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

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Not much point if the distance between stations aren't far enough part to benefit from that highest top speed (you still need to accelerate to, and decelerate from - and that will eat up part of that distance). 80kph seems to be fairly common.

AoD
Click to expand...
I would say that the Thorncliffe Park - Gerrard section has pretty wide spacing between stations (not sure of the station-to-station length). Also, it would be smarter to have 100 km/h capabilities in case of any extensions, which may have wider spacing especially if extended north of Eglinton.
 
asher__jo said:
See the Canada line as an example of how easy it is to underestimate demand. I agree all stations should be 100m (with perhaps the option of expanding to 120m).
Click to expand...

Yep, I think ultimate platform length of120m should be baked into the plans; the trainset length I don't care too much at this point because that's an interim measure that can be resolved relatively easily by procuring new cars.

AoD
 
Last edited:
So having read... the vast majority of it, here's bits of interest I've pulled out. Mostly direct quotes lifted straight out with a touch of summarisation, my comments in italics

Trains, signalling
  • 1500 Volts DC overhead contact system
  • Platform edge doors

  • Either four-car (80m length) or five-car (100m length) with an opportunity to adapt fleet overtime
  • Peak service of 34-40 trains per hour (tph) (every 105-90 seconds) - Off-peak service of 12-24 tph (every 5-2.5 minutes)

  • Initial Business Case Operating Concept uses 100 m trains with a frequency of 40 tph during the peak.
  • Refined Operating Concept uses 80 m trains and a phased service plan, which begins with 34 tph in the peak [with] additional service to respond to ridership growth over time. In this phasing plan, it is assumed that a 40 train per hour service level would be deployed by 2041, comparable to the IBC Operating Concept option.

  • Ultimate capacity of 750 passengers per vehicle or 30,000 passengers per hour per direction assuming 40 tph
  • Proposed loading standard*: 3-4 passengers per square metres in peak, 2.5 off-peak - compared to Toronto Rocket 3.29 (design) 2.44 (observed)
    (London Underground S Stock measure around 5 passengers per square metre as max capacity, with 7 per sqm as "crush load", so this checks out tbh)

  • The use of automated vehicles and platform edge doors (which are intended to limit delays at station and keep the service to scheduled headways) are anticipated to provide a higher degree of reliability for customers
  • GoA4 (Grade of Automation 4) driverless vehicle system (Unattended Train Operation (UTO) basically) - Trains will be automatically operated during normal operations and procedures, including door closing, obstacle detection and also in emergency situations. On-board staff will not be required for safe operation.
  • CBTC [signalling] system will be capable of operating up to 40 trains per hour and will likely have a range of advanced capabilities including fully bi-directional operation, automatic route setting, and moving block train separation.
  • Reference projects such as the Vancouver SkyTrain and Canada Line, London DLR and Copenhagen’s City Circle Line
Stations and tunnelling
  • Stations and tunnels are being designed to accommodate trains up to 100 meters long and 3 meters wide, however the initial trains are likely to be shorter and may be slightly narrower. (??? I guess they'll design the stations to fit the trains, but you can't make the vehicle envelope bigger later on without massive costs!)
  • Transit Oriented Community opportunities are being considered as each station is designed (Good, unlike the Eglinton Crosstown glass canopies)
  • [Underground stations at King-Bathurst and Queen-Spadina] are likely to be built mostly using sequential excavation mining (SEM) techniques, limiting surface disruption and impacts.
  • Osgoode, Queen and Moss Park are currently envisaged to be built mostly with SEM techniques, but there will be some surface disruption including temporary road closures to construct pedestrian concourses and interchange with Line 1.
  • Moss Park Station configuration - a mined cavern under Queens Street with a single entrance within Moss Park.
  • Tail track may be provided for reversing and storing trains north of Science Centre station, aligned to protect for a possible northward future extension.
  • Pape Station has been shifted off-street to the east side of Pape Avenue, so that it can be constructed with mixed cut-and-cover and mined methods.
  • Under the "Capital Cost Summary in Financial Terms" section, the only station (other than Pape) that mentions a bus terminal is "Flemingdon Park"...
  • Consistent platform architecture, lighting, branding, and signage (Not sure what the alternative is)
  • Elevators and escalators to all platforms (learning from the Canada Line underprovision, then) - Station access (escalators, elevators, etc.) is being sized for projected 2080 demand.
  • Weather-protected waiting areas and transfer routes between subway and GO Transit.
Operation
  • The TTC will be responsible for day-to-day operations as they related to customer-facing activities such as fare enforcement and network transit control.
  • The Ontario Line will operate as an integral part of the Toronto subway network, with the same service hours. First and last train times will be aligned so passengers can complete their journeys.
 
jelbana said:
If Eglinton West and the Scarborough subway weren't being proposed to be built almost completely underground, and the same value engineering was used everywhere, then it would've made it harder to argue for burying the line for reasons like the above. Right now, there is absolutely no credibility in the arguments being put forth for the Ontario Line, even if it is hypothetically the right technical design.
Click to expand...

Just because the plans for 2 lines are bad doesn't mean they are for this.

syn said:
Save us from dark tunnels Metrolinx!
Click to expand...

Its a totally legit reason why elevated is better. Having spent a lot of time in London are far preferred having a view to none at all. . .


W. K. Lis said:
When the Scarborough Rapid Transit line was first proposed, it was to have CLRV-like light rail vehicles (basically existing technology), coupled in trains, using it. Then the Progressive Conservatives at the time, forced them to use "new" technology instead, Intermediate Capacity Transit System (ICTS).

The Relief Line was originally to use existing technology, heavy rail. Now with a "new" name, the Ontario Line is to use train technology imposed by the (Progressive) Conservatives... again. Still don't know what it is.
Click to expand...

As others mentioned ICTS is not actually fundamentally bad . . . I would way rather ride the SRT on a daily than say the Spadina Streetcar, its faster and more frequent (Spadina is super unreliable), you wouldn't know this if you only listened to the popular discourse about the line though. (Also no wonder its falling apart when no new trains have been purchased - and of course its an option, they could even just make a modern train with the MK1 profile)

asher__jo said:
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.
Click to expand...

The TTC already maintains a number of different types of rolling stock as do cities around the world, as long as the lines are big its not a problem because there is sufficient scale. OL will have a pretty big fleet.

JSF-1 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Interlining is such a bad reason for common trains, any time it happens the system is in shambles, and it won't even be possible anymore (at any reasonable capacity) because of the different signaling systems. If you are building a new line, the small additional cost of maintaining a fleet separately (parts and training of workers can still be common) is not worth the huge expense of connecting them up / forcing a common tech platform.

duffo said:
The frequency cited was always trains per hour per direction so it would actually be every 5 mins in the worst case. In any case, a definite downgrade. The value engineering has begun!
Click to expand...

Its not really value engineering, more just service optimization, the line is still capable of those frequencies.

AlvinofDiaspar said:
100m platforms are pathetic in the first place. That's ECLRT scaling. Was there any estimates with assumption of a northward extension in the IBC for example? I don't see any.
Click to expand...

1) Lots of cities have lines with roughly 100m platforms (Paris, London, Madrid, Tokyo etc. and some of these lines carry a TON of people) so not sure how this is "pathetic"
2) ECLRT is 90m and its wasted on LFLRV's which have slow boarding and poor internal circulation
 
superelevation said:
1) Lots of cities have lines with roughly 100m platforms (Paris, London, Madrid, Tokyo etc. and some of these lines carry a TON of people) so not sure how this is "pathetic"
2) ECLRT is 90m and its wasted on LFLRV's which have slow boarding and poor internal circulation
Click to expand...

Sure they do, and they also have multiple lines going through the core - my question remain - did they model a northward extension of this route to some fairly logical termini, and what is the impact to projected ridership?

As to ECLRT - the platform length will *almost* always be - the trainset does not.

AoD
 
A nice looking new map of the Ontario Line. From Pg 92 of the PDBC. Note the absence of a connection to the Lakeshore East and Stouffville Line at Gerrard. Good sign the Gerrard GO Station is cancelled.

1608241217102.png
 
abovetoronto said:
Connect 6ix - Design Team: Hitachi Rail Canada, Webuild/Astaldi Canada Design & Construction, IBI Group Professional Services (Canada) Inc.
ONConnects - Design Team: Siemens Mobility, Hatch Inc
ONLineLinx - Design Team: Alstom Transport Canada, Parsons
Click to expand...

Looking at those Rolling Stock providers - I thought I'd provide some visual and international context of similar projects that Hitachi, Siemens and Alstom have done in recent years.

Hitachi bought Ansaldo Breda in 2015, and in doing so gained the very successful "Driverless Metro" model, currently in use in 9 cities around the world. Best example of the recent Hitachi Driverless Metro would be Copenhagen - the very successful automated Metro there runs underground, at grade and elevated. It's 2.65m wide, 3 cars, 40m long. There's some great time-lapse videos online! As a sidenote, the design of the Copenhagen Metro is very nice - and looks very good for nearly 20 years old in some places!

M-Femoeren1.jpg


Siemens uses their Inspiro platform, currently in use in 6 cities around the world I believe. Best example I can think of is the Kuala Lumpur Kajang MRT line, which uses 3.1 m wide, 90m four car driverless trains.
MRT_SBK_Semantan_station2.jpg


Alstom uses their Metropolis platform, currently in use in 22 cities around the world. Examples relevant include the Singapore Circle and North East lines - the Circle line uses 3.2 wide, 70m long, 3 car driverless trains.
Alstom_C830C-Ext(1).png


Hope this provides some context for some of you!
 
daniel_kryz said:
I would say that the Thorncliffe Park - Gerrard section has pretty wide spacing between stations (not sure of the station-to-station length). Also, it would be smarter to have 100 km/h capabilities in case of any extensions, which may have wider spacing especially if extended north of Eglinton.
Click to expand...

By the time such extension is built, the rolling stock will be nearing the replacement time. If deemed useful then, they can order faster trains.
 
First, @turini2 ; my thanks for your excellent summary!

****

Second.......from said summary:

Proposed loading standard*: 3-4 passengers per square metres in peak, 2.5 off-peak - compared to Toronto Rocket 3.29 (design) 2.44 (observed)
(London Underground S Stock measure around 5 passengers per square metre as max capacity, with 7 per sqm as "crush load", so this checks out tbh)
Click to expand...

Uhh.......so the capacity estimate, in peak-periods is based on a number between 23%- 64% higher than the actual, observed conditions on Toronto Rockets?

No thanks. I've been on a Toronto Rocket that's packed.....the idea you're gong to squeeze, on average, one more person, into my personal space is a non-starter; assuming I believe that to be plausible.

And following on that thought, I find the number to be entirely incredulous.
 
turini2 said:
  • Under the "Capital Cost Summary in Financial Terms" section, the only station (other than Pape) that mentions a bus terminal is "Flemingdon Park"...
Click to expand...

The Science Centre (Eg / Don Mills) bus terminal is a part of ECLRT cost, thus not included with OL.
 
Rainforest said:
By the time such extension is built, the rolling stock will be nearing the replacement time. If deemed useful then, they can order faster trains.
Click to expand...

I don't think you'd shave that much time off to make a difference - but in any case there is no reason why an extension can't happen relatively quickly (other than it being an artificial delay). Certainly I think there is a better case for extending it all the way to Sheppard than a certain western extension that we are embarking on *cough cough*

AoD
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top