News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.8K     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
 5K     0 

Don't forget the gauge change from 1495mm to 1435, that the Sheppard tunnel is too low for pantographs without lowering the track further, that subway cars are 3.14m wide whereas LRVs will be 2.65m but sure, rail is rail...

i think the interface at Don Mills is not great - I don't like hacking it up, giving up the 2nd platform and would rather the terminus be shifted west of 404 to a purpose designed 2 platform to 2 platform interchange - but there are limits.
 
dowlingm said:
Don't forget the gauge change from 1495mm to 1435, that the Sheppard tunnel is too low for pantographs without lowering the track further, that subway cars are 3.14m wide whereas LRVs will be 2.65m but sure, rail is rail...
Click to expand...

But yet, there are places which have overcome these issues. First step is to choose a rolling stock that is compatible with the existing infrastructure rather than adapting the existing infrastructure to your rolling stock.

Do you buy clothes without regard to size then get expensive surgery to fit into them, or do you buy your clothes based on what fits?
 
Last edited:
CDL.TO said:
But yet, there are places which have overcome these issues. First step is to choose a rolling stock that is compatible with the existing infrastructure rather than adapting the existing infrastructure to your rolling stock.

Do you buy clothes without regard to size then get expensive surgery to fit into them, or do you buy your clothes based on what fits?
Click to expand...

Still trying, eh Chris?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
smallspy said:
Still trying, eh Chris?
Click to expand...

Yup. One day we might be able to overcome the false narrative which suggests that "If we wanted to eliminate the transfer, the only option was to spend hundreds of millions rebuilding the Sheppard subway line.".

Things are too far along to change plans now, but anything that helps overcome ignorance of transit planning and technologies is a good thing, IMO. I know you agree with that!
 
dowlingm said:
Don't forget the gauge change from 1495mm to 1435, that the Sheppard tunnel is too low for pantographs without lowering the track further, that subway cars are 3.14m wide whereas LRVs will be 2.65m but sure, rail is rail...

i think the interface at Don Mills is not great - I don't like hacking it up, giving up the 2nd platform and would rather the terminus be shifted west of 404 to a purpose designed 2 platform to 2 platform interchange - but there are limits.
Click to expand...

Lowering the platforms would be easier than raising the tracks, if there is the people available. Cutting the number of people working on a project maybe a savings for some people, but it would take much, much longer. Better to increase the number people on a project to complete it in the shortest length of time.

Consider this situation in Japan. If done here, it would take years because "we" want the least number of people involved.
[video=youtube;uVu33558eGo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVu33558eGo[/video]
 
I'm not sure why you are gravitating toward Primove.
What about 3rd rail wouldn't work for the tunnels, stations included?
 
robmausser said:
Lets just do this. http://primove.bombardier.com/application/light-rail/

Im sure it would negate the cost of conversion of the Sheppard tunnel to fit pantographs

You could still use panto outside of the tunnel and use this inside.
Click to expand...
Haven't we discussed this to death in the past 5-6 years in urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/16162-Sheppard-Subway-Expansion-(Speculative) and urbantoronto.ca/forum/showthread.php/20503-TTC-Sheppard-Subway-Extension-(Proposed) (which I'm not sure why has 2 threads).
 
Markster said:
I'm not sure why you are gravitating toward Primove.
What about 3rd rail wouldn't work for the tunnels, stations included?
Click to expand...

Low-floor light rail vehicles would mean people could simply walk from the low-level platform and cross the tracks to cause a short... a nasty short circuit.
 
W. K. Lis said:
Low-floor light rail vehicles would mean people could simply walk from the low-level platform and cross the tracks to cause a short... a nasty short circuit.
Click to expand...
If they are using Primove in mixed traffic, what's the big deal about walking across the tracks?
 
I still say put modern ICTS trains on Sheppard, and elevate or trench the line eastward and westward as well, which would also guarantee that ICTS would never be on the streets. It wouldn't be orphan technology if more of it was built.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top