[11th]

Is it possible to do dual-gauge (in four rails)? With some adjustments the rolling stock width maybe both the RL and RER can share platforms.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

It probably would have been fine if the platforms are sized to subway levels - rolling stock is probably least of the worries.

AoD

There is a pretty broad range in subway platform sizes. A Sheppard-sized platform would be provide capacities of roughly 15,000 pphpd, and would probably be over capacity today if the Dundas to Pape DRL were built. Line-1 sized ICTS platforms would've been at capacity upon the opening of the Relief Line North. With these capacity constraints, it's unlikely that construction of DRL North would've even been feasible. That's certainly not a "fine" situation for our city to be in.

But sure, we could extend the trains to whatever length necessary to meet expected ridership. However, that means we would need larger, more complicated and more expensive station boxes. There will eventually be a point where extending the trains and station boxes are no longer economical; where simply using wider trains and tunnels from the get-go would have been cheaper.

And yes, the rolling stock does matter, as it affects capacity. A T1 can hold 26% more passengers than an ICTS MK 1 train of the same length. Lets say we wanted to get the same service capacity out of the DRL as we get out of Line 1 (that's the minimum capacity we should be aiming for, in my opinion). To do that, we'd need trains of about 175 metres, and platforms of around 190 metres in length, such that the trains can fit in the station with room to spare. How much would it cost to build stations of that length? I don't know, but it probably isn't cheap. And mind that Toronto’s existing six-car T1/TR configurations are already amongst the longest in the world. Even longer, 175 meter trains would be an extreme outlier. There must be a reason why we don’t see any other cities having trains of this length.

Furthermore, increasing train lengths decreases operational flexibility, and incurs a significant penalty on service capacity. Trains need a certain amount of time to switch from one track to another. I don't know exactly what time that is in Toronto, but it's significant, especially on a system operating under 120 second headways. Increasing train lengths by 25%, means that it takes 25% longer for trains to switch from one track to the other. While trains are switching tracks, both service tracks are occupied, and service in both directions cannot proceed. This decreases the headway and service capacity of the line, because trains will need longer to change directions at the terminals.

This isn't just a theoretical issue... part of the reason why Toronto won't experience all the capacity benefits of ATO is because our trains can't change directions quickly enough at the terminals to provide higher service capacity.

If we're building a high capacity transit line (20k to 30k pphpd), a traditional wide-bodied T1/TR makes sense. The only reason ICTS was being considered for the DRL in the first place was political interference from Queen's Park. There are a lot of places where intermediate capacity solutions make sense (and the TTC hasn't shied away from those solutions in the past), but the DRL is not one of them. Going ICTS Mk 1 for the DRL would've been short sighted, and would've left us with virtually no flexibility for expansion in the future.

Note that this comment is assuming we'd be using the same ICTS cars as the SRT. If we were using wider body cars, these issues would obviously be negated.

 

[Leo_Chan]

Let’s say the Queen line was built from Dundas West to Pape, what would the Downtown Core and Toronto Skyline look like?

Perhaps a big W?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Let’s say the Queen line was built from Dundas West to Pape, what would the Downtown Core and Toronto Skyline look like?

Perhaps a big W?

Well Downtown would have extended further east of Yonge

It’s quite stunning how rapidly downtown stops east of Yonge. Once you pass Church or Jarvis, the high density offices and residential quickly tapers off. West of Yonge, it doesn’t feel like office and residential density tapers off to similar levels until you reach west of Bathurst.

Queen and Spadina, 1.5 km west of Yonge, still feels properly downtown. Queen and Sumach, 1.5 km east of Yonge, is without question outside of downtown.

 

[44 North]

Looking at the drawings and vehicles, it looks like they were planning to use ALRT technology, which kind of makes sense given the heavy taxpayer involvement at the time in supporting UTDC. Given that the DRL is unlikely though to be using that though, it means the old plans probably can't provide a lot to the current design.

Yeah they're pretty useless. And we already have the SE section settled. What I think can work is the concepts about extending further west. The doc preceding the one AoD showed all had routing configurations offering service to the Ex. Either as a spur or mainline. This is what I think should be carried forward to today's plans. A spur from Queen along Strachan would offer a station at King intercepting the 504 and LV, then terminate at BMO field area. Very forward-thinking.

There is a pretty broad range in subway platform sizes. A Sheppard-sized platform would be provide capacities of roughly 15,000 pphpd, and would probably be over capacity today if the Dundas to Pape DRL were built. Line-1 sized ICTS platforms would've been at capacity upon the opening of the Relief Line North. With these capacity constraints, it's unlikely that construction of DRL North would've even been feasible. That's certainly not a "fine" situation for our city to be in.

But sure, we could extend the trains to whatever length necessary to meet expected ridership. However, that means we would need larger, more complicated and more expensive station boxes. There will eventually be a point where extending the trains and station boxes are no longer economical; where simply using wider trains and tunnels from the get-go would have been cheaper.

And yes, the rolling stock does matter, as it affects capacity. A T1 can hold 26% more passengers than an ICTS MK 1 train of the same length. Lets say we wanted to get the same service capacity out of the DRL as we get out of Line 1 (that's the minimum capacity we should be aiming for, in my opinion). To do that, we'd need trains of about 175 metres, and platforms of around 190 metres in length, such that the trains can fit in the station with room to spare. How much would it cost to build stations of that length? I don't know, but it probably isn't cheap. And mind that Toronto’s existing six-car T1/TR configurations are already amongst the longest in the world. Even longer, 175 meter trains would be an extreme outlier. There must be a reason why we don’t see any other cities having trains of this length.

I'm not sure if these numbers are right. According to TTC at the time a 6-car (approx 80m) train of MkIs, if running at 120sec, would have 18k pphpd. Since Line 4's platforms are about 100m long one could add another car to make a 7-car MkI train (approx 21k pphpd). We likely would've built the standard 150m platform, which if using MkI could fit an 11-car train. Or about 33k pphpd. That's more than sufficient.

Narrower trains and marginally lower capacity vs the hulking T1 is fine imo. Other cities use narrow trains, or shorter cars. When trying to cram more than 30k into a subway the answer shouldn't be bigger cars I don't think, but things like using 3-4 tracks. Or heaven forbid deciding to build a new line.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

There is a pretty broad range in subway platform sizes. A Sheppard-sized platform would be provide capacities of roughly 15,000 pphpd, and would probably be over capacity today if the Dundas to Pape DRL were built. Line-1 sized ICTS platforms would've been at capacity upon the opening of the Relief Line North. With these capacity constraints, it's unlikely that construction of DRL North would've even been feasible. That's certainly not a "fine" situation for our city to be in.

But sure, we could extend the trains to whatever length necessary to meet expected ridership. However, that means we would need larger, more complicated and more expensive station boxes. There will eventually be a point where extending the trains and station boxes are no longer economical; where simply using wider trains and tunnels from the get-go would have been cheaper.

And yes, the rolling stock does matter, as it affects capacity. A T1 can hold 26% more passengers than an ICTS MK 1 train of the same length. Lets say we wanted to get the same service capacity out of the DRL as we get out of Line 1 (that's the minimum capacity we should be aiming for, in my opinion). To do that, we'd need trains of about 175 metres, and platforms of around 190 metres in length, such that the trains can fit in the station with room to spare. How much would it cost to build stations of that length? I don't know, but it probably isn't cheap. And mind that Toronto’s existing six-car T1/TR configurations are already amongst the longest in the world. Even longer, 175 meter trains would be an extreme outlier. There must be a reason why we don’t see any other cities having trains of this length.

Furthermore, increasing train lengths decreases operational flexibility, and incurs a significant penalty on service capacity. Trains need a certain amount of time to switch from one track to another. I don't know exactly what time that is in Toronto, but it's significant, especially on a system operating under 120 second headways. Increasing train lengths by 25%, means that it takes 25% longer for trains to switch from one track to the other. While trains are switching tracks, both service tracks are occupied, and service in both directions cannot proceed. This decreases the headway and service capacity of the line, because trains will need longer to change directions at the terminals.

This isn't just a theoretical issue... part of the reason why Toronto won't experience all the capacity benefits of ATO is because our trains can't change directions quickly enough at the terminals to provide higher service capacity.

If we're building a high capacity transit line (20k to 30k pphpd), a traditional wide-bodied T1/TR makes sense. The only reason ICTS was being considered for the DRL in the first place was political interference from Queen's Park. There are a lot of places where intermediate capacity solutions make sense (and the TTC hasn't shied away from those solutions in the past), but the DRL is not one of them. Going ICTS Mk 1 for the DRL would've been short sighted, and would've left us with virtually no flexibility for expansion in the future.

Note that this comment is assuming we'd be using the same ICTS cars as the SRT. If we were using wider body cars, these issues would obviously be negated.

I actually think that heavy rail is the way to go in this case. I was just pointing out the capacity difference is not as dramatic as people think.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'm not sure if these numbers are right. According to TTC at the time a 6-car (approx 80m) train of MkIs, if running at 120sec, would have 18k pphpd.

That doesn't seem realistic to me. TTC Line 1 presently has an optimal capacity of 28,000 pphpd under a six-car configuration. So the Sheppard Line has a capacity of 18,700 pphpd, under a four-car configuration. How would the TTC suppose ICTS trains would provide the same capacity as the Sheppard Line, with trains that are slightly less than 80% the width of Sheppard Line trains? If we suppose that an ICTS line would have 80% the capacity of Sheppard, since ICTS trains are 80% the width, we get a service capacity of just under 15,000 pphpd.

Anyways, I wouldn't put too much faith in expected capacity numbers. I find expected capacity rarely matches actual service capacity. TTC originally expected that Line 1 could move more than 30,000 people, with its 1950s signalling technology. Then they greatly overstated the capacity potential for ATO. And finally, Metrolinx and TTC again overstated the capacity potential of the Eglinton Crosstown, by pretending that relibable 90 second headways are possible on this line. Plus transit agencies often use crush loads as a metric, for some reason, even though their isn't a transit service the world that reliably achieves crush loads (okay, maybe in Japan, where they literally push people into trains... that's a crush load)

Narrower trains and marginally lower capacity vs the hulking T1 is fine imo

There's nothing marginal about 20% capacity. We spent a lot of money on ATO and TR to get the same or less capacity improvement on Line 1. 20% is the difference between smooth and reliable operation, and what we have on Line 1.

Other cities use narrow trains, or shorter cars. When trying to cram more than 30k into a subway the answer shouldn't be bigger cars I don't think, but things like using 3-4 tracks. Or heaven forbid deciding to build a new line.

Building more lines is the answer, yes. I just dont believe in containing existing transit to get it done.

How many systems in the world are multi-track? I'm pretty sure NYC is the only one. Plus I'm sure multi-tracking must be a lot more expensive than bigger trains.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

We spent a lot of money on ATO and TR to get the same or less capacity improvement on Line 1. 20% is the difference between smooth and reliable operation, and the Line 1 disaster.

Same capacity improvement *on paper* - I have some doubts as to whether ATO will deliver actual capacity improvement to the amount promised in vivo.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Same capacity improvement *on paper* - I have some doubts as to whether ATO will deliver actual capacity improvement to the amount promised in vivo.

AoD

So far as I can see, the TTC hasn’t done any kind of analysis into how passenger behaviour will affect ATO capacity. It takes passengers a certain amount of time to board and disembark trains. If anything limits Line 1 ATO capacity, this will be it. Especially downtown, where platform width is constrained, and exits are few and poorly located.

Also, trains need to enter stations slowly where there exist crowded platforms. Slow trains means less train throughput, which means lower headways and lower passenger capacities.

Ironically, we may never see Line 1 reliably operate at it’s theoretical ATO headways, until the DRL is built.

 

[44 North]

That doesn't seem realistic to me. TTC Line 1 presently has an optimal capacity of 28,000 pphpd under a six-car configuration. So the Sheppard Line has a capacity of 18,700 pphpd, under a four-car configuration. How would the TTC suppose ICTS trains would provide the same capacity as the Sheppard Line, with trains that are slightly less than 80% the width of Sheppard Line trains? If we suppose that an ICTS line would have 80% the capacity of Sheppard, since ICTS trains are 80% the width, we get a service capacity of just under 15,000 pphpd.

Anyways, I wouldn't put too much faith in expected capacity numbers. I find expected capacity rarely matches actual service capacity. TTC originally expected that Line 1 could move more than 30,000 people, with its 1950s signalling technology. Then they greatly overstated the capacity potential for ATO. And finally, Metrolinx and TTC again overstated the capacity potential of the Eglinton Crosstown, by pretending that relibable 90 second headways are possible on this line. Plus transit agencies often use crush loads as a metric, for some reason, even though their isn't a transit service the world that reliably achieves crush loads (okay, maybe in Japan, where they literally push people into trains... that's a crush load)

I also don't put much faith in the capacity numbers. For the conventional subway mode it gave 34k pphpd at 128sec frequency. For all the options (LRT, ICTS, ALRT, Subway) the capacities are given as "Level of Service E", which afaik is crush load. I think F is the highest, but I'm not familiar with the A-F scale and its usage.

Still tho I think there's unstudied merit for the current RL to use narrow trains with tighter turning ability (i.e more "cars" or articulation points). Perhaps we might get lower capacity than a T1/TR of the same length, on paper. But with modern design and passenger modeling for the stations we could probably get greater throughput at the end of the day. So capacities relative to Line 1 and 2 may work out to be similar. At this point I just want it built and would be happy to ride mine carts along Queen.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

I also don't put much faith in the capacity numbers. For the conventional subway mode it gave 34k pphpd at 128sec frequency. For all the options (LRT, ICTS, ALRT, Subway) the capacities are given as "Level of Service E", which afaik is crush load. I think F is the highest, but I'm not familiar with the A-F scale and its usage.

Still tho I think there's unstudied merit for the current RL to use narrow trains with tighter turning ability (i.e more "cars" or articulation points). Perhaps we might get lower capacity than a T1/TR of the same length, on paper. But with modern design and passenger modeling for the stations we could probably get greater throughput at the end of the day. So capacities relative to Line 1 and 2 may work out to be similar. At this point I just want it built and would be happy to ride mine carts along Queen.

A new way to fund transit... The queen Street mine cart tourist trap

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Still tho I think there's unstudied merit for the current RL to use narrow trains with tighter turning ability (i.e more "cars" or articulation points). Perhaps we might get lower capacity than a T1/TR of the same length, on paper. But with modern design and passenger modeling for the stations we could probably get greater throughput at the end of the day. So capacities relative to Line 1 and 2 may work out to be similar. At this point I just want it built and would be happy to ride mine carts along Queen.

The value in tighter turning is that these trains can boldly go where no train has gone before. This is especially valuable Downtown, where we have various factors constraining the ability to make wide turns. For the Relief Line in particular, this is especially pertinent at Queens and Roncesvalles, where the train needs to make a 90-degree turn. It's not yet clear how the TTC plans to make that, or if its even technically feasible. An ICTS train would have no problem making that.

For future Downtown subway lines, where passenger demand aren't anticipated to be as high, an ICTS solution would make a lot more sense. A few weeks back we were discussing the potential for subway under Spadina Avenue; ICTS would be perfect there, as long as the trains don't need to interface with the legacy streetcar network. Similar technology could potentially be adopted for the Portlands and Waterfront subway network, in a similar vein to London's Docklands Light Railway (indeed, it's probable that it would be utilized in the very far future, given that the area is the size of Downtown Toronto)

 

[micheal_can]

Don't look back. You're not going that direction.

If you cannot learn from the past, you are dammed to repeat it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Are there any plans to rectify the issues with regards to entrances and exits? I can imagine it would be particularily convenient with a station like College that has an entrance on the far end.

Over the decades we’ve slowly added second exits to stations. But it has been on a case-by-case basis, there hasn’t been any kind of comprehensive plan to do so. And these exits have never been motivated by crowding concerns.

But with the DRL, this shouldn’t be necessary anyways.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

For future Downtown subway lines, where passenger demand aren't anticipated to be as high, an ICTS solution would make a lot more sense. A few weeks back we were discussing the potential for subway under Spadina Avenue; ICTS would be perfect there, as long as the trains don't need to interface with the legacy streetcar network.

It just occurred to me that an elevated ICTS rapid transit line was “planned” for Spadina Avenue in the 70s or 80s. So that’s not quite a crazy idea after all

And I say “planned” in dramatic quotes, because so far as I’ve seen, it never went beyond the concept stage. I don't think there was ever noteworthy support for it. But it was a proposal at the time from Queens Park.

I think they just viewed Spadina as yet another place to market ICTS.