[Tuscani01]

Dan, I figured as much.....what I was curious about is, how much is the deficiency? If it's only a little, could a pantograph be engineered to 'duck' when in the tunnel? Or is the clearance to the roofline too small to be safe given voltages etc?

Hopefully pantograph design isn't comet probe science

- Paul

The pantograph's on San Fran's LRT vehicles duck when going into tunnels:

Wikipedia

 

[BurlOak]

Actually, I prefer the at-grade platforms since there's no stairs or elevators needed. The streetcar stops on St. Clair for example are so easy to use.

I didn't see any elevators in these pictures.

LRT in Calgary and Edmonton are all high-floor, in case you've been there, but those stations tend to be a bit more elaborate than what's planned for Toronto's lines.

Here are some more straightforward examples:
Los Angeles - Expo Line
Germany - Stuttgart
The Netherlands - Utrecht

 

[salsa]

I didn't see any elevators in these pictures.

Touche. However these platforms are not elevated "+/-8m above the road" as you were talking about earlier.

 

[BurlOak]

Touche. However these platforms are not elevated "+/-8m above the road" as you were talking about earlier.

You think ramps for 8m elevation would be too long?

 

[BurlOak]

Just wait until the Eglinton LRT opens. The cries of bloody murder regarding at-grade LRT will cease, and people will start asking themselves "Why can I go from an at-grade setup to a tunnelled setup without transferring at Don Mills on Eglinton, but I have to transfer when I do the same thing at Sheppard?" The cries to do something will get louder.

And yes, if all you do is convert the Sheppard Subway to run LRT and don't extend it or anything, then you open yourself up to criticism. But if it's converted as part of a larger project to connect the Sheppard and Finch LRTs, then the conversion serves a key purpose, and is to a large extent merely mimicking what's on Eglinton.

I think the folly when it comes to the Sheppard conversion is that most people look at it through today's political transit lens. When there is a real-world example of LRT operating in Toronto (at this rate, Eglinton will probably be first), I think a lot of the cries of bloody murder from the LRT opposition will start to fade. In a lot of ways, the opposition to LRT is a lot like the opposition to Obamacare: a wealth of misinformation spread to uninformed masses in order to rile up opposition to something that is actually in their best interests. Give them a working example of how it will work, and that opposition and misinformation starts to ring hollow.

I see the exact opposite happening. Car-transit collisions, cars driving into the LRT tunnels, emergency vehciles blocking LRT lanes, pedestrians getting hit. A few of these happen and people will ask why these multi-billion dollar lines were not grade-separated. My guess is that after ECLRT opens, no other LRT will start construction for some time.

 

[Palma]

I see the exact opposite happening. Car-transit collisions, cars driving into the LRT tunnels, emergency vehciles blocking LRT lanes, pedestrians getting hit. A few of these happen and people will ask why these multi-billion dollar lines were not grade-separated. My guess is that after ECLRT opens, no other LRT will start construction for some time.

How many times have cars driven along the st. clair ROW or into the tunnel at St. Clair West?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I see the exact opposite happening. Car-transit collisions, cars driving into the LRT tunnels, emergency vehciles blocking LRT lanes, pedestrians getting hit. A few of these happen and people will ask why these multi-billion dollar lines were not grade-separated. My guess is that after ECLRT opens, no other LRT will start construction for some time.

I used to take the 510 Spadina every day. The number of times I've had to deal with car collisions, cars driving into LRT lanes, emergency vehicles or pedistrians getting hit is exactly zero. In other words, not once was I delayed because of external factors.

 

[robmausser]

To be honest, I once also was ticked off that the Sheppard subway requires a transfer from one line to the other (subway to LRT) but when you factor in everything, specialized LRT trains to make it happen, some modifications to the subway tunnels however slight, elevated platforms on the street portion, a DOWNGRADE from subway cars to smaller LRT cars (even with 3 LRT cars linked up they would be smaller capacity than the current sheppard subway cars) and the inevitable shutting down of the entire Sheppard Line to convert it, you really come to the conclusion of:

The Sheppard LRT is going underground and linking up to Don Mills with a very short walk indoors.

I would love to build a time machine and do Sheppard right in the first place (entirely an LRT!) but it wasn't. Lets just move on and not be so worried in Toronto about perfect solutions for hundreds of millions of more money.

Maybe in 40 years when the rolling stock for the current LRT's and subways need to be replaced we can modify Don Mills station and create raised platforms along the existing outdoor stops and extend underground to Downsview station as well.

For now, we have an EA, funding, everythings in place, just get it DONE Toronto!

 

[junctionist]

We should build the LRT lines that are the legacy of Transit City. We should also build the Scarborough subway. Both projects have funding. It may not be the perfect way forward, but to constantly revisit decisions means we won't be moving forward at all. That's the worst situation.

 

[andrewpmk]

These sorts of incidents will happen, the average rider may not see them but they certainly will be on the front page of the Toronto Star. Never mind if the Eglinton LRT has severe overcrowding problems, if it is as bad as the Yonge subway or Spadina streetcar people will not be happy. It will be 2022 before this opens if history is any indicator (like the Spadina subway) and there are bound to be cost overruns.

 

[WislaHD]

If Eglinton is overcrowded (as I suspect it might) then this just adds further incentive to build the DRL all the way up to Eglinton, no?

 

[nfitz]

If Eglinton is overcrowded (as I suspect it might) then this just adds further incentive to build the DRL all the way up to Eglinton, no?

The highest estimated 2031 AM peak-hour demand is only 5,000 passengers eastbound arriving at Allan (with 4,300 departing). Another higher point is eastbound arriving at Yonge which is 4,500 (with 3,200 departing). Building the DRL to Don Mills/Eglinton will do nothing to reduce these sections of the Eglinton line.

It might reduce westbound arriving at Yonge, but was only forecast to be 4,600 (with 3,100 departing).

As the central section of the Eglinton line can easily handle 15,000 passengers per direction per hour, the demand estimates would have to be not just a bit wrong, but exceedingly wrong, to have overcrowding.

So, no further incentive. If general transit ridership were ever to increase to the point that Eglinton was overcrowded, the demand on Yonge alone would be incentive to build the DRL. Though at that point, you'd probably need some kind of express relief subway up or near Yonge itself. But I think we're beyond 2031 here.

 

[smallspy]

Dan, I figured as much.....what I was curious about is, how much is the deficiency? If it's only a little, could a pantograph be engineered to 'duck' when in the tunnel? Or is the clearance to the roofline too small to be safe given voltages etc?

Hopefully pantograph design isn't comet probe science

- Paul

The clearances for the catenary already decree that it needs to be lower in tunnels than it would be when running without obstructions. That is not the problem - pantgraphs have an operating envelope measured in feet (about 5 and a half for the pantographs on the LRVs, IIRC).

Within the Sheppard tunnels however, there is no middle ground. The catenary would either have to be so high as to cause the pantograph wipers to contact the tunnel walls, or be so low as to be lower than the minimum height that the pantographs are capable of running at (and thus would have the wire too close to the carbody than be safe).

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[denfromoakvillemilton]

If Eglinton is overcrowded (as I suspect it might) then this just adds further incentive to build the DRL all the way up to Eglinton, no?

The highest estimated 2031 AM peak-hour demand is only 5,000 passengers eastbound arriving at Allan (with 4,300 departing). Another higher point is eastbound arriving at Yonge which is 4,500 (with 3,200 departing). Building the DRL to Don Mills/Eglinton will do nothing to reduce these sections of the Eglinton line.

It might reduce westbound arriving at Yonge, but was only forecast to be 4,600 (with 3,100 departing).

As the central section of the Eglinton line can easily handle 15,000 passengers per direction per hour, the demand estimates would have to be not just a bit wrong, but exceedingly wrong, to have overcrowding.

So, no further incentive. If general transit ridership were ever to increase to the point that Eglinton was overcrowded, the demand on Yonge alone would be incentive to build the DRL. Though at that point, you'd probably need some kind of express relief subway up or near Yonge itself. But I think we're beyond 2031 here.

Bringing the DRL to Don Mills is about creating expansion in the network. If you get some people going east on the DRL not YUS up to Eglinton then it's a success.

 

[W. K. Lis]

When the Yonge streetcar was replaced by the 1 Yonge subway, the streetcars running at the time were not the small 47-foot Peter Witt streetcars, but the larger 51-foot 10-inch to 52-foot 3¼-inch Peter Witt streetcar AND trailers. The large Witts could carry 58 seated passengers, while the trailers could carry 60 seated passengers, meaning that the streetcar trains on Yonge Street could carry 118 seated passengers each. The streetcar and trailer trains did not run on Sundays, only the large Peter Witt streetcar ran.

When the Bloor streetcar was replaced by the 2 Bloor-Danforth subway, the PCC streetcars had ran as coupled pairs during the rush hours. There were seats for 52 passengers, meaning the streetcar trains had seats for 104 passengers. Those MU streetcar trains were about the same length as one of the new low-floor streetcars (and future light rail vehicles) with seats for 70.

The initial configuration for the light rail trains could be two vehicles, with easy expansion to three.

The regular 12m buses have seats for 38. The articulated 18m buses have seats for 62.