Towered
Superstar
Mini DRL along Dundas - from Dundas West station to Broadview station.
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Mini DRL along Dundas - from Dundas West station to Broadview station.
syn
Senior Member
What would you say is 'a very long time'?
innsertnamehere
Superstar
W. K. Lis
Superstar
smallspy
Senior Member
While the Ontario Line may - and I stress, *may* - be able to reach that number, there is absolutely, positively nothing inherent to the design of the TR cars - or any other subway car ever used in Toronto - limiting them to 120 second headways. Anyone who suggests such a thing really doesn't understand how those systems work.
It may not be exclusively the only reason why, but I would suggest that it factors in quite strongly, yes.
Dan
afransen
Senior Member
I'm not sure I understand the skepticism. It's not unprecedented to operate at 40 tph, and the line is being designed for it from the ground up, not as a retrofit.
Edit to add: we shouldn't discount how useful the increased reliability of OL will be. Huge reduction in service disruptions due to PSDs keeping people and trash off the tracks. I don't often ride the subway but it seems like a disproportionate amount of the time there are service disruptions. I went to a game at Scotiabank a few weeks ago and had to walk from Dundas because of not 1 but 2 incidents on Line 1.
Last edited:
NoahB
Active Member
The assumption is that the TRs won't reach 90s is because the line's infrastructure, not the train alone, is not designed to handle that frequency. My understanding is that the time a train takes to clear the platform plays a big role. This gives shorter trains an advanatge.
For the current subway: The possibility to retrofit that is unclear. Steve Munro stated in 2006 that achieving 120-second headways on the current subway lines is difficult, and 90s is impossible because the terminals are not designed to handle them. I don't know if that has/will change with the current extensions.
syn
Senior Member
Really?
There may never be a need for more capacity on one of GO's busiest routes?
afransen
Senior Member
Hopefully Metrolinx was thinking ahead on this. Should be easy to add for Yonge N because it as grade but expensive if not already planned for at Richmond Hill.
Than can be provided by a properly operated quad track corridor? Of course they will need to add capacity to that corridor, but you can do a lot with quad track.
superelevation
Active Member
generalcanada
Senior Member
i am wondering, maybe others are too, but yes the go corridor is 4 tracks, 2 are specifically for stouville and 2 are for LSE.
Essentiallsy 2 separate 2 track corridors with long 300m trains. Express trains are included in this as well
whats the theoretical capacity of that?
Essentiallsy 2 separate 2 track corridors with long 300m trains. Express trains are included in this as well
whats the theoretical capacity of that?
tsm1072
Active Member
Taking a few assumptions, a GO train capacity is ~2000 seats. If we assume long dwells we will run a train every 5 minutes(12tph) putting capacity at 24,000 pphpd.
Now, we can dramatically improve on that through changing trains, signalling and operations. If we just take Crossrail trains and frequency, 1500 capacity at 24tph, we are at 36,000pphpd. Crossrail trains are 200m long, so if we extend to 300m we can in theory have a 2250 capacity of the train and get to 54,000pphpd for just a 2 track corridor, which is 108,000pphpd on the 4 track section.
This is of course just theoretical, but it is already well beyond the point that the actual stations on this line can handle. It also excludes VIA. But of we are needing this amount of capacity in the future, the VIA line would be the first thing to be re-routed or tunnelled as you wouldn't need to build stations on that line.
smallspy
Senior Member
It's not unprecedented although it's certainly not common either, and as you point out, this line is being built from the ground up.
My concern however stems from the details - as that is where the devil lies. From what I've seen of the track layout, it should allow a 90 second headway in regular revenue service, but the layout of the yard access - and the lack of on-line storage tracks - will make it awkward-to-difficult to inject the required trains into service to achieve that headway.
Sure, it's the infrastructure. The vehicles themselves don't have a bearing.
There are lots of opportunities to allow for improvements to the headways. Some of them are already underway. It should be noted that the passenger flows are one of the biggest obstacles, and those are currently being fixed at many stations. But one of the biggest constraints to improving it to below about 120 seconds is the track layout, and more specifically the double crossover south of Finch Station. (At the other end, the use of a single terminal will also be a constraint, although this can be overcome much more easily on the west side than the east by alternating trains between two terminals.) There are ways of fixing this, but they will require money.
That's not the best way to allocate the capacity on that line - it would be far more efficient to allocate one set of tracks to local/stopping trains, and one set of tracks to express trains. This way, the trains on each set of tracks will have a similar set of stopping patterns and speeds and performance.
As for what the capacity of the line is - that's going to be heavily dependent on the signalling used. If a similar set up to the Weston Sub is used - signals every half-mile with a 6-step signal progression - you could have trains running at 90mph every 3 miles on each track. What is installed on the Kingston Sub right now is somewhat less capable due to the distances between signals.
Dan
fanoftoronto
Active Member
On a different note, I had emailed the Eglinton West LRT team regarding adding a secondary exit on the opposite side of the road and also have option to add Transit Oriented developments to be added to the stations. This is the response I received from them:
I've followed up with additional points to support the secondary entrance, but I wouldn't keep my hopes up. It looks like the decision has already been made.
Though, I would definitely recommend that the forum members to send emails to the Metrolinx team through this email address (EglintonWest@metrolinx.com)to highlight our concerns and recommendations for this project.
Edit: Apologies folks, I posted this on the wrong thread. Please disregard this post as it is to do with Eglinton West LRT and not the Ontario Line.
I've followed up with additional points to support the secondary entrance, but I wouldn't keep my hopes up. It looks like the decision has already been made.
Though, I would definitely recommend that the forum members to send emails to the Metrolinx team through this email address (EglintonWest@metrolinx.com)to highlight our concerns and recommendations for this project.
Edit: Apologies folks, I posted this on the wrong thread. Please disregard this post as it is to do with Eglinton West LRT and not the Ontario Line.
Last edited:
generalcanada
Senior Member
actually, that was the setup they were planning for. remember the cross platform transfers with the straddled OL at east harbour?
that required a fly-under at scarborough junction. which now that the OL tracks are together, theres no need for it really.
its going o be up to the oncorr contractor to build it or not