Transportfan
Senior Member
^ Not nearly as many as at King, and Southcore is pretty far south of Queen. And King is more central overall than Queen.
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
MisterF
Senior Member
Southcore is right beside Union Station and will be well served by RER, which will effectively be a subway in the parts of downtown it goes through. There's no need for a new subway to duplicate that. The new line is needed more at the north end of the financial district. The Queen route combined with RER gives better east-west rapid transit coverage to more of downtown.
syn
Senior Member
Agreed, King is too far south. Queen is perfect.
pman
Senior Member
The Queen alignment may also somewhat balance the north-south pedestrian flows in the PATH, which tend to be overwhelmingly unidirectional at rush hour.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
As long as they fix the PATH connection between Queen and Richmond to not go through the Bay.
Kitsune
Senior Member
It could not be put under King because the building foundations do not provide a large enough ROW for the subway and stations downtown... Queen does. I guess that's the benefit of putting a subway line through a Heritage District.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
pstogios
Senior Member
"Soon" - haha that's a good joke. That is one optimistic graffitist.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
The DRL is a stellar example of how Toronto and GO seem to go out of their way to undermine each other much to the detriment of the travelling public. They make policy and plans completely independent of one another. RER could easily {and very cheaply} become 200km subway system and have a downtown tunnel but Toronto wants it's own subway like somehow the person going downtown from the burbs cares if their train is green or silver painted.
The DRL down Queen should be part of the RER system. Yes completely grade separated, yes regular fares, yes down Queen but should be catenary not 3rd rail. This allows RER trains to use it in an emergency if there is a problem at Union, allows for easier and vastly cheaper northern extension of Eglinton to RH using the current RH rail corridor, and will help relieve Union crowding. Build the DRL as needed underground from Queen up to Pape/Eglinton as planned but use catenary trains which are just as common as 3rd rail. It would also help the TTC save money by sharing the storage/maintenance facilities with GO RER.
The DRL down Queen should be part of the RER system. Yes completely grade separated, yes regular fares, yes down Queen but should be catenary not 3rd rail. This allows RER trains to use it in an emergency if there is a problem at Union, allows for easier and vastly cheaper northern extension of Eglinton to RH using the current RH rail corridor, and will help relieve Union crowding. Build the DRL as needed underground from Queen up to Pape/Eglinton as planned but use catenary trains which are just as common as 3rd rail. It would also help the TTC save money by sharing the storage/maintenance facilities with GO RER.
steveintoronto
Superstar
^ This takes on a whole new twist when Ford et al upload it. I agree with your posit on this, it's one of my own, and clearly obvious to me. I call it "The Pape Entitlement". The City doesn't have the money to build it, want the Province and Feds to cough up the funding, and yet it took Metrolinx to 'own' the northern leg to make it 'regional'.
If the Province is footing the entire cost (with the Feds pledging a third) then surely it should be RER instead of subway? But then we have Doofus Ford pledging "subways, subways, subways".
It's going to be interesting...
If the Province is footing the entire cost (with the Feds pledging a third) then surely it should be RER instead of subway? But then we have Doofus Ford pledging "subways, subways, subways".
It's going to be interesting...
44 North
Senior Member
I think it'd be best to be a grade-separated system, using lightweight and smaller profile trains than hefty mainline rail with bilevel and catenary. And that it should go where mainline rail doesn't go. Effectively mimicking Don Mills LRT and Jane LRT (more or less), but as a continuous grade-separated system. Though I think we could benefit from using smaller profile trains than T1/TR (allows for tunnels, guideways to be less costly or obtrusive), and trains with more articulation points (allows for tighter turning and thus alignment changes). Also think we should consider branching.
The mainline rail RL talk should be reserved for the fantasy thread though. Not even for how it relates to the RL, but also that RER is still largely conceptual and afaik based on low-floor bilevel trains with bathrooms.
The mainline rail RL talk should be reserved for the fantasy thread though. Not even for how it relates to the RL, but also that RER is still largely conceptual and afaik based on low-floor bilevel trains with bathrooms.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Well since Crossrail trains use a smaller tunnel than the Spadina extension, Crosstown and other planned Toronto tunnels, and have no washrooms, are ready "off the shelf" the ilk being used by Thameslink and others, many models being Bombardier built, high platform, and capable of exceeding present Cdn mainline speeds....I disagree.
The £1bn Crossrail trains where you can't spend a penny | London
Most Torontonians will recognize the interiors as being very similar to BBD's Rocket subway trains. That's no coincidence. But using a slightly smaller tunnel bore, these aren't as wide, but still fully mainline compatible, as indeed they are already running on UK mainlines as part of Crossrail.
http://www.crossrail.co.uk/route/new-trains/
These are 'new' in configuration, but based on platforms that are a tried and trued design from the last few years in a number of nations and carriers.
British Rail Class 345
British Rail Class 345 Aventra
Maximum speed 145 km/h (90 mph)
Weight 264.21 tonnes
Acceleration up to 1 m/s²
Electric system(s) 25 kV 50 Hz AC overhead lines
24 more rows
British Rail Class 345 - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_345
Attachments
Last edited:
44 North
Senior Member
Ok, but Crossrail isn't RER. Nor is it what ssiguy was talking about where bilevel low-platform GO trains can switch to using the Queen St tunnel when Union is too crowded.
Having said that, and imagining that Toronto was London in some heady fantasy, I'd still prefer something more along the lines of Docklands Light Railway for the RL. That is: a fully grade-separated, multi-branched system. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do a Crossrail/Elizabeth Line thing. But for the "Queen Subway" I'd still like to get decent station spacing in the outer 416 not unlike the visions for intermediary-capacity, lower cost lines we planned to have between the 60s and 80s.
Having said that, and imagining that Toronto was London in some heady fantasy, I'd still prefer something more along the lines of Docklands Light Railway for the RL. That is: a fully grade-separated, multi-branched system. Doesn't mean we shouldn't do a Crossrail/Elizabeth Line thing. But for the "Queen Subway" I'd still like to get decent station spacing in the outer 416 not unlike the visions for intermediary-capacity, lower cost lines we planned to have between the 60s and 80s.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Crossrail certainly is an RER model:
Andrew Boagey, Business Director, Northern Europe, SystraMarc Genain, Project Director, Systra
London's cross-city line follows the RER model - Railway Gazette
DLR wouldn't meet safety standards for running out on mainline tracks. The Aventra (basis for the Class 345 and competing models) does. And a little known fact is that like DLR, they can be run without a driver, not that Transport Canada would permit that on mainline track. Of course, DLR is much akin to the SRT, same signalling system basics. Crossrail trains are going to carry up to 1500 passengers per train. I'd call that "fast relief".
Btw, compliments of @tayser
It's time for Toronto to come into the modern age! Correction, *past time*.
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
The Fords used to say downtown have too many subways. I can see they building the Yonge extenstion first without the relief line cause it cost too much money and people already have subways downtown.
York Region and the Liberals wanted the extension. Only the city and TTC were against it without the Relief line. By uploading it, they can avoid all the trouble and let York region fill up the trains. The city doesn't get to say they want a relief line anymore.