Platform 27
Active Member
From both the brown and the fact I pulled it out of a Metrolinx report saying it was
vegeta_skyline
Senior Member
No offense but that's a horrible proposal. There's a pretty good reason why maps like that are little more than sheer fantasy. I suppose you don't ride on GO's very frequently. If you did you realize that there are delays occurring at the time, be it medical emergencies, on board disturbances, trespasser incidents, mechanical issues, wheel slippage, signal problems, weather related delays, etc. What do you think will happen if there is any kind of delay to any train on one track? There will be a huge cascading effect down the line. That fantasy map does not have a single crossover between the tracks used for heavy rail for over 10 miles. Meaning multiple trains will get effected by the slightest delay to a single train ahead of them. Basically there's no allowance for any operation irregularities and that's why there is zero chance that GO would ever adopt such a proposal or for that matter any proposal that allocates less that 3 tracks for that corridor considering the future service levels planned for GO, UPX & VIA. Even if they were together with multiple crossover points, two tracks wouldn't be enough because if one track went down it would still cause huge delays trying to get trains going in both directions over a single track. That's why the Lakeshore corridor is the only one that has local and express GO trains and regional VIA because it's almost entirely triple track with crossovers located every couple of miles.
Last edited:
mpd618
Active Member
The European approach to regulation also comes with much more focus on prevention of derailments and collisions - through positive train control and the like. So it would not be a loosening up of regulation, so much as a modernization.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Yes, the Scar subway ext is 7.6 km but all it is doing is replacing one rapid transit line for another. The total added for this $3 billion is a whopping 1.5km.................a true bargain.
Also, as far as the Bombardier Flexity LRT/commuter vehicles......... Vancouver is looking into them for it's Fraser Valley LRT and the US is going to be allowing them soon. I don't think they would be an issue.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
but its not exactly like the SRT could remain. You have to replace it, and you make it sound as if that $3 billion is building 1.5km of subway, while it is building 7.6km. It doesn't matter what is there right now, that $3 billion is building 7.6km, and the subway will produce very different types of operations for transit in scarborough upon opening as well. bus connections will become much more attractive and the terminus being in a much more central location in scarborough will provide for better transfer points and for service to be set up coming in from Markham. Thats another discussion though. Total system length may only go up by 1.5km, but new construction will equal 7.6 and that is what is important.
khris
Senior Member
I thought it was a dark green and light green, not brown.
Platform 27
Active Member
Wrong and wrong.
TransLink is looking at the Flexity for an in-median LRT in Surrey akin to Transit City, not for running it on the TC-regulated BC Southern Railway mainline.
And in a few years, assuming the optimists are correct, the US may potentially start allowing European-spec mainline passenger equipment with crash energy management run on a FRA-regulated mainline railways, but that's still a beefier type of train than a Flexity.
innsertnamehere
Superstar
Shh don't mention that Vancouver might build transit city style LRTs, those are bad and everything Vancouver does is perfect! ICTS is the way to go! Any transit Toronto builds is bad! Vancouver does it better!
smallspy
Senior Member
Not quite true.
What the FRA has said is that once PTC is in force on all of the rail lines that it is required to be installed on (the regulation calls for 2015, but will likely be pushed back) that they will THEN look at possibly relaxing the regulations that govern the strength of the equipment, which may or may not include the allowance of non-FRA-compliant equipment such as that used in Europe in mixed traffic with FRA-compliant equipment.
None of this is applicable to Canada, because the rules regarding how equipment operates is very different. For one, there is no regulatory impetus (yet) to force the railways to install PTC. For another, Transport Canada is quite happy to allow non-FRA-compliant equipment to run in mixed traffic when TC has been shown that it can do so safely - look at the Renaissance equipment.
That said, that doesn't mean that you can just go to Siemens or Bombardier or CAF and order 50 EMUs and expect to run them as soon as they arrive here - the case needs to be made to TC that they will be safe when used alongside the existing equipment, and so far no one as yet tried to do that.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
As a matter of fact Translink IS looking at the Flexity LRT/commuter for the Fraser Valley not only for the main Surrey/Langley area but also for a hookup to Abbotsford and Chilliwack. This would be just a return of the old Interurbans that use to go these places until they were scrapped. The Valley has a fairly extensive rail network which Vancouver tends to lack as many of the lines from the Interior do not go to Vancouver but rather head to the Port at Twassen. Other's converge in North Delta and then over to NuWest and into the city but are already being used as that is the corridor that the SkyTrain already follows.
Of course one of the main stumbling blocks will be the politically powerful CP rail but a few of the lines are relatively lightly used.
As for the "have to replace the SRT", well that is just garbage. The SRT only needs an upgrade at a certain point to handle to MK11 or new MK111 trains and track replacement. You do NOT have to shut down a system, despite what the TTC says, to replace the tracks. Vancouver has just started doing precisely that but is simply reducing hours and service on the weekends to do it. At the same time the TTC could put in the heating mechanisms. The Evergreen Line will be employing the new MK111 trains which are based on the Innovia Monorail system and will have articulation up to 100 meters. It's amasing when you are on the Canada Line with standard Metro trains and compare it to the Mk11 SkyTrain. The SkyTrain is smoother and considerably faster and you really notice the speed difference in acceleration/deceleration and going around the corners. Almost everyone mentions it and most would have far preferred the SkyTrain to the Metro.
Of course this would require the TTC to think about rapid transit the way the rest of the planet does............grade separation does not mean it has to be tunneled and almost never is in most cities throughout the world in the suburban areas. Then again why would Toronto want to emulate lousy Metro systems in such places as Shanghai, Paris, London, Berlin, New York, Chicago, Mexico City, Madrid, San Francisco, Chicago, Beijing, Osaka, Delhi etc. Don't they know that according to Ford and Stinz it's only a subway if it goes underground?
Thank God Toronto isn't following their example or they would be stuck with their lousy little systems.
Of course one of the main stumbling blocks will be the politically powerful CP rail but a few of the lines are relatively lightly used.
As for the "have to replace the SRT", well that is just garbage. The SRT only needs an upgrade at a certain point to handle to MK11 or new MK111 trains and track replacement. You do NOT have to shut down a system, despite what the TTC says, to replace the tracks. Vancouver has just started doing precisely that but is simply reducing hours and service on the weekends to do it. At the same time the TTC could put in the heating mechanisms. The Evergreen Line will be employing the new MK111 trains which are based on the Innovia Monorail system and will have articulation up to 100 meters. It's amasing when you are on the Canada Line with standard Metro trains and compare it to the Mk11 SkyTrain. The SkyTrain is smoother and considerably faster and you really notice the speed difference in acceleration/deceleration and going around the corners. Almost everyone mentions it and most would have far preferred the SkyTrain to the Metro.
Of course this would require the TTC to think about rapid transit the way the rest of the planet does............grade separation does not mean it has to be tunneled and almost never is in most cities throughout the world in the suburban areas. Then again why would Toronto want to emulate lousy Metro systems in such places as Shanghai, Paris, London, Berlin, New York, Chicago, Mexico City, Madrid, San Francisco, Chicago, Beijing, Osaka, Delhi etc. Don't they know that according to Ford and Stinz it's only a subway if it goes underground?
Thank God Toronto isn't following their example or they would be stuck with their lousy little systems.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I'm going to pretend that you responded in a less insulting manner and address your concerns.
No offense, but you clearly haven't read the fantasy plan that you're critiquing. The fantasy plan, unlike the current plan, has almost homogenous services through this segment. Since the mainline is diverted through Pearson airport there is no UPX. There is therefore no shortage of capacity with 2 tracks, given the line capacity is 20 trains per hour per direction assuming a minimum separation of 3 minutes. That is way beyond the capacity we would need in a Weston corridor which is also served by a subway line (up to 30 tphpd on its own).
As for the claim that you need at least 3 tracks to run a variety of different services at high frequency, I would encourage you to look at any of the major railway systems in the world (Japan, Germany, Netherlands etc) and compare their level of service with the number of tracks. I think you'll find that two-track railways routinely provide both a variety and quantity of service far superior than what would be needed in Kitchener if there were also a subway.
But behind your incredulity, I see that you do have a point. Not having any crossovers for 10km (6 mi) could cause flexibility problems. This concern could be addressed by having both mainline tracks adjacent to each other (on the west side of the ROW, presumably), rather than one on each side. This would allow more crossovers, which would permit continued service in the event of a disruption.
Working with a predicted service level of 8 tphpd, if we had crossovers every 2 miles we would have enough capacity to get all scheduled services through a single-track pinch point by running trains in pairs or threes through the single-track segment. Yes, trains would experience delays, but it wouldn't cause a backlog.
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
Question I wanted to ask the more technically up-to-speed folks around here.
I am one of those people who think that the KW/GT corridor has great potential for a lot of people and one of the things that would help it reach that potential is a Liberty Village station. As a laymen, every time I look out the window of a train at this property (or, conversely, every time I am in Liberty Village myself) and wonder if it is at all feasible/possible to just convert the northern edge of First Capital's property to platform? I get that this might only work for the EB trains (or maybe not) but it would seem to be a very simple solution....but, as I admit, I am not the best at the technical side of things.
I am one of those people who think that the KW/GT corridor has great potential for a lot of people and one of the things that would help it reach that potential is a Liberty Village station. As a laymen, every time I look out the window of a train at this property (or, conversely, every time I am in Liberty Village myself) and wonder if it is at all feasible/possible to just convert the northern edge of First Capital's property to platform? I get that this might only work for the EB trains (or maybe not) but it would seem to be a very simple solution....but, as I admit, I am not the best at the technical side of things.
Attachments
drum118
Superstar
What trains or lines do you expect to use that platform?
If you expect to see all 4 lines using that platform with duel direction, it will be an operation nightmare and impossible based on ridership demand as well service.
The only train that could service that platform would be the Milton Line since it only has to deal with a single crossover.
You are coming out of the underpass at this point with block signals off to your right as well the tracks for the Georgetown-KW line. No room to put in high speed crossover for all 4 tracks without more block signals
TOareaFan
Superstar
Nothing says "lets contribute to discussion" more than an aggressive reply to a question that admitted right in it that it was short of any technical knowledge.....just see a long slab of concrete that looks adaptable to a EB platform and wondered out loud.....guess i learned my lesson there!
innsertnamehere
Superstar
It may be possible, but the Exhibition stop already serve Liberty Village. It could use some improved connections though I will admit.