[W. K. Lis]

From 2021, in Kharkiv: Ukraine's Worst Metro Line

 

[superelevation]

Wouldn't the shorter car end up heavier then, since like you pointed out has more wheel to weight ratio. Also third rail doesn't need a transformer on board, further reducing weight. Seems more efficient.

I'm still a third rail supporter. Costs are lower, tunnels are more realistically sized, for open-air sections it looks nicer and cleaner.



Oooh so nice. Love that front end. Very aggressive design.

You don't need a rectifier if you're on DC power which the OL still will be.

The impact on actually tunnel diameter isn't a big issue, depth is what costs money!

There is no difference in reliability in the winter between overhead and third rail. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, but at the end of the day, they're both basically the same. Yes, there are certain advantages to using a higher voltage, and yes using a higher voltage generally foregoes the ability to use a third rail, but there are disadvantages to it too such as the inability to use any of the existing TTC power distribution network.

The trucks are generally the heaviest part of any railcar. More of them usually means more weight per foot of car length. That's why most light, fast railcar designs (think the Flirt or Coradia) use articulated trainsets - they can use fewer trucks for the same overall length.



Not really. While the 600Vdc choice has always been something of a holdover from the olden days of early electrification, the fact of the matter is that changing it to something different now would entail an absolutely massive amount of work for no benefit. Keep in mind that the TTC's power distribution system covers both the subways and the streetcars, and is integrated. To change only one mode would require first separating the systems. It's doable, but to what ends?

Dan

Using the TTC power distribution network seems like a bad way to create a resilient network. Independent feeds are good.

That's where proper community consultation comes into play. Their 'demands' were not unreasonable when you consider they simply want to return to a plan that was already approved. Many of the concerns were legitimate. Quite frankly, they should've been anticipated and understood by Metrolinx from the start.

It's hard to cite cost as a factor (to residents) when it's quite clear they have no problem implementing obscenely expensive solutions elsewhere in the city.

We can certainly hold Ford accountable, but I think it's also fair to hold Metrolinx accountable for a terrible job dealing handing the community - an ongoing trend.

I don't know about that - people were tying ribbons around trees blocks from the rail corridor suggesting half of Leslieville would be destroyed etc. there has been a TON of misinformation lots of people in the area are supportive too of course!

Re. the Relief Line, of course anyone can support a project with very little to no impact on them, clearly expensive projects are. a problem and "we are foolishly burying stuff in Scarborough" doesn't mean we should foolishly bury it under a 100+ year old railway line.

 

[smallspy]

Using the TTC power distribution network seems like a bad way to create a resilient network. Independent feeds are good.

And yet, the subway and streetcar networks (and trolley bus, when it was around) were all tied in together.

If you are running a lot of services in a limited geographical area, it makes a lot of sense to intertie everything as it will reduce duplication. And just because they're tied together doesn't mean that the failure of one causes the failure of both (or all three) - there are circuit breakers and section gaps all over the place to help prevent large cascading failures within the system. If something happens on the subway system and the power needs to get cut, that doesn't mean that part of the streetcar system needs to go down with it.

Dan

 

[syn]

I don't know about that - people were tying ribbons around trees blocks from the rail corridor suggesting half of Leslieville would be destroyed etc. there has been a TON of misinformation lots of people in the area are supportive too of course!

You're referring to the fringe. Much of the confusion and fear could've been reduced (and in some cases eliminated) if Metrolinx went through a legitimate consultation process. It's no surprise some residents reach over the top conclusions, especially when the government is helping to spread such ideas.

Re. the Relief Line, of course anyone can support a project with very little to no impact on them, clearly expensive projects are. a problem and "we are foolishly burying stuff in Scarborough" doesn't mean we should foolishly bury it under a 100+ year old railway line.

Not foolish given the increase capacity - both to the line itself and leaving the GO corridor available for additional expansion.

 

[syn]

Yet the Prov effectively asked to be F'd when they catered to them to such an extent. So kinda the opposite. And seems as though the same thumb monkeys crying about how the RL was too deep and expensive will post in the YNSE thread about how going under rivers costs nothing, going 20m deeper costs nothing, and 50m deep stations cost less than nothing.



But it's not the Elizabeth line. There will be diesels. And VIA. Milk runs and express. It's pretty much a given that ceding the rail corridor comes at a cost. This is why it was off the table until it wasn't. Which is ok because a subway line is extremely high ridership. Same with Line 3. Just that short section of track alongside the GO tracks carries more than 2x the entire +40km Stouffville Line. However in that instance the GO tracks were considered of too much importance to have a rapid transit line next to. Bit interesting to compare, just thought of it now but not entirely relevant.

This is what I don't understand. There's very little resistance to expensive extensions and deep tunnels in the suburbs, where it's just as expensive (if not moreso). On the other hand, the idea you could put more of the OL underground (or even stick with something along the lines of the original RL plan) is met with outrage. This is even when there's a very clear, and significant opportunity cost to utilizing the GO corridor for what is essentially a new TTC subway line.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think the deep tunelling on the YNSE is going to preserve or provide additional capacity for GO. It's just money down the drain.

 

[fanoftoronto]

This is what I don't understand. There's very little resistance to expensive extensions and deep tunnels in the suburbs, where it's just as expensive (if not moreso). On the other hand, the idea you could put more of the OL underground (or even stick with something along the lines of the original RL plan) is met with outrage. This is even when there's a very clear, and significant opportunity cost to utilizing the GO corridor for what is essentially a new TTC subway line.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I don't think the deep tunelling on the YNSE is going to preserve or provide additional capacity for GO. It's just money down the drain.

Very well put. We're tunneling in Scarborough, Yonge North, Eglinton West. But we're gonna go with a Metro Light and partially elevated for a line that is as important as the Ontario Line.

Amongst the currently active subway constructions in Toronto, the Ontario Line will have by far the highest ridership. Most of the riders going westboud at Pape will switch over to the Ontario Line to avoid being stuck at Yonge-Bloor Station.

 

[CapitalSeven]

Let's see the design for Pape/Danforth before we say most riders will transfer there. If it's anything like the Escheresque thing they have designed for Queen/Yonge, I suspect many will opt for the single staircase at Bloor and Yonge.

 

[ARG1]

Very well put. We're tunneling in Scarborough, Yonge North, Eglinton West. But we're gonna go with a Metro Light and partially elevated for a line that is as important as the Ontario Line.

Yonge North and Scarborough are extensions of existing lines. Sure a Light Metro might make sense if we take these corridors out of context, but unless you want a god awful linear transfer, there isn't much of a choice other than to extend the existing lines. Also Yonge North will be partially at grade. Similar to the Ontario Line, the Ford Government has changed the alignment in order to save money, let's not pretend that this is exclusive to the Ontario Line. Should more have been done to elevate and lower costs for SSE and EW? Absolutely. However being stupid on those 2 projects isn't an excuse to be stupid on the Ontario Line. Also the Ontario Line is going to have a ton of capacity - a lot more capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC. Stop pretending like we're building a 2 car monorail.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Yonge North and Scarborough are extensions of existing lines. Sure a Light Metro might make sense if we take these corridors out of context, but unless you want a god awful linear transfer, there isn't much of a choice other than to extend the existing lines. Also Yonge North will be partially at grade. Similar to the Ontario Line, the Ford Government has changed the alignment in order to save money, let's not pretend that this is exclusive to the Ontario Line. Should more have been done to elevate and lower costs for SSE and EW? Absolutely. However being stupid on those 2 projects isn't an excuse to be stupid on the Ontario Line. Also the Ontario Line is going to have a ton of capacity - a lot more capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC. Stop pretending like we're building a 2 car monorail.

I mean, according to the Ontario Line website by Metrolinx, they are expecting to use 90 minute headways during peak time. Source: Metrolinx: Ontario Line

I think the above numbers are for 2041 based on the Ontario Line Preliminary Design Business Case Summary document. Meaning they are already at expecting to be at capacity on the Ontario Line by 2041, unless you know of a method to decrease headways even more from 90 seconds. Additionally, the stations are built 100 m long to fit 80 m long trains at 600 capacity. Even if we increased it to 100 m long trains with 750 capacity, you're only increasing capacity from 24,000 to 30,000 pphpd. An increase of a paltry 25%.

Also the Ontario Line is going to have a ton of capacity - a lot more capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC. Stop pretending like we're building a 2 car monorail.

This is just an incorrect statement all around.

The Yonge line was built in 1954 and was completely capable of meeting demand on the line for 40-50 years before we're having to implement ATC and 90 second headways. And total capacity on the Yonge line with full ATC and 90 second headways would be along the lines of 48,000 to 58,000 pphpd, far far higher than the theoretical upper limit of the Ontario Line. Even with 3 minute headways, the capacity on the Yonge line is between 24,000 to 29,000, which is the same as the currently proposed Ontario Line. So, no, the Ontario Line will not have "a lot more capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC".

For reference, crush load on the Toronto Rocket is 1,458 per six-car train. So I'm using a range between 1,200 and 1,458 for my estimates above.

 

[generalcanada]

I mean, according to the Ontario Line website by Metrolinx, they are expecting to use 90 minute headways during peak time. Source: Metrolinx: Ontario Line
View attachment 391315

I think the above numbers are for 2041 based on the Ontario Line Preliminary Design Business Case Summary document. Meaning they are already at expecting to be at capacity on the Ontario Line by 2041, unless you know of a method to decrease headways even more from 90 seconds. Additionally, the stations are built 100 m long to fit 80 m long trains at 600 capacity. Even if we increased it to 100 m long trains with 750 capacity, you're only increasing capacity from 24,000 to 30,000 pphpd. An increase of a paltry 25%.

View attachment 391325



This is just an incorrect statement all around.

The Yonge line was built in 1954 and was completely capable of meeting demand on the line for 40-50 years before we're having to implement ATC and 90 second headways. And total capacity on the Yonge line with full ATC and 90 second headways would be along the lines of 48,000 to 58,000 pphpd, far far higher than the theoretical upper limit of the Ontario Line. Even with 3 minute headways, the capacity on the Yonge line is between 24,000 to 29,000, which is the same as the currently proposed Ontario Line. So, no, the Ontario Line will not have "a lot more capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC".

For reference, crush load on the Toronto Rocket is 1,458 per six-car train. So I'm using a range between 1,200 and 1,458 for my estimates above.

the term you are looking for is "induced demand"
i feel this is required watching for people in this thread

 

[fanoftoronto]

the term you are looking for is "induced demand"
i feel this is required watching for people in this thread

This is definitely relevant, but not entirely to this situation.

The points they bring up to build transit even though it induces demand are very logical, but they are all in comparison to car traffic.

I'm not arguing against building the Ontario Line. Just trying to state that it's the most important and traffic heavy subway to be under construction right now (Yonge north and Scarborough being the others) but uses a technology that has the lowest overall capacity.

 

[DirectionNorth]

Please, not this debate again!

 

[fanoftoronto]

Please, not this debate again!

Lol, touche. I will abstain going forward!

 

[ARG1]

This is just an incorrect statement all around.

The Yonge line was built in 1954 and was completely capable of meeting demand on the line for 40-50 years before we're having to implement ATC and 90 second headways. And total capacity on the Yonge line with full ATC and 90 second headways would be along the lines of 48,000 to 58,000 pphpd, far far higher than the theoretical upper limit of the Ontario Line. Even with 3 minute headways, the capacity on the Yonge line is between 24,000 to 29,000, which is the same as the currently proposed Ontario Line. So, no, the Ontario Line will not have "a lot more capacity than the Yonge Line had pre ATC".

For reference, crush load on the Toronto Rocket is 1,458 per six-car train. So I'm using a range between 1,200 and 1,458 for my estimates above.

As you have said, the Ontario Line at 750 capacity * 40TPH gives 30k PPHPD.

If we use your 1458 passengers per train, Line 1 at a headway of every 3 minutes (what it was pre ATC) had a capacity of 29360 PPHPD. In other words, what I said is correct, please try to actually do your math correctly.

 

[toronto647]

The Ontario Line - Everything We Know, Part 1 | UrbanToronto

Three years since it was announced, the long needed Ontario Line is closer than it’s ever been to actually being realized. With new renderings of the Ontario Line stations released recently, it’s worth taking a look over everything we know about this project, likely the largest urban subway...

urbantoronto.ca