“Steve: Don’t hold your breath. The track may be standard gauge, but there is more involved in taking a mainline rail car over the transit network than gauge.”

No, no — that’s done almost nowhere, because the transit network practically always has lighter weight rail, tighter curves and clearances, and usually sharper grades.

I was thinking the other way around. “Tram-train operation” usually means extending the light rail over existing mainline tracks. I realize this would require electrification of the mainline tracks, and likely also trams designed to handle 25Kv AC as well as DC. It’s usually done either at the outlying edge of town to achieve higher frequencies than GO can reasonably achieve on relatively un-busy branch lines, or in the center of town to bring trams into major train stations where finding a new ROW is problematic. Toronto is fully low-platforming for every type of rail except the subway, so the usual platform incompatibility isn’t present. Running trams from the Eglinton line through to the Stouffville line would be an example.

Does Canada have the same rules as the US does, keeping lightweight vehicles off tracks shared with freight? Europe doesn’t, which is why they can do tram-train operation.

Steve: Yes, Canadian rules prohibit lightweight equipment from sharing track with freights.

“Metrolinx has also dictated that their cars will be standard gauge, and hence the Transit City network (except for WWLRT) would be built to that gauge.”

Well, maybe it will be compatible with the heavy rail lines. Tram-train operation anyone?

Steve: Don’t hold your breath. The track may be standard gauge, but there is more involved in taking a mainline rail car over the transit network than gauge.

Does anyone know what construction process will be involved for Finch West LRT? What I mean is will construction from “only one nodal point” and then progress forward to the next point or will construction start on 2 or more that two multiple points an then the tracks be aligned using GPS techonology?

I believe that starting construction on multiple points is cost effective and can finish the entire project early. What does everyone else think?

Steve: At the risk of sounding a bit puzzled, the Finch line will be built on the surface. You don’t need GPS technology to align trackage or any special construction navigation that would be used for tunnelling. I believe that all of the TC lines will be built in more than one location concurrently.

Overall as a resident I don’t think that the short extension to Malvern Town Center is totally necessary in the short or medium term.

Sorry, but I call ‘bull****’ on that one. Malvern Town Center and the surrounding community is still a part of Toronto, and the Malvern area needs better transit that what it’s getting now. Cutting it off from the rest of the city feels like the kind of move done in LA in the late ’40′s when the Red Car was torn down to make way for highways and buses, and the community of Watts was left out in the cold with crappy transit options, leading to all that happened in the ’50′s and ’60′s. All of Toronto needs transit, not just certain areas, and not with a crappy intermittent bus service-if the LRT’s can use the old CNR-CP tracks, so much the better.

I only wish that the CP tracks along Morningside Ave. north to Old Finch weren’t torn down-those would have been great as a LRT line that could replace the Morningside 116 bus, especially with all of the snow which that area gets that paralyzes it in the winter (I used to live around this area, and I know what I mean).

Overall as a resident I don’t think that the short extension to Malvern Town Centre is totally necessary in the short or medium term. I think that if some cars interlined with the Sheppard East LRT to Morningside or even Meadowvale, this would actually provide more km coverage through the southern part of Malvern. By choosing to rebuild with Transit City compatibility, the TTC should be able to do this kind of service every few trains and eliminate a transfer for many.

I also have a question regarding cost. How much more would it really cost beyond the budgeted amount of 1.4B to interline with Sheppard East, and build the short spur north on Neilson. Seeing as to how the stations at the consultations were so elaborate in the original presentations, one would think that you could avoid those costs of station overbuilding and just get by with just a large shelter at the end of the line (and the cost of the tracks and road widening).

This change seems to be the largest ‘unofficial’ project change going in that there has not been a single definitive announcement of this.

The last round of open houses had a display board answering the question of the change with the suggestion that it was a possibility. At the end of September, City Council dealt with a motion asking Metrolinx and the TTC to look into it and report back in November. Then in November, Metrolinx’s John Howe stated in a press scrum that they and the TTC had agreed that the SRT should be converted to LRT.

Added to all that, I grabbed one of the latest Transit City brochures at one of the recent open houses and it now includes a “Current Transit City Project” titled “Scarborough Rapid Transit LRT” that says:

“This project will redevelop the current system into a modern LRT as well as extend the project from its current terminus at McCowan subway station north to Sheppard Avenue and Malvern Town Centre.”

I find the reference to “McCowan subway station” rather interesting!

Steve: The cars will be staged from Hillcrest as long as necessary.

Wouldn’t that reduce the cost of long non-service trips (45 minutes each way as a guess) between St. Clair and Roncesvalles?

On the other hand, why wouldn’t the TTC use Hillcrest as a carhouse for just the 512 as it temporarily is doing now?

Steve: Unless the operators are actually based at Hillcrest, they would still be paid travel time from their “home” division at Ronces. This would require a big enough operation from Hillcrest that it would be a subdivision in its own right, not just a base for the St. Clair cars. Bathurst and Spadina are obvious candidates, and this would free up space elsewhere.

The related question about Hillcrest is what the space now occupied by streetcar maintenance will be used for once that work shifts completely to the Portlands carhouse and shops. I could imagine a return to a three-carhouse configuration with Roncesvalles in the west, Hillcrest in the north and Portlands in the east. Whether the TTC is actually making such plans, I don’t know.

Note: I don’t mean with respect to stations or all the other things that have to change, just the basic tracks between stations.

Steve: The line would be retracked, if only for maintenance purposes. However, as Robert Wightman has already noted, the track centres are rather close together for LRVs in the north-south section of the line. The stations will have to be modified for low-platform cars, and the tunnel will also have to be expanded. Thank you, Queen’s Park, for forcing the TTC to downsize it from an LRT tunnel when the line was built so that only the toy trains would fit through.

The elevated structure was originally designed for LRT, and so it should be able to handle the technology change fairly easily. The real question is its structural condition and whether remedial work should occur while the line is shut down.

With this decision, there will be a small legacy network running from Roncesvalles to Neville Park and the waterfront to Bloor, plus the St. Clair line and the Lakeshore out west, which will be on TTC wide gauge. It will be primarily street running and operate much as it always has. Outside of this area there will be a much larger LRT network covering the City of Toronto, as well as surrounding areas including York Region, Durham Region, Peel Region, Halton Region, Waterloo Region. The exact operating arrangements, service design, and network layout cannot now be predicted, but it is reasonable to hope that this will be a fairly seamless network (and connected to GO for long trips).

With the other decision, little improvement in the connection between the City of Toronto LRT lines and the old streetcar network would obtain, owing to the difference in line design between a modern LRT and a streetcar line, but the City of Toronto LRT lines would not have a seamless connection with the LRT lines of surrounding areas, unless those areas also adopted Toronto gauge. But this would just push the interface out even further.

I would also point out that there are some significant parts of the existing network that could be re-gauged at track rebuild time or in conjunction with construction of an LRT line. In particular, Lakeshore west of Roncesvalles, St. Clair (please not anytime soon, though!), and the short stretch of track on Kingston Rd could all be re-gauged without affecting the rest of the network. I would also suggest that when the Waterfront LRT is built, it might be appropriate to build it as standard gauge as well (to connect to Kingston Rd. in the East and Lakeshore in the West). Some gauntlet track in places like Fleet St. and/or Queens Quay might be needed. Unfortunately I suspect a 3-rail 2-gauge system won’t work with the gauges so close so 4 rails might be required.

All the arguments about standardizing on one gauge apply even more to using standard gauge on new LRT lines than they do to using TTC gauge throughout the City of Toronto.

Also, somewhere/when within the GTA/next 50 years, there will be a place where running an overnight freight down a transit line while the LRTs are snug in their carhouses is a good solution to an access problem for a plant wanting to switch to rail from truck. This is much easier if the transit line is standard gauge – just make sure the appropriate part of the network is built to a suitable standard. I believe this is permitted even with today’s extremely … cautious rules on light/heavy separation. I know for a fact it is permitted in San Diego CA.

In conclusion, I don’t know if the decision is the result of long-term thinking or crass commercial considerations, but in this case I don’t really care.

Steve: This first surfaced via private sources, and was most recently confirmed to be by TTC staff at a recent Eglinton LRT open house. I think it’s a red herring, but since Metrolinx conducts so much of its business in secret, it’s hard to get a handle on this.

With such a massive order we should not have to ‘accommodate’ any manufacturer. They should be tripping over each other to accommodate us. We are not the only system in North America with a unique track guage. All vehicles are customized to the specification of each system on every order even when the vehicles are of the same design series from the same manufacturer. Any production line will be set up and tooled for one run of vehicles only.

The biggest possible mistake we can make is not in having a non-standard guage but in having two completely incompatible ones for all eternity.

This way, it is still possible to use the Eglinton Carhouse for the St. Clair line.

Steve: Sounds like a lot of trouble just to shift the 512 from Ronces to Black Creek.

And there’s nothing that makes one track gauge more obsolete or progressive than another.

The striking part of it though is the presence over most of the route of a centre turning lane – if we can countenance that, why not single track operation over short stretches of line where widening is just not feasible? This would have the advantage of a single stop for either direction of operation given the double sided nature of TC cars. It’s frequently done in Europe (as well as Richmond/Adelaide, albeit for diversions), and there would an option of looping the Jane-Weston-Eglinton triangle in one direction to allow an interlink with Eglinton and its yard (so Jane services could be despatched from both) and minimise the ROW required.

Oh Yeah!

Standard Gauge gives us slim trains with less room to stand in.
TTC Gauge gives us wide trains with more room to stand in.

I think we all know what gauge the TTC will choose.

Steve: The TTC will choose whatever gauge Metrolinx tells them to choose. Meanwhile, the difference in gauge is 2 3/8 inches. You are assuming that the entire carbody will be redesigned when what is far more likely will be a standard gauge carbody on TTC gauge trucks.

Of course Bombardier in Thunder Bay will have to assemble the TR and the replacement streetcars. Would it delay the process if Bombardier have to manufacture and assemble the Transit City cars too?

Steve: Bombardier will find the room somewhere. They’re not going to give up on such a big contract.

I know this is not a view shared by those commenting above, but it’s bad enough that we have basically created vendor lock-in in our bus fleet (with huge re-orders despite notable “issues” with the product) without creating adverse conditions on our new lines. Bombardier displayed Toronto Flexity on a low-loader, it will display in Vancouver on rails. Perhaps we will see Alstom, Siemens, AnsaldoBreda and others do similar demonstrations on those same rails rather than relying on a website and a static display. Shipping the cars and determining electrical and rail/wheel compatibility is a far cry from having to also develop one-time trucks or adjust existing trucks just for a demo, and cars being “loaned” between systems for promotional purposes done several times previously such as from Mulhouse to Buenos Aires and Melbourne. The possibility of Toronto loaning surplus Flexities to other systems to promote the continuance of the Thunder Bay line is similarly hampered – although this presumes we could contrive a surplus in Toronto anyway.

As for the necessity to replace the downtown lines with standard, that’s not necessarily the case. As I have pointed out time and again, the TTC’s existing network and fleets are huge in the context of other systems that do just fine. A subfleet of vehicles is one thing when it is small like SRT but a subfleet of 204 vehicles (plus future expansion) is enough to justify dedicated yards and equipment, especially given the fact that the motive technologies will be similar unlike SRT so training will be essentially common.

Of course another vendor wants to bid on the Transit City cars. They lost the original bid which included options, so of course they would love the opportunity to bid for something they already thought they lost. Of course Bombardier, having won the first bid, has an unfair advantage… they will have a manufacturing line in Ontario already producing cars which can easily be adapted to the different technical requirements of Transit City. They have this advantage because they won an open bid.

Steve: A railway car is a railway car. Now the TTC could save a bundle if they would just realize that it’s a busy streetcar line and put in block signals where they are needed (the blind curve through the tunnel at Ellesmere). There will be signals at terminals and turnback points, but they don’t have to be integrated with the car itself.

Steve: See previous comments.

Sheer madness! It’s my fervent hope that cooler heads prevail, but knowing the history of such things I’ll have to be prepared for disappointment…

I really wish I knew who specifically to let loose my rage on.

Steve: See previous comments on this subject.

Steve: There will be a new signal system, but I don’t know what it is. The new SRT is completely grade separated and so it won’t need traffic signals, per se, but would likely have some sort of cab signalling to control train spacing on this high-speed route.

What inspired that piece of stupidity? Having two incompatible track gauges in Toronto? Crazy!

Steve: See previous comment.

I want the Scarborough RT to be demolished and extend the Bloor-Danforth subway to Scarborough Town Center. Of course, the subway has to be complete before the demolition…

Steve: Dream on!

Steve: Rumour has it that at least one vendor other than Bombardier wants to bid on the Transit City cars, and are claiming that the odd gauge gives Bombardier an unfair advantage. This it total crap, of course, but lobbyists will use any excuse.

“On the flip side, the SRT is already standard gauge, and so at least the track mounts won’t have to change to accommodate an LRT conversion.”

Can the LFLRV pass each other on the SRT right of way or would the road bed need to be ripped out and redone? I also don’t think that the new cars will pass through the stations and existing tunnels. They probably could use centre poles even if they could pass each other.

Steve: On the north-south part of the line, I agree that the tracks are probably too close together for LFLRVs to pass each other. I was thinking of the stations and the elevated structure. Kennedy, of course, will be completely new.

Re: WWLRT

The location of the loop at Park Lawn seems to be a bit arbitrary. We own the property so let’s put in a loop. There is a lot of new condo development going up west of there that could benefit from more service or is it the plan to turn all the Queen cars here and only run Lakeshore Long Branch cars past there? Why not at least build the 1 km or so of track from Exhibition loop to Dufferin and run the 507 or 508 all day from Long Branch to Union via King, Dufferin, Fleet and Queen’s Quay? A good portion of the line is already PROW and the portion of King St is usually not too bad for traffic.

Steve: The Park Lawn location is left over from the days when the WWLRT ended there to avoid reconstruction of the bridge over Etobicoke Creek. Also, I suspect, there was a time when the TTC was contemplating removal of streetcars west of that point. By the time the line actually opens, Park Lawn may indeed be an inappropriate place for a loop on the WWLRT, although 501s that make it past Sunnyside may loop there.

Re: Jane LRT and Downtown Relief Line:

Jane south of Wilson seems to be too narrow to be of any use. The cost of tunnelling this section would be astronomical and serve no need. For the money this would cost they could take two of the 5 to 9 tracks that Metrolinx is going to put into the Weston Corridor and build a standard gauge surface HRT with pantographs from the airport down to Liberty Village on the right of way then Tunnel under Richmond or Adelaide to the east end then go up to Don Mills and Eglinton. The line would run with 1500 or 3000 VDC instead of 25 000 VAC as this would eliminate the weight of the transformers, about 2 tonnes and reduce the clearances needed in the tunnel. From The 401 south the line is basically beside Weston Road so it would be in an existing transit corridor, just not Jane but the next closest.

It would be operationally segregated from the other GO services so the vehicles would not need to be built to FRA loading and safety standards. This would probably cut vehicle cost by at least 50%. Freights could be operated over it during the off hours if needed. Consideration could also be given to operating this type of service up the Newmarket and Uxbridge Subs, as GO owns them outright and possibly up the Bala sub to Richmond Hill or Aurora but it would need to be operationally segregated from the Bala sub north of the York Sub. Since the line would go under Adelaide it would not drop passengers into Union but rather to station on King or Queen. Aside from the downtown the minimum station spacing would be at least 1.25 miles, concession roads.

The Line could easily go to Bramalea as the existing station is on the south side of the Halton sub lass than 1 km from the Weston Sub. This could be an interchange station with the GO trains to Brampton and on out to Kitchener (Stratford?) I have been pushing this idea as long as you have the DRL and I think that this would provide service for the airport, DRL inner end of 3 to 5 GO lines and take some of the load off Union Station and get rid of much of the noise problem though the Weston Corridor. There would probably still be some diesel GO trains but they would not sit in stations then accelerate anywhere in Weston. This is my $0.02 worth of my favourite rant.

Steve: And if Metrolinx had “discovered” LRT sooner in its existence, they might have actually considered it as an alternative in some of their plans rather than having to be dragged fighting all the way to acceptance of LRT within the Transit City network. Rob MacIsaac and his crew wasted a lot of our time, and Metrolinx is well rid of him as head of the organization.

It will be not surprised if the residents around here just completely abandon the 501 at Lakeshore and look for other means of transportation whatever that may be. The TTC (and I am understating this) is truly taking advantage of the residents of South Etobicoke by constantly saying there is no demand while they are taking daily efforts in killing whatever demand is left.

Steve: At the risk of sounding like I am defending the TTC, the 145 is the product of lobbying by a local Councillor who is also a Commissioner. It is not the TTC’s answer to transportation problems on Lake Shore.