ShonTron
Moderator
Yeah, if you really want some fun, look at Boston, where each of the four subway lines operate unique equipment; they’re even coloured for their line.
|
|
|
81-717
Active Member
I still find it hard to believe that simply adjusting the wheels to a different gauge or changing the length/width of the vehicle would necessarily add that many years to its design process.
But given that the Toronto specs have been the standard here for many decades, it'd take far more to convert all of it to international specs.
If it's supposed to connect to L2, I'd rather it be an L2 extension instead.
T1s: A LOT more than 372 when you include the R110As, the C301s in Taipei, the trams in Seattle (or somewhere idk), and even some goddamn trolleybuses somewhere too!
TRs: Also a lot more than 480, considering they're a subset of Movia widely used around the world, including Stockholm (C20/C30) & Bucharest.
H5s: exactly my point (the CLRVs don't count).
And also I call bs on them being any more of a "maintenance nightmare" than the ALRVs, SRT, and NG hybrids, all of which lasted way beyond their design life and were even preserved in the end (if the NGs aren't I'll eat my hat). Just because the H6s had a lower MDBF doesn't mean they broke down multiple times every single day, or even once a day.
Yes it can, because the same thing happened to the H2s and several H4s, which were one of the most reliable cars, for no reason whatsoever other than to replace them early together with the M1/H1s.
Did they enter service in 1991/1992, then?
The oldest would be pushing 25, and the youngest would retire a few years later anyway, when they too would be the same age. And since they did that to the H2/4s for no reason other than to replace everything at once, it's absolutely not outlandish to suggest doing the same with the TRs, still much more sensible than giving them a goddamn life extension. Alstom's page also cites the option for an additional 150 trains "as needed" which can be used for that, and was also mentioned as an option in the RFP.
The fact that you're advocating for T1 replicas but not H5 replicas says it all.
And then you say "there's no conspiracy against the Hawkers" when you saying stuff like this also contributes to said conspiracy being true.As I said before, NYC is still a far better-integrated system because all those different types still run on the same tracks (connected to each other as well as to the mainline network). Toronto, on the other hand, would become Boston 2.0 in this regard.
Also the A division, B division, and PATH is only 3 (PATH isn't part of the NYC subway system anyway).
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
Good luck running any of those on the RT line to Kennedy airport. Or running the B division trains on the narrow A division. Can you imagine the gap if you ran A on B?
Airtrain using Vancouver Expo line technology. I guess the Staten Island Railway uses the same RT211s as the B division, so it's probably only 4.
Because it's a different operator it doesn't mean it's mean it's not a subway in NYC - using the same fare system. And with almost half the stations in the system in Manhattan. When it first opened ALL the stations were in Manhattan. Even now the (yellow) Journal Square to 33rd Street line has all it's stations in NYC except one.
When there were three incompatible unconnected subway operators in NYC rather than two, were they not part of the NYC subway system?
81-717
Active Member
Ah yes, there's a PeopleMover too (does it even have track connections to anything else?), but I definitely don't count that as part of the rapid transit network, or even acknowledge its existence (it could have rubber tires like most PeopleMovers for all I care).
Happens all the time, just not in revenue service (heck, sometimes even A-div cars get coupled to B-div cars & run together!). And the gap is surprisingly smaller than you'd expect it to be (gap fillers can also help!).
No different than this.
Yep, it's basically a B division subway line severed from the network (but at least there's a good excuse for that here).
Does it use the same fare system? I thought it's *on paper* a commuter rail system to NJ/Hoboken.
Back when "NYC subway"/"MTA" was 3 separate companies (IRT, BMT, IND)? I dunno if they shared any track connections back then or not, but in any case, kudos to them for ultimately connecting them! Unfortunately Toronto is setting itself up for a system where most such connections would never be possible even in the distant future (mainly different track gauges, but also large vertical distances between interchanges).
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
??? It's literally the same technology as the two high capacity metro lines in Vancouver, and at least one of the lines in Seoul (how many technologies does there system use - among others.
No, the commuter system runs alongside, except goes into Penn Station in midtown, rather than using a subway downtown. It's not even that long, the entire network is only slightly shorter than the distance from Union station to Vaughan on Line 1 or St. George to Sheppard East. And the longest trip you can take (from 33rd Street subway station near Broadway and NY Penn Station) to Newark is only about18 km - that's shorter than Line 5 currently is!
So what? Non-revenue interchangeability is only something us geeks would care about. How often do they non-revenue the Staten Island MTA subway cars onto the rest of the network.
I hadn't realized though that the MTA B Division cars could run on the A Division - I'd have assumed that the wider cars would hit the platform; there must be wider gaps than I thought.
Yes, that's true - but for only 8 years in the 1930s. And I believe the IRT itself was 3 different companies back in the 1880s, before the BMT and IND started operations.
We saw similar elsewhere - I have no idea how many different operators there are in Seoul, still. London's system was a myriad of operators, which is still slowly consolidating as TFL takes over various operators services on Network Rail; with more consolidation due to come with most of the non-TFL service being taken over by Great British Rail.
Montreal has even become more complex, with REM services and Metro trains with different operators - and I don't think the steel-wheeled REM trains can run where the rubber-tyred metro trains run, given one has third rail and the other has catenary, even though the back-up steel metro tracks are the same gauge as REM (to my surprise).
Last edited:
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Keep it off the roads like the O-Train and I’d be okay.
81-717
Active Member
What high capacity metro lines in Vancouver? Literally all they have is SRT, and the Canada Line is just SRT Ultra Pro Max?
I also disagree with PATH being labelled as commuter rail, just pointing out that that's what it's officially classified as (PATH ops must be licensed railroad engineers), and I'm well aware of NJT, LIRR & MNRR as the real commuter rails of NYC.
1 of those is much longer than the other
Ah but they do too!
Re-read what I said again, you'll know I was being sarcastic.
Yeah, Montreal's REM vs metro is basically their equivalent of OL vs TTC network. Though I consider the REM to be more subway-y than the legacy metro system.
Anyway, to not diverge off the topic of L5, what makes the L5 vehicles "off the shelf" vs 5XX vehicles, other than being standard gauge? Things like width are probably fairly trivial differences, and having doors on both sides is entirely optional depending on if it's intended for an LRT-style service or a regular tram service.
T3G
Senior Member
Every change made to a vehicle design has knock on effects. Changing the gauge was easy in the high floors days, because the trucks weren't enveloped in the carbody. Redesigning the truck means you now have to account for all of its components and make sure nothing is hitting anything else.
Length and width affect a vehicle's weight, therefore its ability to climb hills, its stability, and its ability to negotiate curves. These are all things that must be designed and then verified, under all conditions and all types of loads, before being committed to.
Why?????
You subways in the suburbs people seem to think that money grows on trees, AND that passengers' time is completely worthless. Connecting from Kipling to Brampton Gateway would be a VERY long extension, which means it would cost a pants-shitting amount to build, and would also make the journey take an insanely long time (to say nothing of forcing a linear transfer somewhere along Hurontario for those coming from Port Credit). An LRT + a connection to a frequent, fast GO train service would deliver far more value for money.
Why would I include any of these, when none of them are T1s?
And you realize that the Movia is a customizable platform and that a Movia trainset used in one city might not have anything at all in common with a Movia in another city?
You seem to have trouble grasping the difference between preservation and regular service. The ALRVs that were preserved have run almost no distance at all, especially the one at HCRR, precisely because they were much harder to keep going than the CLRVs. Neither of the preserved samples of SRT will EVER run again either, they are merely to be static exhibits going forward.
You also seem to forget that the ALRVs were scheduled to be replaced by 2014, same year as the H6s were turfed off. The fact that they weren't was because BBD was unable to deliver the new streetcars on time, it doesn't prove the ALRVs weren't troublesome lemons. The same goes for the SRT, because Rob Ford and company started throwing temper tantrums about the Scarborough subway, the SRT was forced to last a lot longer than it was supposed to.
Now guess what would have happened if there had been no funding to replace the H6s?
Hope you're not attached to that hat.
No one said that they did, but I guess it's a lot easier to win an argument when you make up a nonsense argument instead of engaging with what your opponent is actually saying.
"Someone did something wasteful 30 years ago" is a pretty inane argument for repeating it again. Any other mistakes of the past you would like to repeat?
Replacing functional rolling stock well before its best before date is not "sensible", it's idiotic.
No, they were put into service in early 1990 and withdrawn in 2012.
You know, for someone who, at the drop of a hat, is able to quote a grievance that was written on the CPTDB 20 years ago, you sure seem to have forgotten quickly that the discussion is about T1s and TRs. In fact, you yourself said that it was a "reality check" to the people who think the T1 is still a state of the art vehicle. So why the hell would I mention H5s?The fact that you're advocating for T1 replicas but not H5 replicas says it all.
I'll give you a little tip: when you stop deciding what people feel about a given topic on their behalf, life gets a lot easier. You might find this shocking, but the H5s are actually my favourite subway cars. You wouldn't know this, since I don't subscribe to your inane conspiracy theory, but there it is.
There is NO conspiracy against Hawkers. Never was, never will be. What you THINK is a conspiracy against the Hawkers is actually a symptom of the North American continent's GENERAL indifference to history. Subway cars don't get saved around here because most of your countrymen don't care about history. Consider how many museums there are in Toronto vs. the average European metropolis, or how many historic sites exist out in the countryside, or how many UNESCO world heritage sites exist in Europe vs. Canada.
World Heritage Site - Wikipedia
You really think this is just about one specific subset of the subway fleet? We have almost no historical vehicles here. And before you start, NO, the fact that some random farmer in Brattleboro owns some type of bus doesn't mean that a member of the general public would have access to it ever. And even if the vehicle is in a publicly owned collection, that's no guarantee of ever getting to see it, even if spending thousands of dollars on a trip abroad just to see one vehicle wasn't patently ridiculous. I've been to New York six times in the past 16 years, I've never had a chance to see their historical Orion V. And that's before we get into all the other bus types that no one, period, has ever bothered to save, like the Classic Artic, or the D30LF, or the D35, or the D60, or the D60LF, or the Orion IV.
And if that doesn't convince you, have you ever looked at a before and after photo of a random street in Toronto? We've torn down THOUSANDS of ornate pre-WWII buildings and replaced them with ugly, bloodless cubes, because we are indifferent to our heritage and obsessed with meaningless progress for progress' sake. And before you start, NO, how you personally feel about that architecture is NOT the point I'm making here, and your dislike of it puts you firmly in the minority. And NO, just because you're in the minority when it comes to a point of view doesn't mean the entire world is out to get you.
urbanclient
Active Member
If we start with the premise of full grade separation, why would we pick low floor vehicles?
The answer is you shouldn't pick low floor rolling stock if full grade separation were to happen, even for near-full grade separation cases like in Tokyo where they have 700 stations over 1000 km* of mostly surface rail lines running metro rolling stock often with platform screen doors. These are not counted in Greater Tokyo subway numbers partly due to the multiple jurisdictions involved, partly because the Japanese differentiate between surface and sub --- ways even though the surface lines are metros for all intents and purposes.
Very similar case in Seoul, Korea. Both cases have metro rolling stock running on old railway ROWs with limited, protected grade crossings like those seen on GO train lines.
It's only acceptable for Line 5 to be what it is because the eastern 7 km is street-median running. If you tunnel or fully grade separate, you lose most of the benefits of low floor vehicles.
*~700 stations and ~1000 km depending on which lines you count, the numbers can be slightly lower or much higher.
To say nothing of the other lines that run metro rolling stock, besides the 24 lines mentioned here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metro_systems#cite_note-Seoul-480:~:text=Seoul's Metropolitan Subway system can also be viewed as a comprehensive metro network made up of multiple owned/operated metro systems. If viewed as such, the combined route length of Seoul's comprehensive metro-standards network would be 564.2 km (350.6 mi), with 656 stations of 24 lines.
Last edited:
nfitz
Superstar
I guess you haven't been to Vancouver for a while. The lines have been upgraded from the original 50-metre trains to 85-metre trains - similar to Line 4. Those trains each carry over 670 people compared to 880 people on TTC Line 4. Line 4 has never run more frequently than every 5.5 minutes (10.9 trains an hour) - a peak capacity of about 9,600. (well, it's so infrequent that you could actually get more riders at crush capacity without impacting total capacity) (thanks to urbanclent for the frequency correction)
Meanwhile the Expo line currently runs as frequently as every 2 minutes at peak (30 trains an hour) - a peak capacity approaching 12,000 - that's pushing heavy rail of 15,000, especially as it's designed to do 36 trains an hour! Line 4 is arguably not heavy rail (especially as there isn't enough rolling stock available to increase frequencies); but I can see that one might make the argument otherwise.
Me too - it's so different from the commuter rail that runs beside it out to Harrison.
Ha, ha. St. George to Sheppard East is almost exactly the same length as Union to Vaughan, BTW. Downtown to Sheppard East is significantly longer than the PATH all the way from 33rd street to Newark!1 of those is much longer than the other
My comment wasn't that they don't ever. I asked the question of how often? TTC Flexities have been shipped to the USA by rail for repairs - but how often does that happen?
Given the TTC subway is officially called "Metro" in French, and the Washington Metro is far similar to the current TTC subway than it is to the Montreal Metro, than I'd consider otherwise.
The 500-series Flexitys are standard gauge, and the same width as the Line 5 vehicles. They were identical AFAIK before Metrolinx changed their cars to have only one cockpit, other than the aftermarket ATC system. There's little variation in the 2000-series Flexity cars in Edmonton either, other than the addition of 2 modules (which are the same as existing modules). The nearly identical Edmonton cars were 100% off-the-shelf.
Even the Metrolinx Flexity Freedom is very close to the European Flexity 2 that it was based on. In particular the very similar Flexity 2 built in the same time-frame - the Blackpool Flexity.
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Has anyone noticed how dirty the line 5 stations are? I don't think they are cleaning them.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Whose responsibility is it? Are the garbage bins overflowing?
Last edited:
Bordercollie
Senior Member
The floor is dirty. Garbage everywhere.
Obsidian
Active Member
Is the above ground section faster now, if so by how much??