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

[tayser]

Worked well for Sydney, will likely work well for Montreal, there's no reason to believe it won't work for Toronto.

To be clear, Sydney metro - and the tech they're using - really isn't all that new. They're still using 1500v DC overhead, standard gauge track (1435mm) - which are both characteristics of the existing network - the primary difference is the operations/control systems, automated/driverless rolling stock that can use those systems and because it's a one-size-fits all rolling stock operating on the line, there are platform doors (most other AU systems, broadly, need to cater for multiple rolling stock classes). For all intents in purposes, if you just gazed long enough at the tracks/OHLE, you wouldn't find many differences.

And they're doubling down by already getting planning underway on two more separate lines. Their existing fleet won't be able to operate on the metro track (nor would the metro fleet be able to operate on the existing network) but at a barebones level, the infrastructure is almost the same.

We're waiting for the details, but it looks like Melbourne's SRL will probably have the same characteristics as our existing network too - but will be operationally independent: broad gauge track (1600mm), 1500v DC OHLE etc.

 

[micheal_can]

But Sheppard Avenue ends at Fairport Road in Pickering! We want to use the subway, subway, subway to reach Oshawa, without transferring.

Have it keep going on Highway 2.

 

[ARG1]

To be clear, Sydney metro - and the tech they're using - really isn't all that new. They're still using 1500v DC overhead, standard gauge track (1435mm) - which are both characteristics of the existing network - the primary difference is the operations/control systems, automated/driverless rolling stock that can use those systems and because it's a one-size-fits all rolling stock operating on the line, there are platform doors (most other AU systems, broadly, need to cater for multiple rolling stock classes). For all intents in purposes, if you just gazed long enough at the tracks/OHLE, you wouldn't find many differences.

And they're doubling down by already getting planning underway on two more separate lines. Their existing fleet won't be able to operate on the metro track (nor would the metro fleet be able to operate on the existing network) but at a barebones level, the infrastructure is almost the same.

We're waiting for the details, but it looks like Melbourne's SRL will probably have the same characteristics as our existing network too - but will be operationally independent: broad gauge track (1600mm), 1500v DC OHLE etc.

I was specifically attacking the "Lets build a new line, that uses something different than the rest of the network uses. " part. Sydney Metro, while the technology isn't new or innovative, is new in the context of Sydney which traditionally uses Bilevel Manual trains with AC power. Sydney Metro by all metrics is exactly like the Ontario Line in this regard, abandoning the old network in favour of creating something new. Montreal's REM is the exact same thing, abandoning the Metro network in favour of lighter automated metros. Ontario Line is likely to follow in these 2 cities' footsteps using DC catenary power likely running on the same rolling stock, and is in fact a departure from the rest of the subway system, yet somehow in Toronto that's a problem.

 

[Tuck]

I wouldn't say its a problem to switch from one to the other for new lines - in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't even matter.

Buuuuut personally I think its dumb to keep switching, because then you're reinventing the wheel each time you do a transit project (and restarting debates) and I like uniformity. Innovia, Rocket, Flexity Freedom, whatever the Ontario line will be. What a frankenstein of a network. Think we should stick with what works, unless theres clear benefits to be had (like in the OL's case).

Though I must admit I'm glad Toronto's experiment with those garbage low floor vehicles seems to be mostly over.

 

[tayser]

I was specifically attacking the "Lets build a new line, that uses something different than the rest of the network uses. " part. Sydney Metro, while the technology isn't new or innovative, is new in the context of Sydney which traditionally uses Bilevel Manual trains with AC power. Sydney Metro by all metrics is exactly like the Ontario Line in this regard, abandoning the old network in favour of creating something new. Montreal's REM is the exact same thing, abandoning the Metro network in favour of lighter automated metros. Ontario Line is likely to follow in these 2 cities' footsteps using DC catenary power likely running on the same rolling stock, and is in fact a departure from the rest of the subway system, yet somehow in Toronto that's a problem.

Yep - I understand where you were going but I just wanted to make it clear that the fundamentals haven't changed (unlike a change to ICTS etc). By the way, as I pointed out, they don't use AC power on the existing network (only Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia use AC - where the networks were electrified much later than Victoria and New South Wales which are DC).

 

[JSF-1]

I was specifically attacking the "Lets build a new line, that uses something different than the rest of the network uses. " part. Sydney Metro, while the technology isn't new or innovative, is new in the context of Sydney which traditionally uses Bilevel Manual trains with AC power. Sydney Metro by all metrics is exactly like the Ontario Line in this regard, abandoning the old network in favour of creating something new. Montreal's REM is the exact same thing, abandoning the Metro network in favour of lighter automated metros. Ontario Line is likely to follow in these 2 cities' footsteps using DC catenary power likely running on the same rolling stock, and is in fact a departure from the rest of the subway system, yet somehow in Toronto that's a problem.

It''ll be a dumb decision if this is the only line that uses the new trains. At least over in Sydney and Montreal the departure from old to new is part of a larger scheme, they aren't just one off lines. If the OL is the only line that uses the new trains then it will be a dumb decision. If we intend on building more lines with the new trains than it will be fine (it would be even better if any lines using the new trains would be physically connected to each other). If we build the OL and then never use the trains again on another line then we just end up with an SRT style situation where we have an "orphaned" technology/line. As it stands now though the OL is the only project that will use these trains so there is nothing wrong being skeptical of its logic.

 

[syn]

It''ll be a dumb decision if this is the only line that uses the new trains. At least over in Sydney and Montreal the departure from old to new is part of a larger scheme, they aren't just one off lines. If the OL is the only line that uses the new trains then it will be a dumb decision. If we intend on building more lines with the new trains than it will be fine (it would be even better if any lines using the new trains would be physically connected to each other). If we build the OL and then never use the trains again on another line then we just end up with an SRT style situation where we have an "orphaned" technology/line. As it stands now though the OL is the only project that will use these trains so there is nothing wrong being skeptical of its logic.

It's quite remarkable how great we are at repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

 

[syn]

Be careful what you wish for. Metrolinx is touting sound barriers everywhere as the cure-all for noise. For those sitting on the train, instead of having a great view of trees, or views of the city, what they will end up with is being in a canyon of graffiti.

I was just kidding, a reference to their "blog" post on the horrors of dark tunnels (which of course doesn't seem to apply to any other projects).

 

[Deadpool X]

I am not sure why it is a problem that OL will have a different technology and different trains. Lines 1 and 2 have same technology but trains are not interlined. Line 1 trains are operated on Line 1 only and trains on Line 2 are operated on Line 2 only. They already work as independent projects. Only for repair and maintenance, they could use shared services.

In most of the cities, each metro line is a self contained independent project. To a customer it doesn't matter if the train's size and appearance changes while they change their lines.

 

[asher__jo]

I am not sure why it is a problem that OL will have a different technology and different trains. Lines 1 and 2 have same technology but trains are not interlined. Line 1 trains are operated on Line 1 only and trains on Line 2 are operated on Line 2 only. They already work as independent projects. Only for repair and maintenance, they could use shared services.

In most of the cities, each metro line is a self contained independent project. To a customer it doesn't matter if the train's size and appearance changes while they change their lines.

I really only matters if the TTC was responsible for maintenance of OL (which they're not), as maintaining too many different types of rolling stock would be difficult.

 

[JSF-1]

I am not sure why it is a problem that OL will have a different technology and different trains. Lines 1 and 2 have same technology but trains are not interlined. Line 1 trains are operated on Line 1 only and trains on Line 2 are operated on Line 2 only. They already work as independent projects. Only for repair and maintenance, they could use shared services.

In most of the cities, each metro line is a self contained independent project. To a customer it doesn't matter if the train's size and appearance changes while they change their lines.

Because the TTC can run T1's and TR's on each line. Sure they don't in normal service but in a pinch the TTC can move trains around between the lines, and in fact they have done this on multiple ocassions; we've seen TR's on Line 2 and T1's on Line 1 multiple times. OL trains will be 100% incompatible with the rest of the network so unless its only going to be the first in a series of lines using the same trains, we end up with vehicles whose utility is limited to only one line. Even the current LRT projects will use different vehicles yet both the Finch LRT and Eglinton Crosstown are built to the same or similar standard so if necessary Metrolinx could move Flexity's to the Finch line or Citadis's to the Eglinton line. As well to your point about other cities, most if not all other cities tend to have multiple lines that are compatible with each other. So even if each line has its own unique looking rolling stock, they can be moved to different lines without much issue if necessary.

 

[micheal_can]

I was specifically attacking the "Lets build a new line, that uses something different than the rest of the network uses. " part. Sydney Metro, while the technology isn't new or innovative, is new in the context of Sydney which traditionally uses Bilevel Manual trains with AC power. Sydney Metro by all metrics is exactly like the Ontario Line in this regard, abandoning the old network in favour of creating something new. Montreal's REM is the exact same thing, abandoning the Metro network in favour of lighter automated metros. Ontario Line is likely to follow in these 2 cities' footsteps using DC catenary power likely running on the same rolling stock, and is in fact a departure from the rest of the subway system, yet somehow in Toronto that's a problem.

I think it heralds back to the time the SRT was touted as the next big thing. It forced a transfer to get anywhere besides where it actually runs.

I wouldn't say its a problem to switch from one to the other for new lines - in the grand scheme of things it really doesn't even matter.

Buuuuut personally I think its dumb to keep switching, because then you're reinventing the wheel each time you do a transit project (and restarting debates) and I like uniformity. Innovia, Rocket, Flexity Freedom, whatever the Ontario line will be. What a frankenstein of a network. Think we should stick with what works, unless theres clear benefits to be had (like in the OL's case).

Though I must admit I'm glad Toronto's experiment with those garbage low floor vehicles seems to be mostly over.

Makes me think of Boston. All 5 of their lines use different rolling stock that cannot be used on the other lines. They cannot order for all lines and pay one bulk price. they have to do them separate. So, now Toronto will have 5 different technologies for their rail services. Regardless of who is operating it, this doesn't make much sense in the long run.

I am not sure why it is a problem that OL will have a different technology and different trains. Lines 1 and 2 have same technology but trains are not interlined. Line 1 trains are operated on Line 1 only and trains on Line 2 are operated on Line 2 only. They already work as independent projects. Only for repair and maintenance, they could use shared services.

In most of the cities, each metro line is a self contained independent project. To a customer it doesn't matter if the train's size and appearance changes while they change their lines.

Most cities have ways to bring trains from one line to another. Many systems do have interlined areas. Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Ottawa all have, or will have interlined lines.

Hopefully this is not a problem in the future, like the SRT challenges are.

 

[Deadpool X]

If you consider newer systems, for example, the ones in Asia, they are not doing that. Maybe it's just an overkill. You talked about bulk ordering but most of the times, there could be a decade's gap between the need to upgrade rolling stock of one line from another. For example, you won't order trains for Line 1 and Line 2 at the same time. Line 1's trains will last a lot longer compared to Line 2's.

 

[Deadpool X]

Because the TTC can run T1's and TR's on each line. Sure they don't in normal service but in a pinch the TTC can move trains around between the lines, and in fact they have done this on multiple ocassions; we've seen TR's on Line 2 and T1's on Line 1 multiple times. OL trains will be 100% incompatible with the rest of the network so unless its only going to be the first in a series of lines using the same trains, we end up with vehicles whose utility is limited to only one line. Even the current LRT projects will use different vehicles yet both the Finch LRT and Eglinton Crosstown are built to the same or similar standard so if necessary Metrolinx could move Flexity's to the Finch line or Citadis's to the Eglinton line. As well to your point about other cities, most if not all other cities tend to have multiple lines that are compatible with each other. So even if each line has its own unique looking rolling stock, they can be moved to different lines without much issue if necessary.

This looks like having just a small convenience at a cost of billions of extra dollars. Those extra billions of dollars should rather be spent at many other badly needed transit projects.

 

[JSF-1]

This looks like having just a small convenience at a cost of billions of extra dollars. Those extra billions of dollars should rather be spent at many other badly needed transit projects.

How does having consistency for how a lines are designed in any way cost "Billions of Dollars?" All that I and everyone is saying is if we are going to be using trains that will only ever be used on one line and never anywhere else and they are designed to a completely different standard from the rest of the system then we are going to end up with an orphaned line and technology. If we are planning on building more lines with these trains in mind then fine, all of this becomes a moot point. If we are planning to build the OL with 3rd rail power and TTC guage tracks then this becomes a moot point. However if we are planning to build the OL with overhead caternary and standard guage tracks, and then never building another line with the same standards than we have a problem. We end up with another SRT which for lack of a better term is properitary. The trains can't be used anywhere else, the parts can't be used or gotten from anywhere else, and we end up spending more money on maintenance for what is for all intents and purposes a proprietary service. In the event of service problems, we can't move trains around, we can do that on the subway and the TTC has done this but you can't do it with the SRT, and if the OL is going to be a one and done deal for these new trains than we're going to have the exact same problem.