Yonge-University-Spadina line – subway rail yard needs strategy

[CityPlaceN1]

Wouldn't they be above ground as part of the expanded Wilson Yard? Hence cheaper to build than the existing tunnels?

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

The cost is cheaper? What? It's not even close to being anywhere near cheaper, and would still not provide required yard capacity. The current proposal to build extended tail tracks for overnight storage is much cheaper than building a sheppard W connection along with additional yard space at wilson.

Building a sheppard west extension would cost at least six to eight hundred million dollars. If it is going to be built then it should be because the service is needed, not to save a relative minuscule amount in dead heading costs.

Sorry I should have quoted the comment that suggessted that the TTC consider building an underground yard at the 407. Here it is:

The Wilson Yard case is a poor rationale. RHC extension could come outfitted with it an underground yard facility at the 407 as was discussed

Building an underground yard is a huge expense and would cost multiples of the ~$800 million for an extension to Downsview. Heck even if you include expanding the Wilson yards in the equation it would still be cheaper than an underground yard.

 

[rbt]

Wouldn't they be above ground as part of the expanded Wilson Yard? Hence cheaper to build than the existing tunnels?

If you don't care that there is no revenue service between Sheppard and Downsview then I suppose you could do that. Huge cost compared to the alternatives and most people want the Sheppard extension for the service, not to save $1M per year in dead-heading expenses.

 

[CityPlaceN1]

Why would you not have stations? A stop at Bathurst, one at Downsview and then the track goes southwest into Wilson Yard. The tail track would be part of the expanded Wilson Yard. What am I missing here?

 

[TJ O'Pootertoot]

Why would you not have stations? A stop at Bathurst, one at Downsview and then the track goes southwest into Wilson Yard. The tail track would be part of the expanded Wilson Yard. What am I missing here?

I agree - it seems obvious there's a double benefit. First, obviously, you take care of the deadheading. You also close a rather ridiculous gap in the subway. Even without the deadheading I would say you only stand to win by taking Sheppard across to Downsview and adding, at least a new station at Bathurst and probably another one near Wilmington.

 

[rbt]

Why would you not have stations? A stop at Bathurst, one at Downsview and then the track goes southwest into Wilson Yard. The tail track would be part of the expanded Wilson Yard. What am I missing here?

Your point was that the tailtracks past Sheppard are 10% of the way to Downsview. My point was that a station at Downsview would also require tailtracks beyond Downsview station of equal length so there is no savings. The tunnel length is still roughly the same as the distance from Sheppard to Downsview, but shifted west a bit.


The cheap way to build a connector to Sheppard, as this was a Rail Yards Needs study, is to skip Downsview station and start an underground curve somewhere south of Downsview onto Sheppard.


Either you are building a full cost passenger service which also happens to minutely reduce costs for yards needs OR you are building a discount connection to the yard which might slightly assist in Sheppard loads with a station at Bathurst.


You cannot argue for a full fledged passenger service based on yard movements. The numbers aren't even close to making that practical. Only thing close would be a single tunnel connection to Spadina line with no stations, and even that has a really lousy return compared to paying the operations staff extra and buying bonds.


Stick with arguing for a Sheppard extension to support ridership. Ignore the Yard advantages entirely as they do not support that extension in any way shape or form.