EnviroTO said:
I don't mean identical trains. Every transit authority seems to get something with a suite of standard technologies and components, plus some unique design aspects. I mean equipment substantially the same. The Flexity streetcars we have have trolley pole, pantograph, TTC guage, and ability to handle single point switches... but they have shared components with the Flexity Outlook product line. I would think that there is no real reason to not have a technically similar train set on Lines 1-3 as on the Ontario Line if the Ontario Line equipment is "better". There are a number of lines that handle a mix of third rail and pantograph. People pitch Ontario Line vehicles as better across all measures... so why stick with TR at all? It seems like we are married to the built infrastructure, not the rolling stock.
Click to expand...

Oh I see. Yeah in an open tender nearly every vendor has multiple train systems which might be used on TTC metro lines.

Toronto Rockets have been unusually reliable for metro trains, so that would be the main reason to give Alstom a leg-up. If you specified the TR failure rate in the tender as a minimum (without large penalties), the list of bidders would be very short.
 
44 North said:
Didn't go into details about Finch being the station or not, but regardless bus->station transfers could happen little diff than with an extension.

Costs again need to be weighted with what's on the table semi-officially or logically. You mentioned 30yrs out. In that we have YR's tmp with Line 1 extended to or beyond Major Mack, both sides of the U (that's in 20yrs). Sheppard even if funded to McCowan still leaves much of Scarb short, so possibly UTSC. Line 2 maybe to Malvern. These are big costs and somewhat real expectations for extensions. Would a smaller more modern system reduce costs? I think so. Def more than $0.5bn.
Click to expand...
I hyperfocus on Finch Station because that's the only station where your idea even has the slightest glimmer. If we choose to extend the line to Steeles, then build out a light metro after that, you are looking at getting different tunnel bores for both services, and you're looking at building a mega station at Steeles, plus you're building a new MSF for a line that will only be 4km long, and at this point this plan won't be any cheaper than just extending Line 1 to RHC.

As for What will happen in 20+ years, I'd rather not go into that. The only Line 1 extension that makes sense beyond RHC is if it shares the Richmond Hill Line corridor all the way to Richmond Hill GO and becomes a "Richmond Hill RER Lite", unless York Region wants to pay up for a full subway (which if they do... good for them). York Region can put anything they want in their TMP, but until they get more than one line with decent bus service I honestly couldn't care less about what they think should be built in 20 years, and as for the specific extensions you mentioned, its the same thing I've said for a while now.

If Line 4 can be converted to a light metro cheaply, if the light metro can fit in the existing tunnels no problem, then turn that into a Light Metro no problem. If that can't be done (which is unlikely), and that plan would require a linear transfer at Don Mills (like what the Transit City plan for Sheppard East called for), then its a waste of time. Line 2 to Malvern? You can build that quite easily without needing new rolling stock:

https://imgur.com/ZISRyfE

You don't need to create a new light metro network in order to get that built.
 
ARG1 said:
I hyperfocus on Finch Station because that's the only station where your idea even has the slightest glimmer. If we choose to extend the line to Steeles, then build out a light metro after that, you are looking at getting different tunnel bores for both services, and you're looking at building a mega station at Steeles, plus you're building a new MSF for a line that will only be 4km long, and at this point this plan won't be any cheaper than just extending Line 1 to RHC.

As for What will happen in 20+ years, I'd rather not go into that. The only Line 1 extension that makes sense beyond RHC is if it shares the Richmond Hill Line corridor all the way to Richmond Hill GO and becomes a "Richmond Hill RER Lite", unless York Region wants to pay up for a full subway (which if they do... good for them). York Region can put anything they want in their TMP, but until they get more than one line with decent bus service I honestly couldn't care less about what they think should be built in 20 years, and as for the specific extensions you mentioned, its the same thing I've said for a while now.

If Line 4 can be converted to a light metro cheaply, if the light metro can fit in the existing tunnels no problem, then turn that into a Light Metro no problem. If that can't be done (which is unlikely), and that plan would require a linear transfer at Don Mills (like what the Transit City plan for Sheppard East called for), then its a waste of time. Line 2 to Malvern? You can build that quite easily without needing new rolling stock:

https://imgur.com/ZISRyfE

You don't need to create a new light metro network in order to get that built.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure CP will be thrilled to have a Line 2 extension along its track in Malvern, or CN along its track in Richmond Hill north of High Tech road. Metrolinx doesn't own those sections of track.

But the owners don't object - or can be coersed to agree - then yes, both extensions have merit if done at surface.

Speaking of the Sheppard line (Line 4), surely it is possible to switch the short existing section to use more agile trains, and thus cut the cost of expanding the line. Finding space of MSF isn't a problem, either. The only problem is that OL technology might end up not being fully applicable for Sheppard, if OL uses overhead power.
 
Rainforest said:
I'm not sure CP will be thrilled to have a Line 2 extension along its track in Malvern, or CN along its track in Richmond Hill north of High Tech road. Metrolinx doesn't own those sections of track.

But the owners don't object - or can be coersed to agree - then yes, both extensions have merit if done at surface.

Speaking of the Sheppard line (Line 4), surely it is possible to switch the short existing section to use more agile trains, and thus cut the cost of expanding the line. Finding space of MSF isn't a problem, either. The only problem is that OL technology might end up not being fully applicable for Sheppard, if OL uses overhead power.
Click to expand...
Absolutely agree. That's why I prefaced my statement with the "if possible" condition because depending on how the Ontario Line is built there might be some difficulties. Honestly its for this reason I have a hard time 100% agreeing with Catenary over 3rd Rail.
 
Rainforest said:
I'm not sure CP will be thrilled to have a Line 2 extension along its track in Malvern, or CN along its track in Richmond Hill north of High Tech road. Metrolinx doesn't own those sections of track.

But the owners don't object - or can be coersed to agree - then yes, both extensions have merit if done at surface.

Speaking of the Sheppard line (Line 4), surely it is possible to switch the short existing section to use more agile trains, and thus cut the cost of expanding the line. Finding space of MSF isn't a problem, either. The only problem is that OL technology might end up not being fully applicable for Sheppard, if OL uses overhead power.
Click to expand...
I can see why there would be problems with CP Rail. But considering they allowed the Kipling extension to be built along the Galt Sub I don't think it is completely out of the question.
 
Deadpool X said:
Don't mind me saying this but if you are giving St. George as an example of linear transfer, then I think you should stop discussing and derailing the thread. I'll suggest reading more about linear transfers first, otherwise this discussion will keep going in an endless loop.

Also, applicable to those who think Kennedy is not a linear transfer because Line 3 heads north.
Click to expand...

To be fair I wrote "linear", and similar to a linear transfer station layout. Well aware St George is not an actual linear transfer station and apologies if it came across that way. Kennedy is its own debate that's for sure.


ARG1 said:
I hyperfocus on Finch Station because that's the only station where your idea even has the slightest glimmer. If we choose to extend the line to Steeles, then build out a light metro after that, you are looking at getting different tunnel bores for both services, and you're looking at building a mega station at Steeles, plus you're building a new MSF for a line that will only be 4km long, and at this point this plan won't be any cheaper than just extending Line 1 to RHC.

As for What will happen in 20+ years, I'd rather not go into that. The only Line 1 extension that makes sense beyond RHC is if it shares the Richmond Hill Line corridor all the way to Richmond Hill GO and becomes a "Richmond Hill RER Lite", unless York Region wants to pay up for a full subway (which if they do... good for them). York Region can put anything they want in their TMP, but until they get more than one line with decent bus service I honestly couldn't care less about what they think should be built in 20 years, and as for the specific extensions you mentioned, its the same thing I've said for a while now.

If Line 4 can be converted to a light metro cheaply, if the light metro can fit in the existing tunnels no problem, then turn that into a Light Metro no problem. If that can't be done (which is unlikely), and that plan would require a linear transfer at Don Mills (like what the Transit City plan for Sheppard East called for), then its a waste of time. Line 2 to Malvern? You can build that quite easily without needing new rolling stock:

You don't need to create a new light metro network in order to get that built.
Click to expand...

Again I'm talking beyond 10yrs, not like for like replacement of one-off extensions.

Sheppard who knows what will happen since it's unfunded. Would like to see results from the prov's RLN studies. I believe that could hold a key about what could be done. Vic Pk a hub, or Don Mills. For most of these things I'm thinking 3rd rail as default. Sure drawbacks and less "standard", but also benefits in smaller tunnel and can actually make use of current Shepp stub with same trains.
 
44 North said:
Again I'm talking beyond 10yrs, not like for like replacement of one-off extensions.

Sheppard who knows what will happen since it's unfunded. Would like to see results from the prov's RLN studies. I believe that could hold a key about what could be done. Vic Pk a hub, or Don Mills. For most of these things I'm thinking 3rd rail as default. Sure drawbacks and less "standard", but also benefits in smaller tunnel and can actually make use of current Shepp stub with same trains.
Click to expand...
Let me tell you something. If you have an idea for an outer suburbs light metro system, one that can replace YNSE and SSE, while also serving well as a foundation of a fully built out network, I would love to see it. Right now the basis of your argument rests upon that a Yonge North light metro wouldn't just be a shuttle between RHC and Finch, and if that's the case I want to see what you would think would be a good final build out to build towards based off the needs of the region in 20+ years. Because right now I feel like I'm arguing against a vague malformed idea coming from someone who's trying to find a basis for hypocrisy to win an argument. Let's go to Transit Fantasy Maps, and let's discuss your idea for this new network.
 
ARG1 said:
Let me tell you something. If you have an idea for an outer suburbs light metro system, one that can replace YNSE and SSE, while also serving well as a foundation of a fully built out network, I would love to see it. Right now the basis of your argument rests upon that a Yonge North light metro wouldn't just be a shuttle between RHC and Finch, and if that's the case I want to see what you would think would be a good final build out to build towards based off the needs of the region in 20+ years. Because right now I feel like I'm arguing against a vague malformed idea coming from someone who's trying to find a basis for hypocrisy to win an argument. Let's go to Transit Fantasy Maps, and let's discuss your idea for this new network.
Click to expand...

I have posted there in the past, and something like Schabas' wye being very close to what I'm talking about. To reiterate what I wrote on the previous page, all the suburban extensions could instead be transitioned to a smaller-scale OL-type system. Using similar points in favour of OL carried over.
 
Sorry, I know it's probably in here somewhere. When is the RFP (or whatever the next contract for bidding) scheduled to go ahead? I was wondering when we'll get some specifications on what is actually going to happen with the OL.
 
Deadpool X said:
Don't mind me saying this but if you are giving St. George as an example of linear transfer, then I think you should stop discussing and derailing the thread. I'll suggest reading more about linear transfers first, otherwise this discussion will keep going in an endless loop.

Also, applicable to those who think Kennedy is not a linear transfer because Line 3 heads north.
Click to expand...
And yet, a majority of the people passing through Kennedy are not doing so as a transfer from the B-D to the SRT.

Is it a linear transfer for a large proportion of the rider? Yes. But for a majority? No.

The logical extension to the B-D would be the one that allows a majority of riders to stay on the trains past that station. I'm not convinced - and the TTC's own internal numbers seem to bear that out - that heading up to Scarborough Town Centre is the right extension.

Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
EnviroTO said:
I don't mean identical trains. Every transit authority seems to get something with a suite of standard technologies and components, plus some unique design aspects. I mean equipment substantially the same. The Flexity streetcars we have have trolley pole, pantograph, TTC guage, and ability to handle single point switches... but they have shared components with the Flexity Outlook product line. I would think that there is no real reason to not have a technically similar train set on Lines 1-3 as on the Ontario Line if the Ontario Line equipment is "better". There are a number of lines that handle a mix of third rail and pantograph. People pitch Ontario Line vehicles as better across all measures... so why stick with TR at all? It seems like we are married to the built infrastructure, not the rolling stock.
Click to expand...
While that's a good idea in theory....

It may be that the specs are different enough regardless that it doesn't make sense to make parts common. Or that the respective fleets are large enough that making the parts common may be to their ultimate detriment.

For instance, in spite of the early plans to the otherwise, there is surprisingly little mechanical commonality between the cars built for the legacy steetcar network versus those built for the various LRT networks.

Dan
 
TorPronto said:
Sorry, I know it's probably in here somewhere. When is the RFP (or whatever the next contract for bidding) scheduled to go ahead? I was wondering when we'll get some specifications on what is actually going to happen with the OL.
Click to expand...
RFPs were already released. Financial close comes in 2022 (maybe after the election?)
 
smallspy said:
And yet, a majority of the people passing through Kennedy are not doing so as a transfer from the B-D to the SRT.

Is it a linear transfer for a large proportion of the rider? Yes. But for a majority? No.

The logical extension to the B-D would be the one that allows a majority of riders to stay on the trains past that station. I'm not convinced - and the TTC's own internal numbers seem to bear that out - that heading up to Scarborough Town Centre is the right extension.

Dan
Click to expand...
... no because there is no majority of where riders are heading. Just from the experience of being at Kennedy almost every day the majority end up on the various bus routes, with the busiest routes seeming to be those along Eglinton east, but definitely not even a majority of bus routes, and the next largest group of passengers are those who transfer to the SRT. The single largest destination for people arriving at Kennedy is almost certainly STC, even if it's not the majority, but mind you this extension isn't exactly a shuttle from STC to Kennedy. Lawrence east station has some relatively busy bus bays that are only going to get busier with the new station given more bus routes will be funnelling into it, and Sheppard and McCowan is already one of the busiest intersections for bus boardings in the network, so though I can get behind arguments that the extension could be designed more cost-effectively, it is most certainly going to the right destinations. This is getting off-topic so if you're gonna reply let's do so on the right thread. On the interior line, I'm definitely hoping the line exposes the city to this kind of technology (not heavy rail subways) and that future projects can learn from its strengths and faults when choosing a mode for new lines, but ig we'll have to wait until it's open for that.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top