[nfitz]

Option #3 via Leslie and Don Mills makes sense only if the city is intent on connecting the relief line with the Richmond Hill line. This would require Metolinx being on board with relocating Oriole. If they don't, Option #3 is basically useless.

Option 3 isn't via Leslie and Don Mills. Read the text above. It's via Don Mills and the GO line. So Metrolinx would be on board. Particularly as it would allow them to eliminate upgrading the very windy Richmond Hill GO line through the Don Valley.

And why maintain it? It's quite slow. Currently 27 to 29 minutes scheduled from Oriole GO to Union. To travel 20 km (I measure 19.9 km). Only 41 to 44 km/hr with no stops. Relief Line north is about 12 km to from Leslie/Oriole to Pape station, and another 7 km to Queen station. The Benefits Case analysis forecast 11'40" for 6 stations (average spacing about 1.17 km) Pape to Queen - about 36 km/hr. I'd reckon the 12 km with only 7 stations (1.71 km spacing) should be 40 km/hr or more - 18 minutes. So that's a 29'40" travel time Leslie to Queen. Let's call it 30 minutes with a dwell time of 20 seconds at Pape.

So 27 to 29 minutes now on a train that's unlikely to ever run more frequently than every 15 minutes in rush hour ... or 30 minutes on a train that the business case says will run every 2 minutes.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Unless your workplace is at Union Station!

 

[micheal_can]

In other words, steal from Peter to give to Paul.

Or as we now it - Business as usual.

 

[steveintoronto]

mdrejhon said: ↑

Option 2 and 3 could eventually interline with Richmond Hill GO line -- and replace the GO trains

-- basically send the subway trains north to Richmond Hill as the Richmond Hill RER by 2041-2051, reconnecting with Yonge subway at the north end of the Yonge subway extension.

Bingo.

I'm surprised no one else mentioned this earlier. It's brilliant. Though 3 I would think would hit densely populated areas far better.

Could be relatively cheap too, as you could simply take over the GO line from just north of Lawrence! And then extending from Leslie up to Langstaff to meet Line 1 would be a pittance. But do you then run some trains all the way to Gormley?

Here's the image from the www.relieflinenorth.ca

I've been proposing this for some time, even got me banned from this board along with my insistence that since Metrolinx (with Fed participation) is financing the line, and now fully in charge of overseeing the planning and development of the northern leg, and the senior partner for the southern, that it be RER in tunnel, or as I'm leaning more latterly, (and the delineation is disappearing between the two) "metro", as being built in many cities, underground and overground, and is the most popular form of urban/suburban rail transit in the world. For good reason: It's the most cost and performance efficient for the purpose. And flexible in use. So this would not be "subway" as conventionally known for Cdns, even though it would be in tunnel for much of the distance, all of the distance in the urban stretch, but able to fully inter-operate on GO's ostensible 25kV catenary. In other words, if it is physically connected to other tracks, they are standard gauge, and trains able to run-through to eventual destinations outside Toronto without having passengers change trains. And single decker RER can run into, and eventually *through* Toronto's core if a western extension is built as far as the Georgetown or Lakeshore west corridors. The subway, without even touching it save for interchange stations, would be "relieved" in a manner far beyond the patchwork presently being talked of now. This was exactly the basis of Crossrail, to bypass and massively relieve London's Underground.

Taking away a half meter takes away about a quarter of the potential capacity of the train, and therefore the line. It might be fine for a line like Sheppard, but not a trunk line like the Relief Line. Also: stations are the most expensive part of subway construction. If you have to make up for lost width by lengthening a platform, you significantly increase the cost of building a station.

Crossrail studied this intently, and decided that since the main trunk core which is in deep tunnel will need future capacity expansion, to build station bore to 12 car length over the present 10 car length needed (running at every 2.5 minutes), it wasn't just a small added cost to build that station bore longer, and the actual platform lengthened later, it was that in future, it would be virtually impossible to lengthen the station bore. So why not have a little thought for future needs?

Construction costs are also increasing. it would be extremely stupid to cheap out now and pay even more in the future.

Many cities get that, but this is Toronto and Ontario...And brace yourself: "Subways, Subways, Subways!" It's not looking good for Ontario to catch-up with other developed nations.

 

[gweed123]

mdrejhon said: ↑

I've been proposing this for some time, even got me banned from this board along with my insistence that since Metrolinx (with Fed participation) is financing the line, and now fully in charge of overseeing the planning and development of the northern leg, and the senior partner for the southern, that it be RER in tunnel, or as I'm leaning more latterly, (and the delineation is disappearing between the two) "metro", as being built in many cities, underground and overground, and is the most popular form of urban/suburban rail transit in the world.

I've been a big proponent of this alignment as well. Here's what I posted here back in 2013:



While this alignment is marginally less useful for serving Toronto (it misses the DVP-401-Don Mills-York Mills density cluster), from a regional perspective it could save billions by basically eliminating the need for the Yonge Extension to Richmond Hill and by making the RH GO line more or less redundant.

 

[steveintoronto]

I've been a big proponent of this alignment as well. Here's what I posted here back in 2013:

While this alignment is marginally less useful for serving Toronto (it misses the DVP-401-Don Mills-York Mills density cluster), from a regional perspective it could save billions by basically eliminating the need for the Yonge Extension to Richmond Hill and by making the RH GO line more or less redundant.

That is another variation route-wise of what I propose, absolutely. Yours would be predicated on using third rail DC, a la present subway cars, and therein lies a difference between our proposals, but the *routing* achieves much the same.

I was just yet again consulting the literature on "Metro" vehicles, a term that lends itself to misinterpretation, as it means many things to many people. For my use, here's an example: (variations of this are used around the world, and by all the major manufacturers)

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/SiemensCraigieburnRoxburghPark.JPG

This particular design has origins almost fifty years ago in Germany, later variants in Vienna (to fit their tunnels) and the above in Melbourne. Can be used in multiples of three, increased or decreased in less than a minute as per demand.

For the western leg of my proposal, since this would be all standard gauge and totally compatible with RER (Which I also see as single deck, EMU), I can see it being tunnel to the Georgetown Corridor under King or Queen, and then emerging and running north as far as RER/SmartTrack is planned. The Spadina leg is interesting in your example, and the 'broken and re-arranged' YUS to do it, but I suspect with reduced demand on the subway, the need for that will be deemed an investment better spent on the 'larger picture'. (Edit to Add: With a pathetic ability to finance, the TTC is probably best left as is, with only tweaks, and the Province establish a "regional" grid by Metrolinx to run *interurban* commuter services as well as using that/those to do some intraurban too.)

You use the term "Regional" which is key to approaching the entire Relief Line project. Once you start digging deep tunnel, it costs only pennies more to make it for 'real trains' rather than just 'conventional third rail type subways'. The 'Relief' is not just for the subway, it's also Union Station, so the 'Downtown Bypass Loop' for Union is rendered redundant, as is talk of a 'Spadina/Bathurst GO station terminal'.

The return per investment that Crossrail is getting is massive compared to fiddling around with 'subways' per-se. A similar model is being built in Sydney (and driverless, yet another example of "Metro") but unlike Canada, the Oz cities' transportation systems are state owned, planned and financed, and in many cases, the operation is leased out.

It seems that Metrolinx is 'starting to get it'...perhaps not by chance with Verster transplanting a lot of this know-how.

If we're permitted the heresy of discussing dynamic solutions to the "RL Subway", I look forward to further banter on this.

Addendum: Metrolinx would be completely remiss if they aren't considering this (my preference wouldn't be this, but this is the way the newest systems are headed)

[...]
Rolling stock

Prototype of an Alstom Metropolisdesigned for the Sydney Metro, on display at the 2017 Sydney Royal Easter Show.
Twenty-two 6-car Alstom Metropolis electric multiple units have been ordered for the network. Each single deck train will feature two dedicated areas for prams, luggage and bicycles. There will be three doors per side per carriage and no internal doors between the carriages.[52] In a 6-car configuration the trains will sit 378 people, with a total capacity of 1,100.[53] Seating arrangements on the Alstom trains will be longitudinal, in accordance with the style of most other metro trains.[54]

A life-size model of the new train has been built for use on public display, including at the annual Sydney Royal Easter Show.[55][56] It consists of the front carriage, including its distinctive nose. Members of the public are able to tour the inside of the mockup. It is approximately 75% of the length of the final design for the new carriages, having two doors instead of three.[57]

These trains were built in Sri City, Chennai, India.[58] The first six-car Sydney Metro train arrived in Rouse Hill on 26 September 2017 and will undergo testing in the coming months.[59]

In February 2018, dynamic testing on the first of the trainsets began.[60] Testing is being done on brakes, passenger information displays, lighting and door operation.[61]

Capacity
Stage 1 is due to operate with 6-car trains running on 4 minute headways. After the addition of the Stage 2 extension to Bankstown the system will require at least 59 six-car trains to run every four minutes during peak periods. However the stations platforms will be configured to allow for future use of 8-car trains and the signalling system designed to allow for 2 minute headways, both of which are planned to be introduced once sufficient patronage demands it. Eight-car trains have a design capacity of 1,539 customers, and increasing the running frequency to ultimately 30 trains per hour (2 minute headway) would provide a maximum capacity of 46,170 passengers per hour per direction.[62]The line will run 21 or 22 hours.
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sydney_Metro

AUSTRALIA: Dynamic testing of the first Sydney metro train has started on the elevated section of the city’s future metro line.

Alstom delivered the first of 22 trainsets to the Rouse Hill depot on September 26. Testing is initially taking place in that area, before being expanded to the rest of the elevated section, and then to the tunnels bored for the project. [...]

http://www.metro-report.com/news/single-view/view/sydney-metro-train-on-test.html

 

[Kitsune]

Well with Option 5 you could run it in the CP corridor from just north of Eglinton to just north of Lawrence, with two stations above ground if CP is willing shift its tracks a little south. That would prolly shave hundreds of millions too. And I should note that Sydney is replacing some of its RER system with a subway style metro. In case anyone wants to know - the City and Southwest portion is 15.5km tunneled, including the portion under the harbour, and another 14.5km of RER track being converted to Metro.

 

[44 North]

Using mainline rail would certainly change the dynamic of the discussion and of what the line can do. If true there's a lot more than can be done. Routing a branch along North TO (CP) to Agincourt could be huge. Hits Wexford at Lawrence/VP, Ellesmere/Warden, Agincourt. Heck half ST trains could be brought through.

At this point though I think a potential mainline aspect is not a known yet. Yes it says in black and white an alignment "via GO rail corridor", but that doesn't necessarily mean on the surface or mainline compatible. It could mean buying 2/3 of that portion of the Belleville Sub and upgrading to subway/metro (i.e separate from mainline but alongside like portions of Line 2/3), or taking advantage of its alignment and public ROW but using sub-surface.

 

[steveintoronto]

^ Both of these posts got my 'likes' because they're considering *greater options*!

Yes it says in black and white an alignment "via GO rail corridor", but that doesn't necessarily mean on the surface or mainline compatible.

This is very relevant, as it allows flexibility in planning the rolling stock choice later (even leaving it for a private contractor to choose) but for the CN RoW north of Steeles (or very close to there), whether the TTC or standard gauge, it is highly advisable, at least eventually, for Metrolinx to establish their own completely owned and operated RoW right next to the CN tracks, as was done for Oshawa decades ago.

And I should note that Sydney is replacing some of its RER system with a subway style metro. In case anyone wants to know - the City and Southwest portion is 15.5km tunneled, including the portion under the harbour, and another 14.5km of RER track being converted to Metro.

Even though hugely topical in Sydney (mostly reducing tunnel cross-section to no longer permit mainline loading gauge, almost an exact echo of Montreal's Mont Royal Tunnel imbroglio, albeit VIA claim that their proposed HFR EMUs would fit), Sydney, Melbourne, London UK, Paris, many German and EU cities show not only how this is done on a massive scale, but done with *off the shelf* rolling stock (tweaked per customer need, of course)! And for elevated, tunneled and flat ground.

 

[nfitz]

I've been a big proponent of this alignment as well. Here's what I posted here back in 2013

Somehow, I missed those posts - but with the signal-noise ratio I guess perhaps not surprising.

It should save $billions by jumping on the surface GO alignment from Lawrence to Sheppard. I wonder if it makes sense to jump on the old alignment just north of Eglinton - sort of a merge between 2 and 3. That could save even more money.

 

[Kitsune]

Found this image on the website too:

Here is the link: http://www.relieflinenorth.ca/long-list-of-station-areas/ ... There is a description for each station area. Interesting that they included future expansion within Toronto beyond the corridors. I have also found the evaluation criteria: http://www.relieflinenorth.ca/evaluation-criteria/ . Appears also three images that were uploaded / dumped on April 20th. The only links for them are on the site map. I hope they do release a PDF like they were doing with RLS.

 

[gweed123]

Somehow, I missed those posts - but with the signal-noise ratio I guess perhaps not surprising.

It should save $billions by jumping on the surface GO alignment from Lawrence to Sheppard. I wonder if it makes sense to jump on the old alignment just north of Eglinton - sort of a merge between 2 and 3. That could save even more money.

No worries, the discussion has popped up randomly over the years, but it was just theoretical until these alignment options came out. And yes, activating the Leaside Spur and jumping onto that would definitely save some money, but a station in the middle of the Don Mills neighbourhood would be beneficial I think.

And I wonder if Metrolinx is looking at a larger study area from what was been announced here, one that goes all the way up to RHC. While it's outside of the scope of this, it should still be at least factored in.

 

[BurlOak]

No worries, the discussion has popped up randomly over the years, but it was just theoretical until these alignment options came out. And yes, activating the Leaside Spur and jumping onto that would definitely save some money, but a station in the middle of the Don Mills neighbourhood would be beneficial I think.

And I wonder if Metrolinx is looking at a larger study area from what was been announced here, one that goes all the way up to RHC. While it's outside of the scope of this, it should still be at least factored in.

If DRL south is already completed, could they be limiting their possibilities for the future extension. That is why the key was to figure out how to build DRL long for as economically as possible, not how to build from Pape to City Hall.

 

[11th]

Option 3 isn't via Leslie and Don Mills. Read the text above. It's via Don Mills and the GO line. So Metrolinx would be on board. Particularly as it would allow them to eliminate upgrading the very windy Richmond Hill GO line through the Don Valley.

And why maintain it? It's quite slow. Currently 27 to 29 minutes scheduled from Oriole GO to Union. To travel 20 km (I measure 19.9 km). Only 41 to 44 km/hr with no stops. Relief Line north is about 12 km to from Leslie/Oriole to Pape station, and another 7 km to Queen station. The Benefits Case analysis forecast 11'40" for 6 stations (average spacing about 1.17 km) Pape to Queen - about 36 km/hr. I'd reckon the 12 km with only 7 stations (1.71 km spacing) should be 40 km/hr or more - 18 minutes. So that's a 29'40" travel time Leslie to Queen. Let's call it 30 minutes with a dwell time of 20 seconds at Pape.

So 27 to 29 minutes now on a train that's unlikely to ever run more frequently than every 15 minutes in rush hour ... or 30 minutes on a train that the business case says will run every 2 minutes.

Seems like a no-brainer to me. Unless your workplace is at Union Station!

By that time, they will have multiple options: transfer at Gerrard to Lakeshore East, transfer at Queen / Osgoode, or take the PATH from Queen / Osgoode.

 

[mdrejhon]

No worries, the discussion has popped up randomly over the years, but it was just theoretical until these alignment options came out.

And now, they're actually mulling this option. It becomes a real option to interline Richmond Hill RER with the TTC DRL.

The $3 GO Fares and the Metrolinx DRL funding means, amd the talk of high floor stations, means this may not be a dream after all. Oriole, after all, is the first Richmond Hill GO station - and we would lose no GO stations.

If they can commit to it, and get enough frequencies to hold the existing ridership of Richmond Hill -- smaller trains to Richmond Hill every 4-to-5 mins peak (2-to-2.5 min south of Eglinton) can be better than the existing peak-only mega GO trains. And turn that into a metro in a 25-year masterplanning -- then the Option 3 is probably now my favourite alignment so far. With 6-coach single deck trains (Yonge Line style, but faster speeds outdoors in pantograph section) that support thirdrail+overhead catenary. You can move more people with those trains every 5mins than the existing Richmond Hill trains at their existing frequency!

Big windfall of savings not needing to upgrade the slow windy Richmond Hill route. And more ridership combined than two separately = less subsidy despite $3 league fares.

Now the DRL may need to eiter be pantograph based, or dual mode (third rail and pantograph), but many of those subways already exist elsewhere including Europe.

This isn't a dream -- do it!

 

[micheal_can]

And now, they're actually mulling this option. It becomes a real option to interline Richmond Hill RER with the TTC DRL.

The $3 GO Fares and the Metrolinx DRL funding means, amd the talk of high floor stations, means this may not be a dream after all. Oriole, after all, is the first Richmond Hill GO station - and we would lose no GO stations.

If they can commit to it, and get enough frequencies to hold the existing ridership of Richmond Hill -- smaller trains to Richmond Hill every 4-to-5 mins peak (2-to-2.5 min south of Eglinton) can be better than the existing peak-only mega GO trains. And turn that into a metro in a 25-year masterplanning -- then the Option 3 is probably now my favourite alignment so far. With 6-coach single deck trains (Yonge Line style, but faster speeds outdoors in pantograph section) that support thirdrail+overhead catenary. You can move more people with those trains every 5mins than the existing Richmond Hill trains at their existing frequency!

Big windfall of savings not needing to upgrade the slow windy Richmond Hill route. And more ridership combined than two separately = less subsidy despite $3 league fares.

Now the DRL may need to eiter be pantograph based, or dual mode (third rail and pantograph), but many of those subways already exist elsewhere including Europe.

This isn't a dream -- do it!

The real challenge would be to find a vehicle that meets TC standards. That is an active rail freight line.