Honest question and sorry if its been brought up before but, would it not be far more reasonable to reopen the platform at Lower Bay and add pocket tracks to turnback trains south of Rosedale and just split Line 1 into a Yonge line and a Western Line.
 
seanlucat said:
Honest question and sorry if its been brought up before but, would it not be far more reasonable to reopen the platform at Lower Bay and add pocket tracks to turnback trains south of Rosedale and just split Line 1 into a Yonge line and a Western Line.
Click to expand...

In a word 'No'.

****

On Lower Bay, what are you trying to use it for? How would that address capacity concerns at Y/B?

****

There is a third track going in south of Rosedale; but trains can already be turned at Bloor if so desired, but I don't understand how that would work as practical plan of operation.
 
Northern Light said:
In a word 'No'.

****

On Lower Bay, what are you trying to use it for? How would that address capacity concerns at Y/B?

****

There is a third track going in south of Rosedale; but trains can already be turned at Bloor if so desired, but I don't understand how that would work as practical plan of operation.
Click to expand...
Terminate Yonge line trains at Lower Bay, the University/Spadina trains at the Third track south of Rosedale.
Instead of transferring at Yonge and Bloor you could go to Bay and get on an empty Yonge line train, the U/S trains would also be empty going into Bloor/yonge reducing amount of crowding. That way there would be 3 transfer points in the core rather than the 2 now, spreading the load.
 
seanlucat said:
Terminate Yonge line trains at Lower Bay,
Click to expand...

There is no connection between Line 1 at Bloor-Yonge and Lower-Bay, no practical way to make one.

Lower Bay connects the University Line section of Line 1 to Line 2, just north of Museum..

***

Even if one could make such a connection, you would be hugely inconveniencing the majority of Line 1 riders who are connecting from north of Bloor to well south thereof.

seanlucat said:
the University/Spadina trains at the Third track south of Rosedale.
Click to expand...

Again, this is not workable from an operating perspective.

seanlucat said:
Instead of transferring at Yonge and Bloor you could go to Bay and get on an empty Yonge line train, the U/S trains would also be empty going into Bloor/yonge reducing amount of crowding. That way there would be 3 transfer points in the core rather than the 2 now, spreading the load.
Click to expand...

Doesn't work. Not do-able.

Keep in mind though that the Ontario Line will create 2 new transfer point at Yonge/Queen and University/Queen.
 
Northern Light said:
There is no connection between Line 1 at Bloor-Yonge and Lower-Bay, no practical way to make one.

Lower Bay connects the University Line section of Line 1 to Line 2, just north of Museum..

***

Even if one could make such a connection, you would be hugely inconveniencing the majority of Line 1 riders who are connecting from north of Bloor to well south thereof.



Again, this is not workable from an operating perspective.



Doesn't work. Not do-able.

Keep in mind though that the Ontario Line will create 2 new transfer point at Yonge/Queen and University/Queen.
Click to expand...
Sorry I didn't make it make sense, what I was saying is trains would go around all the way to the University side from Yonge and then terminate at lower bay. hitting all the stations south of line 2 downtown.

Red line being the Yonge line and U/S being Yellow.

In my head this would likely reduce crowding at Yonge/bloor while improving longterm reliability on line 1, While also costing minimal amounts and being fairly easy to implement.
anyway sorry for bumping this thread!

idea.png
 
Last edited:
seanlucat said:
Sorry I didn't make it make sense, what I was saying is trains would go around all the way to the University side from Yonge and then terminate at lower bay. hitting all the stations south of line 2 downtown.

Red line being the Yonge line and U/S being Yellow.

View attachment 558663
Click to expand...

I get what you're aiming for now; but its still problematic.

Pre-pandemic Line 1 was nearing capacity.

In order to inter-leave trains from Lower Bay (Red) into the mix w/Yellow (from Spadina), you have to reduce service by 1/2 north of Museum.

You then have the added complexity, that if everything was otherwise perfect from an operational perspective, you're going to compel anyone going north of Rosedale to wait for every second train, on platforms that are already quite crowded, and where they may be obstructing passengers wanting to board, who are only going to Bloor.

Operationally, you would have challenges turning back trains at speeds that would work in peak periods w/o blocking service arriving from the north.

Since the trains on Line 1 are currently one-person operation, that staffer has to get the train into the pocket, stop, park, and walk all the way to the cab at the other end, power-up that end, and then re-enter the mainline, all without blocking SB service and w/o blocking the next NB train either.

On combined headway under 2'00 I don't see it.

But @smallspy would have better analysis than I.
 
Northern Light said:
I get what you're aiming for now; but its still problematic.

Pre-pandemic Line 1 was nearing capacity.

In order to inter-leave trains from Lower Bay (Red) into the mix w/Yellow (from Spadina), you have to reduce service by 1/2 north of Museum.

You then have the added complexity, that if everything was otherwise perfect from an operational perspective, you're going to compel anyone going north of Rosedale to wait for every second train, on platforms that are already quite crowded, and where they may be obstructing passengers wanting to board, who are only going to Bloor.

Operationally, you would have challenges turning back trains at speeds that would work in peak periods w/o blocking service arriving from the north.

Since the trains on Line 1 are currently one-person operation, that staffer has to get the train into the pocket, stop, park, and walk all the way to the cab at the other end, power-up that end, and then re-enter the mainline, all without blocking SB service and w/o blocking the next NB train either.

On combined headway under 2'00 I don't see it.

But @smallspy would have better analysis than I.
Click to expand...

Ah didn't realize line 1 trains were running under one person operations, that would make it difficult to implement and do so with that low of a headway.
 
seanlucat said:
Sorry I didn't make it make sense, what I was saying is trains would go around all the way to the University side from Yonge and then terminate at lower bay. hitting all the stations south of line 2 downtown.

Red line being the Yonge line and U/S being Yellow.

In my head this would likely reduce crowding at Yonge/bloor while improving longterm reliability on line 1, While also costing minimal amounts and being fairly easy to implement.
anyway sorry for bumping this thread!

View attachment 558663
Click to expand...
It never really worked on the opening days of Line 2 nor will it work today without messing up the Spadina Line service. Lower Bay is used for many things that makes money for TTC which TTC needs badly.
 
Northern Light said:
I get what you're aiming for now; but its still problematic.

Pre-pandemic Line 1 was nearing capacity.

In order to inter-leave trains from Lower Bay (Red) into the mix w/Yellow (from Spadina), you have to reduce service by 1/2 north of Museum.

You then have the added complexity, that if everything was otherwise perfect from an operational perspective, you're going to compel anyone going north of Rosedale to wait for every second train, on platforms that are already quite crowded, and where they may be obstructing passengers wanting to board, who are only going to Bloor.

Operationally, you would have challenges turning back trains at speeds that would work in peak periods w/o blocking service arriving from the north.

Since the trains on Line 1 are currently one-person operation, that staffer has to get the train into the pocket, stop, park, and walk all the way to the cab at the other end, power-up that end, and then re-enter the mainline, all without blocking SB service and w/o blocking the next NB train either.

On combined headway under 2'00 I don't see it.

But @smallspy would have better analysis than I.
Click to expand...
So, even worse than that.....

Because of the interleaved service, there would be a requirement to keep the headways at some sort of multiple of each other in order to allow them to run efficiently. So if the Yonge Line runs at a 2.5 minute headway, the University side would have to run at a 2.5 minute headway, or a 5 minute headway, or a 7.5 minute headway, etc. The headways on the interleaved section would be thus potentially one-half of the headway on Yonge.

And while ridership is lower on the University side than on the Yonge side, it's high enough that having a headway of double of the Yonge side would not be good.

Plus, there's the fact that depending on how the service was scheduled that it would require more trains to run the same service as today, since there will be an area where both services will overlap (and thus halve or at least reduce the headways).

So yeah.....all in all, a non-starter.

That said.....a case could certainly be made that the lines should be split and made separate. But at that point we're talking new tunnels, new stations, and billions upon billions of dollars of construction.

Dan
 
drum118 said:
It never really worked on the opening days of Line 2 nor will it work today without messing up the Spadina Line service. Lower Bay is used for many things that makes money for TTC which TTC needs badly.
Click to expand...
To be fair, I imagine the reasons why it initially failed wouldn't necessarily apply here. The primary problem with the 3 line plan was that you had trains heading out to the Keele and Woodbine coming in on both platforms. Without any sort of electronic signage indicating on which platform the next relevant train would arrive, people would either have to guess which platform to use, or just wait on the stairs. Since in this concept the train would simply be terminating at Bay instead of continuing towards Kennedy, this problem wouldn't be present and thus wouldn't be an issue.
 
ARG1 said:
To be fair, I imagine the reasons why it initially failed wouldn't necessarily apply here. The primary problem with the 3 line plan was that you had trains heading out to the Keele and Woodbine coming in on both platforms. Without any sort of electronic signage indicating on which platform the next relevant train would arrive, people would either have to guess which platform to use, or just wait on the stairs. Since in this concept the train would simply be terminating at Bay instead of continuing towards Kennedy, this problem wouldn't be present and thus wouldn't be an issue.
Click to expand...
There was signage on and to the platforms showing which train was coming next. There was also signage at Woodbine and Keele, which continued to be used until the line was extended past those two points.

The issue was with the signalling system. The way it was designed, it just didn't have the capability of handling trains getting out of order. If they were serious about the interlining idea, they would have had to switch to a more robust signal & scheduling system before too long.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top