Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

[M II A II R II K]

It doesn't matter what tech is used or what you call it. Whether it has high capacity for riders and how fast it travels is all that matters!

 

[JayBeeGooner]

As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.

The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.

The Tokyo monorail serving Haneda Airport travels underground. I believe there is an underground station too. Monorails are fully capable of traveling underground or even at grade, but the main advantage to building monorails is above ground in areas where there is little room.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.

The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.

Awesome. I didn't know of that system.

But I still stand by my belief that LRT is far better for Toronto. There is no denying that with LRT we'll have far greater operational flexibility and vehicle choice for approximately the same price.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Awesome. I didn't know of that system.

But I still stand by my belief that LRT is far better for Toronto. There is no denying that with LRT we'll have far greater operational flexibility and vehicle choice for approximately the same price.

Agreed. LRT is a far better technology choice than monorail for Toronto.

 

[bardak]

I'l preface this with the fact that I'm from Vancouver but from an outsiders view I have to say that I find the design of the Crosstown to be rather awkward. It seems like they chose the vehicle before and then tried to make it work with the corridor. The choice of low floor LRT vehicles instead of high floor third rail vehicles of the same size seems to create a lot of extra costs. Using such a vehicle would make the underground tunnels smaller (pantographs can be compressed but only to a point. I think you would be hard pressed to find one that goes below 6"-12" above the vehicle) and would not necessitate the rebuilding of the SRT station, only a renovation. Only 5 of the 25 kilometers are at grade and those 5k are through a giant big box wonderland and I sure that a vast majority of the cost could be made up from the saving elsewhere in the lines.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Using heavy rail On eglinton would require the reconstruction of the RTs stations regardless, they are currently nowhere near 150m long.

 

[snowystar]

Using heavy rail On eglinton would require the reconstruction of the RTs stations regardless, they are currently nowhere near 150m long.

Who said heavy rail have to use 150m trains...

 

[EnviroTO]

Who said heavy rail have to use 150m trains...

Why go heavy rail which limits surface options, and then limit your capacity to smaller trains? If capacity wasn't the driving force behind the heavy rail decision then why would LRT in a tunnel have been so inadequate?

 

[ssiguy2]

If Toronto wants a slower, less reliable, and more expensive to run system like LRT then that fine. The point is that for both the Eglinton and SRT, Toronto is getting an at grade system at a subway price.

 

[snowystar]

Why go heavy rail which limits surface options, and then limit your capacity to smaller trains? If capacity wasn't the driving force behind the heavy rail decision then why would LRT in a tunnel have been so inadequate?

Because LRT in a tunnel would be much more expensive than heavy rail tunnel, given the same capacity.

A 120m train every 3min would give the same capacity as 80m train every 2min or 60m train every 1.5min, but the latter only require a station half as large.

 

[dowlingm]

The reliability issues around the RT any time snow accumulates to the third rail shows why SRT technology works a lot better in Vancouver. Even the subway has issues in open cuts, notably at Warden.

Using light rail on Eglinton would not have made sense in a fully grade separated line, something pointed out when Ford wanted to do that since LRT vehicles have side impact protections subway cars can dispense with. However the point of using LRT was not just being able to operate at grade between Don Mills and Kennedy but also being able to extend the SRT alignment beyond McCowan at a reasonable cost. The Transit City plan also envisaged connections between lines using other lines (Finch East/Don Mills, Finch West/Jane, Sheppard East, ) - the rollback in the scope of LRT in Toronto due to Provincial retreat along with the likelihood that mass transit south of Don Mills and Eglinton will be subway changes the equation somewhat.

One idea I had (too far gone to do now) would have been to do a circle subway line (Yonge/Eg, Eg/Don Mills, Pape/Danforth, Downtown, Keele/Bloor, Keele/Eglinton, Eglinton/Yonge) with shorter LRTs feeding it.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

If Toronto wants a slower, less reliable, and more expensive to run system like LRT then that fine. The point is that for both the Eglinton and SRT, Toronto is getting an at grade system at a subway price.

Did Metrolinx ever discuss the cost of a heavy real rolling stock?

 

[SgtBullmoose]

As much as this idea humors me, it dosen't make any sense. At all.

The problem is that there is no practical way to get a monorail underground. I cannot find a single example of an underground monorail system.

The issue with monorails is that a monorail would have to ride several feet above the bottom of the tunnel to accommodate the tracks. This means that the tunnel may need to be wider, adding additional construction costs. On the other hand, light rail can run mere inches off the bottom of the tunnel. I know you're probably going to point out that light rail vehicles would require a pantograph. The good thing is that the pantograph can be compressed so that power lines can run inches above the vehicle. An LRV can also use a third rail for power collection, eliminating the need for a pantograph.

A monorail only makes sense if you're building a 100% above grade line. It cannot be used underground, or in a ROW and is inefficient for at-grade use. This makes it totally inappropiate for a city like Toronto and is probably why the technology has failed to get widespread adoption in real (not Disneyland) mass transit systems.

To nitpick, Chongqing's Metro system is an underground monorail. But you're right, adopting another form of technology would make absolutely no sense for Toronto whatsoever.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

To nitpick, Chongqing's Metro system is an underground monorail. But you're right, adopting another form of technology would make absolutely no sense for Toronto whatsoever.

Yup. Someone pointed out the same system out to me a few days earlier.

And welcome to UT!

 

[EnviroTO]

If Toronto wants a slower, less reliable, and more expensive to run system like LRT then that fine.

The Transit City trams go 70km/h, the TTC subway averages a speed of 33km/h. Are the posted track speeds in the subway tunnel higher than 70km/h? I would think the speed seen in the Eglinton tunnel section would be more related to the quality of the track alignment and the acceleration rate of the Transit City vehicles. The videos showing acceleration testing of the new city vehicles seems pretty impressive, but they have more powered wheels so maybe not a fair comparison. Why less reliable? Both are being operated manually in Toronto currently.

A 120m train every 3min would give the same capacity as 80m train every 2min or 60m train every 1.5min, but the latter only require a station half as large.

That would not be true because the width of halls, platforms, etc are designed based on rules related to how many people would be in the station and the requirements of evacuating those people in an emergency.