[fanoftoronto]

I always wondered if they are returned to manufacturer for refurbishing and reuse or they basically a disposable device? Wouldn’t it save ML money to use them on the Ontario Line or the Yonge Extension?

Ideally we'd be doing just that and reusing the TBMs for OL or Yonge north. I do remember that the TBMs used on the Line 1 extension to Vaughan were both either sold or scrapped. One of the reasons used was that the TBMs are smaller than the LRT tunnels on Eglinton.

Knowing Metrolinx tho, I'm not very confident about proper management. They probably will spend tons of time and money to refurbish the TBMs and then scrap them in order to maximize unnecessary spending.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

From my understanding TBMs are surprisingly cheap so not a lot of effort is made to re-use them.

If I recall correctly - there was a study done awhile ago showing that - taking into account depreciation and technical progress - that old TBMs aren't worth the money relative to the improved performance of the new ones. That said, I remembered the paper assumed a linear trend in performance improvements - which I am doubtful could be sustained indefinitely.

AoD

 

[cplchanb]

If I recall correctly - there was a study done awhile ago showing that - taking into account depreciation and technical progress - that old TBMs aren't worth the money relative to the improved performance of the new ones. That said, I remembered the paper assumed a linear trend in performance improvements - which I am doubtful could be sustained indefinitely.

AoD

as long as they dont buy vapourware from the boring company.

 

[duty free]

Its not that it couldn't, but rather that there were no plans to, and thus acting as if it would've happened is just stepping into Fantasy Land.

sure, but also don't underestimate that it is much easier to extend an existing line than creating a new line from scratch.

logically it should have expanded east to Yonge, then Don Mills, and eventually Kennedy.

but logically the Line 4 should have already been extended both east and west by now, so I agree it that it wouldn't have been a guarantee, nor was it planned.

 

[ARG1]

View attachment 545869

sure, but also don't underestimate that it is much easier to extend an existing line than creating a new line from scratch.

logically it should have expanded east to Yonge, then Don Mills, and eventually Kennedy.

but logically the Line 4 should have already been extended both east and west by now, so I agree it that it wouldn't have been a guarantee, nor was it planned.

My point is entirely centered around Sheppard. An Eglinton West Subway would've been a twin of Sheppard except would've had even worse performance and ridership, and if extending Sheppard has been such a headache, you can imagine what trying to extend Eglinton would've looked like given the politics of the 2000s and 2010s.

 

[duty free]

My point is entirely centered around Sheppard. An Eglinton West Subway would've been a twin of Sheppard except would've had even worse performance and ridership, and if extending Sheppard has been such a headache, you can imagine what trying to extend Eglinton would've looked like given the politics of the 2000s and 2010s.

has it been a headache or just a reluctance to invest capital into transit expansion?

I see what you are saying though. we'd have two stub lines with low ridership, but also two stub lines that could be easily expanded with enough $ and political will. that's much better than nothing.

 

[ARG1]

has it been a headache or just a reluctance to invest capital into transit expansion?

I see what you are saying though. we'd have two stub lines with low ridership, but also two stub lines that could be easily expanded with enough $ and political will. that's much better than nothing.

Is it a reluctance when most of the arguments have been whether to spend billions extending the subway, or to be austere and build a linear transfer to an LRT because "That's what the demand justifies".

 

[duty free]

Is it a reluctance when most of the arguments have been whether to spend billions extending the subway, or to be austere and build a linear transfer to an LRT because "That's what the demand justifies".

well you just touched on the crux of the problem. municipal politicians love debating infrastructure development proposals endlessly, so that they don't actually have to commit to building infrastructure projects.

personally i never thought city councillor make for good transit planers, nor do they have the capital to invest in anything, so beyond being consulted (i.e told what's going to happen) i never understood why they were able to constantly delay projects in the past.

it seems like we are fortunately moving beyond this now. everything that is currently being built in Toronto is being done despite city council, not because of them. the fact that they are being further removed from the entire process is the best transit development of the last decade. hopefully we won't ever have more endlessly debating things like SSE or any other project.

 

[Bojaxs]

Its not that it couldn't, but rather that there were no plans to, and thus acting as if it would've happened is just stepping into Fantasy Land.

Do you honestly believe that if we had constructed the Eglinton West subway that it would had remained a "stubway" forever and never been extended to Yonge and Scarborough?

Come on man....

 

[Bojaxs]

Is it a reluctance when most of the arguments have been whether to spend billions extending the subway, or to be austere and build a linear transfer to an LRT because "That's what the demand justifies".

And I find it amusing that the "anti-subway" crowd often argue we shouldn't build subways because they're "too expensive."
Whatever money we saved by building a LRT instead of a subway, the government has already frivolously spent on another endeavor/project. So I say we just go "all in". This government has no intentions of paying off their debt load and will continue to rack up debt.
We care so much about the costs of these project, but in the end, we just get low quality, street car style, non-rapid transit, while still being in crippling debt. At least let me ride shiny, new subways while this country is in crippling debt.

How much money did we save building a LRT across Eglinton instead of a subway?

 

[ARG1]

Do you honestly believe that if we had constructed the Eglinton West subway that it would had remained a "stubway" forever and never been extended to Yonge and Scarborough?

Come on man....

Yes, and as I explained I think I have reasonable grounds to suspect such a thing.

 

[Hairball]

And I find it amusing that the "anti-subway" crowd often argue we shouldn't build subways because they're "too expensive."
Whatever money we save by building an LRT over a subway, the government has already frivolously spent on another endeavor/project. So I say we just go "all in". This government has no intentions of paying off their debt load and will continue to rack up debt.
We care so much about the costs of these project, but in the end, we just get low quality, street car style, non-rapid transit, while still being in crippling debt. At least let me ride shiny, new subways while this country is in crippling debt.

How much money did we save building an LRT across Eglinton instead of a subway?

So true... having Eglinton as a LRT looks like a colossal mistake now, and we're still broke.

 

[Obsidian]

Do these then move over to the east side of the Eglinton Flats to connect the line to Mt Dennis?

TBM are single use items.
You don't take them apart and rebuilt it someplace else.
They are often just left in the ground after the tunnel is done

 

[fanoftoronto]

TBM are single use items.
You don't take them apart and rebuilt it someplace else.
They are often just left in the ground after the tunnel is done

They aren't single use. They definitely can be dis-assembled, refurbished, and re-assembled elsewhere for further tunnelling.

Infact I remember reading at the time that even the Eglinton TBMs didn't tunnel directly under Eglinton or Eglinton west stations. They moved them piece by piece from one side of the station to the other to continue tunnelling.

There are a lot of tidbits in this article. National Post Article

TBMs are generally good for 20ish kms of tunnelling. None of our TBMs come close to this number and are sold to tunnel other projects elsewhere in the world.

As of writing of that article in 2015, the Line 1 extension TBMs were chilling at Keele valley landfill yard waiting to be sold.

The TBMs used for the Sheppard subway were sold to Moscow for $2.5M each to extend their subway line back in the early 2000s.

So the fault lies fully with transit planning in the city. We should definitely be reusing TBMs for the different projects.
Another stupidity with Toronto transit planning is that the regular subway tunnels are smaller than the LRT tunnels which are smaller than the Scarborough extension single tunnel. Why not standardize and try to use common TBMs for each of these?

 

[crs1026]

. So the fault lies fully with transit planning in the city. We should definitely be reusing TBMs for the different projects.
Another stupidity with Toronto transit planning is that the regular subway tunnels are smaller than the LRT tunnels which are smaller than the Scarborough extension single tunnel. Why not standardize and try to use common TBMs for each of these?

The cost of new TBM's is likely less than the cost of excess spoil removal and concrete pouring for a too-large tunnel. And if one decides that a wider than standard tunnel is needed......

- Paul