News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.8K     0 

While it is true that it will likely increase speeds (but that's not really a function of technology in this area, rather, the stop spacing of the line), I can't help but think that a service like that is not one we need in that area, at least, not yet. The area surrounding the relief line is prime development area, and more importantly, has prime surface conductibility to streetcar and bus lines. Surely Ford isn't going to consider the downsides of cutting out stations if he is going to use this technology. There are already too few stops along the relief line, if he cuts out, say, 2 more if he pursues with the technology you're proposing, you disincentive the majority of people who actually want to use the service: people who want to get into Old Town and Downtown from Scarborough, The Beaches, and in general, along Danforth Avenue (With future connections from North York). While this solution might appeal to those that might use Relief Line North, I doubt it will help out those that are just trying to avoid St George and Bloor-Yonge stations, or those living in Old Toronto.

If we were to build a Crossrail or JR east Chuo-Sobu rapid style of service in Downtown Toronto, I don't even think Queen is the best corridor for this — It's too close to the Front street corridor. I would argue that College or Dundas would be better, since these corridors appeal a lot more to exurb and distant commuters. You have U of T, the Eaton Centre, Yonge-Dundas Square, the ROM, the AGO, the Toronto Hospital Corridor, Chinatown, a bunch of consulates (particularly the American one), OCAD, Ryerson, etc. These are all places more akin to commuters than people actually living in Toronto (since most students aren't actually from downtown Toronto, and since the consulates have to serve a wide range of individuals from all over the GTA).
 
I have said for years that the DRL should be design to handle 10-12 DD EMU's that would interline with the GO system at both ends. When the line gets north to connect with the RH line, it would still continue north.

The tunnel would support 3/4 tracks to allow express trains as well RH trains. RH trains would service some of the DRL stations, but not all of them.

How the line connects to the west end is open for debate.

The current subways needs to increase in size to handle ridership 50 years down the road and the current 6 cars single level will never handle the ridership unless there a line added below the existing ones only in the areas where stations can deal with the triple volume. Even that pushing it.
 
drum118 said:
I have said for years that the DRL should be design to handle 10-12 DD EMU's that would interline with the GO system at both ends. When the line gets north to connect with the RH line, it would still continue north.

The tunnel would support 3/4 tracks to allow express trains as well RH trains. RH trains would service some of the DRL stations, but not all of them.

How the line connects to the west end is open for debate.

The current subways needs to increase in size to handle ridership 50 years down the road and the current 6 cars single level will never handle the ridership unless there a line added below the existing ones only in the areas where stations can deal with the triple volume. Even that pushing it.
Click to expand...
How long are 12 EMU's - 300m?
If stations were this long, I suspect there would be 1 at City Hall, 1 at Pape - and what? 1 or 2 in between. I don't really see a need for express.
 
Not to mention the size of tunnel bore required for a double deck EMU (even a short one like AMT's multilevels plus clearance for even rigid 25kV catenary while going under existing tunnels and infrastructure AND contending with rock squeeze)...
 
dowlingm said:
Not to mention the size of tunnel bore required for a double deck EMU (even a short one like AMT's multilevels plus clearance for even rigid 25kV catenary while going under existing tunnels and infrastructure AND contending with rock squeeze)...
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the tunnel diameter not really make a difference for single-deck/double-deck rolling stock? I presume this line is going to be heavy rail, and therefore, the pantograph clearance will have to be a specific height in order to conform to TC standards? I'm wondering if anyone here has any knowledge on TC guidelines for tunneled electric heavy rail. There doesn't seem to be anything on these particular dimensions from Transport Canada.

Judging by the Mount Royale Tunnel, there is no clearance difference between a Bombardier Multilevel and the Tunnel Clearance. This tunnel was built over a century ago, so I'm wondering if there are new standards for double stack freight (perhaps) or other standards such a tunnel would have to conform to. Regardless, it doesn't seem impossible for double decker trains to use a similar sized tunnel as a a single level car would use.
 
Streety McCarface said:
I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the tunnel diameter not really make a difference for single-deck/double-deck rolling stock? I presume this line is going to be heavy rail, and therefore, the pantograph clearance will have to be a specific height in order to conform to TC standards? I'm wondering if anyone here has any knowledge on TC guidelines for tunneled electric heavy rail. There doesn't seem to be anything on these particular dimensions from Transport Canada.

Judging by the Mount Royale Tunnel, there is no clearance difference between a Bombardier Multilevel and the Tunnel Clearance. This tunnel was built over a century ago, so I'm wondering if there are new standards for double stack freight (perhaps) or other standards such a tunnel would have to conform to. Regardless, it doesn't seem impossible for double decker trains to use a similar sized tunnel as a a single level car would use.
Click to expand...
Seeing Zürich DD trains using tunnels in the city itself first hand, height is the main issue and love to see it here for new lines. Deals with ridership down the road as well interlining with the rail corridors. Just think what the current subway would look like it the platforms where built for 8 cars compare to the current 6, let alone going to 10. Stations and access to/from them are the real problem today.

I still say there should be 3/4 tracks for the DRL. This allows a track to be remove for service or upgrading, as well having express trains that will pass X stations with service under 5-15 minutes headway.
 
Streety McCarface said:
I'm not sure about this, but wouldn't the tunnel diameter not really make a difference for single-deck/double-deck rolling stock? I presume this line is going to be heavy rail, and therefore, the pantograph clearance will have to be a specific height in order to conform to TC standards? I'm wondering if anyone here has any knowledge on TC guidelines for tunneled electric heavy rail. There doesn't seem to be anything on these particular dimensions from Transport Canada.

Judging by the Mount Royale Tunnel, there is no clearance difference between a Bombardier Multilevel and the Tunnel Clearance. This tunnel was built over a century ago, so I'm wondering if there are new standards for double stack freight (perhaps) or other standards such a tunnel would have to conform to. Regardless, it doesn't seem impossible for double decker trains to use a similar sized tunnel as a a single level car would use.
Click to expand...
This is a good reminder that AMT could not use full size GO bilevels because of the MRT clearance. Instead they went in on a joint purchase with New Jersey Transit for lower height multilevel cars, because the tunnels into Penn Station are also height constrained.

Now, NJT is buying EMU multilevels to the same dimensions, and it might make sense to acquire some. But to my mind, dwell time is something you want to minimize in a line such as we are discussing, and bi/multi-level cars aren't great for that. So it seems to me that single level high floor EMUs, where tunnel height (and therefore TBM bore) can be reduced (due cost AND local geological conditions). Third rail uses unused width of the bore rather than pushing the height up, but results in a heavier and somewhat more complex dual-power vehicle assuming any RH electrification would be 25kV, say a MetroNorth Kawasaki M8. But then you have to look at RH line platforms.

Let's just build a damn subway rather than trying to gerrymander the Relief Line into an all things to all people solution.
 
179644
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jimmy K and friends will not like the absence of a Sheppard East subway extension, and no Sheppard West extension for Jimmy P. Tears before bedtime in the North.
 
Portions of TTC Lines 1 & 2 to close this weekend

April 3, 2019

This Sat., Apr. 6 only, the portion of Line 1 between Lawrence and St Clair stations will be closed to allow TTC crews to perform essential track maintenance and continue work on upgrading the signal system to Automatic Train Control (ATC).

Shuttle buses will run frequently along Yonge St., stopping at each station along the route. At Lawrence, Eglinton and Davisville stations, customers can board and disembark on Yonge St. At St Clair Station, customers can board inside the bus bay and disembark on St. Clair Ave. E., outside the station. In addition to shuttles, the 97 Yonge bus and the University side of Line 1 are available as alternatives during the closure.

All stations will remain open for fare sales and access to surface routes.

Wheel-Trans will be available upon request from any station throughout the weekend. As Lawrence Station is not yet accessible, customers requiring an accessible connection should use York Mills Station instead.

Full service on Line 1 will resume at 8 a.m. Sunday morning.

On Sun., Apr. 7 only, the portion of Line 2 between Broadview and St George stations will be closed until noon to accommodate City work on the Prince Edward (Bloor) Viaduct.

Shuttle buses will run frequently, stopping outside each station along the route. Sherbourne and Bay stations will be closed but all others will remain open for fare sales and access to surface routes. Wheel-Trans will be available upon request from any station.

The TTC is committed to keeping customers informed about work and events that impact service and about alternative routes. For the most up-to-date information, follow @TTCNotices on Twitter or sign up for eAlerts.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top