News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.1K     0 

TheTigerMaster said:
I agree with you here. From the information we had about TC, it definitely seemed like it would have been streetcars with slightly larger stop spacing (excluding the ECLRT). In my previous comments I was referring to LRT in general and not specifically TC.

Now that Metrolinx is in charge, I am hopeful that those lines will also have 800+M average stop spacing. That would be well within the rapid transit definition. The 400m spacing used in the preliminary Transit City plans would not have been RT.
Click to expand...

Preliminary.

I thought the reinstatement of the Ferrand stop was part of the detail design - showing that they are still forging ahead with 400m spacing.
 
.... 400m between two stops is not 400m for the entire line. bay station is 200 meters from bloor yonge, but would you consider the bloor line to have 200 meter spacing? no. it is mostly 600m spacing. the ECLRT averages 790m spacing once you factor in its entire length.

the sheppard lrt averages 490m stop spacing though, you could argue that it isn't RT.
 
Last edited:
innsertnamehere said:
.... 400m between two stops is not 400m for the entire line. bay station is 200 meters from bloor yonge, but would you consider the bloor line to have 200 meter spacing? no. it is mostly 600m spacing. the ECLRT averages 790m spacing once you factor in its entire length.

the sheppard lrt averages 490m stop spacing though, you could argue that it isn't RT.
Click to expand...

I did not measure it, but I would say that stations are about 700m West on Yonge, 1000m East of Yonge to Don Mills (maybe 1200m now that Leslie is cancelled) and 400m from Don Mills to Kennedy - I think this last one is enough length to be significant.

Even Sheppard, the first 2km only have 2 stops - If you look at the in-median portion, it is probably very close to 400m.
 
starting at don mills, lets count the spacing:

450m
640m
970m
890m
410m
510m
320m
810m
540m
645m

total average for surface portion:

630m

That is the exact same as the BD line along the Danforth.
 
innsertnamehere said:
starting at don mills, lets count the spacing:

450m
640m
970m
890m
410m
510m
320m
810m
540m
645m

total average for surface portion:

630m

That is the exact same as the BD line along the Danforth.
Click to expand...


Hopefully we can now put this debate about whether or not surface light rail is RT or not. Assuming that Metrolinx implements full signal priority (where the LRVs are never impeded by traffic signals), it will most definitely be rapid transit.
 
innsertnamehere said:
starting at don mills, lets count the spacing:

450m
640m
970m
890m
410m
510m
320m
810m
540m
645m

total average for surface portion:

630m

That is the exact same as the BD line along the Danforth.
Click to expand...

I thought there was one between Birchmount and Warden, but it appears there is not. I agree that my math was off, I did not realize that the distance from Wynford to VP was that much.
 
The Sao Paulo system is also going to be using the Innovai system but for them it's as monorail. The Innovia 200 {SkyTrain} and Innovia 300 {monorail} have the same basic design. The monorail has the highest capacity of the 2 as the widths are 3 meters like a standard TTC subway but the capacity difference isn't too great as the SkyTrain has slightly faster acceleration. One of the Sao Paulo monorail lines is being built with capacity of a whopping 48,000 pphpd.

Kuala Lumper will also be getting the new Innovia ART 200 trains when the extension of their line is complete. The standard MK11 trains may look futuristic to the TTC but they are being phased out so that all new trains will be the new Innovia type with trains being articulated to 100 meters. I believe the Innovia 300 monorails can be up to 140 meters in a single train.

As for the SkyTrain cost, yes they will have to redo the sharp turn near Elesmere but big deal..........what's that compared to having to redo the whole damn line to say nothing of having to redo all the stations and reconstruct the entire SRT maintenance/control centre.

The thing I love about the SRT debate is that the reason Miller wanted LRT is because they said they couldn't afford a subway yet of the choices available............Heavy rail, monorail, LRT, or SkyTrain, LRT will be the most expensive to convert to. This is because the heavy rail and monorail fit with the height limit of the existing stations while the LRTs don't due to the extra height needed for the catenary connections. Toronto, with it's stupid conversion to LRT, is getting the lowest capacity system but it is also the one that will, by far, cost the most and take the longest time to build.

It shows the TTC's standard contempt for it's transit users and the taxpayers who are paying for it.
 
ssiguy2 said:
The thing I love about the SRT debate is that the reason Miller wanted LRT is because they said they couldn't afford a subway yet of the choices available............Heavy rail, monorail, LRT, or SkyTrain, LRT will be the most expensive to convert to. This is because the heavy rail and monorail fit with the height limit of the existing stations while the LRTs don't due to the extra height needed for the catenary connections.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. The stations could not be used as is for subways / heavy rail either. The cheapest solution would be vehicles which match the existing line as closely as possible so obviously SkyTrain would be cheapest, the second cheapest would be LRT, a Transit City vehicle based LRT would be more expensive because of the overhead catenary, low floors, and gauge change, Monorail would be more extensive still because not a single rail would be reusable and the vehicle dimensions are completely different, and heavy rail is the most expensive.
 
EnviroTO said:
That is nonsense. The stations could not be used as is for subways / heavy rail either. The cheapest solution would be vehicles which match the existing line as closely as possible so obviously SkyTrain would be cheapest, the second cheapest would be LRT, a Transit City vehicle based LRT would be more expensive because of the overhead catenary, low floors, and gauge change, Monorail would be more extensive still because not a single rail would be reusable and the vehicle dimensions are completely different, and heavy rail is the most expensive.
Click to expand...

I think for heavy rail, he doesn't mean the Toronto subway trains. I think he just meant a generic, standard gauge, third rail, high floor, rotary motor train with the width that can fit into the current SRT guideway. This is one option that was never being considered for some reason.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Hopefully we can now put this debate about whether or not surface light rail is RT or not. Assuming that Metrolinx implements full signal priority (where the LRVs are never impeded by traffic signals), it will most definitely be rapid transit.
Click to expand...

I prefer the term surface rapid transit myself, but I agree with you. I was never a big fan of the definition of rapid transit. It's a bit outdated in my opinion.
 
ssiguy2 said:
The Sao Paulo system is also going to be using the Innovai system but for them it's as monorail. The Innovia 200 {SkyTrain} and Innovia 300 {monorail} have the same basic design. The monorail has the highest capacity of the 2 as the widths are 3 meters like a standard TTC subway but the capacity difference isn't too great as the SkyTrain has slightly faster acceleration. One of the Sao Paulo monorail lines is being built with capacity of a whopping 48,000 pphpd.

Kuala Lumper will also be getting the new Innovia ART 200 trains when the extension of their line is complete. The standard MK11 trains may look futuristic to the TTC but they are being phased out so that all new trains will be the new Innovia type with trains being articulated to 100 meters. I believe the Innovia 300 monorails can be up to 140 meters in a single train.
Click to expand...

Is there any reason why the trains are limited in length to 100m or 140m. I do not see any technical reason why this could not be 200m! Is that just the longest in use or planned, or is there an actual limit.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Hopefully we can now put this debate about whether or not surface light rail is RT or not. Assuming that Metrolinx implements full signal priority (where the LRVs are never impeded by traffic signals), it will most definitely be rapid transit.
Click to expand...

That is a huge "if". There's good reason to believe that guaranteed green lights when the LRT is operating in the median is impossible.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top