News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.5K     0 

micheal_can said:
For everyone suggesting using the Bala sub for the DRL, stop, just, please stop. It is the mainline in for CN from the west.
Click to expand...
And it's also the proposed entrance into Union for HFR. Does that then mean that "CN" can no longer use the southern leg of it? (HFR is inevitably going to be electrified, and ML has already made provisions for electrifying the bend into the USRC.)

Does that create a problem too, or does it just feed the reasons to deny examining the possibilities of stoning two or more birds with one kill? It's going to be a bitch getting funding for anything of size as per transit in this province for the next four years. It's well past time to look at doing as many things with what we presently now have and adding to it in ways that satisfies the greater need. Not the just the Pape Entitlement. Unless of course, Toronto wants another 'special tax levy' to pay for it.
 
The Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be an alternative to the Line 2 Bloor-Danforth. While the University-Spadina leg is an alternative to the Yonge leg of the Line 1, any stoppages anywhere on Line 1 could stop all movements on Line 1. Even the Finch West LRT will be alternative for east-west travel, should they go through with its possible extensions.
 
W. K. Lis said:
The Line 5 Eglinton Crosstown LRT will be an alternative to the Line 2 Bloor-Danforth. While the University-Spadina leg is an alternative to the Yonge leg of the Line 1, any stoppages anywhere on Line 1 could stop all movements on Line 1. Even the Finch West LRT will be alternative for east-west travel, should they go through with its possible extensions.
Click to expand...
When you say "alternative", do you mean a new primary option, a new secondary option, a new back up option, a new route for redundancy or all of the above?
 
steveintoronto said:
It doesn't "add up" because like many Toronto centric persons, you miss the bigger picture as is being done in many world leading cities.

You *feed* that traffic into the Relief Line tunnel. The whole Bala line *remains*. What is now extant below Don Mills becomes a direct express peak service to Union below Don Mills as it now is and for any other existing heavy rail needs. The DD stock won't fit in a 6.5 metre bore. Single decker emu that runs on standard UIC height 25 kV AC catenary can and does! In Toronto's case, I recommend a slightly larger bore, but Crossrail and other European cities do it in a bore size now standard for later Toronto subway tunnels. Paris even does DD in that size bore! Sydney slightly larger IIRC.
Click to expand...

To be fair I'm not criticizing a vague notion about using mainline rail for the RL, rather the specific post/fantasy further up the page involving shuttering swaths of mainline rail so as to bring two subway lines to a point in Richmond Hill.
 
micheal_can said:
For everyone suggesting using the Bala sub for the DRL, stop, just, please stop. It is the mainline in for CN from the west.

That would be akin to suggesting that we turn the 400 into a new LRT.
Click to expand...

Just for clarification, the Bala sub is mainline only north of the York sub (just north of Steeles); south of that point it is now Metrolinx owned, though CN still has running rights, freight usage in that section is pretty low though, as I recall.

Still a goofy routing for an RL though, even on the lower section.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Just for clarification, the Bala sub is mainline only north of the York sub (just north of Steeles); south of that point it is now Metrolinx owned, those CN still has running rights, freight usage in that section is pretty low though, as I recall.

Still a goofy routing for an RL though, even on the lower section.
Click to expand...

I am talking North of Steeles, like most are suggesting. They think they could use the Bala Sub to get to RH terminal.
 
The Bala Sub is just too busy with freight to contemplate adding even standard RER let alone a higher order transit style line of any description. At times there are three or four trains waiting to get through at Doncaster, because routings conflict and CN uses the east track (the one GO paid for) north of Doncaster, especially for through freights to/from the east which may hold briefly to change crews. 15 minute 2WAD isn’t on.

One can hypothetically squeeze a transit corridor in next to the CN trackage, but I’m not sure it would fit without expropriating adjoining land, and CN will be very protective of its own expansion needs. One can’t just run a TBM along under the train tracks.

If there is a need to push higher order transit into that zone, a road alignment will be cheaper. Lots of north-south arterial roads to pick from.

- Paul
 
WislaHD said:
(1) The Relief Line provides full relief to the Yonge Line by accepting downtown-bound York Region riders, freeing up capacity further down the line;
Click to expand...
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the passengers choking the Yonge Line aren't just coming from Yonge itself, but from all the bus routes that feed into Yonge, especially from the east. The most effective relief of Yonge won't come from bringing a line back to Yonge in Richmond Hill, but by taking the line to the source of the riders. Much of that is well east of Yonge. Using the Bala sub has its merits, but I don't think that meeting up with Yonge in Richmond Hill is one of them.
 
From downtown to Eglinton, the Relief Line shouldn't be routed via Bala sub, should use its own tunnel.

From Eglinton to Doncaster diamond, there are benefits in using Bala sub for the Relief Line. That will be possible only if Relief Line is built for mainline-compatible trains (not the standard TTC subway trains).

Although the Bala sub's diagonal route that gets closer to Yonge as it goes north is less optimal than a route straight up Don Mill (or a route that swings to Vic Park), a large cost saving might make the Bala sub option worthy. That route still intersects all major E-W streets up to and including Steeles, and can divert riders from the east that would otherwise ride to Yonge.

Regarding the north-most section: if continuing to Richmond Hill Centre is not an option due to the corridor usage, one can come up with other options for the terminus. To save the costs, the "Relief" service can simply terminate at Steeles or at Finch, while the infrequent diesel trains will keep running to Richmond Hill and beyond just as they do today.
 
Last edited:
Another question is if there is a chance of building the Relief Line for mainline-compatible trains. It seems there are no technical obstacles, but the prevailing mindset in the City's departments is against that.
 
Leo_Chan said:
When you say "alternative", do you mean a new primary option, a new secondary option, a new back up option, a new route for redundancy or all of the above?
Click to expand...

I'm a east scarborough resident around the kingston and morningside area. If I wanna get to yonge n eglinton I have to take a 17-25 minute bus ride to kennedy station. From kennedy station to yonge station then take yonge line up to eglinton station.

after the ECLRT i'll just go from Kennedy station to yonge n eglinton and bypass line 2 altogether.

Sheppard east Should really be a thing in the future along with continuing to go eastward with the ECLRT
 
44 North said:
To be fair I'm not criticizing a vague notion about using mainline rail for the RL, rather the specific post/fantasy further up the page involving shuttering swaths of mainline rail so as to bring two subway lines to a point in Richmond Hill.
Click to expand...
My apologies if I misunderstood your position on that. To further clarify, it wouldn't be 'mainline' per-se, but as another poster described it, 'mainline compatible'. I can't think of any case of 'RER in Tunnel' that's considered 'mainline' in terms of loading gauge. Track gauge, absolutely. It would be standard. The tunnel would be more like Crosstown but with 25kV AC catenary instead of low DC voltage. 25kV AC is of course what Metrolinx is proposing to use for GO electrification, as it's the de-facto int'l standard. LRT's can be ordered with the option to run on both, as is done in Paris and elsewhere, as can EMUs.

Northern Light said:
Still a goofy routing for an RL though, even on the lower section.
Click to expand...
Lower section (south of Don Mills) for RER in Tunnel will run along almost the same route now being proposed for subway, save that curve radius might have to be relaxed, depending on the length of the EMUs. (latest TTC carsections are 23m, Aventra 345 are 24m) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_345

North from Don Mills to Steeles, the RER in tunnel surfaces to join the present Bala alignment which would be doubled and electrified at least in sections owned by Metrolinx. North of Steeles would require a separate approach if extended to RH.

micheal_can said:
I am talking North of Steeles, like most are suggesting. They think they could use the Bala Sub to get to RH terminal.
Click to expand...
That's an assumption on your part. Any foray to connect to RH from that point would be no more complex than the present hare-brained talk of extending subway Line 1 to RH. This is to be the "Relief Line"...is it not? Then use the 'relief' to do as much as possible with one investment that's compatible with surrounding regional transportation, not TTC to Timbuktu.

crs1026 said:
One can hypothetically squeeze a transit corridor in next to the CN trackage, but I’m not sure it would fit without expropriating adjoining land, and CN will be very protective of its own expansion needs. One can’t just run a TBM along under the train tracks.
Click to expand...
Options would have to be studied north of Steeles, doubtless, but if York Region wants better connectivity, then York Region is going to have to have to make some decisions, and Doug Ford besides, logic indicates surface routing with electric RER EMU where possible, tunneled where surface grade is impractical. Crossrail is 6.2 metres in diameter tunnel. That's running fully mainline compatible trains already in production and running, based on models that have been running elsewhere for a few years now. Crosstown, for comparison, is 6.75 metres dia bore.

Crosstown sets a precedent for Toronto tunneling that can be used for *mainline compatible EMUs*, grade angle besides. Why in the world would Toronto wish to keep turning back the clock to keep building out an incompatible subway to the regions, when the regions are already connected with a standard we should be building to match? The decision has been made to use standard gauge track for LRTs. The same logic should be applied to using single deck RER EMUs for 'relieving' the subway, and being able to continue out to the regions as far as the tracks are electrified. In theory, it would be possible for VIA HFR to loop into Toronto's core. That's how connected the core could be.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top