micheal_can
Senior Member
Good thing is, Toronto is not a wheel and spoke city.Except if we ever decide to build a loop line, it wouldn't have a destination (read: terminus).
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
tkamb
New Member
Appears both Hitachi and Infrastructure Ontario did not mention how many train set/number of carriages they are actually going to purchase in the contract. It makes me wonder what percentage of the 9 billion contract went to maintenance, and how much actually for building the trains. Honolulu are paying some Hitachi engineers millions for primary monitoring the system (aka a nice Hawaii vacation) 
I suspect Ontario Line would not have enough trains to reach 90s headway initially, 90s might be a marketing gimmick that the system would EVENTUALLY able to reach.
FYI: https://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/month/2022/11/221118b.pdf
I suspect Ontario Line would not have enough trains to reach 90s headway initially, 90s might be a marketing gimmick that the system would EVENTUALLY able to reach.
FYI: https://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/month/2022/11/221118b.pdf
adys123
Active Member
90 s headways are not built in as opening day service frequency, but are a triggerable level within the contract.Appears both Hitachi and Infrastructure Ontario did not mention how many train set/number of carriages they are actually going to purchase in the contract. It makes me wonder what percentage of the 9 billion contract went to maintenance, and how much actually for building the trains. Honolulu are paying some Hitachi engineers millions for primary monitoring the system (aka a nice Hawaii vacation)
I suspect Ontario Line would not have enough trains to reach 90s headway initially, 90s might be a marketing gimmick that the system would EVENTUALLY able to reach.
FYI: https://www.hitachi.com/New/cnews/month/2022/11/221118b.pdf
Please also remember that in addition to the maintenance and operations, the RSSOM contract also includes the construction of rails, OCS, PSDs, signalling, and the MSF.
Parkdalian
Senior Member
They called it "Ontario Line" so that people outside of Toronto wouldn't get upset about billions of their tax dollars going to construction in the city. I think it's one of the smartest things Doug Ford has ever done. Claim it's for Ontario and people will support it politically. If calling it Ontario Line gets it built, I'm going to call it that!
I actually think named lines that are evocative and that have little to do with the locations of the lines makes more sense to me - it's the way the London Underground is labelled. It's easier to remember "Bakerloo" or "Picadilly" than some number.
I actually think named lines that are evocative and that have little to do with the locations of the lines makes more sense to me - it's the way the London Underground is labelled. It's easier to remember "Bakerloo" or "Picadilly" than some number.
smallspy
Senior Member
Is it? There's been no indication publicly of this being the case, and there's been no indication of the fleet size being large enough to allow it.
Dan
adys123
Active Member
Maybe I have said too much then... But, the MSF is designed for a certain level of future expansion, and there's a bigger incentive for Hitachi to set up shop here.
tkamb
New Member
Wouldn't it be a contract requirement rather than a incentive? A mandated minimum starting service level (mini pph/mini frequency etc) and a minimum future expansion level (like what they did for Vancouver Canada Line). If IC set a low bar at the starting service level, with all our optimistic ridership projection, we could be stuck in a crowded train for quite a while since adding new trains is both a funding and logistics problem that won't happen overnight.
T3G
Senior Member
That may be the case if you speak the language of the place, but I highly doubt anyone who struggles with English would have an easier time with "Hammersmith & City" than they would with the number 5.
It is worth pointing out that London is fairly rare when it comes to cities that name their lines, rather than numbering them.
adys123
Active Member
The specific point that I was referring to is not a contract requirement. But, you would be correct to state that any contract requirements would be written as a capacity that must be achieved.
generalcanada
Senior Member
doesnt anyone remember the debate 2 years ago when the business case came out and they suggested like 4 car trains instead of 6 to start?
adys123
Active Member
Yes, but what is the point that you want to make?
Aplus23
Active Member
I've heard someone close to the project that RMtransit interviewed say that "this line is being built for sub 90sec headways, so that we can actually achieve 90sec headways in the future"
Sunnyside
Active Member
I vividly recall this too, but last time I brought it up someone- I think Reece himself- corrected me on it, so I don’t know anymore. I claimed it was 60sec they were planning for to reach 90sec.
adys123
Active Member
In order to have practical 90 s headways, it has to be operationally capable of better headways so that factors such as dwell time don't interfere as every second matters.
Sunnyside
Active Member
Yeah, that’s what I figured- you necessarily must have the ability to run more tightly than 90sec to actually achieve such reliably. I think the 60sec figure was a generalization for explaining how that’s actually done in practice, hence the backtracking on the exact number. It’s not that they’re going to be running trains every 60 seconds, as that would require more vehicles; but they can run them *that close together* without issues to make up time.