TTC: Streetcar Network

[Johnny Au]

This man speaks the truth. In my research on the topic I don't recall the TTC ever giving a reason for the end of service on Parliament. Usually when the TTC ended service they would give a reason and if you squinted really hard you could see where they were coming from. Parliament , Coxwell, and Oakwood, however just up and vanished without reason. The thing is the Parliament Streetcar didn't even need to go to Castle Frank, there were still tracks crossing the Bloor Viaduct so the route could have been sent to Broadview. This would have required building Broadview to accommodate 3 routes but it was always an option.

Here's your video on the Parliament streetcar for context:

 

[reaperexpress]

I seriously doubt there were any plans for streetcars to operate into Castle Frank. The TTC was well into its streetcar abandonment phase in the 1960s and so would not have seen the need to continue the Parliament streetcar after 1966. With the 1966 and 1968 closures, it was able to get rid of all the air electric PCCs, keeping only those built between 1946 and 1951 for the remaining services that would have disappeared by 1980.

The Rosedale Viaduct was built in 1918. At the time, the Bloor subway was envisioned to used smaller streetcar-sized vehicles, hence why they thought it was okay to have a sharp bend between the Rosedale and Bloor viaducts. In the 1960's when they actually built the subway, they used much longer and wider cars that needed wider curves, hence why they built a new subway viaduct next to the Rosedale viaduct.

The station itself was certainly not designed for streetcars. A streetcar platform would need to be retrofitted, like it was at other stations like Spadina and Union. Difference being that with double-ended cars travelling parallel to the subway, much less tunnel is required than those loop stations.

 

[drum118]

The Rosedale Viaduct was built in 1918. At the time, the Bloor subway was envisioned to used smaller streetcar-sized vehicles, hence why they thought it was okay to have a sharp bend between the Rosedale and Bloor viaducts. In the 1960's when they actually built the subway, they used much longer and wider cars that needed wider curves, hence why they built a new subway viaduct next to the Rosedale viaduct.

The station itself was certainly not designed for streetcars. A streetcar platform would need to be retrofitted, like it was at other stations like Spadina and Union. Difference being that with double-ended cars travelling parallel to the subway, much less tunnel is required than those loop stations.

I agree going duel ends for cars if they use the station. It was proposed a number of times stating back in 2004 to 2015 EA's and in the 2019 Waterfront Reset to bring back the streetcars to Parliament with it going to Castle Frank Station as well connecting to QQE, but told it was outside our mandate. Also was told the roof of the station would have to be rebuilt to support the streetcar.

The subway tunnel for Rosedale had openings in the roof when it open but were fill in around the mid 70's after the locals complain about the subway noise. It used to be the upper class folks that live there.

 

[reaperexpress]

I agree going duel ends for cars if they use the station. It was proposed a number of times stating back in 2004 to 2015 EA's and in the 2019 Waterfront Reset to bring back the streetcars to Parliament with it going to Castle Frank Station as well connecting to QQE, but told it was outside our mandate. Also was told the roof of the station would have to be rebuilt to support the streetcar.

If the roof of the station would need to be rebuilt to support streetcar tracks in the loop, that's further evidence that building a narrow underground structure adjacent to the station might actually not be much more expensive.

 

[Sauga89]

idk if this is the page for it but, How likely would a Parliament Streetcar be once the Union Loop expansion is completed. Such a line could use the Lower deck of the viaduct over the Rosedale Ravine and have an underground loop at Castle Frank and would need less than 4km of track, 1.25km from CF to Carlton and 2.25km from King/Parliament to Union via QQE.

There actually is an existing UT thread for this.

To summarize, there were a lot of complaints that a Castle Frank loop was impractical. @reaperexpress presented his excellent plan in that thread as well, but I think most people overlooked his post and/or didn't know about the lower deck on the Rosedale bridge. Other discussion revolved around the ridership on the 65 Parliament bus (which some locals argued suffered from being infrequent) and the number of stop lights on Parliament (hopefully a future streetcar would have a dedicated right of way and signal priority).

 

[Jonny5]

There actually is an existing UT thread for this.

To summarize, there were a lot of complaints that a Castle Frank loop was impractical. @reaperexpress presented his excellent plan in that thread as well, but I think most people overlooked his post and/or didn't know about the lower deck on the Rosedale bridge. Other discussion revolved around the ridership on the 65 Parliament bus (which some locals argued suffered from being infrequent) and the number of stop lights on Parliament (hopefully a future streetcar would have a dedicated right of way and signal priority).

I recall at some point Steve Munro also pointed out there were concerns about the weight of streetcars on the deck (you must account for the possibility, however remote of multiple crush loaded streetcars in the loop at the station, plus any other vehicles parked in there), and that it wasn't structurally designed to absorb that much weight. I have no backup for this as he mentioned it years ago, but it is an engineering problem which likely could be solved, but it would be a very long term capital project, or one of those where perhaps it could be rebuilt faster if they only let trains pass right through without stopping, or frequently closed the whole line there on weekends for a few months.

 

[Sauga89]

I recall at some point Steve Munro also pointed out there were concerns about the weight of streetcars on the deck (you must account for the possibility, however remote of multiple crush loaded streetcars in the loop at the station, plus any other vehicles parked in there), and that it wasn't structurally designed to absorb that much weight. I have no backup for this as he mentioned it years ago, but it is an engineering problem which likely could be solved, but it would be a very long term capital project, or one of those where perhaps it could be rebuilt faster if they only let trains pass right through without stopping, or frequently closed the whole line there on weekends for a few months.

I replied in the Parliament Streetcar thread, since everyone else was posting there.

 

[reaperexpress]

Moving the discussion about bidirectional streetcars back to this thread since we're just talking about the future of the streetcar network in general

To be a bit more verbose i was responding to McGillicuddy's point that you would have to rebuild loops into crossovers and in the meantime have two incompatible systems (loop termini and crossover termini)... Unless there is something I seriously misunderstand, bidi trams can operate on existing, looped routes aready, however uni trams could not operate on crossover routes. So there would not be two, incompatible fleets, as bidi trams can run on the whole network- though ideally more of the network is turned into crossovers

I really dont see why? Its not as if bidi flexities dont exist, like ION. A retrofit would not even be necessary in the short term (although i dont see why it wouldnt be possible), you simply order a fleet of Flexity bidis that can be run in newer crossover loops. Its the same rolling stock, no new training needed for operators or mechanics

That's correct. Unidirectional trams can only run on unidirectional infrastructure, but bidirectional trams can operate on all infrastructure, including all of our existing infrastructure.

For example HTM in the Hague, Netherlands traditionally ran unidirectional trams like Toronto, but they built some of their newer routes with crossovers instead of loops to avoid unnecessary construction costs. Since that point, all new tram purchases have been bidirectional and they've been gradually taking advantage of the flexibility of these newer tram models.

The first generation of bidirectional tram in The Hague was the 2006 Alstom RegioCitadis, which was primarily used for the Zoetermeer Line, a former regional rail line that was converted to tram operation. But the same fleet was also used for Line 19, an ordinary tram, to allow it to terminate at Delft Station using a third platform instead of a loop. The other two platforms are used by Line 1, which still uses uni-directional vehicles and continues through the station to Tanthof where there is a loop.

Tram platform at Delft Station with an Alstom RegioCitadis tram departing the terminating platform, via Wikipedia:

The next generation of streetcar for the broader tram network was the 2015 Siemens Avenio. As they gradually replace older unidirectional trams, HTM now has the option to rebuild stations to use crossovers instead of loops, in which case the older unidirectional trams are displaced to other routes that still have loops.

Bidirectional trams also introduced the option of left door boarding, which HTM has taken advantage of at major stops. At Hollands Spoor station they built a quad-track tram station with an island platform for each direction. Routes using bidirectional trams can serve either side of the platform, while routes using the old unidirectional trams always need to use the left side since they only have doors on the right. The island platform allows passengers to wait on a single platform and take whichever line shows up first, rather than the old layout where there were two different platforms where the next tram could appear. It also enables cross-platform transfers between lines. The same layout is also used at Den Haag Centraal station.

Den Haag Hollands Spoor station westbound platform, showing a Siemens Avenio tram using its left-side doors to share a platform with a unidirectional tram on the other side. Image via Wikipedia.

The next generation of tram will be the Stadler TINA, expected to enter service starting later in 2026. Once these are all in service, the last unidirectional trams will be retired, providing HTM flexibility to build island platforms or crossovers anywhere on the network.

HTM Stadler TINA, image by Stadler.

A key difference between The Hague and Toronto is that The Hague doesn't put all its eggs in one basket like the TTC does. Whereas the TTC has 260 streetcars all of the same type and roughly the same age, HTM has 186 trams of three different types and different ages:
- 54 Alstom RegioCitadis (entered service 2006-2007)
- 70 Siemens Avenio (entered service 2015-2019)
- 62 Stadler TINA (to enter service in 2026, replacing the unidirectional GTL8-II trams from 1990-1993)

Having multiple different types and ages of vehicle makes the system more resilient, since the trams don't all start getting old/unreliable at the same time, and if there's an issue with a particular type of tram it doesn't affect the whole network. It also facilitates continuous improvement since you don't need to wait 40 years to make changes to the fleet specifications. There's a new tram order every 10-15 years and you can allocate those trams to whichever line(s) benefit most from the new specifications.

 

[lastcommodore]

Having multiple different types and ages of vehicle makes the system more resilient, since the trams don't all start getting old/unreliable at the same time, and if there's an issue with a particular type of tram it doesn't affect the whole network. It also facilitates continuous improvement since you don't need to wait 40 years to make changes to the fleet specifications. There's a new tram order every 10-15 years and you can allocate those trams to whichever line(s) benefit most from the new specifications.

I am not knowledgeable on other places, but I have never understood this weird situation where we like to buy only in huge, bulk orders, then no orders for the next x decades, and never piecemeal. It makes it much harder to have any form of industry here in Canada, because instead of a few, stable jobs, it's this huge burst of cold start manufacturing, hire & fire, then lose all the knowledge, and repeat.

The shorter lifecycle, volume of bus transit, & private operators here makes it easier for buses, theyve figured it out there, but for rail...? TTC streetcar had no orders between '89 and '12, Line 2 got their rolling stock in '95 and probably be replaced by '30... What are manus supposed to do in the 35 year time between orders? Sit around?

 

[DSCToronto]

I am not knowledgeable on other places, but I have never understood this weird situation where we like to buy only in huge, bulk orders, then no orders for the next x decades, and never piecemeal. It makes it much harder to have any form of industry here in Canada, because instead of a few, stable jobs, it's this huge burst of cold start manufacturing, hire & fire, then lose all the knowledge, and repeat.

The shorter lifecycle, volume of bus transit, & private operators here makes it easier for buses, theyve figured it out there, but for rail...? TTC streetcar had no orders between '89 and '12, Line 2 got their rolling stock in '95 and probably be replaced by '30... What are manus supposed to do in the 35 year time between orders? Sit around?

I assume it is because every transit system has special requirements regarding seating arrangements, gauge, turn radii etc etc I don't think one can just phone up a dealer and order one to be delivered in a few weeks from their inventory..

 

[nfitz]

I assume it is because every transit system has special requirements regarding seating arrangements, gauge, turn radii etc etc I don't think one can just phone up a dealer and order one to be delivered in a few weeks from their inventory..

Even basics like vehicle width. The TTC are a bit wider than the European ones - and yet narrow than the Flexity vehicles for Metrolinx, Waterloo, and Edmonton.

 

[lastcommodore]

I assume it is because every transit system has special requirements regarding seating arrangements, gauge, turn radii etc etc I don't think one can just phone up a dealer and order one to be delivered in a few weeks from their inventory..

To this point I do want rail to be more standardised, but there's a very wide gap between "On-order train sets" (Which we don't even have for buses) and "Bulk order every 3 decades"

I had forgotten to mention but the TTC streetcar rolling stock is much better doing this, with slow but continual orders from 2012 thru 2025.

 

[reaperexpress]

Even basics like vehicle width. The TTC are a bit wider than the European ones - and yet narrow than the Flexity vehicles for Metrolinx, Waterloo, and Edmonton.

My understanding is that the biggest factor requiring the TTC to get custom trams is the minimum turning radius. Loading gauges and track gauges vary between systems in Europe too, so manufacturers generally expect to build a different car body for different systems anyway. What required a more significant redesign of the Flexity platform was apparently the need to traverse insanely tight corners. European systems would have historically had such tight curves too, but unlike Toronto they spent the past century upgrading their track networks to modern standards so that's not an issue anymore. I think Philadelphia also has similarly tight curves but they weren't in the market for new streetcars at the time.

If the City/TTC were serious about running a competitive streetcar system, they would modernize their track standards so whenever we rebuild tracks we actually improve their layout to reduce traffic delays (e.g. adding left turn lanes where necessary), increase streetcar speeds (e.g. installing dual-point switches and modern switch control) and reduce future equipment costs (e.g. increasing the radius of the tightest curves). So after a track reconstruction project the new tracks have all the same issues that the original tracks had.

 

[nfitz]

If the City/TTC were serious about running a competitive streetcar system, they would modernize their track standards so whenever we rebuild tracks we actually improve their layout to reduce traffic delays (e.g. adding left turn lanes where necessary), increase streetcar speeds (e.g. installing dual-point switches and modern switch control) and reduce future equipment costs (e.g. increasing the radius of the tightest curves). So after a track reconstruction project the new tracks have all the same issues that the original tracks had.

Didn't TTC check out the cost of that, over 15 years ago, after the Bombardier (and other bids) were non-compliant because Bombardier proposed a vehicle that had a bigger turning radius, and a recommendation that TTC do exactly that.

It's been a while, but wasn't it in the $billion range ... in something like 2010 dollar?

Entire buildings would have to come down - some with heritage value. And presumably just about every track in all the yards.

 

[reaperexpress]

Didn't TTC check out the cost of that, over 15 years ago, after the Bombardier (and other bids) were non-compliant because Bombardier proposed a vehicle that had a bigger turning radius, and a recommendation that TTC do exactly that.

It's been a while, but wasn't it in the $billion range ... in something like 2010 dollar?

Entire buildings would have to come down - some with heritage value. And presumably just about every track in all the yards.

Well IIRC the question there was whether they could achieve something like a 25-metre minimum radius, which is indeed absurd. The Flexity Outlooks have a minimum radius of 11 metres.

But there are a handful of curves on the system that are much tighter than the rest. And the new streetcars need to be able to traverse EVERY curve on the system. So rebuilding those specific curves to a larger radius could be a worthwhile initiative. It might for example only take a handful of intersection adjustments to get the minimum radius up to 13 metres. It's a far cry from the 25 metre minimum radius in The Hague, but at least it could make it a bit more practical to modify existing tram models for Toronto.

The notion of billions of dollars was also based on the notion that the TTC would have to go out and immediately rip up all those tracks. Which is not at all what I'm talking about here. I'm talking about incrementally upgrading tracks as they come up for reconstruction anyway, in which case the net cost is only a tiny fraction of the cost to go out and rip up tracks that are only halfway through their lifespan. That's the beauty of foreward thinking - you can affordably upgrade the network over time, avoiding the need for expensive last-minute expenditures.

In the 40 years between the Flexity order and the next order, most or all of those tightest curves will come up for reconstruction, but since there's no policy to increase the minimum curve radius, they'll get rebuilt the same way they always were and we'll have the same nightmare procuring streetcars the next time.

Somewhere I saw a TTC diagram highlighting the locations of the tightest curves but I can't find it right now. If anyone else knows where it is, that would be much appreciated.