[ARG1]

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.

Yet Vancouver specifically is infamous for struggling during winter conditions. The only reason the city gets away with it is because snow/sub zero conditions aren't frequent enough to cause problems. At most its maybe a couple of days that the system has to operate at significantly reduced service levels.

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.

And it was a case of comparing apples to oranges.

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?

You clearly don't know much about the Butovskaya line or its history. It was planned and built not long after the collapse of the soviet union. To make a long story short, Moscow has a strict set of design guidelines for their metros that in a post Soviet World made them expensive to build. The idea of the Butovskaya line mirrors what Toronto did with the SRT, with the idea being a series of cheaper light metro lines that didn't have to adhere to the design standards for the standard metro, and can better accommodate the demand of suburban Moscow. Let's just say there's a reason why its the only one that was ever built, and all the other planned lines we converted to regular metro extensions. It was extremely unreliable, and since most of it was outdoors, it struggled to run properly in the harsh winter climate. And, similarly to what happened with the SRT here in Toronto, there are now calls from various politicians to have it demolished and replaced by a standard underground metro line.

TL;DR The Butovskaya Line isn't an example to point to of an outdoor 3rd rail system working in a winter city, if anything its a warning against it.

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

If you cannot provide a motive for Metrolinx' design decisions, then your little tinfoil hat session has no merit. The Metrolinx of today is one that is spearheaded by a government that is interested in 2 things:

1) They want to reward their constituents by providing high quality rapid transit - sometimes at a raised price
2) For transit built outside of their ridings, they want to cut cost in whatever ways they want.

These 2 points is why projects like the Ontario Line have received cost cutting optimizations like surface and elevated alignments, meanwhile projects like Eglinton West are almost entirely tunneled. The key point being that the Ontario Line isn't a project that the government is interested in providing needless expensive flourishes, and certainly not something like wider tunnels to accommodate pantographs - if it wasn't something that benefited the project from a technical level. Fact of the matter is, the idea that Metrolinx wanted the Ontario Line to have pantographs "Just because" goes against literally everything else they have done in terms of project planning during this government.

 

[44 North]

Yet Vancouver specifically is infamous for struggling during winter conditions. The only reason the city gets away with it is because snow/sub zero conditions aren't frequent enough to cause problems. At most its maybe a couple of days that the system has to operate at significantly reduced service levels.

And it was a case of comparing apples to oranges.

You clearly don't know much about the Butovskaya line or its history. It was planned and built not long after the collapse of the soviet union. To make a long story short, Moscow has a strict set of design guidelines for their metros that in a post Soviet World made them expensive to build. The idea of the Butovskaya line mirrors what Toronto did with the SRT, with the idea being a series of cheaper light metro lines that didn't have to adhere to the design standards for the standard metro, and can better accommodate the demand of suburban Moscow. Let's just say there's a reason why its the only one that was ever built, and all the other planned lines we converted to regular metro extensions. It was extremely unreliable, and since most of it was outdoors, it struggled to run properly in the harsh winter climate. And, similarly to what happened with the SRT here in Toronto, there are now calls from various politicians to have it demolished and replaced by a standard underground metro line.

You claimed there was one part of Moscow's legacy metro that ran outside. That's not true, irrespective of Line 12. No mention of possible issues with legacy rolling stock in winter, it was specifically third rail. And I haven't heard of issues with Line 12. It's built, runs elevated, has third rail, in Moscow. Contrary to claims you've made over pages.

If you cannot provide a motive for Metrolinx' design decisions, then your little tinfoil hat session has no merit. The Metrolinx of today is one that is spearheaded by a government that is interested in 2 things:

1) They want to reward their constituents by providing high quality rapid transit - sometimes at a raised price
2) For transit built outside of their ridings, they want to cut cost in whatever ways they want.

These 2 points is why projects like the Ontario Line have received cost cutting optimizations like surface and elevated alignments, meanwhile projects like Eglinton West are almost entirely tunneled. The key point being that the Ontario Line isn't a project that the government is interested in providing needless expensive flourishes, and certainly not something like wider tunnels to accommodate pantographs - if it wasn't something that benefited the project from a technical level. Fact of the matter is, the idea that Metrolinx wanted the Ontario Line to have pantographs "Just because" goes against literally everything else they have done in terms of project planning during this government.

You can be mature and drop the tinfoil remark. Like I said it doesn't make sense to make a line needlessly more expensive - which catenary seems to do. So we're in agreement on that. And we're also in agreement that agencies run by political parties can be weird, political, and make questionable decisions.

 

[T3G]

Can you provide some figures that show that using catenary makes the line needlessly expensive?

 

[44 North]

Can you provide some figures that show that using catenary makes the line needlessly expensive?

Dollar figures no. But I leave it up to you to decide. Which I explained. Larger bore by 1.5m, 16k extra dump trucks of spoil that needs to be hauled and deposited to some distant spot, hundreds of masts, then more maintenance vis a vis third rail.

 

[ARG1]

You claimed there was one part of Moscow's legacy metro that ran outside. That's not true, irrespective of Line 12.

On the legacy network, there are a few stations that run outside (Izmaylovskaya and Technopark). The biggest and most substantial part is the recent extension of the Red Line to Kommunarka which runs mostly above ground in the median (this was originally one one the cancelled light metro lines based on line 12 that I mentioned earlier). However, it has a very peculiar design decision: See if you can spot it!

You can be mature and drop the tinfoil remark. Like I said it doesn't make sense to make a line needlessly more expensive - which catenary seems to do. So we're in agreement on that. And we're also in agreement that agencies run by political parties can be weird, political, and make questionable decisions.

They can make questionable choices, but they usually can be understood by looking at a specific point of view, whether it is to save money short term, or to accelerate construction timelines. It is very rare for politicians to make decisions that have absolutely no discernible motive attached to them. Fact of the matter is, the chance that the Ontario Line uses pantographs for reasons other than by the recommendation of engineers is practically nil.

 

[44 North]

On the legacy network, there are a few stations that run outside (Izmaylovskaya and Technopark). The biggest and most substantial part is the recent extension of the Red Line to Kommunarka which runs mostly above ground in the median (this was originally one one the cancelled light metro lines based on line 12 that I mentioned earlier). However, it has a very peculiar design decision: See if you can spot it!

They can make questionable choices, but they usually can be understood by looking at a specific point of view, whether it is to save money short term, or to accelerate construction timelines. It is very rare for politicians to make decisions that have absolutely no discernible motive attached to them. Fact of the matter is, the chance that the Ontario Line uses pantographs for reasons other than by the recommendation of engineers is practically nil.

Considering there's a modern, elevated (and exposed), third rail line right by there - that may soon be extended - one wonders if this section of coverage is more to do with legacy rolling stock. The other cities using these trains also seem to have the legacy sections largely underground as well.

 

[afransen]

Dollar figures no. But I leave it up to you to decide. Which I explained. Larger bore by 1.5m, 16k extra dump trucks of spoil that needs to be hauled and deposited to some distant spot, hundreds of masts, then more maintenance vis a vis third rail.

Why do you suppose catenary was selected? Serious answers only, not 'because Metrolinx thought it would look cool on a brochure'.

 

[44 North]

Why do you suppose catenary was selected? Serious answers only, not 'because Metrolinx thought it would look cool on a brochure'.

We're really getting into the weeds now. Half asleep and may come off Malcolm Gladwell-ish. One theory is that it's branding. It's the Prov's line, they want it to stand out from conventional TTC subways. How? Put a panto on it.

Another one is that it's fashionable. Now hear me out. Recall the mid 00s, what was the transit flavour ppl were clamouring over? LFLRVs. Urban, European, run it on the sidewalk in a woonerf. Now that's over, what's the new flavour? From following this forum and seeing the RER promise by the previous gov't I'd say it's mainline electric commuter rail. Be like Paris, now London, soon Sydney. And what's the most identifiable feature of that? Catenary. For an urban metro line that's largely elevated in built-up areas catenary isn't desirable or a go-to. But ppl don't know that. They see masts and wires and think modern, green, fast, like major cities. Even on this thread there was an inherent assumption that OL will be 25k AC 'off the shelf' when it isn't. Why would that be? Because ppl are attributing it to mainline electric commuter rail. It's a Pavlonian response.

Take it with a grain of salt, just a theory.

 

[afransen]

We're really getting into the weeds now. Half asleep and may come off Malcolm Gladwell-ish. One theory is that it's branding. It's the Prov's line, they want it to stand out from conventional TTC subways. How? Put a panto on it.

Another one is that it's fashionable. Now hear me out. Recall the mid 00s, what was the transit flavour ppl were clamouring over? LFLRVs. Urban, European, run it on the sidewalk in a woonerf. Now that's over, what's the new flavour? From following this forum and seeing the RER promise by the previous gov't I'd say it's mainline electric commuter rail. Be like Paris, now London, soon Sydney. And what's the most identifiable feature of that? Catenary. For an urban metro line that's largely elevated in built-up areas catenary isn't desirable or a go-to. But ppl don't know that. They see masts and wires and think modern, green, fast, like major cities. Even on this thread there was an inherent assumption that OL will be 25k AC 'off the shelf' when it isn't. Why would that be? Because ppl are attributing it to mainline electric commuter rail. It's a Pavlonian response.

Take it with a grain of salt, just a theory.

But train nerds on a web forum didn't design this line. It is designed by engineers...

And are Paris, London, Sydney all making the same error? Who influenced them?

 

[asey20]

I honestly think this third rail vs catenary debate has gone overboard. There are small advantages and disadvantages to both of these systems. Interestingly enough the trainset that will be used runs on 1500v overhead on Rome line C and will run at 750v third rail on the upcoming Honolulu metro line. There might be a significant reason metrolinx choose one over the other or it might not be for any particular reason at all. Either way, the TTC has extensive experience on using both third rail and catenary and Toronto is not Ottawa. I'm sure that reliability will be fine in the long run.

 

[smallspy]

If you cannot provide a motive for Metrolinx' design decisions, then your little tinfoil hat session has no merit. The Metrolinx of today is one that is spearheaded by a government that is interested in 2 things:

1) They want to reward their constituents by providing high quality rapid transit - sometimes at a raised price
2) For transit built outside of their ridings, they want to cut cost in whatever ways they want.

These 2 points is why projects like the Ontario Line have received cost cutting optimizations like surface and elevated alignments, meanwhile projects like Eglinton West are almost entirely tunneled. The key point being that the Ontario Line isn't a project that the government is interested in providing needless expensive flourishes, and certainly not something like wider tunnels to accommodate pantographs - if it wasn't something that benefited the project from a technical level. Fact of the matter is, the idea that Metrolinx wanted the Ontario Line to have pantographs "Just because" goes against literally everything else they have done in terms of project planning during this government.

That's a rather altruistic view of Metrolinx.

Unfortunately, those of us who have been dealing with them for long fear that they have other, ulterior motives at heart.

Dan

 

[ARG1]

That's a rather altruistic view of Metrolinx.

Unfortunately, those of us who have been dealing with them for long fear that they have other, ulterior motives at heart.

Dan

I agree, and on any other topic I would generally support this notion. However I can't think for my life what possible hidden agenda metrolinx would have in being picky with a train power source.

 

[crs1026]

^ The OL was specc’d by ML, who were given a mandate to do differently than TTC spec, and to use different expertise (some of it recruited from afar) so that none of the old TTC “not invented here” mentality leaked into the design.

Some of those expat experts did indeed have vast experience building systems that look nothing like a TTC subway. There was a period where in the transition from RL to OL where the Ml brass were vocal that the traditional TTC spec was not necessary or justified by default. The whole discussion about platform lengths, headways, carbody size, etc was very much framed by the desire to not be trapped by traditional TTC thinking…. and to show there are new faces in charge.

I have no view on whether one option is better than the other in this application, and nothing in the TTC spec is inherently evil…..but there is good reason to suspect that consciously or otherwise, the designers felt an onus to “do something different” and in that space, changing the electrical supply was quite acceptable.

- Paul

 

[GenerationW]

I honestly think this third rail vs catenary debate has gone overboard.

Gone overboard and sunk to the bottom of the ocean.

 

[nfitz]

That's a rather altruistic view of Metrolinx.

Unfortunately, those of us who have been dealing with them for long fear that they have other, ulterior motives at heart.

There's may be a few things, but much of the issues from Metrolinx comes bureaucracy, incompetence, and a systemic mindset of disdaining input from third parties. With the occasional subservience to their political masters.