TransitBart
Senior Member
And the great question is: will that change any commuting patterns or make the trips "easier" from the point of view of a commuter/customer/user such that there is great take-up?
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
And the great question is: will that change any commuting patterns or make the trips "easier" from the point of view of a commuter/customer/user such that there is great take-up?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Well the Liberals didn't commit $150 Million to get the Relief Line extensions shovel ready for nothing. They're keeping their options open.
TransitBart
Senior Member
It will be interesting to see if M Trudea and Mr Morneau step up. Mr Morneau must be the political minister for Toronto at least, and perhaps GTA. With Canada under assault from a protectionist America, we are going to need every young person, immigrant, tech incubator and good idea imaginable to protect the nation's wealth. We know cities generate wealth and we need this one to generate a boatload of it for the 75% of the country that does not live in the GTHA. Personally, I think we could use a hand from the federal government for a large and locked-in chunk. I - for one - have spoken to my MP about this.
Johnny Au
Senior Member
That makes more sense than what I thought at first.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
This past summer, 2016, when the A/C was failing on the Line 2 trains, they were able to divert some of the Toronto Rocket trains from Line 1 to Line 2. By having the heavy trains on the Relief Line, we would be able to shuffle the trains around, when needed, when they are the same gauge and train sizes.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Not to mention you get to use Greenwood yard and the entire 'subway' infrastructure. This subway will be TTC standard gauge.Watch the cost soar otherwise.
You'll need the new TTC yard (Obico) at Kipling too. Greenwood is not configured for 6-car permament consists and Wilson yard has been re-configured. The Line 2 depot will become Obico (Kipling) and the relief line yard will become Greenwood - it being close to the Pape alignment which allows for speedy despatch at 0500h.
If my predictions about locations prove false, then someone else tell us where you are going to store twenty+ 6-car consists. The existing yards don't support this.
BurlOak
Senior Member
I imagined the Eglinton-Scarborough SkyTrain and the DRL SkyTrain connected (not for revenue service) at science centre. There would be a yard near the water treatment plant near overlea/laird.
Key for the DRL is small tunnels so it can be as shallow as possible and make it curves when required.
Key for the DRL is small tunnels so it can be as shallow as possible and make it curves when required.
Kitsune
Senior Member
If the Greenwood yard becomes the DRL yard ... would they build a direct connection or rely and congest a portion of the Line 2 ?
44 North
Senior Member
I was thinking the RL is far enough in the future that there's ample time to plan a small yard/facility somewhere around Thorncliffe Pk. There's obviously benefits of keeping the same rolling stock, not denying that. But I think there's also benefits of using a new, narrower train that should be considered. Tho the RL could use the conventional trackage for nonrevenue service, the conventional subways couldn't use the RL trackage.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
If they build phase one of the Relief Line using the ATM and continue the tunnels up to O'Connor Drive or even the Pape & Donlands junction, they could use the tunnels as storage tunnels.
When they finish the phase two extension to Eglinton, hopefully the new and rebuilt yards would be ready.
Unless the phase one north terminal station would be further north than Danforth, of course.
When they finish the phase two extension to Eglinton, hopefully the new and rebuilt yards would be ready.
Unless the phase one north terminal station would be further north than Danforth, of course.
Attachments
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
The area southwest of Don Mills and York Mills is also a good candidate for a Relief Line yard. Specifically at Don Mills and Mallard Rd. That area is already industrial in nature, and it sits adjacent to a railway.
Until the north extension is built, we'll likely see capacity expanded at Wilson to accommodate the small number of trains that'll run on the initial RL phase. Wilson has a lot of room to expand.
Or as WK Lis suggested, the tail track at the north end could be used for overnight storage. 800 metre tunnels could accommodate 8 trains.
TransitBart
Senior Member
Notwithstanding the suggestions for another yard, Obico/Kipling might serve a number of key needs / critical path issues.
1. It adds a yard west of the Prince Edward Viaduct. If there is ever a major failure of that structure, the entire Line 2 would not be compromised.
2. There is not so much dead-head time to put trains in service on the western part of Line 2. Now you can put trains into service on Line 2 twice as quickly. Each leg of Line 1 has a working yard to put trains into service from. Even if the two yards are not the same size.
3. If RL connects at Dun West, you can put eastbound/northbound trains into service from the west. Again faster AM deployment and less dead-head time.
4. You can build it to hold Toronto Rockets (or a seven car successor) so the storage tracks are sized for 6-car consists not 2-car pairs.
5. Storing trains in tail tracks which is a second-best solution is avoided.
1. It adds a yard west of the Prince Edward Viaduct. If there is ever a major failure of that structure, the entire Line 2 would not be compromised.
2. There is not so much dead-head time to put trains in service on the western part of Line 2. Now you can put trains into service on Line 2 twice as quickly. Each leg of Line 1 has a working yard to put trains into service from. Even if the two yards are not the same size.
3. If RL connects at Dun West, you can put eastbound/northbound trains into service from the west. Again faster AM deployment and less dead-head time.
4. You can build it to hold Toronto Rockets (or a seven car successor) so the storage tracks are sized for 6-car consists not 2-car pairs.
5. Storing trains in tail tracks which is a second-best solution is avoided.
Last edited:
TransitBart
Senior Member
If I were running the TTC, I'd fight this proposal to the death. Operationally, that's an awful long dead-head from Wilson, and it causes trains which are not in service to be interleaved into a tightly packed section of track on the busiest in-service line. Another line at that. (Think of the track maintenance closures on weekends these days. Without a yard on the line, maintenance issues on Line 1 could keep the entire line out of service. For my money, that would be piss-poor planning.)
Secondly - experts here are going on about the cost of deep tunnels and building under built-up portions of the city. This proposal requires at least one (south to east) and maybe two (south to west) ninety degree turns 20 metres under the surface at Osgoode.
I think that this concept has significant drawbacks.
crs1026
Superstar
How much money would Greenwood bring if developed?
Enough to justify extending Line 2 northwards (not eastwards) from STC?
CP's other yard is available in part....converting it to a subway yard might not require the remediation that will be required if it shifts to other uses.
- Paul
Enough to justify extending Line 2 northwards (not eastwards) from STC?
CP's other yard is available in part....converting it to a subway yard might not require the remediation that will be required if it shifts to other uses.
- Paul