[nfitz]

From the Environmental Project Report: "A generic set of Light Rail Transit technology vehicle specifications have been used as part of the study. A typical Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) will have a length of approximately 30 m and a width of 2.65 m. The passenger capacity is expected to be up to 200 per car, although for service planning purposes a capacity of 150 per LRV has been generally assumed. The line has been planned and designed to accommodate 6-car (180 m) trains, although it is likely that operation will commence using 3 or 4-car trains (90 and 120 m respectively)."

30 metres long and 2.65 metres wide? That's a Bombardier Flexity 2 for Metrolinx. Same capacities.

I don't know why there's such a large variation, especially considering the vehicle lengths and widths are virtually identical to the Transit City vehicles. Interesting.

I think it just comes down to not being written clearly. It looks like they are using the normal capacity of about 200 to 210 instead of the crush capacity. And then for planning purposed using a factor of 75%. Seems very reasonable - no one wants to see crush loading on a vehicle - it slows travel times with the delays of people trying to get on and off the vehicle.

The closest existing vehicle to the Metrolinx LRVs is the Flexity 2 Blackpool. Same width, but 32 metres long instead of 30 metres. Using the CLRV/ALRV capacities this would give a normal capacity of 227 and a crush capacity of 298. Bombardier reports the capacity as 222.

 

[JoeParez]

-tunnels will be large enough to convert to subway in the future if necessary

I'm surprised nobody touched on this.
And I'm also surprised at this specific point -- first because it shows a little bit of forward planning; secondly, what would the costs be like for full subway conversions? I mean aren't the new LRT Trains going to be "standard gauge" and not "TTC gauge"?

 

[superman]

I'm surprised nobody touched on this.
And I'm also surprised at this specific point -- first because it shows a little bit of forward planning; secondly, what would the costs be like for full subway conversions? I mean aren't the new LRT Trains going to be "standard gauge" and not "TTC gauge"?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a tunnel for an LRT needs to be wider than a tunnel for Subway trains anyway.

 

[nfitz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a tunnel for an LRT needs to be wider than a tunnel for Subway trains anyway.

You are correct. The TBMs for Eglinton are bigger than those they've got for the Spadina extension. It's a throw-away line.

And not really relevant. Toronto subway trains are quite wide. You could simply order a train that would fit any tunnel. The Eglinton LRT cars are 2.65 metres wide - which is wider than the 2.50 metre wide subway cars they use in Montreal!

For all intents and purposes, we are building an Eglinton subway.

 

[JoeParez]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a tunnel for an LRT needs to be wider than a tunnel for Subway trains anyway.

I actually did not know that! However, my question is more geared towards the train technology and not the tunnel width!

And thank you to nftiz; but the Spadina extension is not a throw away line. And you can read my opinion on this subject in its actual thread!

 

[gweed123]

30 metres long and 2.65 metres wide? That's a Bombardier Flexity 2 for Metrolinx. Same capacities.

I think it just comes down to not being written clearly. It looks like they are using the normal capacity of about 200 to 210 instead of the crush capacity. And then for planning purposed using a factor of 75%. Seems very reasonable - no one wants to see crush loading on a vehicle - it slows travel times with the delays of people trying to get on and off the vehicle.

The closest existing vehicle to the Metrolinx LRVs is the Flexity 2 Blackpool. Same width, but 32 metres long instead of 30 metres. Using the CLRV/ALRV capacities this would give a normal capacity of 227 and a crush capacity of 298. Bombardier reports the capacity as 222.

Wouldn't surprise me if Ottawa used the same type of vehicles ordered by Metrolinx. You can see exactly what you're getting, all you'd have to do is drive down the 401. I think that they used ballpark numbers for this report though, as a number like 222 would have people guessing if they had already picked a vehicle before the project was even out of the planning stages. 200 is a nice round number that doesn't bind them to a specific vehicle, as I would imagine most LRT vehicles would be in and around that same capacity.

Also doesn't surprise me they would be going with Bombardier. The first LRT contract was with Siemens, and they pretty much burned that bridge when they cancelled the plan. That doesn't leave too many other manufacturers to deal with.

 

[nfitz]

And thank you to nftiz; but the Spadina extension is not a throw away line. And you can read my opinion on this subject in its actual thread!

I was referring to the piece of text that said "tunnels will be large enough to convert to subway in the future if necessary"

I was referring to the writing about the Eglinton Line - not the Spadina subway line. I too have written in support of the Spadina extension (at least to Steeles) in that thread.

 

[gweed123]

And not really relevant. Toronto subway trains are quite wide. You could simply order a train that would fit any tunnel. The Eglinton LRT cars are 2.65 metres wide - which is wider than the 2.50 metre wide subway cars they use in Montreal!

Yeah, many cities use different rolling stock on their different lines. NYC uses two different rolling stocks for the lines that were previously two separate systems.

Although if they did want to interline, I'd assume they'd change the track gauge to TTC standard so that they can use existing rolling stock.

Realistically though, 4 car LRT trains at a capacity of 800 per train, running at 90 second headways gives you a capacity of 32,000 pphpd anyway. Wait, the are the stations being built to accomodate 3 car LRT trains or 4 car LRT trains? I can't remember now.

 

[nfitz]

Realistically though, 4 car LRT trains at a capacity of 800 per train, running at 90 second headways gives you a capacity of 32,000 pphpd anyway. Wait, the are the stations being built to accomodate 3 car LRT trains or 4 car LRT trains? I can't remember now.

According to the EA the stations are being built with a 150-metre station box, consisting of a 60-metre service area (platforms can't be extended here), a 60-metre platform for 2-car trains, and a 30-metre reserved area to extend to 3-car trains in the future (with a walled off area, similar to what was done on the Sheppard line to extend from 4-car to 6-car trains in the future).

 

[nfitz]

You can see exactly what you're getting, all you'd have to do is drive down the 401.

Reading this again ... I'm not understanding this comment. The only Flexity vehicles I've seen are those that Vancouver ran on the Olympic line last year. Though those were 2.3-metres wide and 32-metres long (they were Flexity Outlooks for Brussels that were borrowed).

However, the 401 doesn't go all the way to Vancouver ... am I missing something?

 

[nfitz]

I know the cars that Ottawa ordered are...

Still reading through this carefully.

When you say ordered ... do you mean that they have actually ordered them? I'm not seeing any announcements about any further sales in Ontario in Bombardier's financial statements - other than more GO Train passenger cars.

 

[gweed123]

Still reading through this carefully.

When you say ordered ... do you mean that they have actually ordered them? I'm not seeing any announcements about any further sales in Ontario in Bombardier's financial statements - other than more GO Train passenger cars.

Yeah, sorry I mis-spoke. They know the general specs of the cars that they want, but they haven't actually placed an order yet. I'm assuming the purchase will come once the project itself is put out to tender.

 

[gweed123]

Reading this again ... I'm not understanding this comment. The only Flexity vehicles I've seen are those that Vancouver ran on the Olympic line last year. Though those were 2.3-metres wide and 32-metres long (they were Flexity Outlooks for Brussels that were borrowed).

However, the 401 doesn't go all the way to Vancouver ... am I missing something?

I meant that if they did go with Bombardier, presumably they'd be the same model that Metrolinx is ordering (specifically for use on Eglinton). If Ottawa wanted to see how they looked and run, they could just drive to Toronto and see for themselves. Although on second thought the ESLRT will be open the same year as the Ottawa LRT (2019 is going to be a good year for transit!), that comment doesn't make much sense, haha.

 

[gweed123]

According to the EA the stations are being built with a 150-metre station box, consisting of a 60-metre service area (platforms can't be extended here), a 60-metre platform for 2-car trains, and a 30-metre reserved area to extend to 3-car trains in the future (with a walled off area, similar to what was done on the Sheppard line to extend from 4-car to 6-car trains in the future).

Expandable to 3 cars? Wow, that's a pretty low capacity. I wonder if now that the Scarborough section is going to be dumped onto Eglinton as well, if that may necessitate 3-car platforms on opening.

Ottawa is likely going to run 4-car LRTs on launch, with the option to expand to 6-car LRTs (although that likely won't happen until 2031 or later).

 

[nfitz]

If Ottawa wanted to see how they looked and run, they could just drive to Toronto and see for themselves.

LOL ... okay, got you ... I thought you were making a comment that we in Toronto could drive down the 401 to the Bombardier test facility in Millhaven - and I wondered what you knew that I didn't!

Expandable to 3 cars? Wow, that's a pretty low capacity.

The peak point ridership was only projected to be 7,800 in the 2030s (by Metrolinx); I think the estimate in the EA was similar or lower. If they use 2-car trains, and only use 200 per car as the capacity (i.e. non-crush), then you'd need 19.5 trains/hour. So at peak, you could handle this load with a 3-minute headway. With 3-car trains you could do a 4.5-minute headway - which is getting a bit infrequent for rapid-transit system at the peak of rush-hour.

I wonder if now that the Scarborough section is going to be dumped onto Eglinton as well, if that may necessitate 3-car platforms on opening.

Good question. The Scarborough RT in the 2030's was only predicted to be 6,400; so in theory no. But with the faster travel time from Kennedy to Don Mills, then I wouldn't be surprised if they go for 90-metres now (I wouldn't be surprised if they increase the future platform size from 90-metres to 120-metres as well).