generalcanada said:
from what ive heard it ran for 6 months at most. then switched over to separate lines
Click to expand...
Yeah ... the plan was to try it 6 months in both ways and see how it worked. (well originally the plan was to run it the first way).

This is my favourite image - from the 2010 diversion for tunnel repairs between Yonge and St. George. While the trains ran through Lower Bay, they didn't stop, given that the platforms and escalators aren't up to it.

1669658374350.png

We've heard for years that the originally envisioned service isn't possible given Line 1 extension to Spadina restricting the frequency. I wonder once they have ATC on Line 2, what the maximum frequency they could run.

I suppose if ATC had existed in 1966, then they might have been able to pull off the original configuration.
 
nfitz said:
Yeah ... the plan was to try it 6 months in both ways and see how it worked. (well originally the plan was to run it the first way).

This is my favourite image - from the 2010 diversion for tunnel repairs between Yonge and St. George. While the trains ran through Lower Bay, they didn't stop, given that the platforms and escalators aren't up to it.

View attachment 441753

We've heard for years that the originally envisioned service isn't possible given Line 1 extension to Spadina restricting the frequency. I wonder once they have ATC on Line 2, what the maximum frequency they could run.

I suppose if ATC had existed in 1966, then they might have been able to pull off the original configuration.
Click to expand...
The problem with the interlining concept was that the platform layout wasn't up to the task. Since the platforms are separated by line rather than by direction, what would happen is say you were at Bay Station and you wanted to head eastbound, you (alongside everyone else) would be waiting on the stairs and listening for which platform the train arrived, and ran to the train. This was obviously not sustainable long term. What could've made interlining work was if the platforms were built to instead be direction running, so westbound platform above the eastbound platform or vice versa.

EDIT: Westbound above Westbound? Really? I need to proof read more...
 
Last edited:
T3G said:
Your post was referring to getting RLN and RLW at the same time as the RL, so that is the fantasy I was referring to.

Being in the early stages of design also does not preclude the project being cancelled or delayed. Talk is cheap and inflation rampant.
Click to expand...
If we look at history as past precedent a large majority that were in early stages of design did not end up getting constructed. In this instance there is no difference. There was no $ on the table from anyone. Where there is no $ it doesn't matter how great the designs are or how advanced they are. It doesn't get built.

Look at Sheppard Subway, they ran out of money so they stopped at Don Mills. RL had 100 years of early stages designing but nothing happened because no one committed $. Its all about $ my friend.
 
Voltz said:
When was the construction funding for the OL put forward,?

What was so special about the OL that made it a sure thing?

Why could Ford just not have continued with the RL process?

Why were they able to decide to build the OL, but would not have been able to do so for the RL?
Click to expand...
1) Some point during Ford's first term funding was committed by all levels of government

2) There was nothing special per say, just a premier who was willing to advocate for transit and make it a priority of his agenda

3) No one had funding committed to it

4) The question you should be asking is why couldn't anyone build the RL for the last 100 years. Or the liberals in their 10+ years in office last.
 
ARG1 said:
The problem with the interlining concept was that the platform layout wasn't up to the task. Since the platforms are separated by line rather than by direction, what would happen is say you were at Bay Station and you wanted to head eastbound, you (alongside everyone else) would be waiting on the stairs and listening for which platform the train arrived, and ran to the train. This was obviously not sustainable long term. What could've made interlining work was if the platforms were built to instead be direction running, so westbound platform above the westbound platform or vice versa.
Click to expand...
Not for interlining reasons, but Montreal does this with Lionel-Groulx station. Trains inbound to downtown are on one level, and trains outbound from downtown are on another, with one side of the platforms being for the Green Line, and the other for the Orange Line. It works incredibly well, IMO.
 
TossYourJacket said:
While that is true, there was absolutely no movement (and dare I say interest) in the western extension on behalf of the City/TTC. The focus was entirely on RL South, followed by RL North (which they had contracted the preliminary design for out to Metrolinx). It's highly unlikely RL West would have been designed fast enough to make use of the TBMs that were being used to build the line between Pape and Osgoode. RL West was never Phase 2, it was always a very clear Phase 3.
Click to expand...

That's because the priority was adding capacity to the subway system and relieving the Yonge Line.

toronto647 said:
Lol idk what fantasy world you live in but the word immediately to phase 2 is not possible for Toronto Transit Infrastructure. We would have waited years and with government switches to get RLN. RLW? Lol we all might be dead by the time that would have been built. Here we are getting the RL, RLN, RLW in one shot by 2031. I will take that over RL any day.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this reasoning. How is the OL happening?

There was nothing stopping Ford from proceeding immediately with the RL and starting the RL North.
 
T3G said:
If I was being charitable, the only way that line could be interpreted as running from Union to Pape is through the fact that a train could theoretically run along the existing lines from Union (or as far as Finch) through to Pape (or as far as Kennedy) without stopping, but there is no secret hidden trackage that could aid with this.
Click to expand...
I can almost guarantee this is what the TTC employee said and they heard it as being its own secret rail line.
 
syn said:
That's because the priority was adding capacity to the subway system and relieving the Yonge Line.



I don't understand this reasoning. How is the OL happening?

There was nothing stopping Ford from proceeding immediately with the RL and starting the RL North.
Click to expand...
Probably money. That will sacrifice coverage in exchange for capacity. Depends on your vision of the region's rapid transit network, that may or may not be a good thing.
 
nfitz said:
Yeah ... the plan was to try it 6 months in both ways and see how it worked. (well originally the plan was to run it the first way).

This is my favourite image - from the 2010 diversion for tunnel repairs between Yonge and St. George. While the trains ran through Lower Bay, they didn't stop, given that the platforms and escalators aren't up to it.

View attachment 441753

We've heard for years that the originally envisioned service isn't possible given Line 1 extension to Spadina restricting the frequency. I wonder once they have ATC on Line 2, what the maximum frequency they could run.

I suppose if ATC had existed in 1966, then they might have been able to pull off the original configuration.
Click to expand...
I was stuck on the Line 2 trains waiting up to 5 minutes till the track is clear. This was weekend service running every 4 min. I can't imaging this even working win peak hours with ATO.
 
ARG1 said:
The problem with the interlining concept was that the platform layout wasn't up to the task. Since the platforms are separated by line rather than by direction, what would happen is say you were at Bay Station and you wanted to head eastbound, you (alongside everyone else) would be waiting on the stairs and listening for which platform the train arrived, and ran to the train. This was obviously not sustainable long term.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

But once ATC is fully implemented, the system knows where the trains are, and they can simply put electronic signage that shows when the next train will be on each platform - which means no reason to stand on the stairs.

I suspect it's the maximum frequency that would kill it - but it would be interesting to know the numbers.

TossYourJacket said:
Not for interlining reasons, but Montreal does this with Lionel-Groulx station. Trains inbound to downtown are on one level, and trains outbound from downtown are on another, with one side of the platforms being for the Green Line, and the other for the Orange Line. It works incredibly well, IMO.
Click to expand...
They do this at Snowdon as well. Though it would work better if they ever deliver on the promise to extend the Blue Line west towards Lachine.

An advantage of designing both lines simultaneously, with the same design bureau.
 
nfitz said:
Exactly.

But once ATC is fully implemented, the system knows where the trains are, and they can simply put electronic signage that shows when the next train will be on each platform - which means no reason to stand on the stairs.

I suspect it's the maximum frequency that would kill it - but it would be interesting to know the numbers.

They do this at Snowdon as well. Though it would work better if they ever deliver on the promise to extend the Blue Line west towards Lachine.

An advantage of designing both lines simultaneously, with the same design bureau.
Click to expand...
It's... a solution, but I don't really think that addresses the ultimate problem. I'm afraid this will lead to far more than necessary running up and down steps, especially since the platforms are stacked. If the 2 platforms were side by side like we might see on GO soon, then this could be excusable.
 
11th said:
Probably money. That will sacrifice coverage in exchange for capacity. Depends on your vision of the region's rapid transit network, that may or may not be a good thing.
Click to expand...

Part of Ford's rationale for taking over transit construction is that they could do things more efficiently, more affordably, and faster.

It's quite clear there is money available. I just can't accept that implementing the previous plan would mean the end of meaningful transit expansion. That's entirely up to the government.
 
nfitz said:
Exactly.

But once ATC is fully implemented, the system knows where the trains are, and they can simply put electronic signage that shows when the next train will be on each platform - which means no reason to stand on the stairs.
Click to expand...
This existed in 1966, there were light up indicators at Bay and St. George that directed passengers to the right platform. This was controlled with magnetic coils mounted to the front of the trains, and the system was used into the early 00s for the St. Clair West short turn.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Top