News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.5K     0 

urbanclient said:
Are we seriously using AI slop to be a sycophant for low-floor LRTs? LLMs are programmed to go with whatever narrative you tell them, even if you add a "yes or no?" clause. That is the very definition of confirmation bias. Modern high floor trams have level boarding like any metro or subway. There are no 'steps' or need for lifts for high floor as that AI slop implies. That means the "Benefits of Low-Floor for Reliability" are nonexistent.

All other factors being the same, high floor trams are easier to maintain, cheaper to maintain, mechanically simpler, and also have larger diameter wheels for better ride and handling of adverse conditions.

Open up a new chat and ask it this: "are high floor trams more reliable and easier to maintain than low floor trams?"
Click to expand...

We're having the wrong AI slop debate and leaving out the obvious answer to urban transit:

The foot-powered rock cars of The Flintstones would outperform low-floor LRT as an urban transit system by being radically simple, resilient, and human-scaled. With no tracks, overhead wires, signaling systems, or power substations, they eliminate the high capital costs, service disruptions, and cascading failures that plague modern rail. Their zero-emission, self-propelled design turns commuting into daily exercise, reducing public health costs while operating reliably in all weather without dependence on electricity or specialized maintenance crews. Flexible routing allows vehicles to adapt instantly to changing travel patterns or construction, while universal “last-mile” coverage removes the need for feeder buses. In short, rock cars deliver maximum robustness, adaptability, and social benefit with minimum infrastructure—something even the sleekest low-floor LRT struggles to achieve.
 
robmausser said:
This is a gross oversimplification.

The specific Citadis variants we are using on Line 6 are used nowhere in the world BUT the Ottawa O-Train. They are a special North American variant that is much different and a new updated version than used anywhere else in the world. Go read the O-Train report that highlighted all of the massive problems with those trains. Part of that was Alstoms fault, like doing cold weather testing only in labs and never in real environments, or using wheels and bogies not desgined properly for the O-Trains specific needs (which were insane needs to be honest, it was a Metro line that wanted an LRT train)

The issue then was Metrolinx taking this overbuilt modified Citadis that Alstom built for the O-Train "metro" and then replacing the Flexity Freedoms on Finch with it. It's absolutely the wrong train for the job. Its way too heavy, can't make the sharp turns properly in the Humber trench, Finch West station portal or the Maintenance Facility. and is supposed to use 1500v like the O-Train, but the Finch line is 750v. So its underpowered ontop of being too big and heavy for a "streetcar style" LRT system.

So its multifaceted. The trains are junk from the get go, but then Metrolinx went and swapped them out on the Finch Line when they are the wrong train for the job.

EDIT: Oh look! https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/otta...some-line-1-vehicles-out-of-service-9.7054679
Click to expand...

Damn that doesn't bode well for Hurontario then since we're getting the same LRVs as Finch. Ugh.
 
Milaisacat said:
We're having the wrong AI slop debate and leaving out the obvious answer to urban transit:

The foot-powered rock cars of The Flintstones would outperform low-floor LRT as an urban transit system by being radically simple, resilient, and human-scaled. With no tracks, overhead wires, signaling systems, or power substations, they eliminate the high capital costs, service disruptions, and cascading failures that plague modern rail. Their zero-emission, self-propelled design turns commuting into daily exercise, reducing public health costs while operating reliably in all weather without dependence on electricity or specialized maintenance crews. Flexible routing allows vehicles to adapt instantly to changing travel patterns or construction, while universal “last-mile” coverage removes the need for feeder buses. In short, rock cars deliver maximum robustness, adaptability, and social benefit with minimum infrastructure—something even the sleekest low-floor LRT struggles to achieve.
Click to expand...
It's real!
1769129885349.png
 
Bojaxs said:
For folks who continue to make the argument that low floor LRT's are more accessible than high floor LRTs, tell me, does this ramp at a Manchester Tram station look unmanageable for wheel chair users? How about the fact that high floor LRTs offer more interior space for wheel chair users?
Click to expand...
Low floor units often look so cluttered from above, like the backside of a restaurant with a scattering of compressor units everywhere.

1769104401363.png


But these Skoda low floors look nice and trim from above.

1769104522774.png
 
Low-floor or high-floor on a vehicle doesn't change how accessible it is. The platforms the vehicle will serve and how well the floor and door lines up with the platform determines that. A low floor tram that serves the middle of the street with no curb is still not that accessible (retractable ramps, chair lifts, and other time wasting solutions are a poor solution). I'm curious why they didn't go with higher floors on Line 5 or 6... but if I was to guess it was again some risk calculation related to hitting a cyclist or car and how one vehicle type would be more forgiving, and/or a cost of platform construction calculation (i.e. lower platforms are cheaper). In any case, if the low floor vehicles combined with the infrastructure it runs on was specified such that it must meet certain speed, reliability, and durability requirements then we would be getting that or we would be getting our money back or returning the vehicles and contracting for their replacements. Somehow this crap meets the stringent requirements of the contract.
 
EnviroTO said:
some risk calculation related to hitting a cyclist or car and how one vehicle type would be more forgiving, and/or a cost of platform construction calculation (i.e. lower platforms are cheaper)
Click to expand...
You are right about the first point, 100% low floor vehicles tend to be structurally weaker than high floor vehicles. Funnily enough, this would probably translate to some degree of increased crash safety for a cyclist or car. EDIT: I might be wrong about low floor LRVs being weaker since standards were updated in ASME RT-1. In which case, the better cyclist/ pedestrian safety for low floor comes from lower impact heights at the knee-waist rather than waist-torso. And lower likelihood of getting dragged under the vehicle.

For the second point, you are on the right track, but the conclusion is flawed. High floor vehicles can carry more people for the same footprint (width, length of train car). Therefore low floor trains, platforms and stations must be built longer to achieve the same capacity. That platforms are lower doesn't actually save money, if the platform itself must also be longer.
1769181499272.png

"Buff load is the static longitudinal force that a rail vehicle must be capable of withstanding without permanent deformation to its primary structure. It is intended to ensure that the vehicle body will not collapse and the driver or passengers will not be crushed in the event of a collision with other vehicles." Static load =/= dynamic load, but point should still stand. Conventional LRVs in this context are all high floor. Page 7/34 https://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/tcrp/tcrp_rpt_02-b.pdf
 
Last edited:
EnviroTO said:
Low-floor or high-floor on a vehicle doesn't change how accessible it is. The platforms the vehicle will serve and how well the floor and door lines up with the platform determines that. A low floor tram that serves the middle of the street with no curb is still not that accessible (retractable ramps, chair lifts, and other time wasting solutions are a poor solution). I'm curious why they didn't go with higher floors on Line 5 or 6... but if I was to guess it was again some risk calculation related to hitting a cyclist or car and how one vehicle type would be more forgiving, and/or a cost of platform construction calculation (i.e. lower platforms are cheaper). In any case, if the low floor vehicles combined with the infrastructure it runs on was specified such that it must meet certain speed, reliability, and durability requirements then we would be getting that or we would be getting our money back or returning the vehicles and contracting for their replacements. Somehow this crap meets the stringent requirements of the contract.
Click to expand...
Low floor trains are more accessible as long as stations are on curbs. You do not need retractable ramps if the stations are designed properly. Who builds new LRT today requiring riders to step up from the street? This is not 1920 anymore.

High floor trains require more extensive stations and ramps for those using mobility devices. Low floor gives more direct access to the trains without following extended ramps.
 
lrt's friend said:
Low floor trains are more accessible as long as stations are on curbs. You do not need retractable ramps if the stations are designed properly. Who builds new LRT today requiring riders to step up from the street? This is not 1920 anymore.

High floor trains require more extensive stations and ramps for those using mobility devices. Low floor gives more direct access to the trains without following extended ramps.
Click to expand...
More extensive stations for high-floor LRTs? I beg to differ, the U.S (the country which loves to do everything big and grand) has numerous examples of lines that implement stations without obscene step ups and ramps from street level.

Here's one example with the Metro E Line in Los Angeles:

1769197304913.png


1769197425576.png


The reality of the situation is, high-floor LRVs would've been far more appropriate of a use for the Finch West and Eglinton lines. Unfortunately that was never going to be a thing because both lines were designed under the Transit City vision.

The Hurontario Line on the other hand is one where high-floor LRVs are clearly the much better and appropriate option (since LRT technology was chosen). Unfortunately Metrolinx is an incompetent, idiotic and useless organization so of course that option was never considered.
 
Amare said:
More extensive stations for high-floor LRTs? I beg to differ, the U.S (the country which loves to do everything big and grand) has numerous examples of lines that implement stations without obscene step ups and ramps from street level.

Here's one example with the Metro E Line in Los Angeles:

View attachment 710720

View attachment 710722

The reality of the situation is, high-floor LRVs would've been far more appropriate of a use for the Finch West and Eglinton lines. Unfortunately that was never going to be a thing because both lines were designed under the Transit City vision.

The Hurontario Line on the other hand is one where high-floor LRVs are clearly the much better and appropriate option (since LRT technology was chosen). Unfortunately Metrolinx is an incompetent, idiotic and useless organization so of course that option was never considered.
Click to expand...
I think you'll find that the choice had more to do with vehicle procurement given the decision to operate low floor LRTs within Toronto, not one of competence necessarily.
 
lrt's friend said:
Low floor trains are more accessible as long as stations are on curbs. You do not need retractable ramps if the stations are designed properly. Who builds new LRT today requiring riders to step up from the street? This is not 1920 anymore.

High floor trains require more extensive stations and ramps for those using mobility devices. Low floor gives more direct access to the trains without following extended ramps.
Click to expand...
Well this the same organization building even heavier rail platforms with 1920s step ups to their trains
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top