Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

81-717 said:
I know it's not literally "dangerous", but the implication is that it's still a bad thing, whereas I'm saying it's definitely not, because interoperability & interconnectedness is a good thing.
Click to expand...
No, it's not.

If I say, of a friend, "there's no danger of him ever getting that job", that does not remotely imply that it would be a bad thing if he did get that job, it just means that the chances are so low as to not even be worth discussing.
81-717 said:
Did I ever suggest the opposite? Of course extending the 5XX network to connect to L5/6 would include the new carhouse at MTD and wherever FW's is, in the same way the YNSE will include a new yard at RH, ShE will include a new yard somewhere beside the CPKC yard, and ShW will connect to Wilson.
Click to expand...
Right, but then, if you build those yards... what exactly is the benefit of said interoperability? Under what circumstances would a vehicle from downtown ever need to go uptown, or vice versa? You'd just be maintaining a very long connecting track that would seldom see any use. And you'd need to order customised rolling stock for the uptown network, too, if you wanted them to be able to interoperate downtown...
 
T3G said:
Right, but then, if you build those yards... what exactly is the benefit of said interoperability?
Click to expand...
The same as that between L1, L2 & L4, even though they operate independently for most day-to-day operations, and seldom move trains between lines, but it's imperative to have that option (hence why choosing an incompatible CBTC system for L2 would make as much sense as cutting track connections between the lines).
T3G said:
And you'd need to order customised rolling stock for the uptown network, too, if you wanted them to be able to interoperate downtown...
Click to expand...
Again, the point is it wouldn't be customized or bespoke from a Toronto perspective, it would be the same as the existing 5XX fleet, thus having a uniform (or at least interoperable) fleet for 5XX/L5/L6 would be easier to maintain than the current inconsistency between said systems (though ofc the ideal scenario would entail having interoperable fleets & track connections for all lines L1–5, though I have no thought on whether or not L6 should be included in that, or whether it should've been built in the first place; rather the L4 extensions should've been prioritized).
T3G said:
You'd just be maintaining a very long connecting track that would seldom see any use.
Click to expand...
They could certainly use that track for revenue service, just like they could use Bathurst between L2 & 512, or Church, if they wanted to.
 
Last edited:
A 6264 said:
People keep saying it is / isn't a subway depending on how fast it moves, how big or heavy or wide the cars are, the track gauge, the distance between the tracks and floor or platform, etc.
If you look up "subway" in a dictionary, it will define it as: An underground railway. Sub = below ground. That's it.
Click to expand...
All I care is that it's grade separated. I don't care if a "subway" is above ground or below ground. I saw plenty of Underground trains running above ground in London. Even in some cases, Underground trains running parallel with tracks for passenger trains.
A 6264 said:
Toronto is moving toward a system where every rail line is a little different and incompatible with other lines re. track gauge, height from track to floor, style of vehicle, signal system, etc.
Lines 1, 2, 4, 5, and OL meet the definition of a subway. The former line 3 and line 6 do not, but were never presented as such - single digit route numbers notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
Yes, this bugs me as well. We have 3 different rolling stocks for 5 lines (I'm not including Line 6). It makes the whole network feel somewhat piecemeal. This is part of my motivation to see Line 5 be converted to Ontario Line specs. We can knock it down to 2 different rolling stocks.

Lines 1,2,4 - Toronto Rocket trains
Lines 3,5 - Hitachi, automated trains

I doubt we'll see anymore lines constructed using the TR trains since we'll probably never construct any new lines using TTC/ Toronto gauge tracks. Although I'm welcome to be proven wrong.
 
starting to be convinced that "subway" is just as vague a term as "lrt"

Everywhere else subway is, by layman's terms, not actually dependent on if it's sub. Is Wilson to Cedarvale not a subway anymore? are the elevated and non-corridor shared parts of the OL "Not a subway"? Did you correct people who called line 3 a subway when it was active? Generally people classify subway, tram, streetcar, etc. by its actual purpose and not by definitions. Duck test.

Perhaps we should just start using the term metro. There you go. No more pedantry on the naming that it's not actually sub
 
Vortex112 said:
Careful, you’ll bring out the people who insist the Ontario Line be called “light” metro for Toronto, despite this being a metro anywhere else in the world.
Click to expand...
God, the way people love to throw that term around here so much makes me cringe. Like a new buzzword they have to shove into every conversation or make them feel like “I’m not like other metros”. And it’s not even like it’s a new thing. Toronto already had a lower capacity elevated subway. It was called the RT.
 
Bojaxs said:
Yes, this bugs me as well. We have 3 different rolling stocks for 5 lines (I'm not including Line 6). It makes the whole network feel somewhat piecemeal. This is part of my motivation to see Line 5 be converted to Ontario Line specs. We can knock it down to 2 different rolling stocks.

Lines 1,2,4 - Toronto Rocket trains
Lines 3,5 - Hitachi, automated trains

I doubt we'll see anymore lines constructed using the TR trains since we'll probably never construct any new lines using TTC/ Toronto gauge tracks. Although I'm welcome to be proven wrong.
Click to expand...
I remember getting my first tablet.
I thought a smart phone was good and portable - but the screen a bit small.
A desktop was good with big screen, but bulky.
In between, there was a laptop and tablet.
I thought the laptop was the best of both worlds - nice enough screen and portable.
While the tablet was the worst of both worlds - still a touch small of a screen and not portable enough to be put in pocket.
LRT is the equivalent of the tablet - too low capacity, too slow. May as well use streetcar.
Canada Line* stye 40m to 50m trains (but grade-separated) would have been the in-between option to go with.
 
A 6264 said:
People keep saying it is / isn't a subway depending on how fast it moves, how big or heavy or wide the cars are, the track gauge, the distance between the tracks and floor or platform, etc.
If you look up "subway" in a dictionary, it will define it as: An underground railway. Sub = below ground. That's it.
Dictionaries are not prescriptive. They are not published by "authorities" who declare this is how a word should be used, but on research on how people already use it.
Objections usually boil down to, "This doesn't look like something I've seen before that was called a subway, so this must be something else".
Toronto is moving toward a system where every rail line is a little different and incompatible with other lines re. track gauge, height from track to floor, style of vehicle, signal system, etc.
Lines 1, 2, 4, 5, and OL meet the definition of a subway. The former line 3 and line 6 do not, but were never presented as such - single digit route numbers notwithstanding.
Click to expand...
I always thought of the abandoned line 3 as more of a true subway than line 5, even though it wasn't underground. But to me, subway means metro.
 
felix123 said:
I always thought of the abandoned line 3 as more of a true subway than line 5, even though it wasn't underground. But to me, subway means metro.
Click to expand...
TTC called it subway at times.
1771796006833.png
 
lastcommodore said:
starting to be convinced that "subway" is just as vague a term as "lrt"

Everywhere else subway is, by layman's terms, not actually dependent on if it's sub. Is Wilson to Cedarvale not a subway anymore? are the elevated and non-corridor shared parts of the OL "Not a subway"? Did you correct people who called line 3 a subway when it was active? Generally people classify subway, tram, streetcar, etc. by its actual purpose and not by definitions. Duck test.

Perhaps we should just start using the term metro. There you go. No more pedantry on the naming that it's not actually sub
Click to expand...
Speaking of:
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top