[rbt]

...I mean, if catenary is the wrong solution for OL, then GO Expansion is doomed.

If that's the case then nearly every wholly new transit line built in the last 15 years is doomed. Very few new 3rd rail lines have been built, and nearly all of them have legacy issues such as shared rolling stock, yards, etc.

 

[generalcanada]

Nearly every wholly new transit line built in the last 15 years is doomed. Very few new 3rd rail lines have been built, and nearly all of them have legacy issues such as shared rolling stock, yards, etc.

thats such a weird opinion. high speed rail, subways, commuter rail all are failing? makes no sense

 

[smallspy]

I think that's mostly on the part of the anti-wire crowd.

No, it absolutely goes both ways.

The reality is that both have their own advantages and disadvantages. When dealing with metro services, there are some cases where one is absolutely the right choice over the other, but it has to be made on a case-by-case basis.

Dan

 

[rbt]

thats such a weird opinion. high speed rail, subways, commuter rail all are failing? makes no sense

If catenary is a problem for the Ontario line then it's a global catastrophe for transit infrastructure.

Edit: To make it perfectly clear: Catenary [and overhead rail in tunnels] is clearly the preferred option by dozens of transit agencies; largely for safety reasons. It's not a conspiracy to bring down transit; it's simply be better option.

 

[W. K. Lis]

If catenary is a problem for the Ontario line then it's a global catastrophe for transit infrastructure.

Edit: To make it perfectly clear: Catenary [and overhead rail in tunnels] is clearly the preferred option by dozens of transit agencies; largely for safety reasons. It's not a conspiracy to bring down transit; it's simply be better option.

In tunnels, they tend to be more robust and stronger than a wire outdoors

From link.

From link.

 

[generalcanada]

In tunnels, they tend to be more robust and stronger than a wire outdoors

From link.

From link.

is that the system theyre using for the crosstown?

 

[smallspy]

is that the system theyre using for the crosstown?

Not precisely this one, but one similar, yes.

The TTC has installed another different but similar design in St Clair West Station.

Dan

 

[44 North]

Can you back up your claims? The REM has a catenary specifically for the winter weather. The CDPQ Infra would definitely not choose a feature that would cut into their contractual reliability and per distance traveled costs. And the stuff you mention about aerodynamics seem to be a stretch...

Some of this is simple logic. What do you need cited? And Mtl gets twice as much snow than TO on average and listed it as a leading reason they went with catenary. Not sure which is worse for ice storms, TO or MTL, but hopefully it got sufficient weighting in the decision. Not unlike how snow and ice weigh on wires

A few other things to keep in mind however. Mont Royal tunnel was already built and big enough for cat, so big savings. As well most of the route is on the ground, with the elevated portion well away from homes, so conspicuity of masts and wires not a big concern.

OL OTOH two new tunnels, extra 1.5m diam for cat. $$$ Elevated portions next to homes and over streets, with grand expectations on this forum that all extensions will also be above streets going forward. Errant balloons, lightning, high winds - ok we'll shutdown for some time so crews can work to fix it. And bc it's overhead power, work is more complex since it's working at heights.

I think that's mostly on the part of the anti-wire crowd. I'm kind of ambivalent, and assume that the engineers involved selected catenary because it is the best solution when all factors are considered. I mean, if catenary is the wrong solution for OL, then GO Expansion is doomed.

Did "all factors" get considered? We had pictures of sleek trains on uncluttered guideways. Then later a blurb saying catenary is 'generally more reliable and cheaper'. That's it. And is it true? All things considered it seems less reliable, and more expensive (both up front and in perpetuity).

Other posts with the "doomed" and "catastrophe" hyperbole aren't needed. Mainline rail and LRT catenary is fine. Why? Because it's quite literally the only option for electriification of those systems. A subway is different. And cities still very much build third rail subways - for lines from scratch and not legacy. Turkey, Italy, Singapore, USA, SKorea, Switzerland...list goes on. Heck throw Canada in there with the Canada Line.

 

[ARG1]

Did "all factors" get considered? We had pictures of sleek trains on uncluttered guideways. Then later a blurb saying catenary is 'generally more reliable and cheaper'. That's it. And is it true? All things considered it seems less reliable, and more expensive (both up front and in perpetuity).

I'm still waiting for you to give me an actual hidden non-technical motive for using catenaries for that goes beyond "sleek trains". They easily could've made pictures of sleek trains on uncluttered guideways using 3rd rail and had the same effect. The blurb about catenary being "more reliable and cheaper" could just as easily be interpreted as a way to sway off NIMBY protests against using them.

 

[44 North]

They easily could've made pictures of sleek trains on uncluttered guideways using 3rd rail and had the same effect. The blurb about catenary being "more reliable and cheaper" could just as easily be interpreted as a way to sway off NIMBY protests against using them.

That's what I'm saying they did. Iirc it was pics of third rail trains on guideways in Copenhagen and Vancouver - both very much winter cities btw.

 

[T3G]

That's what I'm saying they did. Iirc it was pics of third rail trains on guideways in Copenhagen and Vancouver - both very much winter cities btw.

Um, what? Vancouver and Copenhagen are both known for mild winters.

It's one of the reasons why the SkyTrain enjoyed much more success than the SRT did.

 

[ARG1]

That's what I'm saying they did. Iirc it was pics of third rail trains on guideways in Copenhagen and Vancouver - both very much winter cities btw.

I can't speak much for Copenhagen (although from what I know, calling it a winter city is very generous), but Vancouver is the complete opposite of a winter city. Best case scenerio you might experience 2,3 snow falls per year, and when it does snow, the system grinds to a halt (Granted this is more of an issue with the intrusion detection system in older stations rather than the power source, but the point is its like the least winter city in Canada). What might be happening is you're confusing Vancouver with the mountains surrounding vancouver, the rockies get hit by winter hard, and Vancouver does become an amazing city to travel to for alpine sports, however that doesn't extend to the city itself which rains more often than it snows during the winter. If you want a city that's actually comparable to Toronto, again, might I point to a city like Moscow that consistently has problems with the outdoor sections of the Metro.

Going back to the main point, again, what does Metrolinx have to gain for pushing Catenary over 3rd rail if not for technical benefits. If you want to make the claim that Metrolinx is pushing for the more expensive Catenaries despite the lack of technical benefits, you have to have a clear motive for doing so, and "sleek train marketing" doesn't cut it.

Edit: Also no, its not what you're saying. You're claiming that Metrolinx is choosing to use Catenaries despite being more expensive because the trains are somehow more marketable... and are using the fact that they are marketing the trains as proof. That's not how it works, Metrolinx is marketing the trains and the design because that's what a transit agency and a government should be doing, its good politics to drive up the attention of the new transit line you're building, and trying to convince that the project you're building is worth the investment and the taxpayer's money - even if the line is a horrible waste of money that doesn't benefit anyone. They're trying to convince the public that their design and choices are good, not making design decisions to explicitly wow the public.

 

[44 North]

Um, what? Vancouver and Copenhagen are both known for mild winters.

It's one of the reasons why the SkyTrain enjoyed much more success than the SRT did.

Getting into the weeds here, again. But "um" all you want. They both get winters, and snow, and ice, and sub0 temps. If we're to believe some of the more inaccurate posts made on the previous pages, just an iota of one of those things supposedly cripples a 3rd rail subway line. Yet it doesn't.

Now I listed those two cities because they were provided as examples of light subways by the province. Not because of their weather. Needn't jump on it like it's a gotcha.

I can't speak much for Copenhagen (although from what I know, calling it a winter city is very generous), but Vancouver is the complete opposite of a winter city. Best case scenerio you might experience 2,3 snow falls per year, and when it does snow, the system grinds to a halt (Granted this is more of an issue with the intrusion detection system in older stations rather than the power source, but the point is its like the least winter city in Canada). What might be happening is you're confusing Vancouver with the mountains surrounding vancouver, the rockies get hit by winter hard, and Vancouver does become an amazing city to travel to for alpine sports, however that doesn't extend to the city itself which rains more often than it snows during the winter. If you want a city that's actually comparable to Toronto, again, might I point to a city like Moscow that consistently has problems with the outdoor sections of the Metro.

You can also point to the other cities with outdoor third rail that have comparable climates to Toronto while at it. Stockholm is clear to enter. And you bring up Moscow again. They built a line that's elevated, with third rail, that's not even 20yrs old. Now why the heck would they do that if it doesn't work in their climate?

Edit: Also no, its not what you're saying. You're claiming that Metrolinx is choosing to use Catenaries despite being more expensive because the trains are somehow more marketable... and are using the fact that they are marketing the trains as proof. That's not how it works, Metrolinx is marketing the trains and the design because that's what a transit agency and a government should be doing, its good politics to drive up the attention of the new transit line you're building, and trying to convince that the project you're building is worth the investment and the taxpayer's money - even if the line is a horrible waste of money that doesn't benefit anyone. They're trying to convince the public that their design and choices are good, not making design decisions to explicitly wow the public.

What is this supposed to be? And I can't answer why Metrolinx does what they do, sometimes I wonder if they can either.

 

[T3G]

They both get winters, and snow, and ice, and sub0 temps.

Yes, but it's nothing compared to Toronto.

If we're to believe some of the more inaccurate posts made on the previous pages, just an iota of one of those things supposedly cripples a 3rd rail subway line. Yet it doesn't.

I've seen one person in this thread make such a claim, and that claim was rebuked almost immediately.

So how does bringing it up again two days later help anything?

And if you're going to bring it up, you may also bring up while you're at it that there's lots of cities which get lots of snow and ice that use overhead catenary.

Now I listed those two cities because they were provided as examples of light subways by the province. Not because of their weather. Needn't jump on it like it's a gotcha.

That's all well and good, but you also felt compelled to point out that they were "winter cities". Which is as wrong as it is irrelevant. I might as well point to most European cities and say that you can probably get away with never buying a shovel in those places, given how infrequently it snows there, and therefore the same must be true of Toronto.

I really don't know what your angle is here. If you dislike catenary so much, don't look up when you're near a guideway and it will have no involvement in your life. There's no need to discredit it by acting like cities that use it are brought to their knees every time it snows.

 

[44 North]

I've seen one person in this thread make such a claim, and that claim was rebuked almost immediately.

So how does bringing it up again two days later help anything?

And if you're going to bring it up, you may also bring up while you're at it that there's lots of cities which get lots of snow and ice that use overhead catenary.

It's certainly more than one poster. And I have brought up a city with catenary. It's subway was down for a week.

That's all well and good, but you also felt compelled to point out that they were "winter cities". Which is as wrong as it is irrelevant. I might as well point to most European cities and say that you can probably get away with never buying a shovel in those places, given how infrequently it snows there, and therefore the same must be true of Toronto.

I really don't know what your angle is here. If you dislike catenary so much, don't look up when you're near a guideway and it will have no involvement in your life. There's no need to discredit it by acting like cities that use it are brought to their knees every time it snows.

Oh I see now. Yes sorry I didn't mean "winter cities", although I wrote that. I meant to say cities with winter (ice, snow, minus 0 temps). Apologies for my phrasing. I guess I can't name any genuine "winter cities" - arctic, sub-arctic, alpine - with subway systems.

My stance is clear: I support third rail when it's optimal. And it's very much optimal with a line like this.