News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.4K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.3K     0 

These ones hurt to make, not because they were hard but because these lines were a huge missed opportunity
You_Doodle+_2024-01-20T17_04_27Z.jpeg
You_Doodle+_2024-01-21T03_55_06Z.jpeg
You_Doodle+_2024-01-20T17_30_47Z.jpeg
You_Doodle+_2024-01-21T18_57_23Z.jpeg
 
enter username said:
Could the Bowmanville GO extension be extended to Peterborough? The Examiner alludes to the idea without saying it...
Via HFR already plans express trips to Toronto, but local GO service through Durham would benefit from connecting the existing Belleville and Havelock subs.
Two options would be 16 km along back roads (purple), or 20 km along highways 115 and 35 (red).
Second option would serve the busiest carpools along GO's 88 route, and could be coupled with the next road renewal, but the incline might be a challenge.
View attachment 486650
There used to be a track branching off the Havelock sub near Millbrook toward Port Hope, but this is not very direct and built over in many places
View attachment 486651
Click to expand...
Where is this second map from?
 
Bojaxs said:
This proposal would be better if both the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch West lines used the same trains and signal system. Unfortunately there is no interoperability between the Eglinton and Finch West line. Both use different trains and apparently the signal system and electrical currents that each line runs on are different. I complained about this earlier. Metrolinx is creating a bunch of transit lines each with their own type of rolling stock. No attempts at standardisation.
Click to expand...
*I'm a little late on this but the crosstown already won't be compatible with the Eglinton East LRT if built because of troubles building on top of the new subway tunnel. There's no reason they can't build the Eglinton East Line to the same specs as Finch West so they can share rolling stock or even interline.
 
KhalilHeron said:
*I'm a little late on this but the crosstown already won't be compatible with the Eglinton East LRT if built because of troubles building on top of the new subway tunnel.
Click to expand...
When did this issue appear? Do you have any additional info/sources? The last version of the Eglinton East LRT project that I reviewed (a few years ago) was just an extension tacking onto the Crosstown tunnels at Kennedy and the Scarborough Subway tunnels and EELRT portal were designed together to avoid conflicts.
 
reaperexpress said:
When did this issue appear? Do you have any additional info/sources? The last version of the Eglinton East LRT project that I reviewed (a few years ago) was just an extension tacking onto the Crosstown tunnels at Kennedy and the Scarborough Subway tunnels and EELRT portal were designed together to avoid conflicts.
Click to expand...
The Eglinton East LRT was made a distinct service back in 2022. One of the challenges was the cost to overbuild over the revised SSE design. There were also other significant issues that were not previously evaluated with the through running service that the distinct service resolves.
 
KhalilHeron said:
*I'm a little late on this but the crosstown already won't be compatible with the Eglinton East LRT if built because of troubles building on top of the new subway tunnel. There's no reason they can't build the Eglinton East Line to the same specs as Finch West so they can share rolling stock or even interline.
Click to expand...
What exactly would be the point of sharing rolling stock or interlining for two routes that are on opposite sides of the city with no rail connection?
 
adys123 said:
The Eglinton East LRT was made a distinct service back in 2022. One of the challenges was the cost to overbuild over the revised SSE design. There were also other significant issues that were not previously evaluated with the through running service that the distinct service resolves.
Click to expand...
but like, and pardon my lack of engineering knowledge, wouldn't it be possible to tunnel past Kennedy station just enough to make it above ground, and then potentially go elevated? does the way they built Kennedy impede any further tunnelling (or even cut and cover, if just for a bit)?
 
dougtoronto said:
but like, and pardon my lack of engineering knowledge, wouldn't it be possible to tunnel past Kennedy station just enough to make it above ground, and then potentially go elevated? does the way they built Kennedy impede any further tunnelling (or even cut and cover, if just for a bit)?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is technically possible, but highly expensive as the SSE tunnel now includes the third track that was removed when the 3-stop concept changed to the 1-stop concept. As the structures are in very close proximity to each over, substantial reinforcement would need to be made either now (at high cost), or later (at a higher cost) to support a load on top.

The distinct service concept also allows for higher frequency service (smaller vehicles) and does not require a separate bridge over the Highland Creek Valley, the smaller vehicles are able to climb the steep grades along Morningside and do not require a separate bridge. There's also a decent savings with the removal of the underground segments at Eglinton-Kingston and Kingston-Lawrence-Morningside.

The coupled service would've had only half the frequency (or less) going past Kennedy.
 
Willybru21 said:
View attachment 537501View attachment 537502View attachment 537503View attachment 537504View attachment 537505View attachment 537506View attachment 537507View attachment 537508View attachment 537509View attachment 537510

I’ve officially made 150 GO Transit maps now! I made a timelapse with all of them together here: https://x.com/wbmetro62/status/1753309323378270373?s=46&t=ZrrkEu2Kej0AAfP6ppJCqg
Click to expand...

Are you sure the Bolton proposal via the Newmarket Sub included the option of going to Summerhill? I don't see any way they could reasonably connect those two lines. Surely if they were going to Summerhill they would stay on the CP line and use the existing connection at West Toronto junction.
 
Made this map showing the Streetcar network at the peak of the Toronto Street Railway era before there operating charter expired in 1891; this was before electrification when the lines were still operated by horse-drawn cars. The real routes never had any kind of designation and were just known by either what street they operated on or where they terminated. Since their are quite a few routes I grouped and designated them in a similar fashion to the New York Subway with routes that operate on the same street sharing a colour. I will also point out that while the BLOOR Streetcar was constructed by the TSR, the never actually operated it as their operating charter expired before the line was completed, however I included it on the map since they built it. EDIT* I updated the map to be easier to read and corrected some errors.

TSR.png
 
Last edited:
JSF-1 said:
Made this map showing the Streetcar network at the peak of the Toronto Street Railway era before there operating charter expired in 1891; this was before electrification when the lines were still operated by horse-drawn cars. The real routes never had any kind of designation and were just known by either what street they operated on or where they terminated. Since their are quite a few routes I grouped and designated them in a similar fashion to the New York Subway with routes that operate on the same street sharing a colour. I will also point out that while the BLOOR Streetcar was constructed by the TSR, the never actually operated it as their operating charter expired before the line was completed, however I included it on the map since they built it.

View attachment 542312
Click to expand...
It is interesting all that has been lost that we are trying to build back.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top