Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

ssiguy2 said:
^^^ Don't know why but my message won't appear???
Click to expand...
is your message:

Perhaps you have never seen my other thoughts on the UPX but I have NEVER advocated for a third rail subway for the UPX. It would be a waste of money and ill advised. I have always advocated the use of catenary subway trains like in Cleveland's airport subway, the Red Line. They are very common and in fact the Barcelona, Hong Kong, Delhi, and Singapore systems are exclusively catenary and most of Tokyo's. Sao Paulo has greatly expanded it's Metro in part by transferring former commuter lines into catenary Metros.

As you state, seeing electrification is going to be done anyway, the time and funds needed would be minimal. GO is simply too expensive for most which is why Toronto, despite having served bt all 7 lines, having the cheapest fares to Union, the most station, and best service in the entire GO service area, has lower GO ridership than Mississauga with less than a third of Toronto's population. That's not because Torontonians love waiting in the rain for a bus, get passed by another packed streetcar , or enjoy the underground view of the subway with someone's armpit in your face. No it's because of the very high fares.

Unless UPX bring sown it's fares to TTC levels it will be a failure as and to a lesser extent so will RER.
Click to expand...

If it is you have just misplaced your quote and /quotes somehow.
 
Wait someone earlier said GO RER will be a definitive failure? Am I missing something here? We are still years away from the first RER line opening and some people are already jumping to conclusions. Yes everything in southern Ontario has to align to TTC standards and fares or else what? TTC will threaten to draw ridership away from GO RER?
 
Riverdale Rink Rat said:
Since you leave out the two most important factors in making a UPX vs. Taxi decision, number of passengers and starting point, I'm assuming this was just for trolling purposes?
Click to expand...
. I have in the past wrote how my wife travels quite a bit and everytime she gets door to door taxi rides and has never taken a train although she routinely takes the ttc to work. When people write that there should be more stops the reply is well that is not what this service was meant for.Perhaps I was trolling though because I dont think the service is as needed as those who are claiming it is and therefore think it would be better suited as a western drl despite how much extra cost that would be. One cant say well the Pearson stop could not accommodate a bigger train therefore it cant be done since any western line would need new stations. So even if it is a bit of a waste to rebuild right after a line opened it might actually make sense to rethink if the original plan even makes sense... Anyways the starting point was Eglinton West station but transit was considered because the departure and arrival were both during rush hour. The passengers though were a mom and a two year old.
 
dowlingm said:
It bugs me when I see people say "I want to ride a premium train and cut 5 commuting hours a week out but only pay a token".
Click to expand...
add more stops which eliminates premium service but still gets you too Union fast (like proposed ST)
 
ssiguy2 said:
Ditch the DMU and replace them with 4 to 4.5 car long subway trains. They would offer higher capacity, less dwell times, and far faster exit/entry which is essential with more planned stations.
Click to expand...

I think that raises a few questions in itself: what kind of subway cars and from where? What track gauge? Third rail? And aren't there regulations preventing tracks being shared by subway/light rail and heavy rail?
 
ssiguy2 said:
I disagree.
GO's fare's are too high for most and people don't use it due to this. GO ridership isn't lousy in Toronto because there is no demand but because the fares are simply to high and if you don't live right at a GO station {which the vast majority don't} then you end up paying the TTC fare as well.

People are very price sensitive, as recent studies, UPX, and common sense dictates. Ditch the DMU and replace them with 4 to 4.5 car long subway trains. They would offer higher capacity, less dwell times, and far faster exit/entry which is essential with more planned stations.
Click to expand...
Geee!!! Have you done your homework to make that recommendation??

Have you looked at all the stations platforms to see if they can be lengthen to support your idea???

Are you planning on running 3rd rail or overhead???

What impact will the 3rd rail have on the corridor??

What impact will take place once the DMU's are converted to EMU's around 2019 as plan years ago, when first purposed???
 
I have said continually that it would NOT use third rail! How many times do I have to say it/ Catenary is used extensively throughout the world for Metros and again Barcelona, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Delhi use exclusively catenary and most of Tokyo. Catenary is superior to third rail in outdoor operations and using current railways as there is not chance of electrification when crossing the tracks. They are particularly better in cold and snowy climate like Toronto's as snow and flooding can shut third rail down but not catenary.

The stations are already 80 meters so that's 4 subway cars. Metro/subway cars can be designed with different level boarding, track, rubber or steel, third rail or catenary..........if fact most of London's Underground is neither but actually 4th rail but it doesn't seem to have slowed them down.
 
I don't understand why everyone is assuming a subway must use third rail. There are subways all over the world that use overhead power instead of third rail.
 
ssiguy2 said:
I have said continually that it would NOT use third rail! How many times do I have to say it/ Catenary is used extensively throughout the world for Metros and again Barcelona, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Delhi use exclusively catenary and most of Tokyo. Catenary is superior to third rail in outdoor operations and using current railways as there is not chance of electrification when crossing the tracks. They are particularly better in cold and snowy climate like Toronto's as snow and flooding can shut third rail down but not catenary.

The stations are already 80 meters so that's 4 subway cars. Metro/subway cars can be designed with different level boarding, track, rubber or steel, third rail or catenary..........if fact most of London's Underground is neither but actually 4th rail but it doesn't seem to have slowed them down.
Click to expand...
I think your insistence on referring to them as subway cars is the issue here - it implies TRs in a Toronto context, and in a wider context non-FRA consists. If they are simply suburban EMUs then why bother calling them subway cars.
 
dowlingm said:
I think your insistence on referring to them as subway cars is the issue here - it implies TRs in a Toronto context, and in a wider context non-FRA consists. If they are simply suburban EMUs then why bother calling them subway cars.
Click to expand...

The power delivery in this argument is not the issue, its the fundamental configuration of the rolling stock itself. The upx corridor itself (connections, stations) is simply not designed at this time to take on local mass transit.
use whatever third rail/catenary subway train you want, but it wont solve low ridership. As I said earlier, the best solution is to lower the fares to fill the current trains and not more. Then once crosstown west smart track, finch west and rer is built then worry about upping the capacity. too many riders will just overload the line
 
The definition of "subway" varies hugely in many countries and nationalities. While originally underground, it has grown to be a synonym/slang for "metro".

In some language translations "subway" maps to the equivalent of the word "metro" which doesn't even necessarily mean underground!!

"Metros", in transit parlance, utilize rapid transit behaviours of ultra-frequent grade-separated service usually involving subway-style level boarding and the lack of need for timetables. Many LRTs (including what Ottawa will be) and ultra-frequent commuter trains with increased station densities within urban areas (Sydney/France) have been considered by some as a "metro" train service, in a similiar fashion to "subway".

Yet, for other real subways, some even has less dense stop spacing than the inner sections of many of these non-traditional "metros" or "subways". So there is a lot of overlap between commuter trains and subways to the point where the lines can be blurred.

My view is that SmartTrack style enhancements/principles (the reasonable ideas like infill stations and EMUs) being applied to GO RER, is likely to turn much of the inner GO network into a defacto "metro" in a world definition, attaining many (even if not all) subway-like characteristics.

It is kind of blurred like the LRT vs Streetcar argument. In some jurisdictions, even full fledged LRTs are still called "trams" or "streetcars", even those with dedicated ROWs and/or transit priority.

TL;DR: Semantics.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top