nfitz
Superstar
Glad to see that stop is back on again. Now if only they'd add a spur to go the one extra kilometre to the Eglinton GO station. They don't need all the trains to go north of Eglinton!
|
|
|
OneCity
Senior Member
That would be a complete corridor re-design and reset from the start. Insanity. The EELRT design can be amended and built in the future once the subway are straightened around or the City decides to tackle
nfitz
Superstar
It's about 1.5 km from Kennedy station to Brimley/Danforth (and about 3.5 to the proposed new Lawrence East station). There'll still need to be surface transit along Eglinton ... the Eglinton East LRT still plans 2 stops between Brimely/Danforth and Kennedy. Nothing need change in the final finished design, except for some entrances to the subway - including one on the LRT platform.
44 North
Senior Member
I'm talking about it being completed - Downsview to SC - and saying unequivocally that 4-car with ~22k pphpd capacity is more than ample. From the projections I've seen 2-car would be sufficient; 4-car would simply be future-proofed forever. This isn't downtown. If you can find evidence on the contrary by all means.
As for the part about Yonge not being built for 6-car, I don't think that's correct. Sure we've been continually modifying stations, widening things, adding exits. But as far as I know always had the same 6-car platform lengths.
That would certainly be interesting. Crosstown east of Kennedy seems dead, and the current party clearly has no qualms tearing up plans and starting things over. To get moving for the people or something. Just on a basic level it does seem weird to veer Line 2 straight north when it's an east-west line. Maybe even bring this branch to Guildwood.
OneCity
Senior Member
The current alignment is replacing the failed RT. We had enough trouble getting the subway alignment in a central location. Were not going any further east anytime soon on Eglinton with this extension. Just add the stops and move on with the Sheppard subway as a trunk. The Crosstown is far more east-west oriented within Scarborough and can be extended past Guildwood
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
Lawrence is definitely more important. Brimley@Eglinton instead of Lawrence is politically more expedient though. It fits the "3-stations" promise, is cheaper to build than Lawrence, and allows to collect more development charges.
I'd rather go with Lawrence, but that's not how it works.
JSF-1
Active Member
The other option is don't go to Sheppard. The most important part of the SSE is its connection to STC, as long as that happens nothing else matters. The SSE can be Brimley > Lawrence > STC and nothing would honestly change. The SSE going to Sheppard is not necessary. You can take the money that would be spent on expanding the SSE to Sheppard and put it towards the stops at Brimley and Lawrence. As long as the SSE makes it to STC it fulfills its purpose. If we are going to be smart then instead of building the line to Sheppard, we cut it back to STC and fill in a station at Brimley. It's not like Sheppard has any real importance as any extension of the Sheppard Line should swing down to STC and not continue to McCowan & Sheppard.
syn
Senior Member
Neither do I.
The stations were designed for 6 cars. Having to upgrade all of the stations would've been a massive undertaking.
They've been running 6 cars for as long as I can remember in my 30+ years.
Here is a 6 car configuration from the early 1970s:
The subway opened in 1954 - that means they would've had to make major platform length upgrades in just 15 years.
The TTC also selected the Gloucester cars because they could run them in 8-car configurations, taking advantage of the station lengths they were going to build. They were already experimenting with 8 car configurations in the 50s.
There is really no comparing the original Yonge Line to the Sheppard Line. It's underused because it was built in a low density suburban area that didn't require a subway.
Rainforest
Senior Member
I wouldn't dismiss the value of the subway going from STC to Sheppard. The main benefit of that is shortening the travel time to subway for buses coming from the north. The 401 bridges are often congested, and the buses spend time there even though the distance is short.
If we have to choose between the Lawrence East station and going to Sheppard .. I don't really know which of them is more valuable, but Lawrence East will probably come cheaper (an extra station with no extra tunnel length, as opposed to both extra station and extra 1.7 km of tunnel).
Northern Light
Superstar
100% inaccurate.
The length of the original Yonge Line platforms has never been extended, not once.
The original trains ordered, the Glouchesters or G-Trains as they were called colloquially fit the stations at up to 8 cars, which is the length they ran at, in rush hours, throughout my lifetime....
What the TTC did do, when it built the lines originally, was to run shorter trains in the off-peak.
So the six-car (normally) Montrealer's and H1s, H2s, H3s and H4s all ran as 4-cars (2 married pairs) on the weekends, and sometimes at midday on weekdays.
I don't remember the G-Trains being cut back, but I'm sure they were from either 8 to 6 or 4 (as they also operated in pairs)
I have a distinct memory in childhood of a Line 2 train, at Warden being broken, while in the station, and being told we have to shift cars, as the 2 front ones were leaving.
(I swear I'm not THAT old, LOL...) but I'm amused at the memory of TTC maintenance staff coming on board and beginning to mop the cars before they even left the station!
* an interesting phenomenon of variable length trains, was that people were invariably at the wrong spot on the platform when a train pulled in and stopped short of the end but also didn't run the full length of the platform, so people had to run to catch the train.
JSF-1
Active Member
Sure there may be value in going to Sheppard, but does the Subway need to go to Sheppard right now? No. STC is the primary objective and Sheppard while nice to have is not neccesissary at the moment. On the other hand if the line is going to pass under Lawrence, not having a station there is a huge missed opertunity and slap in the face to residence who depend on Lawrence East station. It also does the 54 no favors as no station at Lawrence means the 54 would need to either divert down to Kennedy or up to STC for part of its route before jogging back down to Lawrence; such a plan is hilariously inefficient and under the 1 Stop Subway plan is exactly what was going to happen. The fact is a station at Lawrence is absolutly 100% neccissary, there is no two ways around this. As I mentioned before its not like the Sheppard Subway will be going to Sheppard and McCowan, it will sweep down to STC thus even further diminishing the need for a station at Sheppard for the foreseeable future. Is a station at Sheppard nice to have? Yes, is it needed, no.
We can debate all we want about the merits of stations at Brimley and Sheppard however the need for a station at Lawrence is not up for debate. Any SSE plan that doens't include a station at Lawrence is an SSE plan that belongs in the garbage. If building a station at Lawrence requires some sort of upheaval in the planning process then it goes to show just how ill conceived the Subway extension truly is.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Some of the original Yonge Subway station platforms were not completely straight. Some still have a curve, which increases the (mind the) gap between the train car doors and the platform. Union Station for example:
From link.
nfitz
Superstar
Pretty much - one exception of course is Eglinton, which is currently being extended northwards ... but it will be shortened at the other end by the same length when they are finished!
All the platforms have always been about 500 feet long - 152 metres ... the same as Montreal.
This would allow for 9-car trains, using the original 1950s cars. Or about 6.67 of the current cars.
Presumably one day, we'll end up with 7 or 8-car trains (or 9?) with slightly smaller cars.
So how did we end up with the 500-feet length - given the original shorter cars only ran in pairs. Were there thoughts to do them in triples, like in Montreal (where I've only seen 6-car (seldom) and 9-car trains?
I remember seeing 6-car Gloucester trains, that you had to run for, instead of the normal 8-car. Did they ever run 4-car Gloucesters? Or 4-car trains using the current length - other on Sheppard (Line 4).
Northern Light
Superstar
Couldn't remember for sure, myself.........but did some googling...........here's your answer. (courtesy Transit Toronto)
