Snow is just part of the problem with the third rail. Third rail is so much limited to low voltage, that it will either require insanely close spacing of transformer substations, bear significant power losses (due to poor transmission at low voltage) or both. Basically, for modern heavy rail systems it's a non-starter.
Snow is just part of the problem with the third rail. Third rail is so much limited to low voltage, that it will either require insanely close spacing of transformer substations, bear significant power losses (due to poor transmission at low voltage) or both. Basically, for modern heavy rail systems it's a non-starter.
From what I gather, the top speed for third rail is something like 150km/h which is likely perfectly fine for a local GO service.
I'm not sure I really buy the weather aspects as a fault either, as the outdoor sections of the subway seem to be okay. Certainly overhead wires are not immune to ice bringing them down (see this past winter).
I don't much care either way, but it seems odd to assume that overhead catenary system is the best "just because".
I can't believe it would take 10 years to do this. Major World Wars have been fought in shorter time frames.
Most underground systems use third rail because it reduces tunnel diameter. This is of course one of the big disadvantages of the Eglinton LRT, as building larger diameter tunnels for overhead wires costs money. The underground sections of the line would cost less if we had built a conventional subway that ends at Don Mills (using third rail, high floor rolling stock is less expensive, automation reduces labour costs, etc.) Of course, a Union Station tunnel will have to use overhead wires, but it makes no sense to use overhead wires on an underground line unless you are building an underground commuter rail system like the RER/Crossrail.
The vast majority of mainline rail systems use overhead wires because it allows higher speeds, safety at level crossings, etc. Except for subway systems which normally use third rail to reduce the tunnel diameter (except Eglinton where we waste money building a larger diameter tunnel because David Miller insists on building light rail for political reasons).
Probably the most critical piece to make all of this work is the tunnel under the Union Station Rail Corridor to run RER service.
View attachment 28912
Part of the issue may be the sudden explosion of new rail services proposed in Ontario. Between UPX, HSR, GO Regional Rail, RER proposals and VIA there's clearly a lot of overlap which would have to be collapsed. There's no way Kitchener-Toronto will justify VIA, GO and HSR service, for instance.
Another two issues with Third Rail is speed limitations and level crossings.
Third Rail has a speed limit of around 99mph. Express GO trains on the Lakeshore Line already go much faster than this, around 95mph.
So we do not want a slower system, the point of electrification was to speed the train service up even faster than 99mph.
Also what do you do at level crossings with cars? Third rail means the entire system must be grade separated.
Finally, the biggest issue that was mentioned above is snow and ice. They cause tons of issues on third rail, and thats the last thing we want in Toronto.
More info here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Benefits_and_disadvantages
Overhead line equipment can be adversely affected by strong winds, bringing the wires down and stopping all trains. Power storms can knock the power out with lightning strikes on systems with overhead wires, stopping trains if there is a power surge.
Overhead line equipment may require reconstruction of bridges to provide safe electrical clearance.
I don't think such a tunnel would really be needed for a RER network. Union should have plenty of physical room to accommodate new services. The assumptions which lead to USRC Capacity Study to suggest a new tunnel or terminal station seem questionable and in any case undermine the entire point of RER networks (high frequency 'through' routes).
Paradoxically, we may need to reduce the total number of platforms at Union to create wider RER platforms with better vertical passenger circulation.
Part of the issue may be the sudden explosion of new rail services proposed in Ontario. Between UPX, HSR, GO Regional Rail, RER proposals and VIA there's clearly a lot of overlap which would have to be collapsed. There's no way Kitchener-Toronto will justify VIA, GO and HSR service, for instance.
Let's make 3 general categories of rail service. Local (a la S-Bahn) lines with frequent, metro-like operations serving the 416 and inner 905. Regional lines focused on the outer 905 (e.g. Barrie, Oshawa, Hamilton) markets with low commuter shares to Toronto as well as places like St. Catharines and London. Finally, you'd have Intercity rail focused on long haul, >200km trips (Montreal, Windsor).
Operationally, within the most of Toronto, you could probably merge the 'Intercity' and 'Regional' routes since they'd both operate more or less express.
Basically, the cost to add a tunnel under Union would start at 1 to 1.5 billion and go up from there. It's really quite a lot of money to double down on a corridor which is quite wide as it is. If there ever was an unavoidable capacity constraint (which I don't believe will happen in our lifetimes), the solution would be to start offloading the Intercity and Regional trains somewhere else (a new North Toronto Station?) where they could sit for longer without displacing trains serving much busier local routes. If space really is at such a premium at Union, then it should be catered to routes with the greatest ridership potential which means 'local' routes.