[smallspy]

This "White Elephant" is a standard tech used globally, moreso than our existing subway system.

It sounds like you would be quite shocked to find out just how widespread 75 foot long electrically powered vehicles running on 600V DC supplied by third rail actually is.

It's a hell of a lot more common than using 1500V DC. Like, exponentially so.

Dan

 

[asey20]

Tokyo's subway system is a perfect example of a system that use two or more track gauges throughout the system. Some lines use narrow gauge (1'067mm) while other lines use standard gauge (1'435mm). The toei Shinjuku line even uses a 1'372 mm track gauge. Different lines also have different electrification systems with some lines using third rail (600V DC) and other lines using overhead catenary (1500V DC).

When I went to Japan, they seemed to have a pretty cohesive system despite the inconsistencies in train sets, technology, track gauge and electrification. I don't see why the same cannot be done here. Sure, Toronto will be no Tokyo by any means but the problems we have are not going to be from different technologies being used on different lines. It is very rare to see a Toronto Rocket on line 2. Doesn't happen often. It might make sense if train yards are being shared but a new yard was going to be required anyways for the Ontario line.

 

[Sunnyside]

Read my response again, as it's pretty clear my thoughts on all of that.

No one is seriously suggesting that interlining is an option. I certainly didn't in my previous reply, so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up.


Does it though? For as "off the shelf" as they bandy it all to be, the equipment used on the Ontario Line is no more off the shelf as the current Toronto subway stock. Hell, there is basically no "shelf" for subway equipment as it is all so highly customized for each location it's required to run in.

What isn't customized, however, is the equipment used on the rolling stock. Motors, gearboxes, air conditioners, control equipment, doors, couplers, brakes, to name but a few - those are all elements that have multiple suppliers and are all built largely the same. And it's no different for the existing subway cars.

I don't know why you think that only the Ontario Line could be made into some interregional line. The subway has run outside of the City of Toronto since 2017.

The way the Ontario Line is currently scheduled to be built, it will be just as awkward to use it as "medium capacity transit" as the current subway system. It's certainly no more flexible (and arguably less, as it can't be used on the existing subway).


The difference with the LRTs is that they aren't sharing any of the network with the streetcars, and there are no places where that could happen. And there are very few places where it could interface with the existing subway system. That's why I've never argued that building them in the way that they have was a mistake. That is the exact situation where building an independent system makes sense, although the fleet size (especially of Finch West) worries me.

None of that is the case with the Ontario Line though.

Dan

I think there’s some validity to your points, in that from a TTC perspective the OL is subpar. However, Metrolinx is a different entity, and I’ll try explain some of my reasoning.

I said interlining because you repeatedly mention it’s going to interface with existing TTC infrastructure. But if it isn’t going to interline with them, the only concern is accessing facilities, which we have already seen Metrolinx is ok with building new ones of. I’ll agree that some of the stated sharing of infrastructure is nice-to-have, but by no means necessary.

I’ll agree that the TTC and Mx are not really on the same page for what the OL should look like, but it isn’t malicious. My point of the interregional Line is that Metrolinx has a regional mandate and regional interests, and so the Ontario Line must be designed for that from the get-go, namely for large scale expansion. Huge TTC lines are not suitable for that. It’s simply a different scope of interests at play.

The “medium capacity” part moreso reflects how the tech (“light metro”) is better suited for down the line (edit: expansion) compared to what the TTC operates, IMO. All the subways extended into other municipalities have been done at great cost and are fairly minimal in scope. Tunneling up Don Mills would be the latest in a long list of wasted dollars grade separating lines in the most expensive way possible. This has been inherent to the modern TTC. Using a lighter tech is at least an attempt from one agency to mitigate spending.

 

[APTA-2048]

Notice some construction work by the Don Valley at the USRC. Looked like a beam going up. Is this part of the Ontario Line?

 

[44 North]

^ 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

Yeah this makes sense and is sort of what I assumed. Doing something different for the sake of doing something different.

 

[smallspy]

I think there’s some validity to your points, in that from a TTC perspective the OL is subpar. However, Metrolinx is a different entity, and I’ll try explain some of my reasoning.

So what if Metrolinx is a different entity? Isn't the point of transit to move people around, not build up their own little castles?

I said interlining because you repeatedly mention it’s going to interface with existing TTC infrastructure. But if it isn’t going to interline with them, the only concern is accessing facilities, which we have already seen Metrolinx is ok with building new ones of. I’ll agree that some of the stated sharing of infrastructure is nice-to-have, but by no means necessary.

Interface does not equal interline. It means things like having physical track connections. It means having power feeds from common locations, and on a common network. It means sharing maintenance facilities and fleets. The list goes on.

I’ll agree that the TTC and Mx are not really on the same page for what the OL should look like, but it isn’t malicious.

That is your opinion. It is not shared by many.

My point of the interregional Line is that Metrolinx has a regional mandate and regional interests, and so the Ontario Line must be designed for that from the get-go, namely for large scale expansion. Huge TTC lines are not suitable for that. It’s simply a different scope of interests at play.

This is bunk. If the TTC lines were not suitable for expansion, then how did we ever get the subway past Union and Eglinton? Or even outside of the old City of Toronto?

You're damn right that there are a different scope of interests at play. And many of them have their own self-interest in mind, not the greater good.

The “medium capacity” part moreso reflects how the tech (“light metro”) is better suited for down the line (edit: expansion) compared to what the TTC operates, IMO.

What tech are you talking about?

You realize that the whole "light metro" thing is nothing more than some slick marketing wank, right? The cars are not substantially smaller than our existing subway cars, and are bigger than what passes for a subway car elsewhere in the world. The capacity of the line will rival the existing subway lines. Nothing of the Ontario Line is being built "lighter" than the current network. It can't be.

Medium capacity is covered by LRT, which is being built elsewhere and where appropriate.

All the subways extended into other municipalities have been done at great cost and are fairly minimal in scope. Tunneling up Don Mills would be the latest in a long list of wasted dollars grade separating lines in the most expensive way possible. This has been inherent to the modern TTC. Using a lighter tech is at least an attempt from one agency to mitigate spending.

The whole tunnelled versus elevated debate is something totally different, and is not exclusive to the Ontario Line.

The TTC was using lighter tech to mitigate spending - the LRTs. The Ontario Line is not lighter tech.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

I have always felt that TTC got it right when they went to longer 6-car trains where similar sized trains in other cities might be 8 shorter cars. So much less to maintain. And the cross section of TTC cars has served us well with a fairly spacious capacity. I would have tried to preserve those design elements.

Undoubtedly there are benefits in procuring and developing trades expertise for a single, unified parts supply. The larger purchasing volume might even keep a supplier or two in business longer - so there would be life cycle and cost benefits for the existing system also.

I’m also dubious about capacity, but we have debated that ad nauseum, and much of this is now water over the designers’ falls.

If OL ends up looking like a London Tube with very confined cars, and crowded, it will be a mistake..

- Paul

 

[GenerationW]

So what if Metrolinx is a different entity? Isn't the point of transit to move people around, not build up their own little castles?

Castles. Definitely castles.

Interface does not equal interline. It means things like having physical track connections. It means having power feeds from common locations, and on a common network. It means sharing maintenance facilities and fleets. The list goes on.

All valid points, but you're whistling in the graveyard. The city/TTC had numerous opportunities to build a standard Toronto subway relief line. Jack Layton, Olivia Chow, et al, said no to a DRL in the 80s and 90s in order to keep their downtown castles undisturbed. David Miller went against TTC advice and misguidedly went all in on Eglinton. He didn't even include a relief line in Transit City. And Tory wasted valuable time on his marketing gimmick SmartTrack that could have been spent advancing a relief line.

Toronto reaped what it sowed.

 

[crs1026]

Toronto reaped what it sowed.

All true, but the path forward ought to be an improved agency rather than just another monolithic insensitive bureaucracy that is just as badly politicised and just as stuck in its ways as the last one. And run by a very opportunistic and self-serving leadership that is not properly accountable.

Toronto has mismanaged transit for a long time, no one can argue that. But ML is hardly a solution.

- Paul

 

[NoahB]

Y'all wearing tinfoil hats that the OL will be different because Metrolinx wants to build something different to spite the TTC/Toronto is laughable. They simply want to the builders/consortiums to build more efficiently without being contained by TTC's legacy systems and rolling stock. (I know the TR trains and signalling are relatively modern. Hold your pitchfork. Read on.)

Heck, the T1s and TRs run on different lines because the TTC doesn't have the same signalling systems on both. And the system they do have on Line 1 has blind spots that almost caused a collision because of the manual train movements + blind spot combination. We are also about to witness the clusterfuck of whether Line 2 will even have the same signalling system as Line 1 along with the uncertainty of that system being chosen (let alone installed) in time for the Scarborough Extention.

Nobody wants to deal with that ineptness for a new system that doesn't need to share yards and maintenance. The OL can have whatever rolling stock, signalling system, and performance characteristics that fit the contracted requirements and can be built on the budget on hand.

 

[T3G]

Heck, the T1s and TRs run on different lines because the TTC doesn't have the same signalling systems on both.

Fleets ran on different lines before ATC was installed, too.

 

[kamira51]

People also forget that the union exists, and as long is it does, line 1, 2 and 3 will never be automated like the OL will be.

 

[T3G]

People also forget that the union exists, and as long is it does, line 1, 2 and 3 will never be automated like the OL will be.

Funny, the union didn't stop the TTC from running the SRT in auto mode at first. The fact that it runs in manual mode now is because of the outdated computer system.

Also, if the union is what's blocking full automation on the subway, how come they've already gone and implemented OPTO on line 1?

Your conspiracy theory is baseless.

 

[smallspy]

Y'all wearing tinfoil hats that the OL will be different because Metrolinx wants to build something different to spite the TTC/Toronto is laughable.

Nice.

Those of us who know the insides of Metrolinx have a different inclination that you, however.

They simply want to the builders/consortiums to build more efficiently without being contained by TTC's legacy systems and rolling stock. (I know the TR trains and signalling are relatively modern. Hold your pitchfork. Read on.)

And how, pray tell, will that happen with equipment that is almost as large (and yet requires a larger tunnel) and almost as weighty as the current stock?

Heck, the T1s and TRs run on different lines because the TTC doesn't have the same signalling systems on both.

And yet, both fleets have operated with the others on both lines. So.......yeah?

And the system they do have on Line 1 has blind spots that almost caused a collision because of the manual train movements + blind spot combination.

What makes you think that the same thing couldn't happen on the Ontario Line?

Oh, by the way, you may not want to look too closely at other cities that have gone through the same process as the TTC for that.

Nobody wants to deal with that ineptness for a new system that doesn't need to share yards and maintenance. The OL can have whatever rolling stock, signalling system, and performance characteristics that fit the contracted requirements and can be built on the budget on hand.

So we'll deal with the ineptness of a new organization that can't manage its own projects out of a wet paper bag?

Thanks, I'd rather the devil I know than the devil I don't (or that won't show me who he is).

Also, wait: you're going to really try and play the budget card? Really? Do you understand how laughable that is with Metrolinx right now?

Dan

 

[W. K. Lis]

Nice.

Those of us who know the insides of Metrolinx have a different inclination that you, however.


And how, pray tell, will that happen with equipment that is almost as large (and yet requires a larger tunnel) and almost as weighty as the current stock?


And yet, both fleets have operated with the others on both lines. So.......yeah?


What makes you think that the same thing couldn't happen on the Ontario Line?

Oh, by the way, you may not want to look too closely at other cities that have gone through the same process as the TTC for that.

So we'll deal with the ineptness of a new organization that can't manage its own projects out of a wet paper bag?

Thanks, I'd rather the devil I know than the devil I don't (or that won't show me who he is).

Also, wait: you're going to really try and play the budget card? Really? Do you understand how laughable that is with Metrolinx right now?

Dan

When an Ontario Government gets involved in transit reminds me of this...