Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

AlvinofDiaspar said:
Depends on your perspective - there is a weighting system based on a whole range of variables (ridership, cost, city building, social equity, etc) which happened to favour Queen. Some argues (not entirely without reason) that it was loaded to ensure Smarttrack didn't get the short end of the ridership stick.

AoD
Click to expand...

That's too much credit for the planning bureaucrats. Only the first iteration of Queen was favoured by their elaborate weighting system. However they settled on the iteration below the others so it's clear the points don't matter. They played the same game in Scarborough.

I went through their latest round of NIMBY placating a few pages ago and everyone can see them suffering from convenient memory lapses and offering up distorted reasons for doing what they do. It's the same old same old. Are they that bad at their job or is someone coaching them?
 
Forgotten said:
That's too much credit for the planning bureaucrats. Only the first iteration of Queen was favoured by their elaborate weighting system. However they settled on the iteration below the others so it's clear the points don't matter. They played the same game in Scarborough.

I went through their latest round of NIMBY placating a few pages ago and everyone can see them suffering from convenient memory lapses and offering up distorted reasons for doing what they do. It's the same old same old. Are they that bad at their job or is someone coaching them?
Click to expand...

*periodic reminder that bureaucrats are directed by the mayor and Council*
 
nfitz said:
I don't think every 15-minute RER SmartTrack type service will be sufficient. The February 2016 modelling was showing 2041 ridership of the short DRL line as up to 16,000 per hour per direction at peak hour, depending on alignment. It only gets worse as the line gets longer. This needs to be subway.
Click to expand...


It doesn't have to be primarily as RER but a true DRL subway. Catenary Metros are common and are as off-the-shelf as 3rd rail. I'm just talking standard catenary subway. This way the DRL could serve both local subway and longer distance RER. This however means that there is a viable relief corridor for Union when overcapacity becomes an issue or if there is a problem at Union. It's the equivalent of just letting streetcars and LRT using the same tunnel and that's all.

Building a catenary tunnel is the same price as a 3rd rail but it would simply allow TTC subway and RER to use it.............kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
 
ssiguy2 said:
It doesn't have to be primarily as RER but a true DRL subway. Catenary Metros are common and are as off-the-shelf as 3rd rail. I'm just talking standard catenary subway. This way the DRL could serve both local subway and longer distance RER. This however means that there is a viable relief corridor for Union when overcapacity becomes an issue or if there is a problem at Union. It's the equivalent of just letting streetcars and LRT using the same tunnel and that's all.

Building a catenary tunnel is the same price as a 3rd rail but it would simply allow TTC subway and RER to use it.............kills 2 birds with 1 stone.
Click to expand...

I don't really understand though. You can't just put a subway/metro vehicle onto mainline tracks simply because it uses overhead power. The mainline tracks would have to be 100% separated from road and other rail - an obscenely massive task and something that not even the RER plans call for.
 
44 North said:
I don't really understand though. You can't just put a subway/metro vehicle onto mainline tracks simply because it uses overhead power.
Click to expand...
The Karlsruhe model is a tram-train system which consists tram/light rail trains and commuter/regional rail trains running on the same set of tracks, generally between or outside of urban areas. It was initially developed and implemented in the city of Karlsruhe, Germany by the local transit authority, Karlsruher Verkehrsverbund (KVV).
[...]
A similar model has been connecting the city of Vienna with the Baden suburb since 1886 as Lokalbahn Wien-Baden. Other systems that have implemented the Karlsruhe model include:

Train-trams
Zwickau, Germany has reversed the Karlsruhe model by extending Lightweight RegioSprinter diesel trains from the main-line railway onto the street tramway as TrainTrams.[...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model

Lots more added to that list since article was written, including Paris and Asian cities. The key word to Google is either "Karlsruhe Model" or "Tram Trains".
 
steveintoronto said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model

Lots more added to that list since article was written, including Paris and Asian cities. The key word to Google is either "Karlsruhe Model" or "Tram Trains".
Click to expand...
I saw a similar type of setup last week in Amsterdam. They had a hybrid subway-tram system which ran in tunnels in the core, but on the street in the suburbs. They also used the same tracks to run both subway trains and and trams which split off and ran to different parts of the city. What's even better is that their trains use third rail while in the tunnel and cantenary while on the street, so having catenary in the tunnel isn't a requrement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amsterdam_Metro#Amstelveen_Line_.28Route_51.29
 
Last edited:
steveintoronto said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karlsruhe_model

Lots more added to that list since article was written, including Paris and Asian cities. The key word to Google is either "Karlsruhe Model" or "Tram Trains".
Click to expand...

I've read up on tram-trains before so I do know about them. I think it's a great concept that could be emulated here for some areas of the GTHA. But I was more focused on the subway concept of ssiguy's post, and the belief that we can run off-the-shelf subway/metro vehicles on mainline tracks. That is: with freight trains, passenger trains, and level crossings.

I'm sure there are locales where that's done, but more as a one off exception like in/out of yards, low frequency spurs, or over private and well-enforced roads. From what I gather trams/LRVs are built with impact standards for street running, level crossings, and possible mainline mixing - so could work for what he's describing (with the right regs in place). However subway/metro vehicles are designed not to have that kind of interference, and am fairly certain wouldn't work.

What ssiguy seems to be talking about has more to do with the ALRT concept of the Davis government, which was fairly unique (but still brilliant). And that would be: subway/metro vehicles, using mainline rail corridors, but still 100% separated from road and other rail using significant subway-like infrastructure investment. In other words literal surface subways, like BART but not like RER or GO.
 
Last edited:
Kitsune said:
Parliament will be 200m from Sherbourne secondary exit and no station is possible as the line needs turn south ahead of the intersection. Jarvis is just stuck in an awkward spot. They are not going to spend the 300 to 350 million for a station that would be 200 to 300m from Sherbourne, and 300 to 400 from Yonge, which would be the closest in the system except for Yonge-Queen and Osgoode, where that situation is forced due to building constraints (unless they go the Sydney route and start tearing down Office Towers for subway stations).
Click to expand...

We're forgetting a couple key points here though. The distance from Jarvis Street to Parliament Street is one kilometre, that's far enough apart to justify the duo station scenario. Assuming 100 metre platforms this is cut down to 800 metres, which is the same average spacing as the central Eglinton Crosstown where population density is less but no one says anything about. That also means a station at Queen and Sherbourne would be over a kilometre away from Yonge (too far apart through such a dense built-up part of the City) and 1.2 kilometres from the next station at King and Sumach.

The scenario I'm proposing suggests much more equalized and reasonable stop spacing. Yonge to Jarvis would in fact be further apart than 400 metres assuming the Yonge Station is situated to the west side of the intersection as planning drawings suggests. The Jarvis station likewise could fill in the block between Jarvis and George Sts (making the walk to Sherbourne relatively easy vs the planned Sherbourne stop situated east of Sherbourne, double the walking distance back to Jarvis). With this new spacing the Parliament St station could be accommodated before the line transitions southwards to King and Sumach. Also the Sumach station doesn't have to be in a street grid and could have mutliple access points depending on how its built (with entrances even to as far as Lower River St).

With the cancellation of that planned development near Sherbourne, there's nothing else there worthy of a subway stop compared to both Jarvis and Parliament Sts. Case in point:

161234_2.jpg

and near Queen and Parliament:
8335-66145.jpeg


This is a fight worth having. And if were going to spends upwards of $15 billion on DRL Long anyway, what difference does $200 million really make to make the line be of more use to the most number of people possible? This should be a top priority. DRL done right, not cheapened out on to save face.
 
44 North said:
I'm sure there are locales where that's done, but more as a one off exception like in/out of yards, low frequency spurs, or over private and well-enforced roads.
Click to expand...
I addressed that in the post prior wit: "Waivers" from TC. This is how the "O Train" in Ottawa is run, and at least one length of track it runs on is freight at night. ("Temporally separated") San Diego's runs in tunnels, on mainline tracks and goes to the border with Mexico from San Diego, and has done so for decades. It's the fourth largest passenger load of any LRT system in the US.

I have to repeat, the following model is built and run in North Am to do exactly that, except this goes further than 600-750 VDC overhead or third rail, this is also available dual voltage and current, to match what GO RER will run under: (25kV AC)
The Siemens S70 or Avanto is a low-floor light rail vehicle (LRV), streetcar, or tram manufactured by Siemens Mobility, a division of Siemens AG.

The S70 is in use, or on order, by several light rail systems in the United States, where Siemens refers to this model only as the S70.[1] In this field, it competes mainly with Bombardier and Kinki Sharyo low-floor LRVs and modern streetcars manufactured by Inekon and Brookville Equipment Corporation.

In Europe, Siemens's Combino and Avenio models are the preferred offerings for purely light rail or tramway systems; and the same S70 model, under the name Avanto, is principally sold to tram-train systems which, in whole or part, share their tracks with heavy rail trains. Here its principal competitors are Bombardier’s Flexity Link tram-train and Alstom’s Citadis Regio-Citadis/Citadis-Dualis tram-train variants. To date, the Avanto has been sold to two tram-train operations in France.[2]

Size and configuration


Diagram of the Siemens S70 (LRV version)
The S70/Avanto has a modular design and can be built in a number of different sizes and configurations, including both light rail vehicle and streetcar versions. The streetcar version is 9 feet shorter than the standard LRV version. There are some interior differences as well: the LRV version has the upper seats facing the cab, while the streetcar version has the upper seats facing the doors of the train. In addition, the horn on the LRV version is located on the bottom of the cab while the streetcar version is located on the top of the train.

To date, all S70s delivered in North America have had a length between 91 feet (28 m)[3] and 96 feet (29 m),[4] but the 77 cars currently on order by Utah Transit Authority for the Salt Lake City-area TRAX system and the 65 cars on order for the San Diego Trolley will be only 81 feet (24.7 m) long.[3][5] The SD Trolley vehicles are also designed to operate in tandem with older Siemens SD-100 vehicles, with a SD-100 sandwiched between two S70 vehicles. The Avantos built for France have a length of 36.68 m (120.3 ft).[2][6]

Most S70 vehicles are double-ended, with operating controls at both ends and doors on both sides. An exception is the 40 cars in service on Portland's MAX system, which are single-ended and have cabs at only one end of each car. However, they have doors on both sides and in service they always operate in pairs, coupled back-to-back, so that each consist has operating cabs at both ends.[7]

The S70/Avanto can be configured to operate on various overhead power supplies. The Avantos ordered for France are dual voltage, capable of operating on 750 V DC when running on tram or light rail tracks and on 25 kV AC when running on main line tracks. The vehicles operating in Paris currently operate on AC only; its DC capabilities will not be used until an extension of the current line to Montfermeil is completed.[2]

  • [...continues next pane...]
[...]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_S70

44 North said:
But I was more focused on the subway concept of ssiguy's post, and the belief that we can run off-the-shelf subway/metro vehicles on mainline tracks.
Click to expand...
You can, if the appropriate pick-up shoes are attached. Quite a few systems in the world do this.

44 North said:
However subway/metro vehicles are designed not to have that kind of interference, and am fairly certain wouldn't work.
Click to expand...
Ottawa says otherwise. If Ottawa's O-Train was partly sponsored by Transport Canada, as well as CN and CP, and given a waiver from regs....why couldn't Toronto? Ottawa is expanding their system right now, using a competitor to the Siemens S-70 itemized above, and being assembled nearby by Alstom.
 
Last edited:
continued from previous post:
Usage and current orders
United States
  • Houston METRORail, Texas: 18 units purchased, with delivery complete in late 2004. 19 additional units on order, procured using Utah Transit Authority options, to be delivered starting in late 2012. The original cars are the long variant; the new cars are the shorter variant as used by UTA.[8]
  • San Diego Trolley, California: 11 'full size' 92-foot (28.04 m) units purchased in first order in October 2004, with delivery complete in July 2005. A second order, for 57 81-foot (24.69 m) cars, was placed in October 2009;[9] the order was later increased to 65 'streetcar length' S70s in 2012.[5] All of the S70 vehicles are projected to be in service by 2014.[10]
  • Charlotte Area Transit System, Charlotte, North Carolina, United States:
    • Lynx Blue Line: 16 units purchased for $50 million, in service since November 2007.[11] Four additional units purchased in 2008 and in service by March 2010 to keep up with higher than expected ridership.[12] In 2012, after 4 years of operation, the trains had to be repaired at the Siemens facility in California for an estimated cost of $400,000 each.[11]
    • CityLynx Gold Line: Six units were purchased in 2016, with delivery by 2020. These six cars will have internal batteries to allow off-wire operations in some areas.[13] The S70 streetcars are a compact version of the S70 light rail vehicles [14] that currently operate on the LYNX Blue Line. The cost to purchase these six vehicles and spare parts is $40,400,000.[15]
  • MAX, Portland, Oregon: 22 units purchased. Order for 21 cars announced on May 11, 2006;[16] later expanded by one car. Entered service starting in August 2009.[17] Order placed 2012 for another 18 cars.[18][19]
  • The Tide Light Rail, Norfolk, Virginia: 9 cars, ordered in 2007. First cars delivered October 2009.[20] Entered service with the opening of the Norfolk system, in 2011.
  • Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City: 77 units ordered; in service since August 7, 2011. The order also includes an option for 180 additional cars.[6][12]
  • Metro Transit, Twin Cities, Minnesota: 59 purchased with 40 options. Delivery began in 2012, with the first unit entering service in February 2013.[21] In October 2015, the option was exercised for five additional vehicles at a cost of $20 million.[22]
  • Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Georgia: 4 cars, ordered in 2011.[23] In May 2011 Siemens announced that it had won the $17.2 million contract to build the four streetcars that run on the Downtown Loop. The vehicles were built at Siemens’ plant in Florin, California, but with major components, including the propulsion system, assembled at Siemens' plant in Alpharetta, Georgia.[24] The first of the streetcars was delivered on February 17, 2014,[25] and began passenger service on December 30, 2014.[26][27]
  • Sound Transit Link Light Rail, Seattle: 122 units purchased in September 2016,[28] with delivery starting in 2019. This $554 million contract is the largest contract in Sound Transit's history and the purchased LRVs will be used in expansions to Bellevue, Northgate, and Lynnwood.
France
Click to expand...
 
Here are the San Diego Trolleys (the ones that run on mainline heavy rail for much of the southern branch down to Mexico) on a northern branch through tunnel and with underground stations:
    1. 11:55

    PART 1 - SDSU Trolley Tunnel & Station Construction - San Diego Green line
    SanDiegoLightRail
    • 5 years ago
    • 1,518 views
    (PART 1 of 2) - KPBS film crew is given an exclusive tour of the newly constructed tunnel and trolley station at San Diego State ...

    11:50

    PART 2 - SDSU Trolley Tunnel & Station Construction - San Diego Green Line
    SanDiegoLightRail
    • 5 years ago
    • 3,062 views
    (PART 2 of 2) - KPBS film crew is given an exclusive tour of the newly constructed tunnel and trolley station at San Diego State ...

    0:45

    Trainspotting orange line trolley in San Diego at SDSU
    crazy videos
    • 9 months ago
    • 65 views
    In SDSU trolley tunnel headed toward downtown.

    0:20

    Trainspotting SDSU trolley in San Diego
    crazy videos
    • 9 months ago
    • 41 views
    In the tunnel of SDSU departure. train spotting.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top