2. Lighter weight, tighter turning radius and grade change. Could mean that the project is cheaper by elevating in areas like over the Don river and Phase 2 past Pape over the Don Valley. I doubt the portion downtown on Queen would ever be elevated. I could see a significant portion of the north "phase 2" elevated using such a system however.
3. Potentially smaller tunnels (if third rail tech is used, not overhead like REM) that could be single bore like the Montreal Metro.
However the trains and platforms would have to be significantly longer to accommodate the ridership expected on the relief line. However a fully automated system could offer trains every 30 seconds during rush hour which would help.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I agree - Toronto is not ready for it. It's not a Ford thing - it's every planner and consultant who can't even articulate a vision.
I am a huge proponent of elevated, but even don't think it will work through the core. I still think cut-and-cover is the answer. But to be different from the 50's, use pre-cast concrete and other rapid construction techniques for the construction. Besides the rapid techniques, building a station 8 to 10m deep is much easier (cheaper, faster) than a 20 or 25m deep one. It's also more convenient for riders to access the platform from street level.
Once the DRL gets north of Don Valley, elevated is a definite option.
nfitz
Superstar
I simply asked about the gauge comments. You replied to that by (unnecessarily as far as I can tell) raising some foreign rail class using both pantographs and third rail.
Please be civil. The root cause is that you give very long-winded, often irrelevant, replies, with way to many quotes and references, making the end result generally incomprehensible. A simple question is met by an answer about something completely different.
Perhaps if you tried limiting you posts to one or two simple sentence and no more than one relevant (brief) quote, with an underlying link for those that want to read further.