ARG1 said:
This actually looks really nice though. This gives this nice urban feel that urbanists constantly try to push to create without creating transit service that is absolutely terrible. I'd want to go to a park that had this at the far end, this looks nice and walkable. Meanwhile Paula's render was "Here are some 18th century industrial design where everything looks like Ellesmere Station".
Click to expand...
That is perfectly acceptable, however it will likely look much more severe from the west side of the rail line.
 
If only the glass would remain clean and washed so you could enjoy the park and watch the trains silently go by, but unfortunately the transparent walls on the Weston corridor got messed up pretty quickly.
 
asher__jo said:
That is perfectly acceptable, however it will likely look much more severe from the west side of the rail line.
Click to expand...

True.

I think it's important to remember that's a best case scenario rendering - kind of like Paula Fletcher's was a worst case scenario.

It's also assuming they decide to go ahead with significant landscaping, tree planting, etc. something Metrolinx and Toronto don't have the greatest track record with.
 
JSF-1 said:
I said it last time these were posted and I will say it again. Don't get used to those designs. Metrolinx and the Province have a knack for sucking the life and soul out of the room. Also what is there obsession with the colour white? Its not bad but they just seem to use so much of it, and give it nothing to contrast against; why can't we have colourful stations anymore. Why does everything have to be so bland, generic, and paint by committee...


Ideally they will go with what are to me at least the obvious names (most of which are already shown on the map):
  1. Science Centre (Connection to Line 5)
  2. Flemingdon Park
  3. Thorncliff Park
  4. Cosburn
  5. Pape (Connection to Line 2)
  6. Gerrard
  7. Lesliville
  8. East Harbour
  9. Corktown
  10. Moss Park
  11. Queen (Connection to Line 1)
  12. Osgoode (Connection to Line 1)
  13. Chinatown
  14. Fashion District (this is the only one that sounds "off" to me. The word "Fashion" just really stands out to me and not in a good way; it just comes off as artificial. Whereas the other names along the line all have a "history" to them; they sound like actual places. Maybe someone could find another name for the station at Bathurst and King).
  15. Exhibition
Click to expand...
  • Fashion District (this is the only one that sounds "off" to me. The word "Fashion" just really stands out to me and not in a good way; it just comes off as artificial. Whereas the other names along the line all have a "history" to them; they sound like actual places. Maybe someone could find another name for the station at Bathurst and King).
How about Wheatsheaf Station?
 
TransitBart said:
  • Fashion District (this is the only one that sounds "off" to me. The word "Fashion" just really stands out to me and not in a good way; it just comes off as artificial. Whereas the other names along the line all have a "history" to them; they sound like actual places. Maybe someone could find another name for the station at Bathurst and King).
How about Wheatsheaf Station?
Click to expand...
Wheat Sheaf starts at 2m42s. Original airdate: 2010

Toronto Urban Legends: Tunnel Visions​


Is there really a tunnel leading from Fort York to the Wheat Sheaf Tavern?

From link.

WheatSheaf_04092012.jpg


For enlisted men based at Toronto’s Fort York back in the 1800s, nothing could be better than stealing away for a night of carousing at a local public house after an arduous day on the parade square. Under the watchful eyes of their commanding officers, and posted as they were in a backwoods town like Muddy York, such an expedition would have been all but impossible, right?

A secret tunnel that could spirit soldiers away to a nearby watering hole sure would have come in handy.

A rumour persists that soldiers billeted at Fort York burrowed a half kilometre north, surfacing inside the basement of the Wheat Sheaf Tavern, all without raising the suspicion of military keepers, citizens, or town fathers.

Did this actually occur? Not likely. There is, however, a more plausible theory that’s even more adventurous.

The Wheat Sheaf has been pouring pints since 1849, making it the city’s oldest pub. According to co-owner Maria Tsakiris, the legend of the tunnel has been around for at least 50 years. Patrons are continually inquiring about its existence. Though there have been some spirited discussions about the reality of the subterranean booze tube, Tsakiris confirms that no physical evidence of the tunnel exists on the premises today.

Waitstaff confided that among pub employees, there are whispers that at one time the tunnel was accessible through a basement storage area that currently houses the women’s bathroom. A little ironic, considering females were prevented from entering the Sheaf for its first 120 years of operation. Women were first allowed inside in 1969.

After some coaxing, Torontoist was granted access to the lady’s loo. Tapping walls proved futile. If a portal did exist, it is now well hidden behind mirrors and ceramic tile.
Click to expand...
Exploring the mythical tunnel’s southern entry point proved inconclusive, as well. Stephen Otto, co-chair of the Friends Of Fort York, explained that his organization is aware of the fabled tunnel. To date, archeological digs and extensive renovations on the grounds have turned up nothing resembling a beer-run passageway.

Otto has heard of only one Fort York tunnel. It was built during an incident he says took place early in the 20th century. Apparently, miscreants attempted to penetrate the munitions cache by burrowing under one of the fort’s ramparts. Authorities apprehended the culprits before the situation became explosive.

The tunnel theory began to seem even less believable when Otto explained that soldiers were actually provided with a daily ration of beer and spirits. As well, Dylan’s Tavern, a popular drinking house, was located a bottle cap’s throw from the barracks, at what is now Front and Bathurst Streets. Considering this, if soldiers had the mind to tunnel, why not just prairie dog it to Dylan’s Tavern? Less tunnel time equals more time for rabble rousing.

After the British established New Fort York in 1841 (later known as Stanley Barracks) on the present-day grounds of Exhibition Place, the original Fort York—the one in the shadow of the Gardiner Expressway—had little military usefulness.

(Proving how malleable an urban legend can be, a version of the story has soldiers tunnelling from Stanley Barracks to the Sheaf, a distance of nearly two kilometres! The redcoats would have been mighty thirsty after a dig like that.)

As for Muddy York’s unblemished reputation, the truth is it wasn’t so wholesome. True, the temperance movement was alive and well, but imbibing among soldiers was the norm, as was the presence of prostitution at the garrison’s gate. In Historic Fort York 1793–1993 author Carl Benn tells how soldiers from the Rifle Brigade ambushed constables sent to arrest prostitutes plying their trade on garrison commons.

Burrowing hundreds of metres would have been an engineering marvel. Depending on when the tunnel was completed, the soldiers would have needed to breach at least one rail bed. Geography also worked against such an endeavour. Tunnelling to the Wheat Sheaf would have necessitated excavating underneath Garrison Creek.

And herein is a possible explanation for the Fort York–Wheat Sheaf express. At eight kilometres in length, Garrison Creek once flowed into Lake Ontario just east of original Fort York. (Back then, the shoreline was much closer to the fort.) Beginning in the 1880s, the watercourse was diverted into sewers. Encased underground, a rivulet known as Fort Reach would have been easily accessible to adventurous soldiers.

Hypothetically, soldiers could have entered this particular sewer and trekked north underground, resurfacing a few paces west of the Wheat Sheaf at Walnut Avenue and King Street.

So what if the stench of sewage clung to their wool tunics? A night on the town in ’ol Muddy York may have required some sacrifice.
Click to expand...

Maybe with the "Ontario" Line, there actually could be a tunnel between the Wheat Sheaf Tavern and Fort York. Okay, put the entrance next door to the tavern.
 
Last edited:
Allandale25 said:
stevemunro.ca

Ontario Line Design Changes Again

Updated March 27, 2021: The reference to third rail power pickup for the Ontario Line was incorrect and has been changed. According to the December 2020 Preliminary Design Business Case the line wi…
stevemunro.ca stevemunro.ca
Click to expand...
F in the chat for the cross platform interchange.

Seriously though, we should not be bowing to NIMBYs, especially when their argument is beyond idiotic. I guess we could get individual Stouffville and LSE East Harbour platforms out of this,
 
ARG1 said:
F in the chat for the cross platform interchange.

Seriously though, we should not be bowing to NIMBYs, especially when their argument is beyond idiotic. I guess we could get individual Stouffville and LSE East Harbour platforms out of this,
Click to expand...
Its a shame but at least the line hasn't been buried yet, so that's a positive.
 
ARG1 said:
F in the chat for the cross platform interchange.

Seriously though, we should not be bowing to NIMBYs, especially when their argument is beyond idiotic. I guess we could get individual Stouffville and LSE East Harbour platforms out of this,
Click to expand...
Maybe its just me but I wasnt a fan of how the tracks tunnel under the rail corridor 2 times. 1 at the don yard and another at pape.

What this really shows is that that mid 2022 date for Ontario Line North rfp is really up in the air if the final design isnt even done yet
 
ARG1 said:
F in the chat for the cross platform interchange.

Seriously though, we should not be bowing to NIMBYs, especially when their argument is beyond idiotic. I guess we could get individual Stouffville and LSE East Harbour platforms out of this,
Click to expand...

Highly doubt this is bowing to nimbys. I'd wager there's a reason for putting the tracks on one side that wasn't thought of when the plan was rushed through. Possibly safety access. Hem the railway both sides by a subway can't really get EMS to any train in case of emergency. That's my guess.
 
44 North said:
Highly doubt this is bowing to nimbys. I'd wager there's a reason for putting the tracks on one side that wasn't thought of when the plan was rushed through. Possibly safety access. Hem the railway both sides by a subway can't really get EMS to any train in case of emergency. That's my guess.
Click to expand...

It sounds like cost savings (via simplified construction - single tunnel, single platform/in/egress, single Don River bridge, consolidation of signal/electrical works) is the rationale. The whole cross-platform transfer case is questionable relative to benefit I think - especially when both lines are travelling inbround in approximately the same direction to the same main destinations.

AoD
 
Last edited:
I mean i think the money that this would hopefully save makes ist worth it. Cross-platform transfers are great and useful, though I'm not sure how many people would even transfer heading westbound from east harbour, and it would only be useful for half of the people transferring eastbound, so I think a bit of a jog under or over the tracks to your platform won't be a big problem
 
KhalilHeron said:
I mean i think the money that this would hopefully save makes ist worth it. Cross-platform transfers are great and useful, though I'm not sure how many people would even transfer heading westbound from east harbour, and it would only be useful for half of the people transferring eastbound, so I think a bit of a jog under or over the tracks to your platform won't be a big problem
Click to expand...

It is nice, but what kind of transfer numbers are we talking about here - and when the alternative of going up and down isn't even that onerous to the point of being a factor.

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top