[drum118]

Maybe there could be loop terminus's for not having to turn backwards.

And the cost to do that is "WHAT" and how much time will be "SAVE" to justify it in the first place?

Been on the Phil line and time save is lost vs. cost, but not in a tunnel.

If crews where in place on the platform waiting to change with the incoming train, some time saving on the BD & Sheppard, but not that much.

The YUS line is already set up for that today. Timing is based on which track is on as well dispatcher throwing the switch to do a crossover. Then there is the headway time between trains.

 

[smallspy]

In Montréal, the trains enter the terminal station at regular speed, and the passengers egress. They then go into a tail-track where the crews change while the trains wait. Then they go back into the terminal station (other side) to pick up passengers.

In Toronto, the trains enter the terminal stations, passengers egress, and the crews change as the trains wait IN THE STATION.

Hopefully, ATC will speed the changeover better. We'll see what happens.

Yes. At the cost of requiring more crews and more equipment.

And that still won't change the issue with trains backing up at the termini - and in fact, may make it worse.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Transportfan]

In Montréal, the trains enter the terminal station at regular speed, and the passengers egress. They then go into a tail-track where the crews change while the trains wait. Then they go back into the terminal station (other side) to pick up passengers.

In Toronto, the trains enter the terminal stations, passengers egress, and the crews change as the trains wait IN THE STATION.

Hopefully, ATC will speed the changeover better. We'll see what happens.

Now that we're on the subject of terminal stations, I wonder why Keele or Woodbine stations have side platforms if they were terminals originally?

 

[TrickyRicky]

I'm not sure if this was already well addressed in this thread but I was flipping through a copy of "Feeling Congested?: Toronto Talks Transporation" Phase 2 Toolkit, and I was surprised by the complete absence of consideration of the Western leg of the DRL. What I mean is that it's not just that they feel the Eastern leg is more important (maybe it is), it's that it isn't even a distant consideration for the future 10, 20, 30 years out. Did I miss something? Wouldn't the western leg cover some of the busiest streetcar routes, routes that are already some of the fastest densifying areas of the city?

 

[JasonParis]

Yes, it would, but the main impetus for the DRL is to relieve a central section of the Yonge line. DRL West does little to address that. Moreover, the University/Spadina line, to a degree, already act as DRL West.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Western leg relieves Yonge just as much as the north east leg. (2%) Metrolinx seems willing to build the central portion and one other portion, and so far they seem to be preferring the western part. (As do I) the key to relieving Yonge north of Bloor is capacity improvements, the DRL will have a relatively minor role.

 

[goreckm]

Relieving the Yonge line shouldn't be the only reason to build the DRL. It also adds a fail-safe to our network. It will be fun to watch when Yonge between Eglinton and St. Clair shutdown for a few weeks (months?). And by fun, I mean, disastrous.

Also, I am not a fan of creating a second elongated U that stretches from East to West through downtown. There is no problem with terminating the Eastern DRL at, Exhibition for example, and then building another line through downtown (College or Dundas maybe?) from the west, and possibly snaking down into the Portlands, or even to the beaches in a future extension. It is much better to have several short lines than a few long ones, imo.

 

[gweed123]

Now that we're on the subject of terminal stations, I wonder why Keele or Woodbine stations have side platforms if they were terminals originally?

Because they were terminus stations for only around a year. Construction on the Keele-Islington and Woodbine-Warden sections were already well underway by the time the Keele-Woodbine stretch opened. If they were planned to be more permanent terminus stations, I'm sure they would have been centre platforms.

 

[salsa]

Why not have centre platforms for all the stations?

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

Why not have centre platforms for all the stations?

If we did two middle platforms, the DRL could be 4 tracks, which would be a big help.

 

[doady]

Yes, it would, but the main impetus for the DRL is to relieve a central section of the Yonge line. DRL West does little to address that. Moreover, the University/Spadina line, to a degree, already act as DRL West.

In the near term the Yonge line will get some further relief from the west thanks to the York U subway extension, and that will be the maximum relief from the west. So yeah it makes sense to concentrate on the east now. If anything, DRL West would more likely increase the ridership of Yonge. So DRL East, that's the priority.

Maybe the University-Spadina line will one day become overcrowded too (the extension will probably increase ridership a lot, for example). Relief-wise, DRL West will be for University-Spadina, not Yonge. If GO Kitchener Line is not enough of course. That's another thing about DRL West. If such a line is actually needed, they should be careful not make it overlap with the GO Train too much.

 

[dunkalunk]

In the West, I see the DRL acting as an alternate transfer point to Union Station for those headed into Downtown via Lakeshore and Kitchener Lines (at Liberty Village and Sunnyside. To have the Barrie, Kitchener (Bolton), and Milton lines be dead ended at Bathurst ruins the transfer function that Union Station currently serves).

The western DRL should not be built to relieve the Yonge line. It should be built to relieve the King and Queen streetcars, relieve crowding at Union Station, and serve the densifying west end.

 

[Voltz]

Why not have centre platforms for all the stations?

It was probably easier to build the tunnels right next to each other, since they were built by cut and cover.

 

[TFC]

I wonder whether there will be some sort of financial compensation via fare integration for passengers who would now require a transfer from a GO station at Bathurst.
example: If I commute from Brampton to my job at Bay/Lakeshore, the current GO service is perfect for me. If the Kitchener trains were to terminate at Bathurst, I'd now have to pay an additional fare to get from Bathurst GO to my work. Would a station at Bathurst warrant its own fare zone (Brampton to Bathurst being cheaper than Brampton to Union, to offset any incurred costs as a result of transferring onto the TTC) to lessen the financial impact on those coming in from the Kitchener, Bolton and Milton?

I hope that if/when a GO terminus is added at Bathurst (or wherever), the cost of commuting between Union and Brampton/Milton on GO will be adjusted to take into account the fare that will be paid on the connecting TTC portion of a commute.

 

[dunkalunk]

If a Bathurst GO terminus ever does get considered, I doubt it would ever get past the consultation stage. There are far more things that GO can do to reduce the operations strain on Union that have yet to be explored (through-runnning, another yard somewhere in Durham, EMUs, Lakeshore Line/Potential High Speed Rail tunnel).

The strain on Union is caused primarily by GO's model of running 10 and 12 car trains pulled by locomotives, terminating all trains (except Lakeshore) at Union and then deadheading them out to Willowbrook. What is a through station is currently being operated as a terminal station.

I can see this thread getting very off-track (pun-intended). Perhaps move conversation elsewhere?