News   Jul 29, 2024
 101     0 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1.4K     1 
News   Jul 26, 2024
 1K     0 

Time for a little fun: alternate history transit!

The turning radius, I assume, would be a problem if Hamilton used first generation ICTS cars, while Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur were built with wide turns that fit newer generation stock.

I doubt Detroit's installation would fit new stock, and wonder how long it will last.
 
The turning radius, I assume, would be a problem if Hamilton used first generation ICTS cars, while Vancouver and Kuala Lumpur were built with wide turns that fit newer generation stock.

I doubt Detroit's installation would fit new stock, and wonder how long it will last.

But why would "the downtown loop would have needed to be reconstructed soon after opening"?
 
But why would "the downtown loop would have needed to be reconstructed soon after opening"?
That map follows the exact route of the proposal. Look at how tight some of the turns downtown are. The first generation ICTS cars wouldn't have been able to handle those.

Yes, I think it's a good thing that we passed up true rapid transit in the 1980s. That line would have become our main transit backbone. Now imagine it going down every time a snowstorm hit. Imagine the line being down constantly for maintenance. It's not like Toronto where the RT is a component of the rapid transit network; in Hamilton, it would BE the rapid transit network. We were far better off spending two decades in limbo with buses than building our own SRT as the main backbone of our network. Today we are looking at LRT, which is a far, far better idea.

As for the spacing, I noticed that too, but the SSP posting looks legit:

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showpost.php?p=3547305&postcount=282

Some clarification is seriously in order.

First of all, the technology proposed was not LRT. It was an ICTS (Intermediate Capacity Transit System), such as the Scarborough RT.

(The below details on the proposed route are from an article in progress for my website)
The RT line would have begun at the corner of Upper James and Mohawk, with Mohawk station on the northeast corner elevated above Mohawk Plaza. The line would head north on Upper James along the centre of the roadway, and then swing onto the side of the roadway, gradually descending until passing underground near the intersection of Upper James and Monarch Rd, on the parking lot of Mountain Plaza.

Fennel Station would be located underground on the southeast corner of the intersection of Upper James and Fennell. North of Fennell station the RT would continue to descend until it emerged from the side of the Niagara Escarpment at the site of the old James St Incline, where the James St stairs are today. Now again on an elevated track, the line would have swung slightly east, to parallel James St south on the east side.

The elevated line would have jumped from James to Hughson Street, either by cutting across the St. Joseph’s Hospital, or by making a sharp turn from James onto Charlton, and then another sharp turn from Charlton onto Hughson. St. Joseph’s station would have been located either on the southeast corner of James St and Charlton, or above Hughson Street at Charlton. These two sets of options were presented as St. Joseph’s hospital had not decided whether or not to allow the RT to cut across the property.

At Hughson and Haymarket, right behind the TH&B station on Hunter St, the RT would have its maintenance and storage yard, oriented east-west above what are now the GO centre’s bus platforms. This is also the location where the downtown loop would begin. Turning west, the one-way line would turn from Hughson, pass over the TH&B tracks, and then curve between City hall and Whitehern. It would pass over the Canadian Football Hall of Fame as it reached MacNab Station.

MacNab station would be placed above the existing bus platforms at MacNab and Main, and would serve as the transfer point between the RT and the buses coming from the West end, as well as serving City Hall, Jackson Square, Copps Coliseum, and the Art Gallery of Hamilton.

From MacNab station, the line would make a sharp turn onto King, another sharp turn from King onto James, and a third sharp turn from James onto King William. The line would run along King William to John St, where King William station would be located, which would serve the old Hamilton intercity bus terminal at John and Rebecca streets, and the east side of the downtown core.

After King William station, the line would head up Catherine St to Hunter, where it would turn west, cross over the TH&B tracks, and head up Hughson heading for St Joseph’s station.

The creation of the RT would have altered the bus network on Hamilton Mountain dramatically, with most buses being routed towards a RT station, rather than the downtown core. Mohawk station would have had the largest bus station, with 7 routes redirected to the Mohawk station bus terminal. These would have included 27B UPPER JAMES, 32 GARTH, 33 SANATORIUM, 41 MOHAWK, and 45 LIMERIDGE, as well as a new STONECHURCH EAST route.

Fennel Station would see the 27A UPPER JAMES, 31 FENNELL, 34 UPPER PARADISE, and 35 COLLEGE being rerouted to the new station, as well as new QUEENSDALE, UPPER WENTWORTH, and UPPER WELLINGTON routes created.

St. Joseph station would have had no bus platforms, and MacNab station would have served all the routes that passed by Main & MacNab. King William station would see the 4 BAYFRONT rerouted via Wellington

In retrospect it was a good thing that this design was not followed. The cars used by the ICTS had wider turning radi that anticipated. This resulted in derailments on the Scarborough RT, which had to be taken offline for several months in 1988 in order to renovate Kennedy Station with wider curves. Can you image the outrage if the downtown loop would have been rebuilt a few years after opening because the curves were too tight?
 
I think the turning radius issue is overstated. The problem with Kennedy was the loop that was designed for CLRV streetcars; the ICTS engineers didn't design it. They did design the tunnel under the Stouffville GO line (and a smaller turning radius could have potentially made that tunnel shorter and therefore cheaper) and there haven't been any derailments there.

Those curves in downtown Hamilton would have had all the space of the street to curve over.

You make a good point about winter reliability, though.
 
If you are interested in alternate transit history you should check out two exhibitions about this at the Toronto Archives and Market Gallery. I am about to publish a story about them with pictures from both if you can't make it out there!
 

Back
Top