News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 5.8K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 29K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 2.8K     0 

ShonTron

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
11,454
Reaction score
6,433
That would be a nightmare. Lowering the elevator shafts wouldn't be easy. Nor would the escalators.

More likely, they'd fill up the tracks to the current platform height, and simply spec vehicles that would fit in the resulting tunnel.

Or do what Brussels does, except in reverse: lower the boarding areas and have steps and ramps up to the elevator/escalator level. (Photo by me.)

8708528163_db278df36d_k.jpg


Reverse, because Brussels builds its pre-metro LRT stations to allow for future high-floor metro trains, Sheppard would be the reverse.
 

Attachments

  • 8708528163_db278df36d_k.jpg
    8708528163_db278df36d_k.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 820

UD2

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 5, 2008
Messages
879
Reaction score
190
I thought the problem was that sheppard subway tunnels weren't large enough to fit LRT teams with its pentograph and overhead powerlines. It's the this the reason why Eglinton tunnels are one size larger than subway tunnel?
 

rbt

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
7,095
Reaction score
3,148
I thought the problem was that sheppard subway tunnels weren't large enough to fit LRT teams with its pentograph and overhead powerlines. It's the this the reason why Eglinton tunnels are one size larger than subway tunnel?

Sheppard tunnels are the perfect size for a train designed to fit Sheppard tunnels. That might mean some locations of the train have an unusually low ceiling (like the Toronto Rockets under the air conditioning).

It is true Eglinton tunnels were designed to fit a standard vehicle rather than working backward from the existing system like we have with everything else in tunnels (except maybe the Gloucester cars).
 
Last edited:

CDL.TO

Moderator
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
4,274
Reaction score
120
You can't have both third rail and low platforms at a station.

Pick ONE:
  • High Floor Vehicles + Dual mode compatible (Third Rail and pantograph)
  • Low Floor Vehicles + Only pantograph
(Ignoring some non-standard technology using batteries)

High floor LRTs are used in cities such as LA, San Francisco, Calgary, Pittsburgh, Edmonton, Amsterdam...
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,138
City:
Toronto
Already Wireless low floor tram in China, using Bombardier trams:


Wouldn't be used here in Toronto because of the penny-pinchers on city council.
 

jcam

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 30, 2011
Messages
536
Reaction score
303
Sheppard tunnels are the perfect size for a train designed to fit Sheppard tunnels. That might mean some locations of the train have an unusually low ceiling (like the Toronto Rockets under the air conditioning).

It is true Eglinton tunnels were designed to fit a standard vehicle rather than working backward from the existing system like we have with everything else in tunnels (except maybe the Gloucester cars).

Sheppard tunnels < TYSSE tunnels < ECLRT tunnels, so you are right, you could not use the same LRVs being purchased for ECLRT/Finch, etc. Also true you can't have 3rd rail and low floor.

Wouldn't it be ironic if we extend Line 2 to STC, then decide that the best way to complete Line 3 is to keep the current tunnels and platforms, and raise the track height to make it all Mark III compatible, and then extend it to Sheppard West and STC?
 

Voltz

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
1,725
Reaction score
610
Sheppard tunnels < TYSSE tunnels < ECLRT tunnels, so you are right, you could not use the same LRVs being purchased for ECLRT/Finch, etc. Also true you can't have 3rd rail and low floor.

Wouldn't it be ironic if we extend Line 2 to STC, then decide that the best way to complete Line 3 is to keep the current tunnels and platforms, and raise the track height to make it all Mark III compatible, and then extend it to Sheppard West and STC?

Sheppard tunnels are also bigger than the older lines, yet the same subway trains will fit. So it does not necessarily mean that the LRV's would not fit in there.
 

Palma

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
187
Or do what Brussels does, except in reverse: lower the boarding areas and have steps and ramps up to the elevator/escalator level. (Photo by me.)

View attachment 84274

Reverse, because Brussels builds its pre-metro LRT stations to allow for future high-floor metro trains, Sheppard would be the reverse.
very smart. Obviously not a Metrolinx trait
 

W. K. Lis

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Dec 24, 2007
Messages
21,998
Reaction score
12,138
City:
Toronto
Toronto Rocket:
  • Car Height: 3658 mm (12’ 0”)

Flexity Freedom:
  • Car Height: 3600 mm (11' 9 ¾")

Not extending the pantograph.
 

nfitz

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 10, 2007
Messages
24,985
Reaction score
5,628
City:
Toronto
Also worth noting, Sheppard escalators are already going through their mid-life rebuild. They'll be fully replaced in another 15 years. Putting in longer version wouldn't increase costs much at that time.
Sure it would, you'd need a much deeper pit.

If that was something that was cheap, they'd have long-since replaced the escalators on the Bloor-Danforth line that have a couple of steps to get to the escalator.
 

Johnny Au

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 5, 2010
Messages
8,212
Reaction score
10,350
Sure it would, you'd need a much deeper pit.

If that was something that was cheap, they'd have long-since replaced the escalators on the Bloor-Danforth line that have a couple of steps to get to the escalator.
Case in point: Christie Station, filled with compromises such as stairs just below the escalator to mismatched trim tile colours in the centre of the platforms.
 

Top