Talk:Line 3 Scarborough/Archive 1

Vandalism
Ok, so what happened? Why isn't there a map of the line, nor links to the SRT Stations?? Bacl-presby 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The page had been vandalised, and incompletely reverted; I think I have everything back up now. David Arthur 18:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

THANKS!! :) Bacl-presby 18:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarification needed
The article contains the following:


 * The key conclusions were:


 * upgrading the line to handle larger ART Mark II vehicles;
 * extending the Bloor–Danforth line (either along the current Scarborough RT route or along a different alignment directly to Scarborough Centre) would not be cost-effective or justifiable;
 * upgrading the line and replacing the vehicles would cost $360 million (2006 dollars)

The first of these conclusions seems incomplete and/or ambiguous. It could be read as continuing into the second bullet point for its conclusion (thus saying that upgrading to larger vehicles would not be cost-effective or justifiable). Or it could just possibly be read as recommending just such an upgrade. I don't know which is right; could somebody clarify please. -- Chris j wood (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * They recommended upgrading the line to use Mark II trains, rejecting proposals to instead replace it with either an extension of the Bloor-Danforth line (which would be much more expensive) or a tramway (more expensive up front than ART, but cheaper to extend). I've adjusted the article accordingly. David Arthur (talk) 14:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Future
They've announced that they're going to keep the current RT and modify it for bigger cars and then extend it from McCowan to Malvern. This should probably be aded to the article and the Malvern extension to the Future Expansion of the Subway and RT page.


 * It's a proposal by Scarborough Community Council. It hasn't even been approved by Toronto City Council. There's no money for it yet. Let's not jump the gun. Ground Zero | t 01:26, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It's part of Toronto's official LRT plan. There may not be any money, but it is indeed planned.  As a result, this article should be edited to reflect that. Snickerdo 17:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I just rewrote much of the Future section. Now that the technology has been decided, and the extension study is underway, much of what was here just didn't belong. Nfitz (talk) 18:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * An option missing from the section is buying the older cars from a city like Vancouver, which has new Mark II vehicles and older Mark I vehicles. Presumably Vancouver would be happy to sell off its older cars -- at a price that enabled them to replace them with newer vehicles.  They too would have higher maintenance costs, due to their age.  It might be more expensive than getting Bombardier to restart manufacture of the older vehicles.  But it is worth mentioning.  Geo Swan (talk) 18:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Route map
The route map is rather confusing. It shows the line running north-south, and seems to suggest that the Bloor-Danforth line runs past it to the east. I'm all for shared iconography, but these maps are very confusing and I question their value. Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the route diagram template is being misused in this article. It isn't meant for creating maps that precisely represent geography, or even that are useful for finding the right train; rather, it creates a diagram that can very precisely demonstrate the layout of the physical line itself, including such details as junctions, flyovers, and depots. Only in very rare cases (simple systems like the Edmonton tramway might qualify) can it do the job of an actual map. David Arthur (talk) 21:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

missing information
While reading this article, I was constantly finding myself saying "why?". Perhaps someone can fill in some of these questions?


 * 1) Why is the technology so expensive to operate? What went wrong?
 * 2) Why is the system so noisy? I recall it being a sore point for Bombardier, who constantly sent engineers to examine it.
 * 3) Why did they use the linear induction system? Am I incorrect in the belief that most other installations use conventional motors?
 * 4) Why did the Etobicoke version never get built?

Thanks!

Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And another: what was the change that made GO switch from using the SRT technology to using conventional trains? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The ICTS technology was newly invented by an Ontario crown corporation, and so the government were keen to get it installed in Toronto, partly as a demonstrator for selling it to other cities. All ICTS installations (Toronto, Vancouver, Detroit, Kuala Lumpur, New York, Beijing, and Seoul) use the linear motor, but I don't know of any other non-maglev technology that uses it. I think the main advantage seen in the linear motor was its lack of moving parts, making it much cheaper to maintain.
 * On the other hand, it's had trouble with snow, which is largely why the Scarborough line is so much less successful than the same technology has been in Vancouver (though Vancouver has also upgraded in ways that Toronto did not). You can read more about the line's history and the effect of political decisions at Transit Toronto. I can't speak to the noise, although that does strike me as one of its weak spots in Vancouver as well.
 * I don't think the Etobicoke line ever got beyond the early planning stages, and most plans from that time expired from inattention; the York University extension and the Downtown Relief Line, for example, will take a radically different form than was originally planned, assuming either is ever built.
 * GO's ALRT was to be sort of a scaled up version of the Scarborough line's technology, built for higher speeds. It was always rather ambitious (it would have meant replacing GO equipment and stations that at the time were fairly new), and became harder to justify when changes to national law made passenger trains more welcome on lines shared with freight. Again, Transit Toronto has a page. David Arthur (talk) 14:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent stuff David. James' article is really quite good, and answers out pretty much every one of the questions I posted above. I'll contact him and see if he's interested in joining us here, but I'll also use it as a reference to post a few changes. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

From a friend in Scaborough: (Microliftman)

When the hand over to the TTC took place from ITT, the corporation who actually built the train movement management system, the Provincial government at the time actual deprecated the system contract to save on funding. The TTC System Engineering Dept. was left holding an unfinished system that could not be safely run in the fully automatic mode at the startup of the system. Keep in mind that Bombardier was not involved in any of this at the startup!!!! If you remember the initial startup of the system, the trains would crawl in and out of the stations doing barely 5 kph. Only when the last car had cleared the platform by at least 10 meters would the train actually accelerate to full speed. This is not a good way to operate a rapid transit line. It took endless months ( I think years now!) for the TTC and non ITT contractors to determine how to reprogram the train control system to allow for full on station stops that would allow for high speed stops and starts from within the station. During all this reprogramming effort the trains had to be run manually by the actual operator. If you had ridden the system during that reprogramming period you might remember the inspectors at each system who would phone ahead to the next station to see if the track was clear as the whole system was being run on manual at the time. Manual operation was only intended to be used in the system for signal system failure and passenger emergencies as the system was supposed to be run fully automated with nice smooth deceleration during braking and equally smooth start ups for acceleration. As the controls for the power and braking systems were extremely sensitive and quite powerful, this manual operation caused all sorts of premature mechanical failures in the system. The braking system was supposed to rely mainly on reversing the syncro linear motor so as to magnetically drag the train down to at least 5 kph, whereby the normal friction brakes could take over for the final stop. Unfortunately the operators of this new system were all subway trained and were quite use to jamming on those friction brakes of the big subway cars. ( At the time a lot of the subway system still do not have the regenerative magnetic motor braking.!). This hard braking or jerky in some cases, caused the buckling in the repulsion track and lockups on some of truck axles which lead to flat spots on the small steel wheels used on the RT's trucks. Riders would be treated every once and a while to this incredible thumping as a wheel with a flat spot be wound up to top speed!!!. The wheels on the trains currently are not the original set as the TTC replaced all of them with thicker rimmed version that had harder steel less prone to friction wear!!! Most noise complaints about the system can be traced to the thin rim walled wheels and problems with the braking system causing flat spots.

Operators also discovered that the syncro linear motors (somewhat akin to a rail gun) could really make the trains take off quite fast! But all these manual hot-rod startups caused even more buckling in the middle repulsion rail and again more maintenance to keep the truck and rail motor alignment gap from rubbing together. At one point during the TTC reprogramming you could see long nicks in the middle repulsion rail at some of the stations caused by the hot manual startups!!! It took the TTC a long time at great expense, with no fix up clauses from the original contractors nor the manufacturer to correct and alter the system that runs today. I will have to find out if the TTC in fact sold their findings to Bombardier during the development of the newer trains.

As I mentioned before, the power rails, positive and negative, were exposed to wide open field areas near the Ontario Hydro Substation at Kennedy and Lawrence during the startup years. ( This has all be turned into row housing now which is interesting considering the amount of PCB's used in that complex!!! ) The TTC planted rows of Scotch pines and Cedar trees alone the west side of the track there to prevent snow drifting and also began an upgrade program for plastic power rail insulation. I doubt that you get that much snow fall in Vancouver!!!!

As for why the system never was expanded, well, considering the rail gauge difference and the amount of engineering that the TTC had to do to make the system maintainable and consistently operable, at great expense, it is no wonder they balked at building any more lines base on this rail technology. We have a lot of weather in Toronto and any transit system here has to be quite tough to slough through it!!!

By the way, I've read that TTC web site and I could elaborate even more on some the bizarre computer management glitches that happened in the system. One thing that was interesting at the start of automated operation, was the fact that you would see operators reading books as the train flew into the station to make a high speed stop!!! That practice has since been stopped ;)

Best regards, —Preceding microliftman comment added by 67.230.156.160 (talk) 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

New RT logo rendering
Why is the new logo in the infobox rendered so that the bottom bar has a blueish hue? the bottom line should be grey. eja2k 02:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I also wondered why it is so? It should be grey.  However, the new logo is much better than the old version, which is heavily pixelated and does not accurately represent the true logo.  Someone should change the blue to grey.  Ask Secondarywaltz, since this user uploaded the new version.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Fixed it. I originally sampled from a blueish photo. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 18:13, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Dead link
Reference number 15 is a dead link. Blackbombchu (talk) 02:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 03:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yonge–University–Spadina line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 00:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Move to Scarborough Line?
Note that the official 2014 Ride Guide (see here: http://ttc.ca/PDF/Maps/SubwayRT_Map_2014.pdf) calls the Scarborough RT the Scarborough Line. What do you think? Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Yonge–University line which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 03:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Why was this moved to a different name from the one being discussed? That is soooo wrong! Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:37, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that while the main page was moved back to "Scarborough RT", this Talk page was not moved with it. Someone probably ought to fix that... --IJBall (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's now been fixed, but we still have the issue of an unauthorized page move when there is clear discussion under way. Bit of a mess. Radagast (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, give Johnny a break on this. The article will most likely be moved again and he will do a lot of the cleanup, as he usually does. Secondarywaltz (talk) 18:45, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I think a new article is necessary -- because this article contains large sections that overlap with other articles
I think we need at least one new article, devoted to the various proposals to replace (or revamp) the RT. Currently this article devotes considerable space to this topic. Several other articles either also devote considerable space to the replacement, or are missing sufficient coverage of the replacement -- including the articles on the Bloor–Danforth Line, Kennedy (TTC), Eglinton Crosstown, SmartTrack.

In my opinion these existing articles should each have a section on the replacement proposals, that was only one paragraph long and used the  to direct interested readers to a single article on all the proposals.

Currently the relevant section of this article is out of date. IMO all the coverage in all the related articles is out of date. When multiple related articles discuss a topic that merits an article of its own, they almost all grow out of synch, grow contradictory.

We might eventually need more than one new article. While most reporting of the replacement suggests extending the Eglinton Crosstown along the existing right of way, and then along a new alignment under the 401 to Centennial College, on Sheppard, is dead. It is not quite dead. (1) Many or perhaps most genuine experts still think it is the most cost-effective replacement, and would best serve transit riders; (2) The subway extension alternatives costs aren't fully explored, and its environmental assessments have not been passed; (3) The LRT option's capital costs would be fully paid for by the Province, whereas the heavy rail option's extra capital costs would have to be covered by the city; (4) The Province's operating subsidy will be greater for the LRT option.

I wonder whether, once ground-breaking takes place, it would make sense to have a second article to accompany Proposals to replace the Scarborough RT? If the final nail is hammered into the LRT option, and actual construction starts on the heavy rail extension, would another additional article, entitled something like Kennedy to Sheppard and McCowan heavy rail SRT replacement be in order? Alternately, if the heavy rail extension loses support and the decision is made to return to the LRT extension would an additional article entitled something like Replacing the SRT with an extention to the Eglinton Crosstown.

Okay, awkward article titles. Perhaps someone else can suggest a better title?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 22:43, 12 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with this. Your explanation is probably not clear enough for those not already informed about the subject - and I think that is why we need a separate article. That would then be the main article linked from all the others you suggested. Why don't you boldly start, probably at a generic title like your first suggestion of "Proposals to replace the Scarborough RT", and the rest of us can jump on board once you get it going. Because the result could be part of an existing route, other splits or transfer of some details would depend on what actually happens. Secondarywaltz (talk) 23:14, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seconded, that appears to be a very rational approach to the morass of proposals and decisions out there. Please proceed and I know I will be willing to assist. Radagast (talk) 00:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thirded. Yes, there should be a separate article for proposals to replace Line 3.  Johnny Au  (talk/contributions) 02:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do we really need much content about various abortive projects to upgrade the RT? Surely a short paragaph "From the 1980s to the early 2010s several proposals to extend, renew<, or replace with LRT were considered and not pursued.  These plans all used the original alignment extending to ...    Malvern.  Additional stations were considered at X and Y. After 30 years of TTC and city council machinations, it was decided to abandon the line and instead extend Line 2 to Z.".  Toss in some refs and done. Nfitz (talk) 04:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The subway-extension replacement does not appear to be an absolute at the moment; the political winds are very chaotic at the moment in this area, and it seems unliklely that both the SmartTrack proposal and the subway extension will get finding. If it's the extension that gets cut, then the LRT plan is designed, costed and evaluated already and would likely go forward. Given that we cannot say for certain what will happen now, we need to be informative of all possibilities, and I think Geo Swan's proposal is the best way. Radagast (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * True, there's a lot of back-and-forth, and with SmartTrack in the mix everything is pretty much up in the air again. I think that one article discussing these various proposals is not a bad idea at all, until one is actually substantially under construction. (Not simply approved - see Eglinton West line) Ivanvector (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems more certainty than ever. SmartTrack is on its way to simply becoming the RER scheme GO has been planning for years, with a few extra stations. And the subway is now proceeding. Though even if not ... I don't think we need that much detail. And I don't think we need a separate article ... it's just cruft. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for images of new Line 3 Scarborough design
All of the images in this article depict the 1985–2015 version of the train. It would be good to have those with the new designs. Johnny Au (talk/contributions) 02:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Line 3 Scarborough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.toronto.ca/ttc/pdf/scarborough_rt_strategic_plan_study_report.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121006162230/http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/index.htm to http://www.toronto.ca/involved/projects/scarborough_rapid_transit/index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:36, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

High Technology, Low Results
I lived in Scarborough when the line was first up and running. I had a family member working for the TTC at the time, and heard about all the stories. They're anecdotal, and may not be 100% accurate, but they did cause a good laugh or two at the time.

There were signalling problems (aka "Software Glitch"), which required a TTC "conductor" at each station to phone ahead to the next station to ensure the track was clear between stations.

While that problem was finally solved, and the conductors were assigned to other duties. However, the Brain (operations computer) would suddenly see "phantom trains" appearing out of nowhere, and shut down the system for hours at a time.

To top things off, extremely cold weather or icing would cause major issues with the induction system.

So much for high-technology! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.245.193.6 (talk) 22:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

In response to the third rail icing:

During the original construction of the line, the budget for the plastic third rail covers was cut from the schedule with the belief that the continuous train traffic would provide enough friction heat to melt any ice from the power rails. This theory proved to be disastrous as much of the line is exposed to open wind areas which brought on increased wind chill factor on the power rails and a high rate of icing. It took almost a year of nightly shut downs with special shuttle buses to install plastic covers on all of the third rails. Even now the TTC appears to be doing more plastic replacement and additions to the power rails. An interesting note is that the third rail actually has both a positive and a negative rail unlike most conventional subway trains. Because the linear induction motors actually lift the cars off the track a few micrometers, a solid current path cannot be achieved through the main rail line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.117.49.31 (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Line 3 Scarborough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140826120055/http://ttc.ca/PDF/Maps/SubwayRT_Map_2014.pdf to http://ttc.ca/PDF/Maps/SubwayRT_Map_2014.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:08, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Overlinking
600 V DC This linking has been and is consistent practice with all railway lines. Peter Horn User talk 22:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Which is what (third rail and fourth rail)
It is not clear. Peter Horn User talk 00:34, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Many lines are affected by the same question. Peter Horn User talk 00:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The answer is in Line 3 Scarborough Peter Horn User talk 02:58, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * One more question. Is the linear motor located between the running rails and the linear induction motor mounted on the rail vehicle? Peter Horn User talk 15:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Five rails?
Line 3 Scarborough I see only four rails in the images, including the aluminum strip between the running rails. Peter Horn User talk 17:45, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The fifth rail is between the two rails. Peter Horn User talk 23:57, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please update the section regarding the future of the line with new information, please?
Doug Ford made his new transit plan a while ago. Now, I don't even know which plan they are sticking with. Is it the 3-stop, the one-stop, the LRT, or keeping the RT? Cutekids100 (talk) 01:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)