[smallspy]

the TRs get delayed at stations due to high passenger volumes which makes theoretical frequencies challenging.

My understanding is that Line 1 struggles with this because:
- existing stations are substandard in design and their limited size and circulation space slows boarding of trains, which increases dwell times (and therefor minimum frequencies).

This is a problem, and is in the process of being fixed. Slowly, as the TTC does, but fixed nonetheless.

- The TRs are simply such large trains that it takes more time for passengers to board and exit

Not true. The TTC designed the original G-class subway cars to require just 3 steps from the furthest seat to a doorway. And with the T1 and TR doorways being wider still than the original cars, the flow in and out of each car is faster.

- The TRs are slow compared to modern metro construction, which puts pressure on headways as well.

Not true. The acceleration and deceleration rates are not vastly different to most modern subways.

The OL does not have these issues as it's stations will be entirely new and high volume and the trains themselves are much smaller which means less dwell time to load and unload. This means 90 second frequencies should be possible like Vancouver achieves with the Skytrain.

The OL's stations shouldn't have these issues, it's hoped. But the depth of the stations downtown will affect how long the platforms take to clear, and if there aren't enough vertical accesses then there may be situations where the platforms crowd into an unsafe manner - just like the downtown stations do today.

While we don't know exactly what the Ontario Line's trains will look like, all of the renders so far show a smaller car with three doorways. The doorway-to-area ratio will probably be about the same as the regular subway cars. The doorway-to-length ratio can be assumed to be pretty close to the existing cars, if we take the renders at face value.

The speed/acceleration is simply unknown until we see specs or see it in action. Remember that the projected weight of these trains rivals that of the current subways, so the power requirements will end up being similar too. Another thing to consider is comfort - there simply is a limit to how safe/comfortable people feel to be accelerated at.

Dan

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

This is a problem, and is in the process of being fixed. Slowly, as the TTC does, but fixed nonetheless.
Dan

I think Union Subway Station is an example of the limits of station reconfiguration as the solution - I am not sure if it can be fixed without very radical changes.

AoD

 

[81-717]

And with the T1 and TR doorways being wider still than the original cars, the flow in and out of each car is faster.

I doubt the difference is at all significant, as long as there are no headway gaps (which 99.9% of the time had nothing to do with door width) it doesn't even matter. I'm sure it's not much of an issue even with more vs. fewer doors per train, otherwise the 75-footers in New York would cause delays on lines that also use 60-footers, yet they seem to be running fine without that issue.

 

[turbanplanner]

I doubt the difference is at all significant, as long as there are no headway gaps (which 99.9% of the time had nothing to do with door width) it doesn't even matter. I'm sure it's not much of an issue even with more vs. fewer doors per train, otherwise the 75-footers in New York would cause delays on lines that also use 60-footers, yet they seem to be running fine without that issue.

I wonder what the passenger movements or whatever we will call it looks like in NYC vs here? There are so many more lines you potentially don't have 70% of the train emptying or boarding at 3 stops like we do.

 

[smallspy]

I doubt the difference is at all significant, as long as there are no headway gaps (which 99.9% of the time had nothing to do with door width) it doesn't even matter. I'm sure it's not much of an issue even with more vs. fewer doors per train, otherwise the 75-footers in New York would cause delays on lines that also use 60-footers, yet they seem to be running fine without that issue.

I'm not sure how you can think that 3 people entering or leaving at once isn't much more significant than 2 people entering or leaving at once, but the TTC seems to have figured otherwise and I'm inclined to believe them.

Dan

 

[81-717]

I'm not sure how you can think that 3 people entering or leaving at once isn't much more significant than 2 people entering or leaving at once, but the TTC seems to have figured otherwise and I'm inclined to believe them.

Dan

Well, you do you but I'm far more inclined to believe this and this.

What difference does it make if more people can enter/leave at once (and that must be a very rough approximation, as people are not all exactly the same size), if they had to wait more than 5 mins for their train to show up anyway? The longer the headway, the more crowded it would be and the longer the dwell times would be, no matter how many people can fit through each doorway. Door width is not the only nor the primary factor affecting crowding and dwell times, and combined with other factors they can very well cancel each other out. I don't see how the R211's 16% wider doorways are allegedly supposed to decrease dwell times by 32% either, it just doesn't add up. Guess the R143/160/179s and their narrower doors will continue slowing down service and causing crowding for the next 20–40 years still.

What do door widths have to do with headways? Wider doors mean that trains can be offloaded quicker and decreases the dwell times.

Yes, because the TRs totally didn't fall behind when operating alongside the older cars, and never ever run further apart than 1–2 mins during rush hour these days.

 

[T3G]

What do door widths have to do with headways? Wider doors mean that trains can be offloaded quicker and decreases the dwell times.

 

[T3G]

Yes, because the TRs totally didn't fall behind when operating alongside the older cars, and never ever run further apart than 1–2 mins during rush hour these days.

Why are you quoting my post in your previous post? So that I don't get the notification that you responded and you can feel like you have the last word?

There are multiple parts to a subway car. If your subway car had a top speed of 5 km/h, then yes, having wide doors would not help. But that has nothing to do with dwell times. The top speed of a subway car, and its ability, or lack thereof, to keep up with its faster running mates, has nothing to do with what the dwell times at a station will be, because a subway car with wide doors might arrive at a fairly empty station, or a subway car with narrow doors might arrive at a station overflowing with people. And whether you like it or not, all else being equal, a doorway that 3 people can pass through at the same time will mean a faster exchange of passengers than a doorway only 2 people can pass through. Also, what's the point of bringing up that anecdote, when there hasn't been anything else but TRs running on Line 1 for about 7 years? By now, surely, the schedules and running times have been calibrated to deal with the properties, and idiosyncrasies, of the equipment they've got.

But it's cool. I'm glad you know more than TTC engineers, who make a living trying to figure out problems like this. You should use your extensive knowledge for good, instead of using it to put forward provocative positions on the internet.

 

[81-717]

Why are you quoting my post in your previous post? So that I don't get the notification that you responded and you can feel like you have the last word?

No, just to save making an extra post (I assume you'd get the notification anyway, unless this forum doesn't work the way it does on cptdb).

There are multiple parts to a subway car.

Which is exactly why I'm calling bullshit on the assertion that slightly smaller doorways are the primary reason for longer headways, because that simply isn't true and never has been. The Hawkers never had any issue with keeping up with headways, and the TRs would often fall behind the Hawkers and T1s. And even now that the system is all T1 or TR, headway gaps do still occur all the time, so obviously having wider doorways never solved that issue.

because a subway car with wide doors might arrive at a fairly empty station, or a subway car with narrow doors might arrive at a station overflowing with people.

Sure it could, but when that happened, were the subway cars with narrow doors always 5–10 mins behind the train in front of them, with the next train with wider doors tailgaiting them 1 minute later?? I'd have to see proof of that, because it'd be the first time ever hearing of it, and certainly wasn't my experience riding the subway back then.

Also, what's the point of bringing up that anecdote, when there hasn't been anything else but TRs running on Line 1 for about 7 years?

Because delays and gaps still occur very often, and have nothing to do with door width, which many people insist on treating as the scapegoat?

By now, surely, the schedules and running times have been calibrated to deal with the properties, and idiosyncrasies, of the equipment they've got.

And the same could've been done back then, had it really been that big of a deal.

But it's cool. I'm glad you know more than TTC engineers, who...

...who previously confirmed the point I was making.

Speaking of subway dwell times (which I can't say I've seen change much with the TRs). It seems to me that no matter what, it's not as bad as it used to be, now all the new cars have wider doors.

So which one is it then? Either it's "not as bad as it used to be" (which may be just because ridership hasn't rebound to pre-pandemic levels), or it's still the same as it used to be.

It should be interesting to check the schedule run time for now, compared to pre-ATC.

I'm inclined to believe this.

 

[nfitz]

But to add some context, the 600 passengers per train number that @nfitz used is kinda sus. The number that I recall being used is 750 per train, in line with other systems that use similar rolling stock/lengths such as Rome Line C (100m long, 3m Wide Hitachi Vehicles). This gives the Ontario Line a capacity of around 30k.

Edit: To be charitable, my only guess is maybe the 600 number is assuming 80m long trains, which will likely be the initial operating length of the trains, however that's not the ultimate length the line is being built for.

I was just pulling something conservatively low out of my ass, to demonstrate that the capacity is huge, so that there'd be no one could possibly criticize that it's significantly lower than Line 1. And that no one could accuse me of over-estimating.

I've heard numbers from 600 to 800 over the years - I don't think any of us know here they've landed. And it will likely be a function if they do the seating properly, or turn them into cattle cars like you see in a few places.

No, just to save making an extra post.

Which is commendable - if only others could learn from you, instead of making several posts with single responses! Though sometimes no responses at all might be better.

Speaking of subway dwell times (which I can't say I've seen change much with the TRs). It seems to me that no matter what, it's not as bad as it used to be, now all the new cars have wider doors.

Have they finished all the changes to speed up the Line 1 schedule now that ATC is installed? It should be interesting to check the schedule run time for now, compared to pre-ATC.

 

[PL1]

I didn't see this Metrolinx article posted about the three bridges:

Edit: thanks to @generalcanada below for extracting the info.

 

[generalcanada]

I didn't see this Metrolinx article posted about the three bridges:
View attachment 583394

Nothing new really, extracting somewhat relevant sections here

The future Don Valley Crossing Bridge is a balanced cantilever design that will be about 34 to 38 metres tall at its highest point. The first significant new elevated crossing of the Don Valley since the Leaside Bridge was constructed in 1927, it will carry Ontario Line trains between the Minton Place tunnel portal and Thorncliffe Park.

"We wanted something very slender and elegant, like ribbons crossing the valley,” said Potter. “We aimed to minimize the visual clutter that often mars the beauty of civic structures. For example, we have integrated the downspouts into the piers, so that it does not appear tacked on.”


Additionally, the materials and finishes for the Lower Don Bridge were chosen for their longevity and appropriateness for the site. To minimize corrosion and repel dirt, for example, a multi-layered, custom coating will be applied to all steel surfaces.

"The Don Valley Parkway, like all highways, kicks up a lot of salt spray or salt fog in the winter which is extremely corrosive,” said Potter.

 

[officedweller]

Integrated downspouts! Nice!

 

[reinventingthewheel]

Had a brief look around the Don Yard this morning, not much to see in photos but I’ll keep it interesting with some extra context.

Construction map below (from env. assessment 2022/04)

Note the solid black lines indicate OL tracks, green is the open portal, and red is sequential excavation running between here and Corktown station (TBMs launch from here heading north, west). The space between red and green will be cut, covered, and laid on top with the RH GO tracks, which will fly over to the north side of OL.

These jersey barriers form the north border of the completed corridor. On the north side of it will be a crash wall and residential development (West Don Lands Block 20).

That rebar cage has been filled in with concrete. Presumably some sort of mega pile for the bridge abutment, not sure why it’s cast before insertion.

 

[kotsy]

Had a brief look around the Don Yard this morning, not much to see in photos but I’ll keep it interesting with some extra context.

Construction map below (from env. assessment 2022/04)

Note the solid black lines indicate OL tracks, green is the open portal, and red is sequential excavation running between here and Corktown station (TBMs launch from here heading north, west). The space between red and green will be cut, covered, and laid on top with the RH GO tracks, which will fly over to the north side of OL.
View attachment 584309

These jersey barriers form the north border of the completed corridor. On the north side of it will be a crash wall and residential development (West Don Lands Block 20).
View attachment 584312
View attachment 584313

That rebar cage has been filled in with concrete. Presumably some sort of mega pile for the bridge abutment, not sure why it’s cast before insertion.
View attachment 584314

Awesome update. Thanks for sharing the plans.