Abandoned Toronto streetcar track
Mike Gordon
I have some questions to do with abandoned track in Toronto. Any takers?
1) The track you see turning from College St. north onto Spadina, then
disappearing underground. When was this last used? Why is it still exposed?
2) Is it true that asphalt has been scraped off old track to see if it was
still usable somewhere in the city? Is this technically feasible?
3) Near the western entrance of one of the bridges that crosses the Don
Valley (the one the subway uses) you can see some track disappearing into
a park. What was it used for? When?
4) I was walking along Harbord St. last year when I noticed workers
digging up the street and removing streetcar track. When was service
stopped on this street and why?
5) Walking east along Carleton from Yonge, you can faintly see tracks
turning up one of the major streets. (Which one?) When was it abandoned?
6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
(A related question)
7) Why is it that Toronto is the only Canadian city to still have
streetcars? If this is answered in book or magazine article somewhere,
I'd appreciate the reference.
8) How much abandoned track is still visible in Toronto, apart from the
areas I've mentioned? How many streets have streetcar tracks buried over
with a thin layer of asphalt?
(Another related question)
9) Was the track north of Bathurst Station ever used for regular streetcar
service? When?
I look forward to the collected knowledge of the readers of this list
removing the burden of these minor but persistant questions from my mind.
Cheers,
Mike Gordon
mkgo...@ccs.carleton.ca
Philip Burton
on 08-05-94 at 10:43:
==I have some questions to do with abandoned track in Toronto. Any
==takers?
==8) How much abandoned track is still visible in Toronto, apart from
==the areas I've mentioned? How many streets have streetcar tracks
==buried over with a thin layer of asphalt?
There are streets in Brooklyn, New York, where trolley tracks are either
visibly paved over (lines in the pavement) or actually exposed as the
asphalt wears off.
-- Phil Burton -- philip...@spacebbs.com
- Palo Alto, CA - p...@netcom.com
---
þ CMPQwk #1.4þ UNREGISTERED EVALUATION COPY
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, m00...@mbvms.mitre.org () says:
>In article <Cu2p8...@cunews.carleton.ca>, mkgo...@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Gordon) writes:
>>
>> 1) The track you see turning from College St. north onto Spadina, then
>> disappearing underground. When was this last used? Why is it still exposed?
>
>"Underground"??? Or do you mean covered over by pavement? Spadina had rail
>service until the 50s(?), and much track was left in place as emergency
>routing.
This now rings a faint bell (I lived near there for a short time). I think
this is just abandoned track that was paved over in places, but other
delayed reconstruction of Spadina Ave. meant that some sections were never
paved over.
>> 6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
>
>MUCH. I remember (at least) COXWELL, PARLIAMENT, HARBORD, BATHURST running
>all the way north to St. Clair, ROGERS ROAD, ST. CLAIR running east to Mount
>Pleasant and then north to Eglinton, DUPONT, service to EXHIBITION WEST LOOP
>and BATHURST service downtown via Adelaide to Church and returning west on King,
>BLOOR (operating between Jane and Luttrell), DUNDAS running west to Runnymede,
>DUNDAS running to City Hall Loop (Albert and James Streets)
I believe most of the (now ex-)trolley bus lines were at one time streetcars.
So this would include Nortown West and East, Junction, Dupont/Annette,
Lansdowne, etc. (from memory - I know there were others).
>Road into Scarboro. There is a FABULOUS book called "The TTC Story" by Pursley
>that lists every route change and the entire history of every line. It's been
>out of print for years, and I recently saw a copy at a flea market. The asking
>price was $90.!
Look for a book by a local Toronto historian called "Not a One Horse
Town". I think the author's name is Mike Filey, but I can check that at home.
He's written quite a bit of streetcar-related material.
>> (A related question) >>
>> 7) Why is it that Toronto is the only Canadian city to still have
>> streetcars? If this is answered in book or magazine article somewhere,
>> I'd appreciate the reference.
>
>I'll bite! Probably heavy ridership combined with a management that believed
>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
After years of deferred maintanance during WWII, most streetcar lines were
in pretty bad shape. Add to this the necessity of extending service into
blooming suburbs, and the flexibility of the motor bus (the "hot new
technology" of the day, where streetcars were "yesterday's news").
--
Colin R. Leech |-> Civil Engineer by training,
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca |-> Transportation Planner by choice,
h:613-224-2301 w:613-741-6440 |-> Trombonist by hobby.
My opinions are my own, not my employer's. You may consider them shareware.
m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
>
>
> I have some questions to do with abandoned track in Toronto. Any takers?
>
> 1) The track you see turning from College St. north onto Spadina, then
> disappearing underground. When was this last used? Why is it still exposed?
>
"Underground"??? Or do you mean covered over by pavement? Spadina had rail
service until the 50s(?), and much track was left in place as emergency
routing.
> 2) Is it true that asphalt has been scraped off old track to see if it was
> still usable somewhere in the city? Is this technically feasible?
>
Don't know why not!
> 3) Near the western entrance of one of the bridges that crosses the Don
> Valley (the one the subway uses) you can see some track disappearing into
> a park. What was it used for? When?
>
I suspect you're referring to the loop at the corner of Bloor and
Parliament that was the northern terminus of the PARLIAMENT line, abandoned
when the BLOOR subway opened. Please don't ask me to recall the year from
memory. Perhaps 1965 or so??
> 4) I was walking along Harbord St. last year when I noticed workers
> digging up the street and removing streetcar track. When was service
> stopped on this street and why?
>
Same thing. The HARBORD line was closed when the BLOOR subway opened.
> 5) Walking east along Carleton from Yonge, you can faintly see tracks
> turning up one of the major streets. (Which one?) When was it abandoned?
>
Parliament Street? See answer above. Other possibility Church Street,
which like Spadina had rail service into the 50s (I believe it closed when the
Yonge subway opened), but rail was left in place for emergency use.
> 6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
>
MUCH. I remember (at least) COXWELL, PARLIAMENT, HARBORD, BATHURST running
all the way north to St. Clair, ROGERS ROAD, ST. CLAIR running east to Mount
Pleasant and then north to Eglinton, DUPONT, service to EXHIBITION WEST LOOP
and BATHURST service downtown via Adelaide to Church and returning west on King,
BLOOR (operating between Jane and Luttrell), DUNDAS running west to Runnymede,
DUNDAS running to City Hall Loop (Albert and James Streets)
Lines that I didn't see that were abandoned when the Yonge subway opened were
YONGE and CHURCH. SPADINA went about the same time I think.
Years ago there were many others as well, including service away out Kingston
Road into Scarboro. There is a FABULOUS book called "The TTC Story" by Pursley
that lists every route change and the entire history of every line. It's been
out of print for years, and I recently saw a copy at a flea market. The asking
price was $90.!
> (A related question)
>
> 7) Why is it that Toronto is the only Canadian city to still have
> streetcars? If this is answered in book or magazine article somewhere,
> I'd appreciate the reference.
>
I'll bite! Probably heavy ridership combined with a management that believed
"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
> 8) How much abandoned track is still visible in Toronto, apart from the
> areas I've mentioned? How many streets have streetcar tracks buried over
> with a thin layer of asphalt?
>
Can't help on that. Any local folks know?
> (Another related question)
>
> 9) Was the track north of Bathurst Station ever used for regular streetcar
> service? When?
>
>
Closed when the BLOOR subway opened. Still used for barn access for the
ST. CLAIR cars. If you happen to be around at the time they're running in or
out of the barn you can ride it. The Mrs. and me were waiting to return to the
downtown area on our last visit, standing at St. Clair and Wychwood when along
came a car and we got on. Turned out to be going back to the Roncesvalles
car barn, so we stayed on to Bathurst and King instead of taking the subway
as we had planned.
Len Bachelder m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
Jobst Brandt
Does anyone recall what that gauge is and whether it is similar to other
streetcar lines that were so built to prevent the possibility of freight
being pulled down the street as it was in many other cities?
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hplabs.hp.com>
Stephen M. Webb
Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>
>
>In a previous article, m00...@mbvms.mitre.org () says:
>>In article <Cu2p8...@cunews.carleton.ca>, mkgo...@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Gordon) writes:
>>>
>>> 1) The track you see turning from College St. north onto Spadina, then
>>> disappearing underground. When was this last used? Why is it still exposed?
>>
>>"Underground"??? Or do you mean covered over by pavement? Spadina had rail
>>service until the 50s(?), and much track was left in place as emergency
>>routing.
>
>This now rings a faint bell (I lived near there for a short time). I think
>this is just abandoned track that was paved over in places, but other
>delayed reconstruction of Spadina Ave. meant that some sections were never
>paved over.
The tracks north of College were disconnected during the 1950s works (after
the Yonge subway opened) and paved over. In the mid-80's, the street north
of College was repaved, and all of the tracks removed (including the crossover
at Bloor, which was turned into a little parkette). The road is now torn up
because the TTC is building another streetcar subway under Spadina into
Spadina station.
The tracks between King and College remain in place for short turns and
emergency rerouting. It will be torn up and replaced for the new LRT line.
New rails go south from King to Queen's Quay to allow pullouts and pullins
on the Harbourfron LRT (worked from Ronce division). This track cannot
run through to the rest of Spadina (it just turns west onto King).
>>> 6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
>>
>>MUCH. I remember (at least) COXWELL, PARLIAMENT, HARBORD, BATHURST running
>>all the way north to St. Clair, ROGERS ROAD, ST. CLAIR running east to Mount
>>Pleasant and then north to Eglinton, DUPONT, service to EXHIBITION WEST LOOP
>>and BATHURST service downtown via Adelaide to Church and returning west on King,
>>BLOOR (operating between Jane and Luttrell), DUNDAS running west to Runnymede,
>>DUNDAS running to City Hall Loop (Albert and James Streets)
>
>I believe most of the (now ex-)trolley bus lines were at one time streetcars.
>So this would include Nortown West and East, Junction, Dupont/Annette,
>Lansdowne, etc. (from memory - I know there were others).
Nortown was never a streetcar. The Mount Pleasant trolley replaced the
eastern leg of the St. Clair car, and the Junction trolley replaced the western
leg of the King car between Bloor and Runnymede. Annette was also never a
car line, but all the remaining trolley lines replaced streetcar lines:
Bay, Ossington, Lansdowne, Weston Road (only as far as Church Street in
Weston), Rogers Road, and the North Yonge line, which was discontinued
when the Yonge subway was extended north of Eglinton.
Incidentally, the Nortown routes used to be Nortown (in the wast) and
Duplex (in the east). TTC amalgamated them into a single Nortown route
in the early 80s. In the late 80s, they split them again into two
separate routes: Nortown East and Nortown West. Must be a new planner.
Now, of course, all the TBs are gone, and I notice that the TTC has been
serruptitiously removing the overhead, despite their promise to keep it
in place in case they restore service. For example, the wires are gone from
Lansdowne south of Bloor and around the Lansdowne division TB barn.
>>Road into Scarboro. There is a FABULOUS book called "The TTC Story" by Pursley
>>that lists every route change and the entire history of every line. It's been
>>out of print for years, and I recently saw a copy at a flea market. The asking
>>price was $90.!
>
>Look for a book by a local Toronto historian called "Not a One Horse
>Town". I think the author's name is Mike Filey, but I can check that at home.
>He's written quite a bit of streetcar-related material.
Stan Pursley's work is the definitive work on the TTC from 1921 to the
mid 70's.
>>> (A related question) >>
>>> 7) Why is it that Toronto is the only Canadian city to still have
>>> streetcars? If this is answered in book or magazine article somewhere,
>>> I'd appreciate the reference.
>>
>>I'll bite! Probably heavy ridership combined with a management that believed
>>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
>After years of deferred maintanance during WWII, most streetcar lines were
>in pretty bad shape. Add to this the necessity of extending service into
>blooming suburbs, and the flexibility of the motor bus (the "hot new
>technology" of the day, where streetcars were "yesterday's news").
Most streetcar systems in North America were abandoned because they were
money-losing propositions, and diesel buses were far cheaper to both build
and operate as well as theoretically being more flexible. In the 1960s and
1970s the TTC tried to get rid of the last of the streetcars, but activists
("Streetcars for Toronto", if I recall) forced the TTC to keep all existing
service and consider extensions where possible. Of course, the TTC then
promptly abandoned the Rogers Road line and the then Borough of York paved
over the tracks. This was hot on the tail of the Ontario government
cancelling all freeway projects in Metro (remember the Spadina Expressway).
--
Stephen M. Webb ------- Consider Whirled Peas ------- ste...@teleride.on.ca
Canada: a part of the United States where people are so smart they've never
paid any taxes to Washington.
m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
>
>
> In a previous article, m00...@mbvms.mitre.org () says:
>>In article <Cu2p8...@cunews.carleton.ca>, mkgo...@superior.carleton.ca (Mike Gordon) writes:
>>>
>>> 6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
>>
>>MUCH. I remember (at least) COXWELL, PARLIAMENT, HARBORD, BATHURST running
>>all the way north to St. Clair, ROGERS ROAD, ST. CLAIR running east to Mount
>>Pleasant and then north to Eglinton, DUPONT, service to EXHIBITION WEST LOOP
>>and BATHURST service downtown via Adelaide to Church and returning west on King,
>>BLOOR (operating between Jane and Luttrell), DUNDAS running west to Runnymede,
>>DUNDAS running to City Hall Loop (Albert and James Streets)
>
> I believe most of the (now ex-)trolley bus lines were at one time streetcars.
> So this would include Nortown West and East, Junction, Dupont/Annette,
> Lansdowne, etc. (from memory - I know there were others).
>
Other (recent) trolley bus lines were Ossington, Weston Road and Yonge 97
(Eglinton to the City Limits). Ossington subsumed Rogers after that line was
converted from rail to trolley bus. And of course Bay. Dupont was not a
trolley bus line. Annette already existed as a trolley bus, and when the Dupont
streetcar line was abandoned, Annette was extended to Bloor over a portion of
the former Dupont line. The rest of Dupont became the Bay trolley bus after
some delay. Mount Pleasant was an early trolley bus experiment (1920s or 30s)
that later got converted to rail and became the east end of ST. CLAIR. It is
now bus. AFAIK, Landsdowne, Weston, Ossington (including Rogers), Junction
(way back when it was a separate rail line but in modern times it was the west
end of DUNDAS), Bay, Yonge and part of Annette (that part that used to be part
of the DUPONT rail line) were conversions from streetcar lines, though not
always on identical routings. I'd have to look up in Pursley's book to be
certain, but I think that the western portion of Annette (west of the end of the
DUPONT car line) was not a rail line. Certainly not under the name Annette and
certainly not with the same route as the trolley bus, though portions of it may
have been rail years ago. Nortown, I believe, was a new route established as
a trolley bus route when the Yonge Subway opened, and was not a streetcar
conversion as such (but I think at least part of the western end was part of
a rail line - OAKWOOD maybe - I'd have to look it up).
>>Road into Scarboro. There is a FABULOUS book called "The TTC Story" by Pursley
>>that lists every route change and the entire history of every line. It's been
>>out of print for years, and I recently saw a copy at a flea market. The asking
>>price was $90.!
>
> Look for a book by a local Toronto historian called "Not a One Horse
> Town". I think the author's name is Mike Filey, but I can check that at home.
> He's written quite a bit of streetcar-related material.
>
I know Mike. Will have to look for his book.
>>> (A related question) >>
>>> 7) Why is it that Toronto is the only Canadian city to still have
>>> streetcars? If this is answered in book or magazine article somewhere,
>>> I'd appreciate the reference.
>>
>>I'll bite! Probably heavy ridership combined with a management that believed
>>"If it ain't broke, don't fix it".
>
> After years of deferred maintanance during WWII, most streetcar lines were
> in pretty bad shape. Add to this the necessity of extending service into
> blooming suburbs, and the flexibility of the motor bus (the "hot new
> technology" of the day, where streetcars were "yesterday's news").
>
Yes, in common with most U. S. cities, that's why streetcars were abandoned
everyplace else. But the guy's question (re-phrashed for emphasis) I think
really was "Why were the streetcars KEPT in Toronto?" The answer to that has
got to lie in local politics or possibly just "intelligent" management (or is
that an oxymoron?)!
Len Bachelder m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
Jobst Brandt
> The gauge that the TTC uses for the streetcars and the subway system
> is 4'-10 7/8". The Scarborough RT is standard 4'-8 1/2".
> The reason for it? According to Mike Filey's "Not A One Horse
> Town", when the first horse-car line was to be built (Church St, I
> think, from Front to Yorkville), the most common carriage had this as
> its wheel gauge and it was desirable for someone traveling down a road
> with tracks to be able to set their wheels in the flangeway to avoid
> the bumping and un-evenness of going over tracks.
I am suspicious of this explanation, it doesn't ring true for several
reasons among which are that on inspection of carriages in museums it
is apparent that their gauge is not uniform, the tread widths of only
the lightest surreys would fit the flange slot, early streetcars used
rail without flange slot, streetcar builders didn't give a damn about
horses or what they pulled other than their own cars if they were so
powered. Did Toronto use horse cars at all?
The point is that most of the non standard gauge street railways were
specifically built on legislation by the governing bodies to prevent
common carrier passenger and fright trains from using these streets.
The thinly plausible stories of the origins of 4' 8.5" fall in the
same vein. It is, for instance, far more likely that 5' center to
center was envisaged by legislators who had no notion of the
irrelevance of such a measure and ultimately arrived on a flange to
flange dimension that approximated 5' center to center. That or some
other far more logical cause than some of the stories that I have
heard is probably the true story. By repeating such folklore in
print, authors create history.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hplabs.hp.com>
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: I recall that TTC runs the same odd gauge in the hole as on the surface.
: Does anyone recall what that gauge is and whether it is similar to other
: streetcar lines that were so built to prevent the possibility of freight
: being pulled down the street as it was in many other cities?
The gauge that the TTC uses for the streetcars and the subway system
is 4'-10 7/8". The Scarborough RT is standard 4'-8 1/2".
The reason for it? According to Mike Filey's "Not A One Horse Town",
when the first horse-car line was to be built (Church St, I think, from
Front to Yorkville), the most common carriage had this as its wheel gauge
and it was desirable for someone travelling down a road with tracks
to be able to set their wheels in the flangeway to avoid the bumping and
un-evenness of going over tracks.
As for freight, the original horse-car operators considered various
freight services - including a *funeral* service!
--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE | "I could have this conversation for the
Ryerson Polytechnic University | rest of my life!" -- Basil Fawlty
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | (said while talking to "Manwell")
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"We've all been taught, all of us, that blacks and whites can't live together.
The reality is that interracial couples are as boring as anybody else. My
husband sits around the house and I tell him to pick up his socks. Once you
live with someone of another race, it's impossible to think of that race as
special or threatening or all that much different."
- Candy Mills, editor of "Interrace" magazine
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, m00...@mbvms.mitre.org () says:
>Runnymede. This earlier had been the JUNCTION streetcar, operated by the
>City-owned Toronto Electric Railway (or something like that) before that company
>was combined with the privately-owned Toronto Street Railway (I probably have
>mis-remembered the names) when the Toronto Transit Commission was created
>circa 1923.
Nitpick: it would have been Toronto Transportation Commission at the time,
I believe. "Transit" came later.
m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
> Calvin Henry-Cotnam writes:
>
>> The gauge that the TTC uses for the streetcars and the subway system
>> is 4'-10 7/8". The Scarborough RT is standard 4'-8 1/2".
>
>> The reason for it? According to Mike Filey's "Not A One Horse
>> Town", when the first horse-car line was to be built (Church St, I
>> think, from Front to Yorkville), the most common carriage had this as
>> its wheel gauge and it was desirable for someone traveling down a road
>> with tracks to be able to set their wheels in the flangeway to avoid
>> the bumping and un-evenness of going over tracks.
>
> I am suspicious of this explanation, it doesn't ring true for several
> reasons among which are that on inspection of carriages in museums it
> is apparent that their gauge is not uniform, the tread widths of only
> the lightest surreys would fit the flange slot, early streetcars used
> rail without flange slot, streetcar builders didn't give a damn about
> horses or what they pulled other than their own cars if they were so
> powered. Did Toronto use horse cars at all?
>
Yes, Toronto did have horse cars. One of them is (or at least was) in the
historical collection that they keep (or kept) at Hillcrest Shops, and
bring out from time to time for special occasions.
Mr. Henry-Cotman also, in his excellent reply (which closely paralleled
one that I also wrote), said a couple of things I'd like to comment on.
First, I had forgotten as he pointed out that the east end of the ST. CLAIR
streetcar line had for a short time been converted to a MT. PLEASANT trolley bus
line. This was a real deja vu, since as I mentioned, MT. PLEASANT had been the
site of an early (late 20s I think) experimental trolley bus installation before
it became part of the ST. CLAIR streetcar route. I don't recall what the
termini of the original MT. PLEASANT trolley bus line were, but the modern
one ran from ST. CLAIR station on the Yonge Subway to Mount Pleasant and
Eglinton.
Second, he says the Junction trolley bus line was on the route of the KING
streetcar from Bloor to Runnymede. That is incorrect. KING terminated at a
loop whose name I forget (VINCENT maybe) roughly on the site of the present
Dundas West subway station. It was the DUNDAS car that ran along Dundas to
Runnymede. This earlier had been the JUNCTION streetcar, operated by the
City-owned Toronto Electric Railway (or something like that) before that company
was combined with the privately-owned Toronto Street Railway (I probably have
mis-remembered the names) when the Toronto Transit Commission was created
circa 1923. I THINK, but may be wrong, that the term "JUNCTION" derives from
the junction of several steam railroads at West Toronto station - if that is
not correct, would somebody please correct me. I also don't recall how far
out the original JUNCTION streetcar line went, but I think it was farther
than Runnymede.
Len Bachelder m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
Loren I. Petrich
>The point is that most of the non standard gauge street railways were
>specifically built on legislation by the governing bodies to prevent
>common carrier passenger and fright trains from using these streets.
Because of their steam locomotives, of course -- noise, air
pollution (coal is a very _dirty_ fuel), blocking of traffic...
>The thinly plausible stories of the origins of 4' 8.5" fall in the
>same vein.
That's when measured from the inside of the rails. When
measured from the outside, it typically comes out to 5', which is a
nice round number :-).
--
/Loren Petrich, the Master Blaster
/l...@s1.gov
/ Happiness is a fast Macintosh
/ And a fast train
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: In article <CuDpL...@hpl.hp.com>, jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) writes:
: > Calvin Henry-Cotnam writes:
: >
: >> Town", when the first horse-car line was to be built (Church St, I
: >> think, from Front to Yorkville), the most common carriage had this as
: >> its wheel gauge and it was desirable for someone traveling down a road
: >> with tracks to be able to set their wheels in the flangeway to avoid
: >> the bumping and un-evenness of going over tracks.
: >
: > I am suspicious of this explanation, it doesn't ring true for several
: > reasons among which are that on inspection of carriages in museums it
: > is apparent that their gauge is not uniform, the tread widths of only
: > the lightest surreys would fit the flange slot, early streetcars used
: > rail without flange slot, streetcar builders didn't give a damn about
: > horses or what they pulled other than their own cars if they were so
: > powered. Did Toronto use horse cars at all?
: Yes, Toronto did have horse cars. One of them is (or at least was) in the
: historical collection that they keep (or kept) at Hillcrest Shops, and
: bring out from time to time for special occasions.
: Mr. Henry-Cotman also, in his excellent reply (which closely paralleled
: one that I also wrote), said a couple of things I'd like to comment on.
Not to nitpick, but the things commented on were not posted by me.
Looking back over the previous posts, I think that Stephen Webb can
be attributed to them (at least he was the first to mention the Mt. Pleasant
trolley bus replacing the streetcar line) .
: First, I had forgotten as he pointed out that the east end of the ST. CLAIR
: streetcar line had for a short time been converted to a MT. PLEASANT trolley
: bus line. ....
Depends on what one calls "short". In the history of Toronto, I would say it
was short. I can't say for sure myself, but it was trolley bus in 1980 when
I had need to use it occasionally. (Funny coincidence, but I was visiting
friends in France last week and looking at some photos from the summer of
1980 and one of them was taken while waiting for the Mt. Pleasant trolley
bus at St. Clair station!) The trolley bus service continued until all
routes were cut (before the Bay route was reinstated for awhile). Back then,
Mt. Pleasant had fairly recently undergone repaving that involved the covering
of the tracks that were in place. Only in the last couple of years has the
pavement began to sag at the intersection of Mt. Pleasant and St. Clair and
the location of the rails can be seen in the road, and leading to the loop
that was located there where a small parkette is now located.
: I THINK, but may be wrong, that the term "JUNCTION" derives from
: the junction of several steam railroads at West Toronto station - if that is
: not correct, would somebody please correct me.
Basically, that is correct. That area of Toronto is known as "The Junction
Triangle", or more simply as "The Junction". Similar to other areas such as
"The Beaches", "Fashion District", "Studio District", and "Town of York", it
has street signs that identifies it as "The Junction". The area is bordered
on one side by railway lines that travel in a north-west to south-east
diagonal, thus forming a triangle. The junction is of several subdivisions
of both CN (Newmarket, and another I can't remember) and CP (Galt and North
Toronto).
Stephen M. Webb
>I recall that TTC runs the same odd gauge in the hole as on the surface.
>Does anyone recall what that gauge is and whether it is similar to other
>streetcar lines that were so built to prevent the possibility of freight
>being pulled down the street as it was in many other cities?
Both the subways and streetcars run on 5 foot guage. Story I heard was that
most farmers carts were 4'8.5" (that's why that guage became standard for
most rail in the first place) and the carts would get stuck in the track and
block traffic. Toronto was a local agricultural service town, and had quite
a bit of agrarian traffic. Widening the streetcar guage reduced the problem.
I believe that only TSR trackage was 5' guage, and other street railways
(TCR, TYRR, etc.) were standard and had to be converted after the TTC was
created in 1921.
Jobst Brandt
> : I am suspicious of this explanation, it doesn't ring true for several
> : reasons among which are that on inspection of carriages in museums it
> : is apparent that their gauge is not uniform, the tread widths of only
> : the lightest surreys would fit the flange slot, early streetcars used
> : rail without flange slot, streetcar builders didn't give a damn about
> : horses or what they pulled other than their own cars if they were so
> : powered. Did Toronto use horse cars at all?
> I have read in several places that the 5' 2" gauge used in several
> horsecar systems (notably, Philadelphia) was selected by the city as a
> condition for the franchise so that wagons could be pulled in the
> flangeways. I have also seen photographs of this being done in
> Baltimore (?). One reference which mentions the Philadelphia gauge
> and the reason for it is _Moving_the_Masses_, by Charles W. Cheape,
> published by Harvard University Press. I forget which page.
As I said, these things grow of their own making. I also have pictures
of cars driving along the high iron with no flange guides. Had not
the earlier story about horse cars existed, this picture could be used
to prove yet another reason. It was specifically Baltimore that I had
also read that protection against trains running down city streets that
this gauge was picked.
Fortunately, BART in the SF area suffers from no such fables but it
has a wacky gauge mainly because the "inventors" said they were
starting with a clean slate when the design began. That was highly
unfortunate. That is a cover-up for NIH (not invented here) syndrome,
something from which many engineers suffer.
A photograph of a horse car stuck in the flange slot is unconvincing
because to do so a freight dray would need to have such narrow tires
that it could not effectively be used on dirt roads when they are even
slightly wet. A dray had a tread width of from 3 to 6 inches. A
sport surrey (fair weather hot rod) could have fit. Fables live
forever by the rule that people like to believe unbelievable things so
long as there is a faint thread of credibility. The fainter the
thread the stronger the belief.
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hplabs.hp.com>
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, nor...@cs.toronto.edu (Norman Wilson) says:
>The Spadina LRT will run around Spadina Circle in what was formerly the
>innermost traffic lane, where the old streetcar tracks were. I walk past
>the site approximately daily; the right-of-way was dug up (and the old
>buried rails removed) perhaps two months ago. As of yesterday, reinforcing
>bar bent into suggestive shapes had been laid in the excavation, as if
>concrete will be poured shortly.
Will this be on a "private" right-of-way (raised curbs and medians to keep
cars off) as on the rest of Spadina, or would they have to share the lane
with cars? If it's the former, that's an amazing political act to reduce
the number of car lanes, especially in light of the fights they had on the
rest of the street.
For the benefit of others: to maintain car lane capacity on Spadina with
the centre two lanes gone, they proposed to replace angle parking spots
wit parallel parking. This got the businessmen really upset because it
reduces the number of parking spaces quite substantially. Spadina is a
very wide street, but never wide enough ...
Alex Seggie
|> Back then,
|> Mt. Pleasant had fairly recently undergone repaving that involved the covering
|> of the tracks that were in place. Only in the last couple of years has the
|> pavement began to sag at the intersection of Mt. Pleasant and St. Clair and
|> the location of the rails can be seen in the road, and leading to the loop
|> that was located there where a small parkette is now located.
That loop was for short turn cars. The end of the line was a similar loop
just north of Eglinton (sp? I moved away from TO in 68) on the east side of Mt. P.
Alex
|>
| |> Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE | "I could have this conversation for the
|> Ryerson Polytechnic University | rest of my life!" -- Basil Fawlty
|> Toronto, Ontario, Canada | (said while talking to "Manwell")
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------*----
Alex. C. Seggie | Bell-Northern Research Ltd. | ESN 395-2369 (work)
seg...@bnr.ca | P.O. Box 3511, Station C | (613) 765-2369 (work)
My words, my thoughts. | Ottawa, Ont, CANADA K1Y 4H7 | (613) 721-0636 (home)
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: In article <CuCGx...@hpl.hp.com>, Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hpl.hp.com> wrote:
: >I recall that TTC runs the same odd gauge in the hole as on the surface.
: >Does anyone recall what that gauge is and whether it is similar to other
: >streetcar lines that were so built to prevent the possibility of freight
: >being pulled down the street as it was in many other cities?
: Both the subways and streetcars run on 5 foot guage.
No, it's 4 foot, 10 7/8 inches.
: Story I heard was that
: most farmers carts were 4'8.5" (that's why that guage became standard for
: most rail in the first place) and the carts would get stuck in the track and
: block traffic. Toronto was a local agricultural service town, and had quite
: a bit of agrarian traffic. Widening the streetcar guage reduced the problem.
As I mentioned in another post, "Not A One Horse Town" mentions that the most
common manufacturer of carts in Toronto at the time the first horse-car line
was being considered (I'm going to have to remember to look it up and post
this evening!) had an outer surface to outer surface distance just under this
guage thus allowing someone travelling down the length of a street to *settle*
the wheels in the flangeway. Using another guage means that only one side
can settle in a flangeway at a time and a *tilted* ride is had.
By the way, NAOHT mentions that when the first line was built, on Church
Street from Front to Yorkville, the track was laid in only about 14 days!
Of course, that was in the days before unions and legislated maximum work
hours, and of course, coffee trucks! :-)
--
Calvin Henry-Cotnam, CATE | "I could have this conversation for the
Ryerson Polytechnic University | rest of my life!" -- Basil Fawlty
Toronto, Ontario, Canada | (said while talking to "Manwell")
Charles Coldwell
: Calvin Henry-Cotnam writes:
: > The gauge that the TTC uses for the streetcars and the subway system
: > is 4'-10 7/8". The Scarborough RT is standard 4'-8 1/2".
: > The reason for it? According to Mike Filey's "Not A One Horse
: > Town", when the first horse-car line was to be built (Church St, I
: > think, from Front to Yorkville), the most common carriage had this as
: > its wheel gauge and it was desirable for someone traveling down a road
: > with tracks to be able to set their wheels in the flangeway to avoid
: > the bumping and un-evenness of going over tracks.
: I am suspicious of this explanation, it doesn't ring true for several
: reasons among which are that on inspection of carriages in museums it
: is apparent that their gauge is not uniform, the tread widths of only
: the lightest surreys would fit the flange slot, early streetcars used
: rail without flange slot, streetcar builders didn't give a damn about
: horses or what they pulled other than their own cars if they were so
: powered. Did Toronto use horse cars at all?
I have read in several places that the 5' 2" gauge used in several
horsecar systems (notably, Philadelphia) was selected by the city as a
condition for the franchise so that wagons could be pulled in the
flangeways. I have also seen photographs of this being done in
Baltimore (?). One reference which mentions the Philadelphia gauge
and the reason for it is _Moving_the_Masses_, by Charles W. Cheape,
published by Harvard University Press. I forget which page.
Chip Coldwell
cold...@cfauvcs6.harvard.edu
Stephen M. Webb
>
>>The Spadina LRT will run around Spadina Circle in what was formerly the
>>innermost traffic lane, where the old streetcar tracks were. I walk past
>>the site approximately daily; the right-of-way was dug up (and the old
>>buried rails removed) perhaps two months ago. As of yesterday, reinforcing
>>bar bent into suggestive shapes had been laid in the excavation, as if
>>concrete will be poured shortly.
>
>Will this be on a "private" right-of-way (raised curbs and medians to keep
>cars off) as on the rest of Spadina, or would they have to share the lane
>with cars? If it's the former, that's an amazing political act to reduce
>the number of car lanes, especially in light of the fights they had on the
>rest of the street.
I had to check it out on Wednesday: the rebars seem to stick out above the
road, so I would assume that the tracks will use a PRW around the
Connaught building. I also noticed that the tunnel portal is complete, but
the road surface north of the portal looks undisturbed. Does anyone know if
the tunnel has been built, or did they just build the portal and they'll
add the tunnel later? With the Bay subway, they spend years trenching
and preparing for the tunnel.
Stephen M. Webb
Calvin Henry-Cotnam <c...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>m00...@mbvms.mitre.org wrote:
>: In article <CuDpL...@hpl.hp.com>, jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) writes:
>: First, I had forgotten as he pointed out that the east end of the ST. CLAIR
>: streetcar line had for a short time been converted to a MT. PLEASANT trolley
>: bus line. ....
>
>Depends on what one calls "short". In the history of Toronto, I would say it
>was short. I can't say for sure myself, but it was trolley bus in 1980 when
>I had need to use it occasionally. (Funny coincidence, but I was visiting
>friends in France last week and looking at some photos from the summer of
>1980 and one of them was taken while waiting for the Mt. Pleasant trolley
>bus at St. Clair station!) The trolley bus service continued until all
>routes were cut (before the Bay route was reinstated for awhile). Back then,
>Mt. Pleasant had fairly recently undergone repaving that involved the covering
>of the tracks that were in place. Only in the last couple of years has the
>pavement began to sag at the intersection of Mt. Pleasant and St. Clair and
>the location of the rails can be seen in the road, and leading to the loop
>that was located there where a small parkette is now located.
Streetcar service was cut back to St. Clair Station in the late '70s (I
believe) when decking on the bridge just east of the station was replaced,
and streetcar track wasn't part of the replacement.
The St. Clair station was interesting because the streetcars used one of the
trolley wires for overhead. All the other places in the city where trolleys
and streetcars ran together on the same street (eg. Queen and Ossington,
St. Clair and Weston Road), there were three wires (one for streetcars and
two for trolleys).
Stephen M. Webb
<m00...@mbvms.mitre.org> wrote:
>
>Second, he says the Junction trolley bus line was on the route of the KING
>streetcar from Bloor to Runnymede. That is incorrect. KING terminated at a
>loop whose name I forget (VINCENT maybe) roughly on the site of the present
>Dundas West subway station. It was the DUNDAS car that ran along Dundas to
>Runnymede. This earlier had been the JUNCTION streetcar, operated by the
>City-owned Toronto Electric Railway (or something like that) before that company
>was combined with the privately-owned Toronto Street Railway (I probably have
>mis-remembered the names) when the Toronto Transit Commission was created
>circa 1923.
Yes, in later years King cars turned at Vincent loop (now Dundas West station),
and Dundas cars turned at Runnymede. Originally, it was King that served
Runnymede. You can still find pictures with King Runnymede destination
signs displayed.
Prior to the creation of the Toronto Transportation Commission in 1921,
Dundas street north of Bloor was served by the Crescent route of the
Toronto Civic Railway. The Toronto Transit Commission was established
in 1954 (well, 1953 really) when the political entity of Metropolitan
Toronto was created out of all the various cities in the area.
>I THINK, but may be wrong, that the term "JUNCTION" derives from
>the junction of several steam railroads at West Toronto station - if that is
>not correct, would somebody please correct me. I also don't recall how far
>out the original JUNCTION streetcar line went, but I think it was farther
>than Runnymede.
The Junction trolley (and later diesel bus) was invented when the Bloor subway
was opened in, what, 1965? The TTC originally wanted to call it Dundas, but
there was already the car line with that name, and `Lambton' was already
taken as a diesel bus route name.
I also heard that the name `The Junction' for the community at the corner
of Weston and Dundas was derived from the fact that the corner was the
junction of three streetcar lines (the Weston line terminated at that corner).
m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
> In article <CuDpL...@hpl.hp.com> jbr...@hpl.hp.com (Jobst Brandt) writes:
>>The point is that most of the non standard gauge street railways were
>>specifically built on legislation by the governing bodies to prevent
>>common carrier passenger and fright trains from using these streets.
>
> Because of their steam locomotives, of course -- noise, air
> pollution (coal is a very _dirty_ fuel), blocking of traffic...
>
Although I'm sure that had something to do with it, another cause (and I
believe in Pennsylvania the principal cause) for governing bodies to
require street railways to be constructed to a "non-standard" gauge was
the desire of the steam railroad companies (who often had the Legislatures in
their pockets - Pennsylvania certainly being a case in point) to minimize
the possibility of them ever becoming competitors.
What the reason was in Toronto, I haven't the faintest idea, but I'm pretty
sure I'm right regarding Pennsylvania and I suspect the same applies to
Baltimore. Any of you "left coast people" want to give an explanation for
the Los Angeles streetcar builders selecting a narrow gauge? Was it just
because it made construction cheaper or was there a political reason as well?
Len Bachelder m00...@mbvms.mitre.org
Mark Brader
> [ Article crossposted from misc.transport.urban-transit ]
No, Mike, you didn't crosspost it, you *reposted* it. *This* article is
crossposted -- it has two newsgroups on the Newsgroups line. And I have
used a Followup-To line to request that any followups go to the transit
newsgroup, which is the relevant one of the two. Transit articles should
not go to rec.railroad now that we have a separate transit group;
conversely, articles on long-distance trains should be in rec.railroad
and not in misc.transport.urban-transit.
(However, having said that, I have to admit that without the reposting
I would not have been able to respond to the article. The copy in
the transit group expired before I was ready...)
In 1973 there was published a book called "Fifty Years of Progressive
Transit", by John Bromley and Jack May. It purports to be a history
of the TTC, but it's clear from the content that "Progressive" is code
for "electric"; diesel bus routes get very little mention compared to the
many details about streetcars and other electric routes.
This book has a pocket containing a series of maps: track maps of the
streetcar system, and route maps covering the streetcars, trolleybuses,
and subways. Both maps are provided for each of six years: 1921, 1923,
1936, 1945, 1954, and 1971. The significance of 1921 is that it's the
year that the private Toronto Street Railway's 30-year franchise ran out
and the Toronto Transportation Commission (it became Transit decades later)
was formed to take over. The TTC embarked on a massive crash program of
track rebuilding, laying heavier rails, increasing the track separation
to allow wider cars, replacing many wyes with loops, and extending many
routes that the TSR had not been interested in; this program was more
or less complete by 1923, hence the second date.
Unfortunately, the book seems to be popular with the sort of lowlifes
who steal from public libraries; the first copy I read was missing the
maps, and checking the Toronto Public Library computer, I find that
two of the four copies they think they have are currently missing.
One of the other two is now reference-only (at the Locke branch).
I don't know about the other library systems in Metro Toronto.
Anyway, I have here photocopies I took of those maps, together with a
1994 streetcar track map that was published in the Upper Canada Railway
Society periodical, Rail and Transit.
> 1) The track you see turning from College St. north onto Spadina, then
> disappearing underground. When was this last used?
Any underground track on Spadina is of recent construction, for the future
extension of the 604 Harbourfront streetcar up Spadina Ave. to the subway.
The 1994 track map shows track on Spadina from Queens Quay to King and
from King to College, with no connection straight across King yet and no
track north of College. There is currently no regular service along
Spadina. The 1971 map shows the King to College portion of the track;
none of it was in regular service.
On the 1954 map, there was track along Spadina from Front to Bloor, but
only the section from Dundas to Harbord was in regular service. This was
part of the Harbord route, which zigagged its way across the city as
follows: from Townsley S on Old Weston, E on Davenport, S on Dovercourt,
E on Bloor, S on Ossington, E on Harbord, S on Spadina, E on Dundas,
N on Broadview, E on Gerrard, N on Carlaw, E on Riverdale, and N on
Pape to Lipton. I remember this route still existing when I came to
Ontario in 1964 (though the western terminus that I remember was at
Bloor and Lansdowne); I suspect it was killed when the Bloor subway
opened in 1966, and if so, this would be the last date for streetcars
on Spadina north of College.
On the 1945 map, there was track along Spadina from Fleet to Bloor, with
a Spadina route serving the full length. It had crossovers at each end,
not loops, and hence required double-ended cars instead of the single-
ended ones more common in Toronto. The Harbord route also existed then.
> Why is it still exposed?
In this case I think the track must have been of recent construction,
unless it's the track referred to in the next question (in which case
it would have groove rails). In general, track is retained for use,
although there is no route along it, if it provides a useful path either
for bringing cars in and out of service, or for short-turns or diversions.
Although Bathurst is the only downtown street with north-south streetcar
service today, there are also north-south tracks available on (at least
part of each of) Spadina, McCaul, York, Bay, Victoria, and Church.
> 2) Is it true that asphalt has been scraped off old track to see if it was
> still usable somewhere in the city? Is this technically feasible?
Might be feasible, but I haven't heard of it being done.
> 3) Near the western entrance of one of the bridges that crosses the Don
> Valley (the one the subway uses) you can see some track disappearing into
> a park. What was it used for? When?
I'm not familiar with the track, but from the location I think this must
be the remains of the Viaduct loop, which was off the east side of
Parliament just south of Bloor. It appears on the maps from 1936 to
1954 inclusive. A streetcar route called Parliament ran south from
there. On the 1936 and 1945 maps it turned west on Queen to Victoria
(just east of Yonge), then looped around the block using Richmond and
Church; on the 1954 map, it ran straight south to a new loop at Front;
on the 1971 map it's gone.
> 4) I was walking along Harbord St. last year when I noticed workers
> digging up the street and removing streetcar track. When was service
> stopped on this street and why?
See the description of the Harbord route above. The tracks were probably
taken out of service at the same time as the route, since they didn't
provide a useful cross-connection.
> 5) Walking east along Carleton from Yonge, you can faintly see tracks
> turning up one of the major streets. (Which one?) When was it abandoned?
I assume "up" means north. Tracks north from Carlton ran along on Yonge,
Church, Sherbourne, and Parliament. The Yonge tracks were abandoned when
the subway opened in 1954. The Church route was abandoned shortly after
that, when it was found that the original subway trains exceeded their
design weight and the TTC's supply of electricity was falling short;
I don't know when the tracks were abandoned north of Carlton, but they're
not on the 1971 map and I'd guess it was immediately after.
The Sherbourne route and tracks both disappear between the 1945 and the
1954 map; and the Parliament route, and tracks north of Carlton, between
the 1954 and the 1971 map. I think I remember the Parliament route
operating, so that would put its termination into the 1960's.
> 6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
I'm not going to measure the maps to figure it out, but just by eyeballing
the 1945 map, it looks to me as though about 65% of the street miles that
had regular service then no longer have it now.
Another significant difference from the earlier maps is that today all of
the full-time east-west routes through downtown go *through* downtown,
rather than having an endpoint there. For instance, on the 1945 and
1954 maps, the eastern terminus of the Dundas route was the City Hall
loop, which ran around a couple of blocks using Louisa, James, Albert,
and Elizabeth (and so was adjacent to the old Eaton's store on Queen).
Eastward service on Dundas used the Harbord route, described above,
and the two routes overlapped from Spadina to Elizabeth. This sort
of overlapping route is common on the older maps. Today, the Dundas
streetcar (now called 505) continues east to Broadview and then north
to the subway. (On the 1971 map, there is a compromise version of the
service: some Dundas cars from the west run into the City Hall loop,
now using Bay instead of Elizabeth, and others run to Broadview station.)
> 7) Why is it that Toronto is the only Canadian city to still have
> streetcars? ...
For this you'd better ask all those people whose cities eliminated
their streetcars. :-)
I think one important factor is that we have a lot of downtown streets
that are only 4 lanes, sometimes with parking, so that traffic is
somewhat congested. Buses find it hard to maneuver in those conditions,
so streetcars, which don't have to pull over to the curb, can move more
people faster.
> 8) How much abandoned track is still visible in Toronto, apart from the
> areas I've mentioned? How many streets have streetcar tracks buried over
> with a thin layer of asphalt?
I have no idea.
> 9) Was the track north of Bathurst Station ever used for regular streetcar
> service? When?
Certainly it was. On the 1921 map, the tracks on Bathurst ran to Dupont
and then turned west to wye at Christie. The Bathurst route then ran
from Front and George (east of Church) west to Bathurst and then up to
Dupont and Christie. (The Exhibition terminus is relatively recent;
that formerly belonged to a separate route called Fort.) The present
track configuration, with the Bathurst tracks continuing to St. Clair
northbound, but cutting diagonally along Vaughan from St. Clair to
Bathurst on the southbound side, appears as far back as the 1923 map.
All the maps from 1923 to 1954 show Bathurst streetcars running as far
north as St. Clair and looping via this street triangle, which is the
Vaughan loop. And I can remember that they still did so *after* the
Bloor subway opened in 1966. On the 1923, 1936, and 1945 maps, there
was additionally a rush-hour ("tripper") service which continued from
Bathurst onto St. Clair and ran west to wherever the terminus of the
St. Clair route then was. These cars were marked Bathurst when traveling
east and south, and St. Clair when going the other way.
Now, the configuration at Bathurst station has a single streetcar track
through the station:
platform
N <--+--> S ##############
-------<--------
/ \
/\ /\
/ \ / \ street (double track)
===================================================
I suspect it was found that during busy times there was too much
contention for the platform track between the northbound and
southbound streetcars. The streetcar route north of the subway
was truncated away not too long after the subway opened -- definitely
before 1971, since it doesn't appear on that route map. It was
replaced by an extension of the 7 Bathurst bus service, which was
already running on the northern part of Bathurst.
The same thing happened to the west end of the Dundas streetcar line,
which runs north-south locally around Dundas West station. The line
formerly incorporated what is now the 40 Junction bus route, thus
running through to Dundas and Runnymede. This physical layout at
this subway station is a little different, with a larger streetcar
loop, but still both eastbound and westbound Dundas streetcars used
the same single track, as well as the King streetcars which terminated
at the station (and still do). Not too long after the subway opened,
and definitely before 1971, the streetcar was truncated at the subway
station, and replaced by the 40 Junction, which was a trolleybus
until the trolleybuses were eliminated.
--
Mark Brader | ...the scariest words of the afternoon:
m...@sq.com | "Hey, don't worry, I've read all about
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto | doing this sort of thing!" -- Vernor Vinge
This article is in the public domain.
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: As I mentioned in another post, "Not A One Horse Town" mentions that the most
: common manufacturer of carts in Toronto at the time the first horse-car line
: was being considered (I'm going to have to remember to look it up and post
: this evening!)...
I finally remembered, and here it is quoted without permission:
`Several of the terms in this historic agreement are worth listing. Cars
could not operate faster than 6 mph and had to be in service at least 16
hours a day in summer and 14 hours daily in winter, the maximum adult fare
could not exceed five cents (there was no children's fare nor were there
transfers) and the width between tracks was to be set at the standard
English buggy wheel gauge of 4ft. 10 7/8 in. in deference to the hundreds
of such vehicles around town.'
As a correction to me mentioning that the first horse-car line was on
Church street, it was on Yonge Street, running from the Yorkville Town
Hall, between Yorkville Ave and Scollard St on the west side of Yonge,
and the St. Lawrence Hall, at King and Jarvis Streets. 200 workmen built
the line and the opening ceremonies were held exactly three weeks after
the day work started.
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: With the Bay subway, they spend years trenching
: and preparing for the tunnel.
As I recall, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm way off on this,
there was some fairly important archeological (sp?) digging where the
Harbourfront LRT runs under Bay Street. I suspect that this would add
to the time for trenching and preparing the tunnel.
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: The St. Clair station was interesting because the streetcars used one of the
: trolley wires for overhead. All the other places in the city where trolleys
: and streetcars ran together on the same street (eg. Queen and Ossington,
: St. Clair and Weston Road), there were three wires (one for streetcars and
: two for trolleys).
That's right! I used to remember which one (left/right) was shared, but
can't anymore - are the trolley wires still in place at St. Clair?
When I discovered this in 1980, it begged a question that I didn't get
an answer for then, and since forgot: what were the voltages with
respect to ground on the trolley wires? I know that the streetcars use
600 VDC and the tracks serve as the return feed, and I believe that the
overhead is positive with respect to ground.
But what about the trolleys? If they use 600 Volts also, is the other
wire grounded? (It is feasable, but not likely, that the other wire,
at least in the sector through the station, could have been at 1200 V,
thus providing the trolleys with the 600 they need).
Anyone know this info for sure?
Mark Brader
Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) writes:
> > > 6) How much smaller is the streetcar network now than it was at its peak?
> >
> > MUCH. ...
>
> I believe most of the (now ex-)trolley bus lines were at one time streetcars.
> So this would include Nortown West and East, Junction, Dupont/Annette,
> Lansdowne, etc. (from memory - I know there were others).
"Most" is correct; the Annette and the two Nortown routes (formerly
one U-shaped route) were exceptions. The 6 Bay and 74 Mt. Pleasant
routes were converted from streetcar to bus first, and then to trolleybus.
In the chart below, the percentages are eyeball estimates off the map;
what they are percentages of is the length of the trolleybus route.
Trolleybus route names are given as of the end of trolleybus service.
Trolleybus-until-recently Corresponding earlier streetcar
route and approx % overlap
4 Annette Dupont car (25%)
6 Bay Bay car (90%)
40 Junction Dundas car (100%)
47 Lansdowne Lansdowne car (70%)
61 Nortown West none
63 Ossington Dovercourt (30%), Harbord (10%), Rogers (40%)
74 Mt. Pleasant St. Clair car (100%)
89 Weston Road Weston car (85%)
103 Nortown East none
Oh, what the heck, I'll do some typing. Here's a complete list of the
routes on my 1945 streetcar map (see earlier posting), which would be a
close approximation to the maximum extent of the system. Listen carefully,
I shall say this only once. :-)
The term "Tripper" indicates a rush-hour variant of the route. The map
uses a single notation for "peak or shift-change service"; route variants
so marked but not identified as Trippers on the map are labeled below
as "unidentified variant". Additional rush-hour variants operating only
a few trips each day are mentioned in notes to the map; in a misguided
sense of completeness, I'll mention these too, and mark them "occasional".
I'll omit variants that are simply shortened versions, though.
The Township of York had an independent streetcar system in 1945;
their routes are marked TYR. The North Yonge Radial Railway was
still operating and is marked NYR. All other routes are TTC, which
then was the Toronto Transportation Commission. The modern routes
I list in parentheses for each route are only rough equivalents in
some cases; numbers above 500 are streetcars, lower numbers are buses.
For modern streetcars, the name formerly used is shown with the number.
I list equivalents only for the primary forms of the routes, since the
variant forms typically duplicate parts of other routes.
Some routes terminated at a loop, wye, or crossover; these are indicated
with those words. Where a loop is not named after the nearest cross
street, I give the street name in parentheses.
Other routes looped around one or more city blocks. I use the notation
"o" meaning "one-way service along this street" to indicate this.
(There were no one-way main streets in those days.) Usually the loop
is closed along one side by a continuation of the main part of the
route, but I leave this implicit; thus in the Bathurst route, for
example, No Bathurst is implicit before the Wo St. Clair. Some of
these on-street loops have names, which are given in parentheses.
Yonge St., Spadina Av., and Danforth Av. are referred to without suffix
since Yonge Blvd., Spadina Rd., and Danforth Rd. had no streetcars.
* North-south routes (west to east, more or less):
TYR Weston (modern equivalent 89 Weston) - Humber St. endpoint, S Weston,
S Keele, Keele Terminus wye (Junction). Single track for portion north
of St. John's.
Lansdowne (47 Lansdowne) - Lansdowne Loop (St. Clair), S Lansdowne,
Wo College, SEo Dundas (College Loop).
Lansdowne, unidentified variant - Lansdowne Loop, S Lansdowne, E Dundas,
S Bathurst, W Fleet, Exhibition Loop.
Dovercourt (127 Davenport, 161 Rogers Rd., 63 Ossington) - Townsley
Loop, S Old Weston, E Davenport, S Dovercourt, E College, S Ossington,
E Queen, S Shaw, Eo Adelaide, So Crawford, Wo King.
Dovercourt Tripper - Townsley Loop, S Old Weston, E Davenport, S Dovercourt,
E College, S Ossington, E Queen, S Shaw, E King, So George, Eo Front,
No Sherbourne.
Dovercourt Tripper, occasional - Townsley Loop, S Old Weston, E Davenport,
S Dovercourt, E College, S Ossington, E Queen, S Shaw, E->NE King,
E Queen, N Broadview, Erindale Loop.
Dovercourt Tripper, occasional - Townsley Loop, S Old Weston, E Davenport,
S Dovercourt, E College, S Ossington, E Queen, S Shaw, W->NW King,
W The Queensway, Sunnyside Loop.
Fort (511 Bathurst) - Wolseley Loop, S Bathurst, W Fleet, Exhibition Loop.
Fort, evening service [really an east-west route!] - Exhibition Loop,
E Fleet, N Bathurst, E Adelaide, No Victoria, Eo Richmond, So Church.
Bathurst (7 Bathurst, 511 Bathurst, none) - (Vaughan Loop) Wo St. Clair,
SEo Vaughan, S Bathurst, E Adelaide, No Victoria, Eo Richmond, So Church.
Bathurst Tripper - Keele Loop, E St. Clair, SE Vaughan, S Bathurst,
E Front, No Scott, Wo Wellington, So Yonge.
Bathurst, evening service - (Vaughan Loop) Wo St. Clair, SEo Vaughan,
S Bathurst, W Fleet, Exhibition Loop.
Spadina (77 Spadina) - Bloor crossover, S Spadina, Fleet crossover.
Bay (512 St. Clair, 5 Avenue Rd., 6 Bay, 604 Harbourfront) - Lansdowne
Loop, E St. Clair, S Avenue, SE Davenport, S Bay, W Queens Quay,
Ferry Loop (York).
Bay, unidentified one-way variant - Lansdowne Loop, E St. Clair,
SE Vaughan, S Bathurst, E Dundas, S Victoria, W Richmond. [Then
finally turning N on Bay, presumably to take the primary route the
other way.]
Dupont (4 Annette, 6 Bay) - Christie Loop, E Dupont, SE Davenport,
S Bay, Eo Louisa, So James, Wo Albert (City Hall Loop).
Yonge (subway, 121 Esplanade) - Glen Echo Loop, S Yonge, W Front,
Simcoe Loop.
Yonge, occasional - Eo Carlton, So Church, Wo Richmond, N Yonge,
Eglinton Loop.
Yonge, occasional - Eo Carlton, So Church, Wo Dundas, So Victoria,
Wo Shuter, N Yonge, Eglinton Loop.
NYR North Yonge (subway, 97 Yonge, none) - Richmond Hill endpoint,
S Yonge, Glen Echo endpoint. Single track.
Church (19 Church) - Asquith Loop, S Church, Wo Front, No Yonge,
Eo Wellington.
Church Tripper - Luttrell Loop, W Danforth, W Bloor, S Church,
Wo King, So York, Eo Wellington; direction of on-street loop reversed
in p.m. rush hour.
Sherbourne (75 Sherbourne) - Rosedale Loop (Rachael), S Sherbourne,
Wo Abbey, So Frederick, Eo Front (Frederick Loop).
Parliament (65 Parliament, 501 Queen) - Viaduct Loop (Bloor),
S Parliament, W Queen, So Church, Wo Richmond, No Victoria.
Coxwell (22 Coxwell) - Coxwell Loop (Danforth), S Coxwell,
Queen-Coxwell Loop (Queen). See also Kingston Road.
* East-west routes (north to south, more or less):
TYR Oakwood (32 Eglinton West, 63 Ossington) - Gilbert Loop, E Eglinton,
S Oakwood, Oakwood Loop (St. Clair). Oakwood Loop shared with TTC.
TYR Rogers (161 Rogers Rd.) - Bicknell Loop, E Rogers, S Oakwood,
Oakwood Loop (St. Clair). Oakwood Loop shared with TTC.
St. Clair (512 St. Clair, 74 Mt. Pleasant) - Keele Loop, E St. Clair,
N Mt. Pleasant, Mt. Pleasant Loop (Eglinton).
St. Clair, all rush hour cars - Avon Loop (Rogers), SE Weston,
E St. Clair, N Mt. Pleasant, Mt. Pleasant Loop (Eglinton).
Weston portion and Avon Loop shared with TYR.
Bloor (subway) - Jane Loop, E Bloor, E Danforth, Luttrell Loop.
Carlton (506 Carlton) - High Park Loop (Parkside), E Howard Park,
SE Dundas, NE->E College, E Carlton, S Parliament, E Gerrard,
N Coxwell, E Gerrard [sic], N Main, E Danforth, Luttrell Loop.
Carlton Tripper - So Victoria, Eo Adelaide, No Church, E Dundas,
N Parliament, E Gerrard, N Coxwell, E Gerrard [sic], N Main,
E Danforth, Luttrell Loop; direction of on-street loop reversed
in p.m. rush hour.
Carlton Tripper, occasional one-way variant - So Victoria, Eo
Adelaide, No Church, E Queen, N Coxwell... [map unclear as to how
primary route rejoined for reverse trip - must be either E Danforth
to Luttrell Loop or S Coxwell then W Gerrard].
Carlton, unidentified variant - Royce Loop, S Lansdowne, E College,
E Carlton, S Parliament, E Gerrard, N Coxwell, E Gerrard [sic],
N Main, E Danforth, Luttrell Loop.
Danforth Tripper - Wo Queen, So York, Eo Richmond, N Church, E Bloor,
E Danforth, Luttrell Loop.
Harbord (none, 94 Wellesley, 77 Spadina, 505 Dundas) - Royce Loop,
S Lansdowne, E Lappin, S Dufferin, E Hallam, S Ossington, E Harbord,
S Spadina, E Dundas, N Broadview, E Gerrard, N Carlaw, E Riverdale,
N Pape, Lipton Loop.
Dundas (40 Junction, 505 Dundas) - Runnymede Loop, E->SE->S->SE->E Dundas,
S Bathurst, E Dundas [sic], S Elizabeth, Eo Louisa, So James,
Wo Albert (City Hall Loop).
Kingston Rd. (502 Downtowner, 12 Kingston Rd.) - McCaul Loop (Stephanie),
S McCaul, E Queen, NE->E Kingston, Birchmount Loop.
Kingston Rd., evening and Sundays - Coxwell Loop, S Coxwell, E Queen,
NE->E Kingston, Birchmount Loop. Replaces Coxwell during this time.
Queen (501 Queen) - Parkside Loop, E The Queensway, E Queen, Neville Loop
(Nursewood).
Queen, unidentified variant - Humber Loop (Humber River), E The Queensway,
E Queen, Neville Loop (Nursewood).
Long Branch (none, 507 Long Branch, 501 Queen) - Small Arms Loop (factory),
NE Lakeshore Highway, E Lake Shore Rd., E The Queensway, Roncesvalles Loop.
King (504 King) - Vincent Loop, S Dundas, S Roncesvalles, SE->E->NE King,
E Queen, N Broadview, Erindale Loop.
King, occasional - Runnymede Loop, E->SE->S Dundas, S Roncesvalles,
SE->E->NE King, E Queen, N Broadview, Erindale Loop.
Beach Tripper - So York, Eo Front, No Sherbourne, E->NE King, E Queen,
Neville Loop (Nursewood); direction of on-street loop reversed in p.m.
rush hour.
I count 25 primary routes (including 4 non-TTC), 6 trippers of which
2 do not exist as primary routes (they did earlier), and 14 other
occasional or variant routes. The present system has 9 primary routes,
1 tripper (the 503 Kingston Rd. Tripper, somewhat similar to the Beach
Tripper of 1945), and some occasionals.
I think the eyeball estimate in my earlier article, that 65% of the
street miles of this network had lost streetcar service since, was on
the low side; I now guess that 75% would be closer. But the map is not
to exact scale, and this could also be fooling me.
If track miles are considered, the reduction since 1945 would be smaller.
The 1945 system had hardly any track that was not in regular service;
the only exceptions more than a couple of blocks long that I can find
offhand are McCaul from McCaul Loop to College, and Eglinton from Yonge
to Mt. Pleasant. And this is quite different from today.
Followups are directed to misc.transport.urban-transit.
--
Mark Brader, m...@sq.com "Information! ... We want information!"
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto -- The Prisoner
Mark Brader
> Nortown was never a streetcar. The Mount Pleasant trolley replaced the
> eastern leg of the St. Clair car, and the Junction trolley replaced the
> western leg of the King car between Bloor and Runnymede.
Dundas car.
> Incidentally, the Nortown routes used to be Nortown (in the wast) and
> Duplex (in the east). TTC amalgamated them into a single Nortown route
> in the early 80s.
This is fiction, I think, unless the date is quite wrong. Both the 1954
and 1971 maps I referred to in an earlier posting show a single Nortown
route. I've lived in Metro Toronto since 1974, and visited Toronto fairly
regularly for some years before that, and I'm pretty darn sure I would
have remembered such a change to the trolleybus network.
If the Nortown route had been split and rejoined before 1971, I would
have expected Bromley and May's book to mention it, though it's possible
that it does and I forgot.
Also, Duplex Av. is west of Yonge, not east, and the Nortown route
has never gone along it (except for half a block when exiting from
Eglinton subway station westbound).
There is a bus route of a very similar U-shape in up the far north [1],
centered around Sheppard station: 98 Willowdale/Senlac. It's the only
route in the system with a / in its name. This used to be two routes:
98 Willowdale and 55 (I think) Senlac. Maybe that's what Stephen was
thinking of.
[1] See soc.culture.canada. :-)
> In the late 80s, they split them again into two
> separate routes: Nortown East and Nortown West.
Correct. And with detrolleybusification, Nortown West has been renamed
Avenue Rd. North. They even remembered a few months ago to change the
platform signs in Eglinton subway station.
This change happened about the same time as the Willowdale/Senlac change.
> Now, of course, all the TBs are gone, and I notice that the TTC has been
> serruptitiously removing the overhead, despite their promise to keep it
> in place in case they restore service. For example, the wires are gone from
> Lansdowne south of Bloor and around the Lansdowne division TB barn.
A few wires have been removed around Eglinton station; I assumed these
were ones that had fallen down. Most are still in place.
> > > Road into Scarboro. There is a FABULOUS book called "The TTC Story"
> > > by Pursley that lists every route change and the entire history of
> > > every line. ...
Thanks, I'll have to look for that.
| Other (recent) trolley bus lines were Ossington, Weston Road and Yonge 97
| (Eglinton to the City Limits).
Mmm, I think that Yonge trolley was 99. In those days the city limit,
at the Glen Echo loop on Yonge, was also the boundary of the two fare
zones the TTC then had. Service north of Glen Echo into zone 2 -- and
in fact also beyond the Metro limit at Steeles, and thus into the further
concentric zones 3, 4, and 5 -- was provided by the 59 North Yonge bus,
which ran express from Glen Echo to Eglinton. This was the successor
to the old radial car (Ontario English for "interurban") service on Yonge.
(When Metro Toronto was created in 1954, the TTC's service area expanded
to cover all of it, taking over other operations such as the Township
of York Railways. Zone 1 was approximately the original service area,
the City of Toronto with the boundary simplified. The added area was
originally split into three zones and then all became Zone 2. When the
subway extended across the zone boundary in 1968, it was treated as an
isolated extension of Zone 1 -- no free transfers to buses in those
stations. This affected the layout of stations such as Islington.
The zones were abolished in about 1972 -- clearly a political action
since the fare was not raised.)
I don't know when the TTC service on Yonge was cut back to Steeles;
I assume it happened when the municipalities north of Steeles got their
own bus systems going, or when GO Transit started operating up there.
Markham, Vaughan, and GO buses all now run into TTC territory to the
Finch subway station. A few TTC routes also run through into the
Markham and Vaughan system territories. And similarly with Mississauga
in the west.
| Mount Pleasant was an early trolley bus experiment (1920s or 30s)
| that later got converted to rail and became the east end of ST. CLAIR.
Ah, right. That little route probably holds the TTC's record for mode
changes.
| have been rail years ago. Nortown, I believe, was a new route established as
| a trolley bus route when the Yonge Subway opened, and was not a streetcar
| conversion as such (but I think at least part of the western end was part of
| a rail line - OAKWOOD maybe - I'd have to look it up).
No, none of the Nortown route was ever a streetcar. Keep in mind that
when the streetcar system was in its growing phase, *Eglinton* was the
"far north", in that there wasn't much built-up area north of it --
except for some small, then-distinct communities. There was a narrow
strip of development along Yonge, served by the various transit routes
that have operated along there. The Nortown route was actually unusual
because it was the only trolleybus to cross the Toronto - North York
boundary -- its terminus was at the new zone boundary, but zone 2
extended a little into North York along there. The Weston route also
crossed into North York, but it was originally a York route and it
entered North York from York.
--
Mark Brader "Hacking for 8 years gives a guy a memory.
m...@sq.com If you was with a woman -- I'd've noticed."
SoftQuad Inc., Toronto PHANTOM LADY
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, c...@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) says:
>Stephen M. Webb (ste...@teleride.on.ca) wrote:
>
>: With the Bay subway, they spend years trenching
>: and preparing for the tunnel.
>
>As I recall, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm way off on this,
>there was some fairly important archeological (sp?) digging where the
>Harbourfront LRT runs under Bay Street. I suspect that this would add
>to the time for trenching and preparing the tunnel.
I wonder if Stephen was referring to the Bay subway station, or the
Harbourfront LRT?
Nevertheless, on Harbourfront:
(Extra detail for the benefit of non-Torontonians)
The Harbourfront line runs on a raised median east-west through
Harbourfront (Queens Quay [street]), then turns north on Bay to connect
with the subway at Union Station (also home of VIA and GO).
The Union Station loop, the Bay St. section, plus the corner, plus a short
piece on Queens Quay is underground. As you approach Union Station, Bay St.
is separated into NB and SB roadways by columns supporting the
freight/intercity rail tracks above. The LRT tunnel must also split into
two tunnels, one on either side of the support columns. I think the rail
corridor is about 6-8 tracks wide at this point, although diverging rapidly
as they widen to 16 tracks at Union Station (tracks 15 and 16 are a
freight bypass of the station).
This is one of the oldest parts of Toronto. There were many utilities down
there: old sewer tunnels, steam tunnels, you name it. Half the stuff had
been forgotten about until they started digging. Apparently over half the
budget for tunnelling this section was simply utility relocation expenses.
Open cut tunnelling was difficult because of limited clearance between the
road level and the rail viaduct above.
They did find a few interesting things down there, but I think in the end
it was nothing major. I recall that one was a piece of whale bone:
obviously not native to Lake Ontario, so not really all that interesting.
An interesting aside is that everything south of Front St. is landfill in
Lake Ontario! Some of it goes back to the mid-1800s (I've seen contour
maps showing the lake shore at various stages over the years). "Front St.
was originally _on_ Lake Ontario, hence the name. The rail corridor and
yards (now gone; the SkyDome sits on part of the old CN yards, while the
old CP yards are still mostly vacant land) were the first fill dumped into
the lake. Over the decades, the rest was filled in to create what we see
today.
gbur...@cid.aes.doe.ca
to be of a gauge that would NOT allow wheels on both sides of
carriage to fall into flangeway. Once both fixed wheels fell into the
flangeway it became difficult to turn out from the track because
of their rigidity. And wood gives before steel.
>Chip Coldwell
>cold...@cfauvcs6.harvard.edu
--
Gerry Burridge gbur...@cid.aes.doe.ca
Canadian Meteorological Centre Tel.: 514-421-4637
2121 North Service Road - #404 Fax.: 514-421-4679
Dorval, Que. - H9P 1J3
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
[describing Bay Street south of Front Street]
: The LRT tunnel must also split into
: two tunnels, one on either side of the support columns. I think the rail
: corridor is about 6-8 tracks wide at this point, although diverging rapidly
: as they widen to 16 tracks at Union Station (tracks 15 and 16 are a
: freight bypass of the station).
Union Station has 13 tracks, with track 13 at the very back with no roof
over it. GO Transit uses track 13 (sometimes 12) for its Milton service
now. Several years ago, they used track 13 for their Stouffville service
(I know because I used it occasionally and had the odd chance of doing the
'track 13' dash to catch it on time!)
CN's "high line" is a two-track freight bypass to the south of Union Station
that interestingly is not part of the TTR (Toronto Terminals Railway)
interlocking, though the track at either end is.
The "shed" of Union Station extends east to about half way between Bay
and Yonge Streets, so the underpass on Bay Street has to be at least
fifteen tracks long. It may be longer, as I am not sure of track details
and I can't quickly locate track photos taken from the CN Tower. The
station shed extends west just past York Street, so its underpass is
similarly long. At York St. though, there were once a few (not sure
how many) tracks that branched slightly south, I think to the CP yard
tracks, so there is a second, narrower underpass just south of the long
underpass. The tracks are gone, but the bridge still remains.
Stephen M. Webb
>
>>Stephen M. Webb (ste...@teleride.on.ca) wrote:
>>
>>: With the Bay subway, they spend years trenching
>>: and preparing for the tunnel.
>>
>>As I recall, and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm way off on this,
>>there was some fairly important archeological (sp?) digging where the
>>Harbourfront LRT runs under Bay Street. I suspect that this would add
>>to the time for trenching and preparing the tunnel.
>
>I wonder if Stephen was referring to the Bay subway station, or the
>Harbourfront LRT?
Yes, I was referring to the LRT subway under Bay Street. It took so long
to build partially because of the construction method: they dug these 2
foot wide trenches and filled them with concrete, then removed the roadbed
and poured a slab of concrete. They then replaced the road and removed the
stuff from under the slab and between the walls. The tunnel surface is
very rough, like you would expect if they just poured concrete into 2'-wide
trenches.
The other holdup in construction was a political faction preventing Queen's
Quay station from being built as designed. There was supposed to be a south
entrance to access the ferry docks, but now there isn't. The changed
design means you actually have to cross the tracks at track level to catch a
northbound car at that station.
>The Union Station loop, the Bay St. section, plus the corner, plus a short
>piece on Queens Quay is underground. As you approach Union Station, Bay St.
>is separated into NB and SB roadways by columns supporting the
>freight/intercity rail tracks above. The LRT tunnel must also split into
>two tunnels, one on either side of the support columns. I think the rail
>corridor is about 6-8 tracks wide at this point, although diverging rapidly
>as they widen to 16 tracks at Union Station (tracks 15 and 16 are a
>freight bypass of the station).
Uh, Bay Street goes under the platforms at Union Station. It's York Street,
to the west, that goes under the station throat. York street used to go under
the motive power yards in a tunnel, but now it just goes through a tunnel
sitting in the middle of nowhere (the concrete tunnel is actually sitting
on the surface).
>This is one of the oldest parts of Toronto. There were many utilities down
>there: old sewer tunnels, steam tunnels, you name it. Half the stuff had
>been forgotten about until they started digging. Apparently over half the
>budget for tunnelling this section was simply utility relocation expenses.
>Open cut tunnelling was difficult because of limited clearance between the
>road level and the rail viaduct above.
It can't be that old, considering all of the rail and station facilities were
put in in the early 1920's, when Union Station was built. It's all fill,
and there wasn't much to build steam and sewers to.
On the other hand, watching how they used cranes under the viaduct (which is
about 8 meters high, tops) was intriguing.
Stephen M. Webb
Calvin Henry-Cotnam <c...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>
>CN's "high line" is a two-track freight bypass to the south of Union Station
>that interestingly is not part of the TTR (Toronto Terminals Railway)
>interlocking, though the track at either end is.
The original High Line was torn down a few years ago when they built the dome
(and reworked the western station throat to Union Station). It diverged from
the CN Lakeshore trackage just west of Bathurst (where the TTR begins, just
east of the CP junction) and ran on its own right-of-way, including separate
bridges from the rest of the TTR trackage. It rejoined the tracks east of
Union station.
After the dome was completed, a two-track Union Station bypass was built
immediately to the south of Union Station on brand-new bridges. It is fully
interlocked with the Union Station throat. Is this still the CN High Line,
and is it really not part of the TTR?
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, c...@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) says:
>Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>: as they widen to 16 tracks at Union Station (tracks 15 and 16 are a
>: freight bypass of the station).
>
>Union Station has 13 tracks, with track 13 at the very back with no roof
>over it.
Thanks for the correction - I couldn't remember if the "high lines" were
tracks 14&15, or 15&16. It's been 5.5 years since I worked on projects in
that area.
>The "shed" of Union Station extends east to about half way between Bay
>and Yonge Streets, so the underpass on Bay Street has to be at least
>fifteen tracks long.
Nope. This one I'm sure of. The tracks are already converging at this
point. The Bay St. viaduct is a different length on the west and east
sides of the road. There are the full 15 tracks at York ST., converging
to fewer (the "ladder") as you cross Simcoe heading west.
Colin R. Leech
(I've dropped misc.transport.urban-transit due to the detailed rail nature
of this material.)
Well, we were both a bit wrong. When all else fails, go into the dusty
closet looking for those 6 year old CADD design plans. :-) I'm pretty sure
that what is on the plans is what was actually built.
In a previous article, ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Colin R. Leech) says:
>In a previous article, c...@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) says:
>
>>Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
>>: as they widen to 16 tracks at Union Station (tracks 15 and 16 are a
>>: freight bypass of the station).
>>
>>Union Station has 13 tracks, with track 13 at the very back with no roof
>>over it.
>
>Thanks for the correction - I couldn't remember if the "high lines" were
>tracks 14&15, or 15&16. It's been 5.5 years since I worked on projects in
>that area.
>
>>The "shed" of Union Station extends east to about half way between Bay
>>and Yonge Streets, so the underpass on Bay Street has to be at least
>>fifteen tracks long.
>
>Nope. This one I'm sure of. The tracks are already converging at this
>point. The Bay St. viaduct is a different length on the west and east
>sides of the road. There are the full 15 tracks at York St., converging
>to fewer (the "ladder") as you cross Simcoe heading west.
OK, now for some REAL facts: :-)
Aside: TTR = Toronto Terminals Railway. It is jointly owned by CP and
CN (originally Grand Trunk). It owns and operates Toronto Union
Station and a fair bit of trackage into it from both directions.
Tracks are numbered from the north to the south (Track 1 is closest to
Front St.)
Track 13 is indeed just outside of the trainshed roof. The final supports
for the roof fall on platform 12/13. Tracks 1-13 are TTR's. The south
basement wall of Union Station falls under platform 12/13 (the roof
line extends a bit further south than the basement).
The previous TTR Track 14 was shifted southward to make room for a future
platform 13/14. Since I haven't been there for a while, I speculate
that track 14 may not have been actually laid down. There is certainly
room for it, however.
CN owns the "highline" (freight bypass) tracks 15&16. The old highline was
a broad arc swinging from Bay St. down to Lakeshore Blvd. to bypass the
old rail yards. When the yards were removed, the highlines were relocated
adjacent to the rest of the rail corridor, to leave more land for
redevelopment (SkyDome etc.)
There are in fact all 16 (or 15, if Track 14 was never laid down)
tracks crossing Bay St. Immediately east of Bay St., Track 1 intersects
Track 2, and becomes the start of a "ladder" crossing over the other
tracks (NW to SE). I'm not totally sure about track connections at the
south side of the rail corridor. My drawing shows Track 13 becoming the
other ladder (SW to NE), intersecting Track 12 just east of Bay St. What
makes me suspicious, though, is that it also shows Track 14 _splitting_
into two tracks wedged in between Track 12 and the highlines, which don't
intersect the other tracks in this area. This seems a bit odd to me.
The Bay St. viaduct is a bit shorter than York St. This is because the
tracks are squeezing together with the elimination of platforms 12/13 and
13/14, but the tracks themselves haven't started merging yet at this point.
The other station platforms extend right over Bay St. Tracks 11 and 12 are
exposed to the air over Bay St. due to a jog in the trainshed roof (it
isn't fully rectangular).
These last two platforms are unusual. In most of the station, there is a
platform for every second track. Track 13 is one of the few (if not the
only?) tracks that can load from both sides of the train. (Not sure about
the other platforms - this diagram doesn't show anything under the roof.)
This assumes they actually built platform 13/14 and Track 14.
In the west, there are 16 tracks at York St. converging into 9 at Bathurst
(narrow corridor between the CN Tower and Metro Convention Centre).I
think this count excludes the "private siding" hiding under the
convention centre overhang. The CN freight can't have two exclusive tracks
due to the limited space, so there are some switches connecting these to
some of the other passenger lines. For this reason, I believe TTR does the
signalling and switching through the whole area, even though CN owns the
highlines.
I suppose TTR won't need to exist if CN and CP merge. :-).
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: >
: >I wonder if Stephen was referring to the Bay subway station, or the
: >Harbourfront LRT?
: Yes, I was referring to the LRT subway under Bay Street. It took so long
: to build partially because of the construction method: they dug these 2
: foot wide trenches and filled them with concrete, then removed the roadbed
: and poured a slab of concrete. They then replaced the road and removed the
: stuff from under the slab and between the walls. The tunnel surface is
: very rough, like you would expect if they just poured concrete into 2'-wide
: trenches.
I forget the name of this construction technique, but it was used for a
short section of tunnel east of St. George station on the Yonge/University/
Spadina line. I have a book from the TTC about the subway's history
(up until the Yonge extension to Finch) and it describes the three tunnel
construction methods (cut & cover, boring, and this one). I believe this
method was invented in Italy, but I'll have to look it up.
: Uh, Bay Street goes under the platforms at Union Station. It's York Street,
: to the west, that goes under the station throat. York street used to go under
: the motive power yards in a tunnel, but now it just goes through a tunnel
: sitting in the middle of nowhere (the concrete tunnel is actually sitting
: on the surface).
Both Bay and York streets are under the station platform, but at York
street there is (was) tracks branching west-southwest that resulted in
a second underpass immediately south of the long underpass below the
station. The concrete underpass, as you describe in the middle of
nowhere, is still there. I use the term underpass instead of tunnel,
as it is not nearly as long as the one below the station. I think it
is only a few tracks wide, but perhaps as many as six.
: It can't be that old, considering all of the rail and station facilities were
: put in in the early 1920's, when Union Station was built. It's all fill,
: and there wasn't much to build steam and sewers to.
History lesson needed here! Union station was built about the time of
the first world war and was finished sometime between 1918 and 1920.
One problem though: there were no tracks!!! (Mike Filey's "Not A One Horse
Town" has a nice photo of the finished station with no tracks near it)
At that time, all railway tracks were further to the south, out on the
fill. After much wrangling and such, tracks and the station shed were
finally built and the station opened later in the 1920's (I don't have the
exact date with me, but I think it was as late as 1927/8). Of course, this
was nothing new as there was much bickering over this Union station (which
replaced an older Union station) between the Canadian Pacific Railway and
the Grand Trunk. So much so, that the CPR built the North Toronto staion
(now a liquor and beer store at Yonge and Summerhill) out of spite because
of the delayed negociations. This too repeats itself again about a decade
ago when CP wanted to tear down the West Toronto Station. Negociations
about its fate and whether it should be declared an historical building
were delayed until CP just went in overnight and ripped it down.
The more things change.....
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: Calvin Henry-Cotnam <c...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
: >
: >CN's "high line" is a two-track freight bypass to the south of Union Station
: >that interestingly is not part of the TTR (Toronto Terminals Railway)
: >interlocking, though the track at either end is.
: The original High Line was torn down a few years ago when they built the dome
: (and reworked the western station throat to Union Station). It diverged from
: the CN Lakeshore trackage just west of Bathurst (where the TTR begins, just
: east of the CP junction) and ran on its own right-of-way, including separate
: bridges from the rest of the TTR trackage. It rejoined the tracks east of
: Union station.
: After the dome was completed, a two-track Union Station bypass was built
: immediately to the south of Union Station on brand-new bridges. It is fully
: interlocked with the Union Station throat. Is this still the CN High Line,
: and is it really not part of the TTR?
Perhaps - I'm going by some information from a 1991 employee timetable.
It makes sense, at least from the "Old Habbits Die Hard" point of view,
that the "High Line" name is retained.
The timetable describes where the TTR interlocking begins (or ends, if you
are going the other way) for the subdivisions (Kingston, Oakville, Bala,
Weston, and CP's Galt (?)) and the "High Line". When first reading it
I was really confused about where this High Line was, not realizing that
it was a piece of track that is sort of an "island" to itself, not
directly connecting to non-TTR track at either end.
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: In a previous article, c...@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) says:
: >The "shed" of Union Station extends east to about half way between Bay
: >and Yonge Streets, so the underpass on Bay Street has to be at least
: >fifteen tracks long.
: Nope. This one I'm sure of. The tracks are already converging at this
: point.
I have to argue part of this. The station tracks are not exactly converging
at this point. Entering the GO Transit concourse at the Bay Street entrance,
there are stairs/escalators going up eastward to platform level that would
be right above the east side of Bay Street. The platforms continue to the
east about a car-and-a-half length, or about 120 feet.
Therefore Bay Street runs under the platforms in the shed.
However, track 1 converges into track 2 while still in the shed, though
this doesn't make a difference in the underpass for Bay Street as the
platform widens so that its north edge is a straight line.
At the south end, convergence is more evident. The platform between
tracks 12 and 13 ends about two or three car lengths further west than
the rest. I have not checked out the tracks there (and still can't find
the CN Tower photos) but I suspect that track 13 probably converges into
track 12. I am also not familiar with any tracks besides the 13 station
and the two "high line" tracks, but if there are any additional, then
this would add to any convergence.
In summary: there is convergence of tracks over Bay street, but eleven
of the 13 stations tracks have not begun to converge this far west.
One other note: the tracks through Union station are not exactly straight
and parallel. About a quarter of the way in from both ends, the tracks
shift toward/away from each other in pairs thus providing alternate
platforms that are a bit wider or narrower from the next. Here is a
not-to-scale ascii drawing of part of the station:
/------------------------------\
-------------/ \-------------
-------------\ /-------------
\------------------------------/
/------------------------------\
-------------/ \-------------
The eastern "shift" I believe occurs partly over Bay Street, so this
would also possibly add to and discrepency in the length of the
underpass on the east with the west side of the street.
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: OK, now for some REAL facts: :-)
Most of this jives with my information.
: Tracks are numbered from the north to the south (Track 1 is closest to
: Front St.)
: Track 13 is indeed just outside of the trainshed roof. The final supports
: for the roof fall on platform 12/13. Tracks 1-13 are TTR's. The south
: basement wall of Union Station falls under platform 12/13 (the roof
: line extends a bit further south than the basement).
: The previous TTR Track 14 was shifted southward to make room for a future
: platform 13/14. Since I haven't been there for a while, I speculate
: that track 14 may not have been actually laid down. There is certainly
: room for it, however.
I can't say for sure if a track 14 was laid, but there is definately
no platform beyond the 12/13 platform.
: The Bay St. viaduct is a bit shorter than York St. This is because the
: tracks are squeezing together with the elimination of platforms 12/13 and
: 13/14, but the tracks themselves haven't started merging yet at this point.
: The other station platforms extend right over Bay St. Tracks 11 and 12 are
: exposed to the air over Bay St. due to a jog in the trainshed roof (it
: isn't fully rectangular).
As I mentioned in another thread, the roof over platform 12/13 ends further
to the west than the rest, perhaps about two or three (80') car lengths.
This explains the jog in the roof.
: These last two platforms are unusual. In most of the station, there is a
: platform for every second track. Track 13 is one of the few (if not the
: only?) tracks that can load from both sides of the train. (Not sure about
: the other platforms - this diagram doesn't show anything under the roof.)
: This assumes they actually built platform 13/14 and Track 14.
This is very wrong. Track 1, 2, and 13 are the only tracks that only
have a platform on one side. ALL other tracks have a platform on both
sides. GO Trainsit uses tracks 1-5, and 12 or 13 (depending on needs,
but usually 13). To tell passengers which platform to go to, they are
labelled as "Track 1", "Track 2", "Track 3A", "Track 3B", "Track 4A",
"Track 4B", and "Track 5A". Common platforms are the 2/3A, 3B/4A, and
the 4B/5A platforms. The use of signs that say "5A" is only recent and
is probably indicitave of GO's intention of obtaining use of more north
tracks.
Additionally, the TTR control offices at Scott St (east of Union) and
John St (west of Union) each have a large neon arrow sign that lights
up either right-pointing or left-pointing. I've heard people tell jokes
that the arrow tells train crews which way they are supposed to "steer"
into the station, but a crew member explained to me that it is to
indicate to trains (VIA, not GO) which side is to be used for unloading
passengers, while the other side (except for tracks 1, 2, or 13, which
are GO anyways, except for track 1 which is also used by ONR) is used
for baggage and on-board services, etc.
: The CN freight can't have two exclusive tracks
: due to the limited space, so there are some switches connecting these to
: some of the other passenger lines. For this reason, I believe TTR does the
: signalling and switching through the whole area, even though CN owns the
: highlines.
It makes sense that the signalling is done by the TTR, but the CN employee
timetable I have explicitly describes where the TTR interlocking
begins/ends for the highlines as well as the subdivisions that connect
to TTR trackage. I don't have the timetable with me, but I do recall
that the highline extends just east of Scott St, while the west end
is nearly at Bathurst St, which I think means that there are various
switches that connect to it between the west end of Union station and
the line's west end.
: I suppose TTR won't need to exist if CN and CP merge. :-).
Possibly - I'm sure the city will look to dump it to cut their costs.
After all, the TTR is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commission!
Colin R. Leech
>: platform 13/14. Since I haven't been there for a while, I speculate
>: that track 14 may not have been actually laid down. There is certainly
>: room for it, however.
>
>I can't say for sure if a track 14 was laid, but there is definately
>no platform beyond the 12/13 platform.
The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that Track 14 was never
laid (since I also assume that you can count properly :). Reason? While
leaving space for a future platform 13/14, there is no way to access this
platform!
I mentioned earlier that the south wall of the "basement"[1] of Union
Station is under platform 12/13. Thus the only way to build stairs up to a
platform 13/14 would be through the new tunnels which were built south
from the basement of Union Station under the tracks, opening out onto the
former CP rail yards. Actually using these tunnels would require a fair
bit of re-arranging the space allocation within Union Station, as they
don't connect directly into the existing passenger concourses. Mostly
major cosmetic work, but some minor structural work also. Come to
think of it, I don't even recall these tunnels having provisions for
stairs, as they were designed for through N-S movement. Thus with no way
to access platform 13/14, there wouldn't be much sense to laying down
Track 14, except for emergencies, shunting, parking a spare train, etc.
The only passenger access right now would require pedestrians to cross
Track 13 at grade - not a desirable idea.
Next time you're down that way, see if you can measure 14 feet from the
centre of the second track from the south (the north highline). That would
be the centre of Track 14. There is likely enough room left over for a
passenger platform between there and Track 13. (The two highlines are also
14' apart on tangent sections, plus a bit on the corners.)
[1] By "basement", I am referring to the level containing the passenger
concourses, which is one level below track level.
>: I suppose TTR won't need to exist if CN and CP merge. :-).
>
>Possibly - I'm sure the city will look to dump it to cut their costs.
>After all, the TTR is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commission!
Whoa! I believe TTR is 50% owned by CN, and 50% by CP. I could be wrong,
though.
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
: The only passenger access right now would require pedestrians to cross
: Track 13 at grade - not a desirable idea.
Not just undesirable, but perhaps illegal. I can't say for sure, as this
is hearsay from an announcement on a GO Train, but crossing a track in
a station may be a provincial offence.
I'll check later today, each GO station has a posting of all the possible
fines that thier "Enforcement Officers" (aka "POP Cops") can levy - from
illegal parking at stations to not having proof of payment. If it is a
provincial offence, it will be on that list.
: >: I suppose TTR won't need to exist if CN and CP merge. :-).
: >
: >Possibly - I'm sure the city will look to dump it to cut their costs.
: >After all, the TTR is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commission!
: Whoa! I believe TTR is 50% owned by CN, and 50% by CP. I could be wrong,
: though.
Perhaps I could be wrong about the funding, which may very well be from
CN and CP - but it is operated by the Toronto Harbour Commission, and I
beleive I got that information from CN and CP's employee timetables.
Stephen M. Webb
>concourses, which is one level below track level.
One level below track level is the departures concourse in Union Station,
and a mezzanine in the GO Concourse. Two levels below track level is the
arrivals concourse in Union Station, and the main concourse in the GO
Concourse.
Under the tracks to the west of Bay street is a large parking garage (through
which pedestians were rerouted during construction of the subway under Bay
Street). All of the tunnels and fill to the south of this garage were removed
when they cleared the railway lands, and only enough fill was restored to
provide the bed for the new high lines. Over Bay Street, and for about 40'
on either side, the high lines cross over a new concrete bridge. Is this
the north-south tunnel you were referring to in your dicussion of Platform 14?
Stephen M. Webb
Calvin Henry-Cotnam <c...@ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:
>Stephen M. Webb (ste...@teleride.on.ca) wrote:
>
>: Yes, I was referring to the LRT subway under Bay Street. It took so long
>: to build partially because of the construction method: they dug these 2
>: foot wide trenches and filled them with concrete, then removed the roadbed
>: and poured a slab of concrete. They then replaced the road and removed the
>: stuff from under the slab and between the walls. The tunnel surface is
>: very rough, like you would expect if they just poured concrete into 2'-wide
>: trenches.
>
>I forget the name of this construction technique, but it was used for a
>short section of tunnel east of St. George station on the Yonge/University/
>Spadina line. I have a book from the TTC about the subway's history
>(up until the Yonge extension to Finch) and it describes the three tunnel
>construction methods (cut & cover, boring, and this one). I believe this
>method was invented in Italy, but I'll have to look it up.
Not quite the same technique. The Milano method, used to construct the wye
between St. George, Museum, and Bay stations on the University line required
trenching and form construction. The Slab roof was then built and construction
continued underneath. The impression of the plywood forms can still be seen
in the walls of the tunnels. On the Harbourfront LRT, trenches were dug and
filled with Bentonite slurry (to prevent them from falling in), rebars were
tossed in, and the trenches were filled with concrete (displacing the
Bentonite). The road was then excavated, the slab laid, and construction
proceeded. The tunnel walls look like the reverse image of the walls of
a construction trench.
I believe this method may be called the `modified Milano' method.
>Both Bay and York streets are under the station platform, but at York
>street there is (was) tracks branching west-southwest that resulted in
>a second underpass immediately south of the long underpass below the
>station. The concrete underpass, as you describe in the middle of
>nowhere, is still there. I use the term underpass instead of tunnel,
>as it is not nearly as long as the one below the station. I think it
>is only a few tracks wide, but perhaps as many as six.
The York street structure is long and contiguous. It goes from just south
of Front Street (starting with the new pedestrian overpass) and ends just
north of Lakeshore Boulevard, where there is a separate structure for the
former CN High Lines. There is a gap of about 20' between the end of the
long concrete structure that used to be a tunnel under the railway lands
and this two-track steel structure. About two thirds of the length of this
concrete former tunnel is exposed and crosses open country.
I suspect it's still standing because (a) it would cost money to tear it
down, with no profit to be derived, and (b) it would require closing York
Street, one of 5 southern exits from downtown, and a major traffic artery.
>History lesson needed here! Union station was built about the time of
>the first world war and was finished sometime between 1918 and 1920.
>One problem though: there were no tracks!!! (Mike Filey's "Not A One Horse
>Town" has a nice photo of the finished station with no tracks near it)
I believe the present Union Station opened for the passenger trade in
1921, the same year the TTC was established.
Paul Tatham
<snipped>
: I believe the present Union Station opened for the passenger trade in
: 1921, the same year the TTC was established.
: --
: Stephen M. Webb ------- Consider Whirled Peas ------- ste...@teleride.on.ca
: Canada: a part of the United States where people are so smart they've never
: paid any taxes to Washington.
No, Toronto Union Station opened on August 6, 1927
Actually, the station was substantially completed and offices occupied by
railway staff by May 1920. No concourse or train shed was yet built
because the tracks serving the station were still at a lower level.
The problem was building the station was just part of the massive
Toronto Viaduct and Waterfront Grade Separation project that took 22 years
to complete! Over 3,500,000 cubic yards of fill was used.
All the details are in one of my favourite books, "The Ontario and Quebec
Railway" by Donald M Wilson pp 215-219
--------------------------------------
Paul Tatham
Senior Systems Analyst
Administrative Systems \ UC5
Computing & Communications Services
University of Guelph
Ontario, Canada, N1G 2W1
Phone : 519-824-4120 x2836
Fax : 519-822-8592
Email : pta...@admsys.ccs.uoguelph.ca
Calvin Henry-Cotnam
I would look into this...
I (c...@ee.ryerson.ca) wrote:
: Colin R. Leech (ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA) wrote:
: : The only passenger access right now would require pedestrians to cross
: : Track 13 at grade - not a desirable idea.
: Not just undesirable, but perhaps illegal. I can't say for sure, as this
: is hearsay from an announcement on a GO Train, but crossing a track in
: a station may be a provincial offence.
: I'll check later today, each GO station has a posting of all the possible
: fines that thier "Enforcement Officers" (aka "POP Cops") can levy - from
: illegal parking at stations to not having proof of payment. If it is a
: provincial offence, it will be on that list.
This is hypothetical as this track does not exist, but it could be
argued either way.
The fines listed are taken from the "Toronto Area Transit Operating
Authority Act". (GO Transit's existence is because of this piece of
legislation). According to section 7 of the act, a fine of $90 is
payable for improper entry or exit. This is the basis for the
announcement that I once heard on a GO train stating that crossing
station tracks was a provincial offence. Given that each platform
has a stairway to the proper exit if crossing tracks is necessary,
crossing tracks at grade would be considered improper. Of course,
if a platform were created that could only be accessed by crossing a
track (not likely, but for the example...), then crossing the track
would be *proper* entry or exit.
Further thinking about this, it appears as if this only applies to
GO Transit and that a VIA passenger at Union Station crossing from
one VIA platform to another would not be subject to it, though there
might be other laws at other government levels that covers this.
Of course, if a VIA passenger used a GO platform to get to a VIA
platform, the "POP Cops" could fine them for not only improper entry/exit,
but also for failure to show proof of payment (another $90) bacause
the platforms are in the "Proof Required" area.
On the note of improper entry/exit, occasionally during rush-hour I have
had to take a GO train to Rouge Hill instead of Guildwood. We live a
little east of Guildwood, and are closer to it, but if my wife is going
to be closer to Rouge Hill, she'll pick me up there. The eastbound
platform at Rouge Hill has only one, narrow, exit stairway to the
station building on the north side of the tracks. Right at the east
end of the station, there is a small road that crosses the tracks and
I usually have my wife wait there, on the south side of the tracks, so
I can just ride the first coach and exit there. IMHO, during rush hour
this is far safer than being squeezed down the exit tunnel in a crowd.
In an older schedule, the most convenient train for me skipped Guildwood
so I often rode to Rouge Hill. There was a significant group of 'regulars'
who used the "east exit". I can recall one day when a couple of Pop Cops
who were checking tickets got off the train at Rouge Hill. They were
way down the platform by the stairs (about 5 car lengths back, maybe about
400') as the train pulled out when they noticed the group that had
"improperly exited". Most were waiting at the crossing gates as their rides
were on the north side of the crossing. As the train passed and the gates
went up, the Pop Cops were about halfway between the stairs and the
"east exit" repeatedly saying "Excuse me!"
As the gates went up, the group just went about their business as if
the Pop Cops did not exist. Of course, the next day when the train
arrived, there were two Pop Cops standing at the "east exit".
Jim Maurer
>Stephen M. Webb (ste...@teleride.on.ca) wrote:
>: The St. Clair station was interesting because the streetcars used one of the
>: trolley wires for overhead. All the other places in the city where trolleys
>: and streetcars ran together on the same street (eg. Queen and Ossington,
>: St. Clair and Weston Road), there were three wires (one for streetcars and
>: two for trolleys).
>That's right! I used to remember which one (left/right) was shared, but
>can't anymore - are the trolley wires still in place at St. Clair?
>When I discovered this in 1980, it begged a question that I didn't get
>an answer for then, and since forgot: what were the voltages with
>respect to ground on the trolley wires? I know that the streetcars use
>600 VDC and the tracks serve as the return feed, and I believe that the
>overhead is positive with respect to ground.
>But what about the trolleys? If they use 600 Volts also, is the other
>wire grounded? (It is feasable, but not likely, that the other wire,
>at least in the sector through the station, could have been at 1200 V,
>thus providing the trolleys with the 600 they need).
>Anyone know this info for sure?
With "trackless trolleys" one wire is at 600V (or whatever the voltage
is) and the other is ground. On Market Street in San Francisco the
trolley coaches in the inner lanes share the hot wire with the streetcar
track.
Ron Newman
>With "trackless trolleys" one wire is at 600V (or whatever the voltage
>is) and the other is ground. On Market Street in San Francisco the
>trolley coaches in the inner lanes share the hot wire with the streetcar
>track.
If the streetcars and trackless trolleys are sharing the same
wire, they can't pass each other. What, if anything, does Muni
intend to do about this when the "F" line reopens?
Also, Loren described the "F" line as running in a center
reservation. Is this shared by the trackless trolleys?
Why run both streetcars and trackless trolleys on the same
route, anyway?
--
Ron Newman rne...@athena.mit.edu
Colin R. Leech
In a previous article, ste...@teleride.on.ca (Stephen M. Webb):
>Colin R. Leech <ag...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote:
>>
>>[1] By "basement", I am referring to the level containing the passenger
>>concourses, which is one level below track level.
>
>One level below track level is the departures concourse in Union Station,
>and a mezzanine in the GO Concourse. Two levels below track level is the
>arrivals concourse in Union Station, and the main concourse in the GO
>Concourse.
Well, not quite. Arrivals and departures for VIA are actually both on the same
level, with the arrivals behind the offices, displays, and "storefronts"
that are visible while waiting in the VIA departure area (I'm referring
here to the area where you actually line up for the train).
I noticed this when transferring between trains. When in the "main" VIA
concourse (where the ticket counter and exit to Front St. are), you are
led to believe that the arrivals and departures occur on different levels.
In fact, the common arr/dep level is half way between floors. From the
ticket counters, you descend half a level along the ramp (beside Laura
Secord, if she's still there) to the queueing level. From this level, when
you arrive off a train, you must descend another half level along a ramp
to wind up one floor below the ticket counters, where the Travellers' Aid
booth is.
As you descend the ramp from the ticket counter to the queueing area, you
can look down and see the other ramp below you.
If you arrive on one train to transfer you to another, the signs will
direct you along a corridor where you do not have to change elevations at
all. This really threw me for a loop the first couple of times I did it,
so I did a bit of exploring to track down the reason.
The VIA ticket counter is pretty much _at_ track level, as is Front Street.
The first track (Track 1) is south of that part of the station.
Oh what the heck, time for some ASCII graphics. This is a cross-section
looking east (hopelessly not to scale):
|VIA Tracks
Front |Ticket 1 2 ... 12 13
St. |Counter D ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___
------------------------------\ | |<-"south basement
| \ Q | G | wall"
| \________________________
| /
T A /
------------------------------/
<-- north south ->
D and A are the departure and arrival waiting areas, which both lead into
the level Q where you actually line up to go up the stairs to reach the
train platforms. T = tunnel under Front St. to the Royal York Hotel.
G = the garage/service roadway area.
> All of the ... fill to the south of this garage were removed
>when they cleared the railway lands,
I worked for Marathon's (CP's realty division) consultant on this project.
The back of the garage is the "south basement wall" of Union Station.
The GO and VIA concourses do not extend all the way to this south wall.
The garage and associated service roadways (VIA's onboard food services,
etc.) fill up the rest of the space between the concourses and the wall.
Try walking into the service area from the east side of York St. Walk as
far south as you can (this is the "teamway") until you hit a wall. If the
large garage door on your left is open, you may be able to walk east
along that roadway ("G" above) right to the Bay St. west teamway, which is
the parking lot entrance.
>the new high lines. Over Bay Street, and for about 40'
>on either side, the high lines cross over a new concrete bridge. Is this
>the north-south tunnel you were referring to in your dicussion of Platform
>14?
No. This bridge is an extension of the Bay St. viaduct, to carry the
southern portion of the total rail corridor over Bay St.
The tunnels I was referring to are likely not visible inside Union
Station. The reason is the aforementioned service roadways and parking
areas. To be useful as pedestrian tunnels, they would have to connect into
the passenger areas, which implies going through the garage/road areas.
Since the space within Union Station has not been redesigned yet, I doubt
that the south basement wall would have yet had a hole cut into it to
provide access to the tunnels.
These tunnels were part of a master plan for pedestrian movement to and
from Marathon's Southtown project, which is the proposed redevelopment of
the old CP rail yards (the SkyDome sits on the old CN yards). The
excavated soil is the Southtown site. This is the area that has been
excavated. After the real estate market crashed in the early 1990s, the
plans were put on hold.
The tunnels are visible if you stand on Lakeshore Blvd. between Bay and
York, looking north across the excavation. They would connect hte
Southtown site directly northward into Union Station and Front St., and
the rest fo the downtown core.
There are a total of 6 tunnels. Two are visible between York and Bay. The
easterly one (near the NW corner of the Toronto Postal Delivery Bldg.; and
no, not the old mail tunnel, we'll save that for another posting) is
referred to as the "Blue Route". If projected northward through the
garage, it would wind up in the GO concourse (at the right elevation, more
or less). The westerly one (has tapered walls rather than square with the
tracks above) is for a proposed service access tunnel.
The other four tunnels are extensions of the "teamways" (again, for
another posting). If you walk along any of the four sidewalks adjacent to
York and Bay Streets, the teamways and the new tunnel extensions thereof
are just on the other side of the viaduct walls from you (if the traffic
lanes are on your right, the teamways are behind the walls on your left).
The intent there was to replace the current sidewalks which are much too
narrow and unpleasant for moving large volumes of pedestrians.
And also, c...@ee.ryerson.ca (Calvin Henry-Cotnam) wrote:
>: : The only passenger access right now would require pedestrians to cross
>: : Track 13 at grade - not a desirable idea.
>
>: Not just undesirable, but perhaps illegal. I can't say for sure, as this
>: is hearsay from an announcement on a GO Train, but crossing a track in
>: a station may be a provincial offence.
>
>legislation). According to section 7 of the act, a fine of $90 is
>payable for improper entry or exit. This is the basis for the
>announcement that I once heard on a GO train stating that crossing
>station tracks was a provincial offence.
I believe that many of the lightly used peak period only stations
actually force passengers to cross the tracks at grade. Weston is one,
except that the crossing is the city street just adjacent to the station.
If memory serves, places like Milliken, Agincourt, and King City are similar.
The main intent of the law is probably fare evasion.
> Given that each platform
>has a stairway to the proper exit if crossing tracks is necessary,
>crossing tracks at grade [in Union Station] would be considered improper.
I'm sure the rules could be used to enforce this.
When the X-2000 visited Ottawa last year, access to the site was via a
small industrial road which runs behind the station, on the opposite
(south) side of the tracks. After viewing the train, I proceeded to cross
the tracks into the station (there are some paths which cross the tracks
for service vehicles etc.) I made it into the staton, no problem, although
I did have to hop over a small token chain at barring the door to the station.
When I attempted to return the same way, some VIA flunky (no, not an
actual security guard) asked me what I though I was doing, I explained
that I had come across from the X-2000 display, and had to return that way
back to my car. He grumbled a bit when it was clear that I wasn't about to
walk an extra couple of miles to go around the station, but I carried on
anyway. Ottawa is a pretty quiet station - few trains, not much chance of
being run over.
John W. Baxter
(Ron Newman) wrote:
> In article <CupFs...@specialix.com>, Jim Maurer <j...@specialix.com> wrote:
> >With "trackless trolleys" one wire is at 600V (or whatever the voltage
> >is) and the other is ground. On Market Street in San Francisco the
> >trolley coaches in the inner lanes share the hot wire with the streetcar
> >track.
>
> If the streetcars and trackless trolleys are sharing the same
> wire, they can't pass each other. What, if anything, does Muni
> intend to do about this when the "F" line reopens?
Not have the track rubber and the steel wheeled vehicles pass each other,
one would presume, except in places with the overhead equivalent of
passing sidings in place (Seattle has bunches of those: both directions
on every tunnel platform, plus several on the downtown wired surface
routes, mostly at places where one route or another has a layover (or had
a layover under prior scheduling)).
> Also, Loren described the "F" line as running in a center
> reservation. Is this shared by the trackless trolleys?
>
> Why run both streetcars and trackless trolleys on the same
> route, anyway?
Different outlying destinations...some with rails, some without.
--John
--
John Baxter Port Ludlow, WA, USA [West shore, Puget Sound]
"Occasionally...astronomers add a second to either June 31 or
December 31..." IM: OS Utilities, p 4-12
jwba...@pt.olympus.net
Jobst Brandt
> Jim Maurer writes:
>With "trackless trolleys" one wire is at 600V (or whatever the voltage
> is) and the other is ground. On Market Street in San Francisco the
> trolley coaches in the inner lanes share the hot wire with the streetcar
> track.
Are you certain of this. I have only seen that the "hot" contact wire
of the bus is connected to the streetcar contact wire by jumpers but
it is not one and the same. Where, exactly did you see this?
Jobst Brandt <jbr...@hplabs.hp.com>
Jim Maurer
>In article <CupFs...@specialix.com>, Jim Maurer <j...@specialix.com> wrote:
>>With "trackless trolleys" one wire is at 600V (or whatever the voltage
>>is) and the other is ground. On Market Street in San Francisco the
>>trolley coaches in the inner lanes share the hot wire with the streetcar
>>track.
>If the streetcars and trackless trolleys are sharing the same
>wire, they can't pass each other. What, if anything, does Muni
>intend to do about this when the "F" line reopens?
Nothing.
>Also, Loren described the "F" line as running in a center
>reservation. Is this shared by the trackless trolleys?
Yes, the trolley coaches on the middle wires are in the track lane.
It's not really a center reservation. (I'm talking about lower Market
Street here.) See, Market Street has 4 pairs of wires. The outer
pairs are used by some trolley coach lines, the inner pair is used
by other trolley coach lines and the surface streetcars. A streetcar
wouldn't be able to pass a trolley coach in the track lane if they
were sharing wires or not.
>Why run both streetcars and trackless trolleys on the same
>route, anyway?
Because they go to different places and just share Market Street for
a short time. They go along Market Street for a while and then turn
off on some other street.
Art Stone
Henry-Cotnam) writes:
>respect to ground on the trolley wires? I know that the streetcars use
>600 VDC and the tracks serve as the return feed, and I believe that the
>overhead is positive with respect to ground.
In the area of unusual wiring, the city of Cincinatti used dual poles on
their streetcars. It seems the method of using the rails as the ground
return somehow fouled up the telephone system, so a second wire was used
for the ground return. Having hot wires and ground wires in close
proximity (ie junctions) creates great opportunities for exciting spark
showers.