News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

In the end I don't care too much what type of vehicle we use on Eglinton (LRV, Skytrain or subway) but I think we should choose the cheapest type of vehicle, which IIRC is subway.

More importantly though, the line should NOT by ANY means stop at red lights.
 
Mark II sucks because there is only one vendor who can build them. If they price Mark III's at $10M per train, then that is what you would need to pay. No choice in the matter without undertaking a billion dollar line conversion.

Vendor lockin is a horrible place to get yourself, particularly if that vendor decides that they're not making that item anymore (see Mark I's).

When Bombardiers patents expire and other vendors can make vehicles that would run on a Skytrain type line, then by all means.

Pretty sure there are pricing laws which prohibit such extraordinary markup. In the past, has Bombardier been known to increase the price on ALRT trains to such a high degree?
 
Bombardier MK111 cars are part of the new Innovia sytems. Vancouver is building another 25km of SkyTrain this decade and Kuala Lumper is expanding it's current SkyTrain by 17km by 2014...........Bombardier ART isn't going anywhere.
 
In the past, has Bombardier been known to increase the price on ALRT trains to such a high degree?

Yes. New Mark I cars. A model which only they can make. The price escalation on those has been high enough that we've opted to spend hundreds of millions reconfiguring the line rather than purchase a modernized version of them.

It was not intentional but the result is the same. Single vendor lockin and they hold patents which prevent other companies from building something otherwise we could get a custom unit (same size/shape and with a LIM system) from another manufacturer.
 
Last edited:
I have no idea what you're talking about so I'm going to ignore it.

When a subway train gets too close to another train just ahead of it, a red signal will block the train at the back from proceeding any further. Very often this happens when a train is not finished loading passengers at a station, meaning that the train behind it will be stuck in a tunnel until the train ahead proceeds.
 
I tell you, if you've read one light-hearted discussion about confusion between red lights in a subway tunnel and red traffic lights at street level, you've read them all.
 
When a subway train gets too close to another train just ahead of it, a red signal will block the train at the back from proceeding any further. Very often this happens when a train is not finished loading passengers at a station, meaning that the train behind it will be stuck in a tunnel until the train ahead proceeds.

I think everyone knows full well what kind of red lights I'm referring to.
 
I think everyone knows full well what kind of red lights I'm referring to.
I thought everyone here actually used the subway and was fully aware that it had red lights too!

Not sure I see much difference between those frequent red lights in the tunnel, and the very infrequent red light a surface LRT would hit at a level crossing ... why is one fine, and the other less common one verboten?
 
Things that justify subways are acceptable arguments and things that justify LRT are dumb arguments. Who cares that LRT at grade is cheaper, that the capacity meets demand, that priority signalling can make LRT stops at red lights a rare occurrence, and that if LRT was built the whole city could be covered? Those are arguments that are against building a subway so they can summarily be dismissed.
 

Back
Top