[ShonTron]

If they're that close, why not make the Crosstown on the Toronto gauge and use the same vehicles across the system, thus avoiding shorter runs or two different vehicles?

My thinking for the difference was that the Crosstowns were a lot longer or or larger, thus needing a more standard width track.

A major difference is that Crosstown LRVs (and any other LRT lines) will have double-ended cars, with doors on both sides. They're very different.

 

[dowlingm]

If they're that close, why not make the Crosstown on the Toronto gauge and use the same vehicles across the system, thus avoiding shorter runs or two different vehicles?

My thinking for the difference was that the Crosstowns were a lot longer or or larger, thus needing a more standard width track.

The original post I answered asked only about dimensions. The Crosstown cars also differ in turning radius, double side doors, automation capability, 750V power (so fewer substations needed). Given the situation with Bombardier, I would argue it's much more important that Metrolinx could choose to order a relatively off the shelf S70 or Citadis to operate on Crosstown than spread a relatively bespoke mode further through the city.

If a mistake was made, it was when St Clair was rebuilt as a "downtown" line rather than a Transit City one, replacing loops with crossovers, and together with an MSF making it a natural "phase 1" of the Jane and Eglinton LRTs (given that the City seemingly has no interest in revenue streetcar service on Bathurst between St. Clair and Hillcrest/Bloor). Instead, the St Clair rebuild was done with not only a significant political backlash but also platforms requiring later adjustment and overhead not ready for pantographs, leading to further shutdowns of the line while the same creaky CLRVs were rolled back into service during non bustitution times.

 

[cplchanb]

well now that the first car is FINALLY ALMOST here.... I just pray that their testing wont be a drawn out affair like our most beloved ALRVs and TRs....
hopefully it wont be a gong show

 

[Steve X]

Crosstown vehicles are 2.65m wide vs 2.54m for TTC cars. Lengthwise they are close to the same length (~30m). Wikipedia claims the downtown cars are a bit taller (3.8m vs 3.6m for the Crosstown cars)

I wonder how many people would notice the 11cm difference. Especially at the aisle between 4 seats. There isn't much difference in seating. Just doors at both side and cabs om both ends. Of course there shouldn't be any presto readers or fare vending machines as riders will buy their fare before hitting the platform. This should even out the loads as people can use all 4 doors oppose to rushing the middle 2 to get their fares. I don't expect them to ride differently than the current streetcars except there would be less swing without loops and tight curves on the Eglinton line.

 

[Zach6668]

I wonder how many people would notice the 11cm difference. Especially at the aisle between 4 seats. There isn't much difference in seating. Just doors at both side and cabs om both ends. Of course there shouldn't be any presto readers or fare vending machines as riders will buy their fare before hitting the platform. This should even out the loads as people can use all 4 doors oppose to rushing the middle 2 to get their fares. I don't expect them to ride differently than the current streetcars except there would be less swing without loops and tight curves on the Eglinton line.

I hope it feels noticeably bigger than 11 cm, because I find the Flexity streetcars to be awfully cramped inside. No room for internal circulation if one person is standing in the corridor, unlike the CLRV and ALRV models.

 

[Admiral Beez]

A major difference is that Crosstown LRVs (and any other LRT lines) will have double-ended cars, with doors on both sides. They're very different.

Is repeating the panels and doors from one side onto the other side considered a huge difference?

 

[dowlingm]

Is repeating the panels and doors from one side onto the other side considered a huge difference?

The ability to turn back without a loop with consequent traffic/land use impacts is more the differentiator. I think but am not sure that there's a difference in motor bogie sequence between the segments too (because of turning radius issues maybe?)

 

[W. K. Lis]

Crosstown vehicles are 2.65m wide vs 2.54m for TTC cars. Lengthwise they are close to the same length (~30m). Wikipedia claims the downtown cars are a bit taller (3.8m vs 3.6m for the Crosstown cars)

The Bombardier Outlook trams borrowed from Brussels, Belgium for the Vancouver Olympics in 2010 were 2.3 m wide. Much narrower.

 

[44 North]

Additional shot from Bryan:

So much white and grey. Had to do a triple take on my phone thinking the flatcar was 'shopped with selective colouring.

The Bombardier Outlook trams borrowed from Brussels, Belgium for the Vancouver Olympics in 2010 were 2.3 m wide. Much narrower.

Unbelievably narrow. Wouldn't mind these snaking along our downtown streets when we finally decide to narrow traffic lanes / expand sidewalks.

 

[cplchanb]

So much white and grey. Had to do a triple take on my phone thinking the flatcar was 'shopped with selective colouring.



Unbelievably narrow. Wouldn't mind these snaking along our downtown streets when we finally decide to narrow traffic lanes / expand sidewalks.

I think big and wide goes with the overall theme of TTC vehicles....the TR is the longest or at least one of the subway car in the world, the OBI VIIs have windows that only an NBA player can open and now this....

 

[Steve X]

Unbelievably narrow. Wouldn't mind these snaking along our downtown streets when we finally decide to narrow traffic lanes / expand sidewalks.

That wouldn't make much difference on the street. That's only 12 cm narrower on each side. The difference of 24cm (2.3m to 2.54m) is only have a seat. Also note that the new Montreal Azur metro cars are only 2.51m wide. Pretty narrow but longer than our subway trains to make up for the capacity.

I think big and wide goes with the overall theme of TTC vehicles....the TR is the longest or at least one of the subway car in the world, the OBI VIIs have windows that only an NBA player can open and now this....

Even Montreal have much longer trains than us. Hong Kong and NYC have 8 car trains which is 33% longer than ours. BART in San Francisco has 10 car trains. TTC's TRs are pretty short if you ask me. longest train? yeah kidding...

 

[cplchanb]

That wouldn't make much difference on the street. That's only 12 cm narrower on each side. The difference of 24cm (2.3m to 2.54m) is only have a seat. Also note that the new Montreal Azur metro cars are only 2.51m wide. Pretty narrow but longer than our subway trains to make up for the capacity.


Even Montreal have much longer trains than us. Hong Kong and NYC have 8 car trains which is 33% longer than ours. BART in San Francisco has 10 car trains. TTC's TRs are pretty short if you ask me. longest train? yeah kidding...

I was referring to car length and now that you mentioned it, the overall dimensions. Our TR and T1 are both long and wide...much larger per car than the Montreal Metro and especially the tube. This drastically affects both the size and radii of the tunnelling which in turn affect overall cost. I marvel at how Londoners can make such a compact a tube car bigger than it actually is. Maybe if we slim down the DRL car sizes perhaps it can help save some money on the overall cost of construction and operations.

 

[44 North]

That wouldn't make much difference on the street. That's only 12 cm narrower on each side. The difference of 24cm (2.3m to 2.54m) is only have a seat. Also note that the new Montreal Azur metro cars are only 2.51m wide. Pretty narrow but longer than our subway trains to make up for the capacity.

Love the Azurs. Rode them a few weeks ago. One thing newer train models like the Azur use is a convex shape, which bumps its width at seat height by about 15cm (compared with the 2.51m floor height). Marginal, but it does help cramming a few more riders in. One reason I like narrower trains is that it can reduce the infrastructure costs. Much (or all?) of Mtl's metro uses single bore design, something that would be a lot harder/$$$ with our hefty 3.14m monster.

Was under the impression the cars were shorter than a TR, and the train lengths were about on par with ours (under 150m). Not sure tho.

 

[innsertnamehere]

The tube uses a wide range of train types and sizes depending on the line no? Some are really small to fit in the 100+ year old tunnels.. but many are larger.

My understanding is that the Scarborough Subway is planned to be single bore. IIRC they need around a 10m radius to fit two TRs.

 

[APTA-2048]

Love the Azurs. Rode them a few weeks ago. One thing newer train models like the Azur use is a convex shape, which bumps its width at seat height by about 15cm (compared with the 2.51m floor height). Marginal, but it does help cramming a few more riders in. One reason I like narrower trains is that it can reduce the infrastructure costs. Much (or all?) of Mtl's metro uses single bore design, something that would be a lot harder/$$$ with our hefty 3.14m monster.

Was under the impression the cars were shorter than a TR, and the train lengths were about on par with ours (under 150m). Not sure tho.

Montreal's cars are about 6m shorter than ours.