[sixrings]

I never said there weren't fast low floor trams. What is with these bad faith strawmans? Utrecht is fast, but large ROW sections are built like the Calgary CTrain. Utrecht also ran with high floor trams for nearly 4 decades before recently switching (which is a whole story in itself).


As recently pointed out, Edmonton and ION surely are at least faster than Line 6, I don't know if they are absolutely 'fast', it depends on each person's definition of 'fast'.
Flexity Outlooks (streetcars) though are slow. Slower than Flexity Freedoms (Eglinton, ION, Edmonton) in practice, given the former's lower designed maximum speed, among other reasons.

@nfitz 's exact claim was:

Which is so demonstrably false, it beggars belief that you @sixrings expect an essay with links to prove a long established fact or someone to swoop in to protect the honour of low floor trams with counterexamples from Europe.

Nonetheless, I provided an essay with links in good faith.

You never said anything that would even imply you expected links from outside North America?? @nfitz was talking about Toronto? And if you're soliciting others to find information for you, but they've failed to read your mind, why would you think it's ok to turn around and advocate for suppression of their or other's speech, even a permanent ban because it goes against your personal views.

I merely pointed out that the Outlooks were slower than the CLRVs, and explained some of the reasons why. As for low floor trams vs. high floor trams in general, that's another story, but it rhymes with the Toronto case.

Are Outlooks always 'slower' on every inch of track from the barn to the non- and revenue tracks, probably not. But in general, yes they are slower, and it's not by some marginal amount, it's very noticeable in revenue service. A low floor line from Europe running non-Outlook rolling stock is not going to be relevant as to why the CLRVs and PCCs were so much faster. And I admit, it's not just the rolling stock itself that's the issue. The super-risk averse culture probably had something to do with the fact that PCCs have a higher top speed than the CLRVs, IMO probably a customer request, but someone correct me if I am wrong.


Flexity Outlooks in Toronto are not that new (first delivered in 2014), nor are Outlooks in Europe as I've demonstrated in the essay with links from Europe.
Brussels ordered Outlooks in 2003, started operation in 2005, Innsbruck ordered in 2005, started in 2008. The earliest Flexities started construction in 2000.

More importantly, low floor trams in general are relatively new. The first 100% low floor trams came in the 1990s, whereas electric high floor trams have existed for nearly 150 years. In general, low floor trams are a new technology that is still being improved upon. That is why I said the 20+ year old Outlook family's technology is outdated and leads to poor handling of the tight turns on Toronto streets. Even the more recent Citadis Spirit that has mostly 'pivoting' bogies (not all pivoting) and yet they are notorious for being even worse at turning than Flexity Freedoms, which is why many have said Citadis should've been for Eglinton and Freedom should've been for Finch West.


You are taking the already borderline meaningless term 'LRT' and making it more meaningless. Please try to be informed so others like @EnviroTO and myself do not have to repeat ourselves.

"so that is not a commentary on the technology but the implementation." The technology used on high floor CTrain and Edmonton lines, and the mostly linear induction light metro Vancouver Skytrain have little to nothing to do with the technology on Line 6 Finch West. That you would even construe these together is indicative of your ignorance of the topic at hand. A low floor street median tram is not relatable to a high floor train that runs like a full blown subway or metro for large sections in Calgary and Edmonton.

CDPQ once explicitly called the REM an 'LRT' and 'light rail transit' in their early public releases to fool the public because the Caisse knew they were allergic to the word 'subway' or 'metro', much less elevated metro. Does that mean the REM is an LRT i.e. the same as a North American tram? Noone on the planet has called the Skytrain LRT, as in light rail transit. 40-50 years ago, Skytrain tech was called light rapid transit aka light metro; or light rail rapid transit out of disregard for terminology standardization on some level. Since then, the authorities behind Skytrain mostly moved away from 'LRT', and AFAIK from 1994 onwards, it was never called simply 'LRT' or 'LRRT' in public facing material again [1].

Please, do a cursory google search or read a few articles on wikipedia to get at least a basic understanding of the terms and technology behind each system you mentioned and how they are different. Or just avoid using LRT like I do.

I've made multiple posts pointing out there is no point in using LRT during discussions if the term is stretched beyond the original North American definition encompassing high and low floor trams, let alone assuming the technology is the same across the board.

If you throw in LIM and conventional light or elevated heavy metro like they do in Asia it wholly includes all urban rail transit from streetcar to full blown subway. In Asia, trams are called trams, light rapid/rail transit refers to non-underground or light metros, because in Asian languages metros are called ‘rail’ or ‘ground rail transit,’ so light or above ground metros are called ‘light rail,’ even though they have nothing in common with North American trams aka 'LRT'.

1. current Translink terminology:
https://www.translink.ca/plans-and-projects/projects/rapid-transit-projects
https://www.translink.ca/about-us/a...panies/british-columbia-rapid-transit-company

Ok great. So low floors work elsewhere. Make them work here. Thanks.

 

[KhalilHeron]

It doesn't matter much until trains are operating near peak capacity, but high-floor trams typically also have faster boarding and alighting times due to more spacious interior layouts, allowing for shorter dwell times at stations. Don't see it being an issue on Hurontario or Finch, but I imagine high-floor LRVs might have led to ever so slightly faster dwell times on Eglinton at peak hours.

 

[urbanclient]

Ok great. So low floors work elsewhere. Make them work here. Thanks.

Also the c train, sky train and the Edmonton line have been around for quite some time and operate very differently than the finch lrt so that is not a commentary on the technology but the implementation.

The CTrain, Edmonton and Skytrain lines that 'have been around for quite some time' are not low floor trams like Line 6 or 10.

What are you on about?

You're bringing up socket wrenches and bread and acting like you're comparing lemons to limes.

"so that is not a commentary on the technology but the implementation."???

You are saying those 3, including linear induction motor, mostly elevated Skytrains, are the same class of technology as Line 6 Finch West but are implemented better, operated better????

I was hoping for “facts” or links that were not from North America which is relatively new to low floor lrt operation.

This is a euphemism for: You were hoping for only evidence that matched your world view, and none that contradicted it. You were hoping for curated facts, only the ones that support your conclusion.

The flaws with the current rolling stock leading to slow speeds in curves cannot be fixed (Ottawa Inquiry and aftermath). The only potential solution is new rolling stock, which can certainly be low floor as it should be for Finch West. But even the Europeans have not fully solved the bogie-yaw/steerability constraint inherent with low floors. The most practical solution was always prevention, to build a line with generous curve radiuses (unlike the Line 6 terminuses).

The pervasive, 'just make it work like they do in Europe' narrative is flawed because the slow speeds near the terminuses will never be fixed until new rolling stock arrives. Even then, there is no guarantee.

*The Valley line opened in November 2023 (the only low floor Edmonton line). So surely you did not mean this had 'been around for quite some time'???

 

[urbanclient]

Anyways in every area of life we are asked to learn from our mistakes. That’s all I’m asking here. Figure it out how to make the existing line faster.

Yes, agreed. I'm a big supporter of strong TSP and less 'risk-averse' operations. These should 'fix' Finch West as much as can be 'fixed'. And to reiterate, Line 6 being low floor is fine in my eyes.

The lessons learned beyond that would mostly apply to future lines, because it's not feasible to fix every single thing about an already built line that's been open for days. I don't want to see another abomination like Eglinton, Hurontario, and Ottawa. The latter two have wider stop spacing than Line 2 Bloor. Ottawa is fully-grade separated.

 

[6ixGod]

1. Please stop before you get sent to the timeout corner.

2. To complete a post in another thread comparing maintenance and reliability characteristics between low and high floor tram, I'm waiting on a paper from Czechia that may or may not be relevant. No guarantees. Much to do with the fixed and not-so-'pivoting bogies' found commonly on low floor vehicles.

For that, I gotta find some 'professional write-ups' to put the question to bed according to another member. Even though this is long-established industry knowledge. Noone is claiming something crazy like low floors costing double or triple, but that they do cost more to maintain.

Just as noone is claiming PPCs or CLRVs are twice as fast as Outlooks, just that they were noticeably faster in practice.

At this point I really don’t care. I was warned by the community on discord and Reddit about this place. There’s a reason RM doesn’t come here either.

 

[urbanclient]

At this point I really don’t care. I was warned by the community on discord and Reddit about this place. There’s a reason RM doesn’t come here either.

Check your messages please.

 

[smallspy]

It doesn't matter much until trains are operating near peak capacity, but high-floor trams typically also have faster boarding and alighting times due to more spacious interior layouts, allowing for shorter dwell times at stations. Don't see it being an issue on Hurontario or Finch, but I imagine high-floor LRVs might have led to ever so slightly faster dwell times on Eglinton at peak hours.

That's incorrect.

Low floor vehicles have faster boarding and alighting times, as the passengers don't need to climb stairs into the vehicle, which takes more time than walking on flat ground.

Now, low floor vehicles do have a disadvantage with internal circulation, sure - but that only affects boarding and alighting if the passenger loads are particularly heavy at each stop.

Dan

 

[urbanclient]

That's incorrect.

Low floor vehicles have faster boarding and alighting times, as the passengers don't need to climb stairs into the vehicle, which takes more time than walking on flat ground.

Now, low floor vehicles do have a disadvantage with internal circulation, sure - but that only affects boarding and alighting if the passenger loads are particularly heavy at each stop.

Dan

You're assuming high floor vehicles don't have level boarding. Generally speaking, systems running newer high floor trams will have level boarding. And the advent of high floor level boarding didn't happen yesterday:

No stairs here....

Just as some older low floor systems didn't have level boarding, but newer low floor systems do.

It's more of a reflection of changing accessibility standards than the low or high floor-ness of the vehicles. Platform heights obviously go hand in hand.

 

[smallspy]

You're assuming high floor vehicles don't have level boarding. Generally speaking, systems running newer high floor trams will have level boarding. And the advent of high floor level boarding didn't happen yesterday:

No stairs here....

Just as some older low floor systems didn't have level boarding, but newer low floor systems do.

It's more of a reflection of changing accessibility standards than the low or high floor-ness of the vehicles. Platform heights obviously go hand in hand.

I was referring to street-running vehicles in this context. Buses and streetcars.

Of course a level loading vehicle like a subway is going to offer the best of all worlds. It's additional 2 feet of width over a streetcar also help in that regard.

Dan

 

[urbanclient]

I was referring to street-running vehicles in this context. Buses and streetcars.

Of course a level loading vehicle like a subway is going to offer the best of all worlds. It's additional 2 feet of width over a streetcar also help in that regard.

Dan

K I get the point of what you're saying. But the CTrain technically runs tram rolling stock that is only 4 inches wider on the exterior than a Flexity Outlook. 2.65 vs. 2.54 m. The Line 5 and 6 vehicles are also 2.65 m wide.

It's not fair to compare CLRV to Outlooks because they were made under different eras with different accessibility requirements. It's a by-gone conclusion that old streetcars had slower boarding and alightning. I think @KhalilHeron was referring to modern high floors.

High floors can also have nominally shorter dwell times if trains + platforms can be shorter for the same capacity. Shorter means they can go full throttle earlier after clearing the platform.

Future streetcar procurement won't realistically consider high floors anyways, because reconstructing platforms is a huge upfront cost, among many other reasons.

 

[KhalilHeron]

That's incorrect.

Low floor vehicles have faster boarding and alighting times, as the passengers don't need to climb stairs into the vehicle, which takes more time than walking on flat ground.

Now, low floor vehicles do have a disadvantage with internal circulation, sure - but that only affects boarding and alighting if the passenger loads are particularly heavy at each stop.

Dan

I was referring to street-running vehicles in this context. Buses and streetcars.

Of course a level loading vehicle like a subway is going to offer the best of all worlds. It's additional 2 feet of width over a streetcar also help in that regard.

Dan

There are plenty of street running LRTs with high floor vehicles and level boarding. Definitely not feasible on the Streetcar system anytime soon but i wasn't talking about the streetcars. Read the full message before you try and correct someone

 

[lastcommodore]

There seems to be some fundamental disconnect where people are talking past each other.

nfitz asked how high-floor would make these trams faster.

urbanclient is saying that all else equal, low-floor vehicles are less capable in terms of acceleration and turning.

You can say, "Well we could make the current low floors faster," or "Some high floors don't have accessibility," or "Some low-floor systems are faster than what we have now," or "Not all low-floor systems are slow," or "Well some high-floor systems operate differently" (I'm not even sure what the point being made here is) but you're not really replying to the point. This is a pointless waste of time, and it ends up muddying what the conversation is actually about.

I have seen plenty of evidence that low-floor trams are inherently less capable at acceleration and turning than high-floor due to smaller wheels and fixed or less-than-capable pivoting bogies. I have not heard any counter to this.

 

[drum118]

You're assuming high floor vehicles don't have level boarding. Generally speaking, systems running newer high floor trams will have level boarding. And the advent of high floor level boarding didn't happen yesterday:

No stairs here....

Just as some older low floor systems didn't have level boarding, but newer low floor systems do.

It's more of a reflection of changing accessibility standards than the low or high floor-ness of the vehicles. Platform heights obviously go hand in hand.

Time to get this thread back on track and you need to create a thread for this debate and not making this one a click bait link one..

If high floors was a thing in Europe, they would have high floor platforms all over the place and not the case. S Baun on a few lines come the closes to low floor systems, but all lowfloor systems have low floor platforms. As one who has ridden 26 systems in Europe, they were all low floor systems with a fair number still having high floor trams that are slowly been replace by low floor trams since they are 50-90 years old. I may have miss a few lines that maybe high floor line since I never had the time to ride every line in the cities network. Phoenix and Minneapolis are the only US system I been on the use high floor LRV's that have platforms for them.

As for speed, the CLRV maybe faster on acceleration but were tanks on the tracks systems was well been shorter than most trams/LRV. There is very little different speed wise between high and low floor trams/LRV's. Speed is depend on the distance between stops and the speed limit on the line. I have been on Flexity where the drivers had lead foot from start to stop and exceeded the speed limits in the past, but very rare today. People on UT are hung up on speed when speed doesn't matter to most system riders regardless if its NA or Europe.

I haven't been a fan of Alstom LRV's since 2012 nor BBD and prefer the Stadler one as the top of the line. There other manufactures between Stadler and Alstom along with BBD.

Since the blocks will be longer with real priority traffic signals on Hurontario street than Toronto streets, speed will not be an issue for most of the line

 

[urbanclient]

Time to get this thread back on track and you need to create a thread for this debate and not making this one a click bait link one..

If high floors was a thing in Europe, they would have high floor platforms all over the place and not the case. S Baun on a few lines come the closes to low floor systems, but all lowfloor systems have low floor platforms. As one who has ridden 26 systems in Europe, they were all low floor systems with a fair number still having high floor trams that are slowly been replace by low floor trams since they are 50-90 years old. I may have miss a few lines that maybe high floor line since I never had the time to ride every line in the cities network. Phoenix and Minneapolis are the only US system I been on the use high floor LRV's that have platforms for them.

As for speed, the CLRV maybe faster on acceleration but were tanks on the tracks systems was well been shorter than most trams/LRV. There is very little different speed wise between high and low floor trams/LRV's. Speed is depend on the distance between stops and the speed limit on the line. I have been on Flexity where the drivers had lead foot from start to stop and exceeded the speed limits in the past, but very rare today. People on UT are hung up on speed when speed doesn't matter to most system riders regardless if its NA or Europe.

I haven't been a fan of Alstom LRV's since 2012 nor BBD and prefer the Stadler one as the top of the line. There other manufactures between Stadler and Alstom along with BBD.

Since the blocks will be longer with real priority traffic signals on Hurontario street than Toronto streets, speed will not be an issue for most of the line

Actually I recently checked the numbers on this, the inflection point where the majority of tram lines became low floor was very recent for Europe.

It's close to 51% low floor, 49% high floor for Europe currently. For the world it's more like 45% low floor, 55% high floor, as the high floor is the legacy default. The first high floor electric trams were from the late 1800s. The first low floor trams were from the late 1900s. Over a century of a gap.

Now obviously high floor is less likely to be predominantly street median running, but the point is that low floors are idealized beyond reason here. Had I not jumped in and said this, people would go on and believe high floors were endangered, nearing extinction. I say all this still recognizing that the general trend is a move towards low trams mostly fuelled by compliance with accessibility standards. This is for new lines and retrofitting old ones.

We should move away from specious and ill-supported vibes-based arguments like 'make it work like Europe' with 0 consideration for 'how they make it work'. And flawed assumptions like 'low floor = high floor' in every way except for floor height.

 

[drum118]

Actually I recently checked the numbers on this, the inflection point where the majority of tram lines became low floor was very recent for Europe.

It's close to 51% low floor, 49% high floor for Europe currently. For the world it's more like 45% low floor, 55% high floor, as the high floor is the legacy default. The first high floor electric trams were from the late 1800s. The first low floor trams were from the late 1900s. Over a century of a gap.

Now obviously high floor is less likely to be predominantly street median running, but the point is that low floors are idealized beyond reason here. Had I not jumped in and said this, people would go on and believe high floors were endangered, nearing extinction. I say all this still recognizing that the general trend is a move towards low trams mostly fuelled by compliance with accessibility standards. This is for new lines and retrofitting old ones.

We should move away from specious and ill-supported vibes-based arguments like 'make it work like Europe' with 0 consideration for 'how they make it work'. And flawed assumptions like 'low floor = high floor' in every way except for floor height.

The high floor vehicles in Europe are very old equipment that are now been replace by low floor. Some high floor trams have had an centre section added to them, but all high floor vehicles have steeps to the low platform.

I have photos of various trams that show high and low floor styles for those cities. Malina have peter wills from the 1940's as well PPC still in service, Rome has both high and low floor trams in service today with a tender out to replace the high floor. Same for Prague to name a few system. Looking at numbers on paper and not seeing what out there doesn't tell the full story.

Like Toronto, many systems in Europe have no platforms with no room for one or remove a lane of traffic. Nearly all of Europe systems have an ROW that is marked by paint only with one lane of traffic beside it with a few with parking. Size of cars in Europe are lot smaller than NA.

My final comment on this