Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s

[kotsy]

For intercity or longer-haul overhead is effectively the only option for electrified rail. Can't have third rail at level crossings or around people at that grade, and carrying long distances overhead is superior. Whereas OL is a subway and thus not relevant.

The underground portions now require larger tunnels, and taller stations. WRT aesthetics, the open air sections now have masts and wire adorned (e.g the Thorncliffe and Don Mills sections). It's in view, and makes the guideway more conspicuous and cluttered (i.e uglier).

Appreciate the info, thanks!

 

[smallspy]

Overhead power supply: costs more, ugly, less reliable. Makes you wonder why OL won't use third rail.

Spoiler: It's not.

Certain flavours of it are worse in poor weather than others (see Chicago or London's Southeastern), but to say that it is categorically better than overhead is just not true. There have been lots of situations in Toronto over the years where due to the method of power pickup the subways were more susceptible to weather than the streetcars. And of course, there have also been cases when it's been the opposite.

The two different methods have their advantages and disadvantages. That's all there is to it

Dan

 

[44 North]

Spoiler: It's not.

Certain flavours of it are worse in poor weather than others (see Chicago or London's Southeastern), but to say that it is categorically better than overhead is just not true. There have been lots of situations in Toronto over the years where due to the method of power pickup the subways were more susceptible to weather than the streetcars. And of course, there have also been cases when it's been the opposite.

The two different methods have their advantages and disadvantages. That's all there is to it

Dan

I'd say it is. On the whole, factoring all the evidence and effects of varying weather phenomena, that OCS is less reliable than third rail. One is rigid robust and tucked away, the other is exposed elevated and inherently weaker. And it's the latter that suffers more and results in lesser reliability.

 

[81-717]

Can't have third rail at level crossings or around people at that grade

LIRR/MNRR does.

Monteal's REM already getting shutdowns due to snow removal from pylons.

Overhead power supply: costs more, ugly, less reliable. Makes you wonder why OL won't use third rail.

As long as the OL doesn't use the ICTS power system, it should be ok

 

[cplchanb]

I'd say it is. On the whole, factoring all the evidence and effects of varying weather phenomena, that OCS is less reliable than third rail. One is rigid robust and tucked away, the other is exposed elevated and inherently weaker. And it's the latter that suffers more and results in lesser reliability.

tell that to all of Japan as 99% of their rail is OCS powered and they sometimes get more snowfall than we do. its all a matter how of you maintain the system. anything will fail in cold weather if you dont touch it.

 

[officedweller]

Here are the catenary references from the December 2020 Preliminary Design Business Case.

NOTE: It'll be an overhead 1500 volt DC system, so the electrical transformers and rectifiers will presumably be in substations,
not on-board as noted in the articles posted by W.K. Lis above for ac systems, and the issues with added vehicle weight won't arise.
1500 volts DC is also a step up from the typical 750 volts DC.
The article posted by W.K. Lis also says that 1500 volts DC (vs 750 volts DC) allows wider spacing / fewer substations.

https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/upload/v1663237577/Documents/Metrolinx/2020-12-08-Ontario-Line-PDBC-Public-Final.pdf

See excerpt above where Metrolinx cites overhead caternary as being more reliable (but is still ugly)

 

[MovingBlock]

For intercity or longer-haul overhead is effectively the only option for electrified rail. Can't have third rail at level crossings or around people at that grade, and carrying long distances overhead is superior. Whereas OL is a subway and thus not relevant.

Plenty of systems (e.g. Chicago L, Berlin S-Bahn, Oslo Metro, and mainline rail in Buenos Aires, South England and New York) have level crossings with third rail.

The main issue with third rail is that it cannot accommodate voltages higher than ~750V, because of its proximity to the ground. Overhead lines provide enough isolation for higher voltages.

 

[smallspy]

I'd say it is. On the whole, factoring all the evidence and effects of varying weather phenomena, that OCS is less reliable than third rail. One is rigid robust and tucked away, the other is exposed elevated and inherently weaker. And it's the latter that suffers more and results in lesser reliability.

That's you.

The balance of the world's experience is otherwise.

The main issue with third rail is that it cannot accommodate voltages higher than ~750V, because of its proximity to the ground. Overhead lines provide enough isolation for higher voltages.

Precisely.

With the decision to operate the Ontario Line at 1500V dc, the die was cast - there was no way to use anything other than catenary. No matter how Metrolinx was going to spin it, there was simply no other option.

Dan

 

[Allandale25]

I could extract/screenshot this later but don't have time a the moment. This thread just posted re Osgoode.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1734313587383148662

 

[officedweller]

Don't think I saw this video of rail bridge removal posted:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1725193259272527879

and another post about rail shifting and future tunnel portal:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1722708645656375615

https://twitter.com/x/status/1721933026916221141

 

[crs1026]

I could extract/screenshot this later but don't have time a the moment. This thread just posted re Osgoode.

I won't reignite a disscussion on Osgoode, but I do find it odd that ML is drawing attention to it (which remains controversial) where they could be highlighting the much more heritage-sensitive treatment that they are giving other Designated buildings along the Queen-King stretch. Osgoode is a stain on some other really good work.

I do find that we have lost our aversion to what is really an Orwellian level of disinformation and history rewriting in government pronouncements. This is most evident in the odd names that Bills in the Legislature receive (consistently, they declare the opposite of what the Bill's impact will be). But now saying that ML is "preserving" heritage at Osgoode, when only a year or two back their position was that heritage considerations needed to be discarded in the interest of a greater good.... well, that's the envy of propagandists everywhere.

- Paul

 

[picard102]

I could extract/screenshot this later but don't have time a the moment. This thread just posted re Osgoode.

How exactly do they plan on replacing the fence once done when there will be a station entrance where the fence was?

 

[jmi22]

How exactly do they plan on replacing the fence once done when there will be a station entrance where the fence was?

I believe for construction they have had to remove much more than just the footprint of the final station, essentially everything immediately north and east of the corner, and that will be placed back once the station is done.

 

[Northern Light]

How exactly do they plan on replacing the fence once done when there will be a station entrance where the fence was?

@jmi22 is correct, they have removed more fence that just the footprint of the new building, to allow for staging, storage, deliveries etc.

What will be restored and returned will the fence outside of the building footprint.

The rest, I believe, will go to long-term storage.

 

[generalcanada]

can someone post the entire thread i dont have twitter.