[superelevation]

Confederation Line was down for six days, with the catenary mangled and melted. Using the same voltage and current as OL is supposed to. Can't recall that happening with our subway.

Bringing up a well known case of a system being poorly designed and managed as a reason not to do something that system does is not as convincing as you think. It feels only a step away from "those urban trains are all a boondoggle!".

..

And we have a catenary guideway in Toronto now fyi.

View attachment 458570

I think it is worth asking why the elevated in Toronto looks so much worse than in Seattle, the wires look messier and the bridge structure is not a box the way larger segmental guideways are.

 

[Northern Light]

They've begun construction on the temporary pedestrian bridge @ Exhibition Station.

View attachment 459249

That caused me to do a double-take.........for a second, I was like............wait didn't they demolish that bridge years ago? LOL

For those not getting the reference, Exhibition Station used to have an overhead bridge connecting the platforms, before the tunnel was built. I'd honestly forgotten that until I saw the structure rising in this pic, and I flashed to a memory of using the old bridge as a child.

I had a quick look-see, but couldn't find a pic of the station w/the bridge. Someone here should go find it!

 

[44 North]

Bringing up a well known case of a system being poorly designed and managed as a reason not to do something that system does is not as convincing as you think. It feels only a step away from "those urban trains are all a boondoggle!".

It should be convincing. And compared to all the untruths people were waxing poetic about catenary, it's relevant. As well as local and recent.

To recap, third rail:
-lower capital cost
-lower operating/maintenance cost
-greater ease of planning/construction (obvious since train profile way smaller)
-less susceptible to our winter weather events
-more reliable
-significantly less conspicuity (sleeker, smaller guideways)
-trains likely more efficient due to lower drag (add a roof rack to your car and watch mileage go down)
-possibly quieter due to greater train aerodynamics

The last two I thought of right now.

I think it is worth asking why the elevated in Toronto looks so much worse than in Seattle, the wires look messier and the bridge structure is not a box the way larger segmental guideways are.

The wires look a bit messier, the guidwway looks fine. Keep in mind this is a short awkward part with an incline, jig, leading over an intersection. With a long level section we'd likely see box girders. The I-beams may need some pigeon netting in the future tho.

 

[NoahB]

It should be convincing. And compared to all the untruths people were waxing poetic about catenary, it's relevant. As well as local and recent.

To recap, third rail:
-lower capital cost
-lower operating/maintenance cost
-greater ease of planning/construction (obvious since train profile way smaller)
-less susceptible to our winter weather events
-more reliable
-significantly less conspicuity (sleeker, smaller guideways)
-trains likely more efficient due to lower drag (add a roof rack to your car and watch mileage go down)
-possibly quieter due to greater train aerodynamics

The last two I thought of right now.

The wires look a bit messier, the guidwway looks fine. Keep in mind this is a short awkward part with an incline, jig, leading over an intersection. With a long level section we'd likely see box girders. The I-beams may need some pigeon netting in the future tho.

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...

 

[innsertnamehere]

That caused me to do a double-take.........for a second, I was like............wait didn't they demolish that bridge years ago? LOL

For those not getting the reference, Exhibition Station used to have an overhead bridge connecting the platforms, before the tunnel was built. I'd honestly forgotten that until I saw the structure rising in this pic, and I flashed to a memory of using the old bridge as a child.

I had a quick look-see, but couldn't find a pic of the station w/the bridge. Someone here should go find it!

closest I can find is this air photo which seems to show it (notice the remnants of the original platform at Dufferin as well which are much more visible than today.. the stairs still exist for that former station, fenced off but clearly visible).

and in this small image as well:

Aerial images from 1992 show it as well:

By 2002, it's gone:

 

[DSC]

NOTICE OF MEETING

SUBCOMMITTEE ON METROLINX'S ONTARIO LINE CONSTRUCTION

A meeting of the Subcommittee on Metrolinx’s Ontario Line Construction has been scheduled as follows:

Date: March 22, 2023 Time: 9:30 a.m.

Location: Committee Room 2, 2nd Floor, City Hall

This meeting of the Subcommittee on Metrolinx’s Ontario Line Construction will be conducted with members participating in person and remotely.

The video conference details will be published closer to the meeting date.

The agenda for the meeting will be distributed as soon as it is available. To view the most up-to-date schedule of meetings, please visit https://can01.safelinks.protection....IPqX62P9zang3ybPHJsPHm63YLyIwV8po=&reserved=0

To provide comments or make a presentation to the Subcommittee on Metrolinx’s Ontario Line Construction:

The public may submit written comments or register to speak to the Subcommittee on any item on the agenda.

Written comments may be submitted by writing to teycc@toronto.ca

To speak to the Subcommittee, please register by e-mail to teycc@toronto.ca or by phone at 416-392-7033. Registered speakers will be provided with instructions on connecting to the meeting.



For further information or assistance, please contact Cathrine Regan, Administrator, at 416-392-7033 or e-mail teycc@toronto.ca.

 

[Northern Light]

@Steve Munro has obtained some clarity on the Ontario-Line diversion streetcar tracks and shuttle bus plans:

From: https://stevemunro.ca/2023/02/28/501-queen-diversions-and-shuttles-for-the-ontario-line/

 

[T3G]

@Steve Munro has obtained some clarity on the Ontario-Line diversion streetcar tracks and shuttle bus plans:

View attachment 459325

From: https://stevemunro.ca/2023/02/28/501-queen-diversions-and-shuttles-for-the-ontario-line/

I feel I'm slightly out of the loop - why was Broadview/Dundas/McCaul chosen as the routing instead of Parliament (or Victoria)/King/Spadina? I imagine the McCaul routing is more convenient for those on the west side, but Broadview is quite a ways away on the east side.

Still, this is good news and beats fully bustituting the route. Thank heaven common sense won out.

 

[Northern Light]

I feel I'm slightly out of the loop - why was Broadview/Dundas/McCaul chosen as the routing instead of Parliament (or Victoria)/King/Spadina? I imagine the McCaul routing is more convenient for those on the west side, but Broadview is quite a ways away on the east side.

I don't know the reasoning for certain; but I might suspect it has something to do with there being no NB Parliament to WB Dundas curve at that intersection. Which would seem to make that routing unworkable.

 

[DSC]

I don't know the reasoning for certain; but I might suspect it has something to do with there being no NB Parliament to WB Dundas curve at that intersection. Which would seem to make that routing unworkable.

View attachment 459326

"something to do with there being no NB Parliament to WB Dundas curve" would seem to be EVERYTHING to do with it! I still think that if ML were told they could not obstruct Victoria at Queen and the City/TTC replaced the tracks on Victoria in the short blocks from Dundas to Queen, they could use Victoria - once Hydro and Enbridge finish their current projects there. This would bring the streetcars pretty close to Queen station.

 

[T3G]

I don't know the reasoning for certain; but I might suspect it has something to do with there being no NB Parliament to WB Dundas curve at that intersection. Which would seem to make that routing unworkable.

To clarify, I envisioned a SB Parliament to WB King routing, not NB to Dundas.

It seems to be technically feasible, the only turn missing at Parliament is EB Queen to SB Parliament which wouldn't be necessary within the scope of this diversion.

 

[Northern Light]

In theory, Church Street would be another option, but its missing relevant turns at both Queen and Dundas.

This is the problem of the TTC's short-sighted decision to remove so many turning movements that were rarely used over the years. (or not install them in the first place in some cases).

I think virtually every streetcar on streetcar intersection should be a grand union to maximize flexibility.

 

[DSC]

In theory, Church Street would be another option, but its missing relevant turns at both Queen and Dundas.

This is the problem of the TTC's short-sighted decision to remove so many turning movements that were rarely used over the years. (or not install them in the first place in some cases).

I think virtually every streetcar on streetcar intersection should be a grand union to maximize flexibility.

I think some places do not have enough 'road space' to accommodate a streetcar curve and I read figures a few years ago of the cost of curves - the cost to add a curve is really rather large. In some cases a perfectly viable solution using existing track is available - Queen & Church being an example where the right curves are there a few hundred meters away at Victoria (if the Victoria track north of Queen were fixed! )

Like most things, if one has a finite amount of money and does Project A (e.g. adding curves) there will be less money available for other desirable projects (e.g. platform edge doors). The TTC dd look at the extra curves it could actually use fairly often a few years ago and agreed to add four or five of them when next fixing that intersection - then nobody @ TTC remembered and it was not done (e.g. Gerrard @ Broadview and Carleton & Church!)

 

[Voltz]

In theory, Church Street would be another option, but its missing relevant turns at both Queen and Dundas.

This is the problem of the TTC's short-sighted decision to remove so many turning movements that were rarely used over the years. (or not install them in the first place in some cases).

I think virtually every streetcar on streetcar intersection should be a grand union to maximize flexibility.

They have also had missing curves that were approved and planned to be added in, but forgotten about when it came time to rebuild those intersections

 

[smallspy]

This is the problem of the TTC's short-sighted decision to remove so many turning movements that were rarely used over the years. (or not install them in the first place in some cases).

I the number of curves that have been removed from existing intersections can be counted on with one hand - they generally just don't do that. (In fact, I can think of only one intersection within my 40+ years on this planet - Howard Park and Dundas.) The TTC's trend is to add curves where necessary, but also to do so without waste.

I think virtually every streetcar on streetcar intersection should be a grand union to maximize flexibility.

In an ideal world, that would be ideal. But at 100+K per curve, it also adds up really quickly.

Dan