[afransen]

The difference is that the OL will be able to reach 90 second frequencies and the TR tech will only be able to do 120.
30k PPHD is also not a low capacity line, at all. It's much higher than what line 1 delivers in terms of capacity today. It's just not what a TR train can achieve when fully maxed out, which is very, very high capacity.

For the OL to overload at 30k PPHD it would have to be in the top 3 busiest subway lines on the continent. It's a ton of capacity.

The question isn't if the TR could deliver more passenger space, it obviously can, it's a question of scaling the build to what is actually realistically needed. Metrolinx could just as easily spec the line out to accommodate 200m long OL metro trains and be able to run the line at 60,000 PPHD - but why would it need to? The line will be at 50% of design capacity at opening day. It's not a binary choice, it's choosing a level of capacity that's actually needed. There is a reason Metrolinx isn't even planning on running 100m trains for the first 20-30 years.

Many here seem to think that they should be building the line with TR trains for the additional capacity, but it's not really needed. And that's the whole point of this discussion, building that extra capacity would increase project costs massively for capacity that won't be required, maybe, until 2 generations from now. There are simply too many variables between then and now for that to be an assured investment.

Wouldn't it be more useful to add another E/W line if ever OL is at capacity... say on College?

 

[Towered]

Wouldn't it be more useful to add another E/W line if ever OL is at capacity... say on College?

Mini DRL along Dundas - from Dundas West station to Broadview station.

 

[syn]

I don't think people are ignoring it, it's just been stated many times in this thread that the capacity of a 4 track mainline railway corridor is going to be more than sufficient for a very long time. Signalling and operational upgrades should happen well before we need more than 4 tracks heading downtown. We should also be investing in new or upgraded corridors before we reach the capacity of the GO corridor.

What would you say is 'a very long time'?

 

[innsertnamehere]

What would you say is 'a very long time'?

Multiple generations, if ever.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The parking is just madness. The delays caused just by people stopping to park is absurd.

Leaving very little space to park our horses.

From link.

Leaving little space on the road for the horses to ride on.

From link.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1512789148029100037

 

[smallspy]

The difference is that the OL will be able to reach 90 second frequencies and the TR tech will only be able to do 120.

While the Ontario Line may - and I stress, *may* - be able to reach that number, there is absolutely, positively nothing inherent to the design of the TR cars - or any other subway car ever used in Toronto - limiting them to 120 second headways. Anyone who suggests such a thing really doesn't understand how those systems work.

Just speculating, do you think they are making Queen and probably Osgoode stations so deep to avoid the issues they encountered underpinning line 1 at Eglinton station?

It may not be exclusively the only reason why, but I would suggest that it factors in quite strongly, yes.

Dan

 

[afransen]

While the Ontario Line may - and I stress, *may* - be able to reach that number, there is absolutely, positively nothing inherent to the design of the TR cars - or any other subway car ever used in Toronto - limiting them to 120 second headways. Anyone who suggests such a thing really doesn't understand how those systems work.

I'm not sure I understand the skepticism. It's not unprecedented to operate at 40 tph, and the line is being designed for it from the ground up, not as a retrofit.

Edit to add: we shouldn't discount how useful the increased reliability of OL will be. Huge reduction in service disruptions due to PSDs keeping people and trash off the tracks. I don't often ride the subway but it seems like a disproportionate amount of the time there are service disruptions. I went to a game at Scotiabank a few weeks ago and had to walk from Dundas because of not 1 but 2 incidents on Line 1.

 

[NoahB]

While the Ontario Line may - and I stress, *may* - be able to reach that number, there is absolutely, positively nothing inherent to the design of the TR cars - or any other subway car ever used in Toronto - limiting them to 120 second headways. Anyone who suggests such a thing really doesn't understand how those systems work.


It may not be exclusively the only reason why, but I would suggest that it factors in quite strongly, yes.

Dan

The assumption is that the TRs won't reach 90s is because the line's infrastructure, not the train alone, is not designed to handle that frequency. My understanding is that the time a train takes to clear the platform plays a big role. This gives shorter trains an advanatge.

For the current subway: The possibility to retrofit that is unclear. Steve Munro stated in 2006 that achieving 120-second headways on the current subway lines is difficult, and 90s is impossible because the terminals are not designed to handle them. I don't know if that has/will change with the current extensions.

 

[syn]

Multiple generations, if ever.

Really?

There may never be a need for more capacity on one of GO's busiest routes?

 

[afransen]

For the current subway: The possibility to retrofit that is unclear. Steve Munro stated in 2006 that achieving 120-second headways on the current subway lines is difficult, and 90s is impossible because the terminals are not designed to handle them. I don't know if that has/will change with the current extensions.

Hopefully Metrolinx was thinking ahead on this. Should be easy to add for Yonge N because it as grade but expensive if not already planned for at Richmond Hill.

Really?

There may never be a need for more capacity on one of GO's busiest routes?

Than can be provided by a properly operated quad track corridor? Of course they will need to add capacity to that corridor, but you can do a lot with quad track.

 

[superelevation]

Really?

There may never be a need for more capacity on one of GO's busiest routes?

We can run 24 tph on *2* tracks, we have at one point hit . . . 4 tph!

 

[generalcanada]

i am wondering, maybe others are too, but yes the go corridor is 4 tracks, 2 are specifically for stouville and 2 are for LSE.

Essentiallsy 2 separate 2 track corridors with long 300m trains. Express trains are included in this as well
whats the theoretical capacity of that?

 

[tsm1072]

i am wondering, maybe others are too, but yes the go corridor is 4 tracks, 2 are specifically for stouville and 2 are for LSE.

Essentiallsy 2 separate 2 track corridors with long 300m trains. Express trains are included in this as well
whats the theoretical capacity of that?

Taking a few assumptions, a GO train capacity is ~2000 seats. If we assume long dwells we will run a train every 5 minutes(12tph) putting capacity at 24,000 pphpd.

Now, we can dramatically improve on that through changing trains, signalling and operations. If we just take Crossrail trains and frequency, 1500 capacity at 24tph, we are at 36,000pphpd. Crossrail trains are 200m long, so if we extend to 300m we can in theory have a 2250 capacity of the train and get to 54,000pphpd for just a 2 track corridor, which is 108,000pphpd on the 4 track section.

This is of course just theoretical, but it is already well beyond the point that the actual stations on this line can handle. It also excludes VIA. But of we are needing this amount of capacity in the future, the VIA line would be the first thing to be re-routed or tunnelled as you wouldn't need to build stations on that line.

 

[smallspy]

I'm not sure I understand the skepticism. It's not unprecedented to operate at 40 tph, and the line is being designed for it from the ground up, not as a retrofit.

Edit to add: we shouldn't discount how useful the increased reliability of OL will be. Huge reduction in service disruptions due to PSDs keeping people and trash off the tracks. I don't often ride the subway but it seems like a disproportionate amount of the time there are service disruptions. I went to a game at Scotiabank a few weeks ago and had to walk from Dundas because of not 1 but 2 incidents on Line 1.

It's not unprecedented although it's certainly not common either, and as you point out, this line is being built from the ground up.

My concern however stems from the details - as that is where the devil lies. From what I've seen of the track layout, it should allow a 90 second headway in regular revenue service, but the layout of the yard access - and the lack of on-line storage tracks - will make it awkward-to-difficult to inject the required trains into service to achieve that headway.

The assumption is that the TRs won't reach 90s is because the line's infrastructure, not the train alone, is not designed to handle that frequency. My understanding is that the time a train takes to clear the platform plays a big role. This gives shorter trains an advanatge.

For the current subway: The possibility to retrofit that is unclear. Steve Munro stated in 2006 that achieving 120-second headways on the current subway lines is difficult, and 90s is impossible because the terminals are not designed to handle them. I don't know if that has/will change with the current extensions.

Sure, it's the infrastructure. The vehicles themselves don't have a bearing.

There are lots of opportunities to allow for improvements to the headways. Some of them are already underway. It should be noted that the passenger flows are one of the biggest obstacles, and those are currently being fixed at many stations. But one of the biggest constraints to improving it to below about 120 seconds is the track layout, and more specifically the double crossover south of Finch Station. (At the other end, the use of a single terminal will also be a constraint, although this can be overcome much more easily on the west side than the east by alternating trains between two terminals.) There are ways of fixing this, but they will require money.

i am wondering, maybe others are too, but yes the go corridor is 4 tracks, 2 are specifically for stouville and 2 are for LSE.

Essentiallsy 2 separate 2 track corridors with long 300m trains. Express trains are included in this as well
whats the theoretical capacity of that?

That's not the best way to allocate the capacity on that line - it would be far more efficient to allocate one set of tracks to local/stopping trains, and one set of tracks to express trains. This way, the trains on each set of tracks will have a similar set of stopping patterns and speeds and performance.

As for what the capacity of the line is - that's going to be heavily dependent on the signalling used. If a similar set up to the Weston Sub is used - signals every half-mile with a 6-step signal progression - you could have trains running at 90mph every 3 miles on each track. What is installed on the Kingston Sub right now is somewhat less capable due to the distances between signals.

Dan

 

[fanoftoronto]

On a different note, I had emailed the Eglinton West LRT team regarding adding a secondary exit on the opposite side of the road and also have option to add Transit Oriented developments to be added to the stations. This is the response I received from them:

I've followed up with additional points to support the secondary entrance, but I wouldn't keep my hopes up. It looks like the decision has already been made.

Though, I would definitely recommend that the forum members to send emails to the Metrolinx team through this email address (EglintonWest@metrolinx.com)to highlight our concerns and recommendations for this project.


Edit: Apologies folks, I posted this on the wrong thread. Please disregard this post as it is to do with Eglinton West LRT and not the Ontario Line.