Best direction for the Green line at this point?

  • Go ahead with the current option of Eau Claire to Lynbrook and phase in extensions.

    Votes: 41 61.2%

  • Re-design the whole system

    Votes: 21 31.3%

  • Cancel it altogether

    Votes: 5 7.5%
  • Total voters
    67
Can those trainsets be coupled together to make a longer consist for peak demand?

Forgive my laziness to back through a 100+ page thread but have they finalized all the design yet? Like how much of this will be underground? The animated renderings on YouTube are about 7 years old now.
 
KrisYYC said:
Can those trainsets be coupled together to make a longer consist for peak demand?

Forgive my laziness to back through a 100+ page thread but have they finalized all the design yet? Like how much of this will be underground? The animated renderings on YouTube are about 7 years old now.
Click to expand...
Yes. They will start off with 2 car trains. But all stations will be built to handle 3 car trains. (The trains are much larger than the current LRT trains to start as well)
1705668572894.png


The designs are not finalized yet, but they have new renderings every now and then you can find on their website. They are currently in the final design phase before major construction starts. Currently, just the downtown section is tunnelled (2km out of 18km, 3 stations underground)
www.calgary.ca

Green Line LRT | Home

www.calgary.ca www.calgary.ca
 
whatchyyc said:
These Urbos trainsets (also in Sydney) are closer in spec to Green Line

Click to expand...
I noticed this when I was in Europe, that their seats above the wheels are much lower, around the 4:55 mark in the video, that there's no raised platform for the 4 seats facing each other. It was similar with the Flexity in Berlin (similar model as Toronto/Waterloo/some of Edmonton) But in the Canadian models, and the renders from the Green Line team, the centre section is raised. I'm curious if this is due to winterization? Or because we have different "low-floor" requirements, requiring the floor of the train to be lower?

1705679478578.png
 
^ believe it is the tram vs tram train use case which leads to different suspension needs. Plus you’d have additional sand storage.
 
I don't believe that is the case, the Berlin trams (Bombardier Flexity) and also rode the CAF Urbos in Budapest and they both run in combination of street/grade separated. And the sand storage is in the column at the end of the car, just in front of the wheels for the flexity. It may be different on the Urbos though.
 
darwink said:
At speed though?
Click to expand...
During the grade separated parts yes. I distinctively remember the Berlin tram going much faster than cars in the suburbs, and thought how nice this would be in Toronto where they run like snails with such frequent stops.
 
hagandazs said:
There are 4 UG stations (2 Ave, 7 Ave, Centre St, 4 Street). Platforms are now all 2-car. UG platforms are center, all at-grade platforms are side loading.

We're currently working on the 60% design for mainline and MSF. The development phase ends at 60%, and the decision to build Eau Claire to 16 Ave is based on the 60% estimate/pricing.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this update. I assume the at-grade side-load is the cheapest design, because it keeps the track and switches straight while allowing station access for construction/future maintenance that doesn't rely on closing the tracks. 2 cars is larger than 3 cars of the current lines so that is still serious capacity.

For underground, the depth and volume excavated in the main cost driver - so I am assuming shallow stations, with centre platforms is the efficient way to go? Then you can centralize the station house / access point to a single point, rather than have a mezzanine level.

Looking forward to the renderings and designs being released sometime this year! Amazing to think after a decade of debate we are almost at the stage where we will see a train being built.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top