[Sunnyside]

Did they? What was stopping them from running a regular TTC subway car to Exhibition and Eglinton?

Seemingly money. The initial cost of the OL and DRL were the same. Now, the OL has ballooned in cost, but there is no reason to assume that the DRL would not have. Do note that the OL uses rail corridors, smaller stations and elevated portions to cut some costs on tunneling/underground stations.

Could they have used a short, TTC gauge train to do the same though? Maybe. Maybe not. What we do know is that when it was to be a TTC subway car, the line would not go as far.

 

[MovingBlock]

I don't understand the obsession here with building the line to TTC Loading Gauge. We're talking about a completely new line (not an extension), that will not interline at all with existing lines. There is no reason that the design of existing TTC lines should constrain the OL design.

Overhead Electrification is proven for metro applications. It is the preferred method for new constructions because it allows for higher voltages than Third Rail, and does not create an electric shock risk at track level. Nearly every metro line in Spain, India, China and South Korea uses overhead electrification. Many of the world's largest metro systems have 1.5kV electrification, including Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Istanbul, Singapore, Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul and Guangzhou. 1.5kV is also the voltage of most Japanese suburban rail lines, many of which have subway-level frequencies. It is clearly fit for application to the Ontario Line, and has many advantages versus 600V Third Rail.

Did they? What was stopping them from running a regular TTC subway car to Exhibition and Eglinton?

Using a narrower loading gauge and shorter car lengths reduces overhang on curves. This is valuable when designing elevated structures, which the line will need to Cross the Don Valley and the Don River West Branch.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I don't understand the obsession here with building the line to TTC Loading Gauge. We're talking about a completely new line (not an extension), that will not interline at all with existing lines. There is no reason that the design of existing TTC lines should constrain the OL design.

Overhead Electrification is proven for metro applications. It is the preferred method for new constructions because it allows for higher voltages than Third Rail, and does not create an electric shock risk at track level. Nearly every metro line in Spain, India, China and South Korea uses overhead electrification. Many of the world's largest metro systems have 1.5kV electrification, including Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Istanbul, Singapore, Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul and Guangzhou. 1.5kV is also the voltage of most Japanese suburban rail lines, many of which have subway-level frequencies. It is clearly fit for application to the Ontario Line, and has many advantages versus 600V Third Rail.



Using a narrower loading gauge and shorter car lengths reduces overhang on curves. This is valuable when designing elevated structures, which the line will need to Cross the Don Valley and the Don River West Branch.

If the entire train was articulated, shorter cars doesn't matter for passenger use.

 

[44 North]

So I guess herein lies the rub.

You're willing to believe what the marketers and trumpeters are telling you.

Do a bit more research. Look into what is getting built elsewhere. Look at their various specs. The reality is quite a bit different than the bill of goods they're providing you.

Dan

Definitely people falling for marketing. Seeing posts that "light tech" has more capacity, which doesn't make sense on a couple of fronts. Also seen pantographs give more capacity, again nonsense.

Well, I would say to an extent the specs have allowed the line to go to Exhibition and Eglinton instead of Osgoode-Pape, so I’m inclined to drink the kool-aid just a little bit. I will research this more as I’m not fully versed in the technicals if you can give some direction. What specs/cases do you have in mind?

Here's another marketing line - OL is longer! Considering the scope of the predecessor was Sheppard to Osgoode, it's in fact shorter.

 

[44 North]

I don't understand the obsession here with building the line to TTC Loading Gauge. We're talking about a completely new line (not an extension), that will not interline at all with existing lines. There is no reason that the design of existing TTC lines should constrain the OL design.

Overhead Electrification is proven for metro applications. It is the preferred method for new constructions because it allows for higher voltages than Third Rail, and does not create an electric shock risk at track level. Nearly every metro line in Spain, India, China and South Korea uses overhead electrification. Many of the world's largest metro systems have 1.5kV electrification, including Madrid, Barcelona, Milan, Istanbul, Singapore, Tokyo, Osaka, Beijing, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Seoul and Guangzhou. 1.5kV is also the voltage of most Japanese suburban rail lines, many of which have subway-level frequencies. It is clearly fit for application to the Ontario Line, and has many advantages versus 600V Third Rail.



Using a narrower loading gauge and shorter car lengths reduces overhang on curves. This is valuable when designing elevated structures, which the line will need to Cross the Don Valley and the Don River West Branch.

Certainly merit in using a slimmed down vehicle. More articulations is good too. Arguing the merits of TTC gauge and standard is useless tho. It's so minor it makes virtually no difference. In the end TTC gauge is probably a bit more optimal. Pantos there are a few drawbacks for a line like this.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Using trains with catenaries in tunnels will also reduce the windstorm caused by the third-rail trains.

 

[smallspy]

For this to happen, the exact same signaling system needs to be used on all lines, or trains have to be fitted for the signaling system on every line. In the case of the TTC's legacy signaling, which doesn't require a lot of train-based equipment, the fitting that equipment on a train meant for a CBTC line may make sense. When you have two lines using different CBTC signaling systems, whose train-based systems are expensive, fitting the train-based equipment for second CBTC system as a contingency is extremely expensive.

There is no reason why whatever new signalling system gets installed on the B-D can't be compatible with the existing Alstom system.

In fact, this is exactly what is being done in New York. They have 3 different suppliers of signals and various signalling components, and yet they are set up in such a way as the on-board equipment - which is also being provided by 3 different vendors - can interface seemlessly with each of them.

If the TTC does not select Alstom Urbalis CBTC for the resignalling of Line 2, it will not be possible to move trains between lines 1 and 2 unless the trains are dual-fitted. The increased flexibility may not be worth the cost of vendor lock-in or the cost of dual-fitting. Industry practice for operations with CBTC is to have separate fleets for different lines unless there is interlining.

Your assumption is that the two systems will be independent and incompatible. They may be independent, but there is nothing to indicate thus far that they will be incompatible - especially considering the specs written for the new subway trains explicitly say that they will be needed to work on both lines interchangeably.

Are there specific projects you think are relevant to this discussion? Most new subway systems (possibly with the exception of India) have much smaller loading gauges and shorter trains than legacy TTC lines. Overhead electrification is also very popular in many parts of the word, including in systems in Spain, Italy, India, China, South Korea and Japan.

I don't think that it's true that most of the new subway systems have much smaller loading gauges - look at the new system in Sydney, for instance. Even the new metro lines being built in Paris are only a foot narrower than the Toronto loading gauge (and considerably bigger than their own traditional loading gauge). Even the REM in Montreal has quite large cars - 6 inches narrower and 9 feet shorter than the TTC's cars. I can't find a light weight for those cars but they do claim a maximum weight of over 60 tonnes per car when loaded - which, if we assume they use a similar loading standard/capacity to the TTC, would thus make them about the same weight or even a little bit heavier than the T1's average 34 tonne weight.

There are definitely some modern lines that being built substantially smaller, but I certainly wouldn't call it a hard-and-fast rule.

Dan

 

[MovingBlock]

There is no reason why whatever new signalling system gets installed on the B-D can't be compatible with the existing Alstom system.

In fact, this is exactly what is being done in New York. They have 3 different suppliers of signals and various signalling components, and yet they are set up in such a way as the on-board equipment - which is also being provided by 3 different vendors - can interface seemlessly with each of them.

The New York Subway has extensive interlining, so it may not be the best comparison case. In places where there is no interlining (e.g. Paris), different CBTC signaling systems have been used for Different lines, and rolling stock is not shared even though the loading gauge is the same for lines 1-14. In London, the CBTC system selected for the Subsurface lines is different from that of the Jubilee Line, even though they share a right-of-way in one location.

Asking for interoperability means locking yourself into existing signaling technology, which could entail additional costs compared to operating each line in isolation. The MTA's need for interoperability committed itself to a specific signaling architecture for large parts of its network that have not yet been migrated. This means mean not taking advantage of potential signalling innovations that could increase capacity or reduce maintenance costs, but is an acceptable trade-off given their line plan. For the TTC, which currently has separate fleets for each of its lines, no such trade-off exists. This is not to say that interoperability should be avoided, but that it shouldn’t be required for the resignalling project.

I don't think that it's true that most of the new subway systems have much smaller loading gauges - look at the new system in Sydney, for instance. Even the new metro lines being built in Paris are only a foot narrower than the Toronto loading gauge (and considerably bigger than their own traditional loading gauge). Even the REM in Montreal has quite large cars - 6 inches narrower and 9 feet shorter than the TTC's cars. I can't find a light weight for those cars but they do claim a maximum weight of over 60 tonnes per car when loaded - which, if we assume they use a similar loading standard/capacity to the TTC, would thus make them about the same weight or even a little bit heavier than the T1's average 34 tonne weight.

There are definitely some modern lines that being built substantially smaller, but I certainly wouldn't call it a hard-and-fast rule.

The standard length seems to be around 60ft/18m. The shortest car lengths I've seen on new builds are the Hitachi trains used in Brescia, Copenhagen, Milan (Lines 4 & 5) and Thessaloniki, with 42ft car lengths. The short car lengths in these networks seem to be part of the Italian metro design philosophy, which seeks to reduce construction costs by building smaller stations, and then running GoA4 trains at higher frequencies (than would be affordable with larger trains at GoA2) to make up the lower capacity of each train.

I notice in all three examples you mention, the vehicles are not designed to be compatible with existing lines. For the Grand-Paris Express lines, the cars are longer, as modern tunneling technology means the alignments are not as constrained by the road network. The REM is being constructed as a steel-wheel metro line, which allows it to run in a former railway ROW (unlike rubber-tired trains, which would have issues in the winter), and reduces the cost of building a bridge across the St. Lawrence (compared to heavy rail). The Sydney Metro is not compatible with the existing heavy rail network, but is built that was to reduce construction costs (through a smaller loading gauge) and increase frequencies (through reduced dwell times than with double-deck stock). All three cases also have 1.5kV DC electrification.

 

[T3G]

Seemingly money. The initial cost of the OL and DRL were the same. Now, the OL has ballooned in cost, but there is no reason to assume that the DRL would not have. Do note that the OL uses rail corridors, smaller stations and elevated portions to cut some costs on tunneling/underground stations.

Could they have used a short, TTC gauge train to do the same though? Maybe. Maybe not. What we do know is that when it was to be a TTC subway car, the line would not go as far.

I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that Metrolinx lowballed the costs of the OL, to give more legitimacy to the idea of the OL as a project.

Costs do balloon, yes, but if they've literally doubled by the time you've got shovels in the ground, I would suspect your initial calculations were way off.

 

[max]

I wouldn't be surprised if it transpired that Metrolinx lowballed the costs of the OL, to give more legitimacy to the idea of the OL as a project.

Costs do balloon, yes, but if they've literally doubled by the time you've got shovels in the ground, I would suspect your initial calculations were way off.

I've had similar suspicions. During the OL consultations I remeber a pamphlet that was justifying the decision not using TTC subway technology. It struck me as odd since most of their points didn't really outway for me that the existing subway technology isn't going anywhere so maintaining it is an expense that we already have and a bigger fleet just means more economies of scale are possible. Given that we already know a lot about costs for the TTC system, I preferred the devil I know.

 

[smallspy]

The New York Subway has extensive interlining, so it may not be the best comparison case.

New York is operated as two separate divisions which do not have any interlining between them at all, as they were built to do different loading gauges. There is interlining within each of the divisions.

Despite that, they are planning on using that one signalling system with 3 vendors across their whole system.

Because of that I would argue that it is an excellent comparison case.

In places where there is no interlining (e.g. Paris), different CBTC signaling systems have been used for Different lines, and rolling stock is not shared even though the loading gauge is the same for lines 1-14. In London, the CBTC system selected for the Subsurface lines is different from that of the Jubilee Line, even though they share a right-of-way in one location.

You're right, that's what they've done in Paris and London. Elsewhere too.

And because of that, it's greatly complicated equipment transfers between the lines in Paris. Equipment transfers now take weeks and months, rather than hours.

Asking for interoperability means locking yourself into existing signaling technology, which could entail additional costs compared to operating each line in isolation. The MTA's need for interoperability committed itself to a specific signaling architecture for large parts of its network that have not yet been migrated. This means mean not taking advantage of potential signalling innovations that could increase capacity or reduce maintenance costs, but is an acceptable trade-off given their line plan. For the TTC, which currently has separate fleets for each of its lines, no such trade-off exists. This is not to say that interoperability should be avoided, but that it shouldn’t be required for the resignalling project.

I'm curious - what potential signalling innovations do you know about that the TTC has not used that could increase capacity?

From the people that I've talked to in the signalling industry, many of the shortcomings with the current signal system are due to the track layout, not the capacity of the signal system itself.

I notice in all three examples you mention, the vehicles are not designed to be compatible with existing lines. For the Grand-Paris Express lines, the cars are longer, as modern tunneling technology means the alignments are not as constrained by the road network. The REM is being constructed as a steel-wheel metro line, which allows it to run in a former railway ROW (unlike rubber-tired trains, which would have issues in the winter), and reduces the cost of building a bridge across the St. Lawrence (compared to heavy rail). The Sydney Metro is not compatible with the existing heavy rail network, but is built that was to reduce construction costs (through a smaller loading gauge) and increase frequencies (through reduced dwell times than with double-deck stock). All three cases also have 1.5kV DC electrification.

That was my point - all three of those systems were purposely built differently than the existing network, and to different standards. One of them - Paris - is only peripherally attached to their existing metro system, so it would be argued that there wasn't a need to fully integrate it/build it to those existing standards. Sydney is built to allow metro service on a heavily-travelled commuter line. Montreal is built as a much lower capacity line than their current metro and instead increase its range.

The Ontario Line connects at several points with the existing subway network, and is planned to be just as heavily used as the current subway. It is exactly the wrong technology to use.

Dan

 

[ARG1]

New York is operated as two separate divisions which do not have any interlining between them at all, as they were built to do different loading gauges. There is interlining within each of the divisions.

Despite that, they are planning on using that one signalling system with 3 vendors across their whole system.

Because of that I would argue that it is an excellent comparison case.

I guess that's technically true, but its still designed as a single network, with some trains being able to use both divisions (A Division Trains can travel on B division segments). Now this might be the point you're trying to make, that having a consistent network is beneficial on the view of operations and maintenance, but many would argue that the way NYC operates is less than ideal. Projects like 2nd Avenue Subway probably could've been built for much cheaper and way less time if it had been built as a standalone line with standalone/cheaper tech rather than trying to fit it in to the existing IND network (and poorly at that). Granted, this is of course this is presuming you find a location for a MSF which isn't easy in Manhattan.

I'm curious - what potential signalling innovations do you know about that the TTC has not used that could increase capacity?

From the people that I've talked to in the signalling industry, many of the shortcomings with the current signal system are due to the track layout, not the capacity of the signal system itself.

It might be less to do with the signaling system itself, and more to do with not needing with TTC's other practices that would hurt a line like this such as the unions mandating drivers.

I call it the Sydney approach, where the Sydney Metro was built as a way to extend the Sydney Trains network in a way that was cheaper than the existing system, whilst not having to deal with unions striking and shutting down rail service (since the trains are now automated).

 

[T3G]

This is the first I'm hearing that the Second Avenue Subway took so long to build because it used legacy tech. Do you have a link to an explanation for this? It has always been my understanding that the problem was in the difficulty of building in dense neighbourhoods, the bedrock under Manhattan, and some tangles with the unions. I don't think any of these problems would go away if they built a light metro rather than trying to match the IND specifications, and doing so would preclude the running of through services like the Q.

If using light metro tech in downtown Toronto is a dubious proposition, the thought of using it on one of the most desperately needed subway lines in Manhattan sounds much worse.

 

[superelevation]

Interesting new Renders on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635329177686773761

 

[APTA-2048]

Interesting new Renders on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1635329177686773761

Blue stripe and no TTC logos