[BurlOak]

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.

The Michael Schabas report opened some eyes in the transit geek community and how little was considered before the plans were made. Politicians and the public are not expected to know the difference between LRT, SkyTrain and subway - what they do know if underground, elevated, and on-street. If seems those in power deliberately avoided the middle of the road option - sticking to the two extremes.

This way we came up with a real ugly mix of very expensive and very cheap transit. Sheppard East and Eglinton East on-street, while Eglinton Central and Scarborough (Kennedy to Sheppar) are subway. For the same price, we could have had Eglinton fully grade-separated from Mount Dennis to Malvern, and Sheppard fully grade-separated from Yonge to Malvern (maybe even UTSC) - interlining through STC.

 

[aquateam]

The Michael Schabas report opened some eyes in the transit geek community and how little was considered before the plans were made. Politicians and the public are not expected to know the difference between LRT, SkyTrain and subway - what they do know if underground, elevated, and on-street. If seems those in power deliberately avoided the middle of the road option - sticking to the two extremes.

This way we came up with a real ugly mix of very expensive and very cheap transit. Sheppard East and Eglinton East on-street, while Eglinton Central and Scarborough (Kennedy to Sheppar) are subway. For the same price, we could have had Eglinton fully grade-separated from Mount Dennis to Malvern, and Sheppard fully grade-separated from Yonge to Malvern (maybe even UTSC) - interlining through STC.

In principle, if we were to elevate Eglinton or Sheppard, does it have to be skytrain/ICTS? The linear induction motors don't seem to perform well in winter without heating the reaction rail, and there are significant costs in going with a proprietary technology with a single supplier.

If we were to grade separate eglinton/sheppard, would you be open to it being LRT, or are there additional associated costs with elevated LRT that make Skytrain more efficient?

 

[ehlow]

In principle, if we were to elevate Eglinton or Sheppard, does it have to be skytrain/ICTS? The linear induction motors don't seem to perform well in winter without heating the reaction rail, and there are significant costs in going with a proprietary technology with a single supplier.

If we were to grade separate eglinton/sheppard, would you be open to it being LRT, or are there additional associated costs with elevated LRT that make Skytrain more efficient?

Of course it doesn't have to be Skytrain. The Scarborough LRT project would have been an elevated LRT. There are lots of examples of elevated subway and elevated LRT lines. Although it's usually a mix of underground, at-grade and elevated. Even the Eglinton LRT line has a small elevated section.

 

[aquateam]

Of course it doesn't have to be Skytrain. The Scarborough LRT project would have been an elevated LRT. There are lots of examples of elevated subway and elevated LRT lines. Although it's usually a mix of underground, at-grade and elevated. Even the Eglinton LRT line has a small elevated section.

My question was more whether there is any circumstance where skytrain makes sense over LRT. We could debate whether a particular line should be elevated, tunnelled, or at grade, or whether it should be automated or not. But I am wondering if there are any salient features of skytrain that make it worthwhile to pursue a non-standard technology.

 

[BurlOak]

In principle, if we were to elevate Eglinton or Sheppard, does it have to be skytrain/ICTS? The linear induction motors don't seem to perform well in winter without heating the reaction rail, and there are significant costs in going with a proprietary technology with a single supplier.

If we were to grade separate eglinton/sheppard, would you be open to it being LRT, or are there additional associated costs with elevated LRT that make Skytrain more efficient?

The extra costs are to fit the existing infrastructure.

Sheppard is too low to fit LRT. The cost of conversion to LRT is about $700M. the cost to convert to SkyTrain is about $200M (I think that is about 50% more than the number suggested by Michael Schabas).

The SRT corridor conversion to LRT is also adding costs - I think its about $500M.

I would be happy to go with LRT, but I am not sure if it is worth the extra money needed.

 

[CDL.TO]

It's not right to state that use of LRT would require $700M in conversion costs on Sheppard. Since LRT vehicles comes in an infinite number of shapes and sizes, they could have chosen an LRT vehicle design that fits the existing line rather than one which would require rebuilding the line to fit the vehicle.

It's more that conversion *to the vehicle design that they chose* would cost about $700m.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

My question was more whether there is any circumstance where skytrain makes sense over LRT. We could debate whether a particular line should be elevated, tunnelled, or at grade, or whether it should be automated or not. But I am wondering if there are any salient features of skytrain that make it worthwhile to pursue a non-standard technology.

I've been trying to figure out the same thing for years

Apparently ICTS accelerates a bit faster...

 

[CDL.TO]

I've been trying to figure out the same thing for years

Apparently ICTS accelerates a bit faster...

Here's an article which describes some of the benefits of LIM metro technology:
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/02/07/skytrain-in-japan/

(Personally, I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.)

 

[aquateam]

Here's an article which describes some of the benefits of LIM metro technology:
http://skytrainforsurrey.org/2012/02/07/skytrain-in-japan/

(Personally, I don't think the benefits outweigh the costs.)

That's a very useful link, thanks for finding that. I see in another article that LIMs are produced by some Japanese companies as well. I wonder if this means that they could potentially bid on making replacement vehicles, or if the rolling stock would be similar but ultimately incompatible. I know that Vancouver got Hyundai to produce vehicles for their evergreen line, but apparently they don't run on LIMs and are incompatible with the rest of the network.

That's interesting with what it says about smaller tunnels being required. It seems like a tradeoff between capital costs of tunnel construction and the capital costs of vehicle procurement, if the vehicles are able to provide the same capacity as subway trains. Of course, again, it makes more sense to just use the same technology as the rest of the network.

The extra costs are to fit the existing infrastructure.

Sheppard is too low to fit LRT. The cost of conversion to LRT is about $700M. the cost to convert to SkyTrain is about $200M (I think that is about 50% more than the number suggested by Michael Schabas).

The SRT corridor conversion to LRT is also adding costs - I think its about $500M.

I would be happy to go with LRT, but I am not sure if it is worth the extra money needed.

Ok, so if I understand correctly the benefits are specific to the Toronto context, where we originally built subway for Sheppard and Mark I for the SRT. If we were planning from scratch it would make more sense to have built LRT (whether buried or elevated). The benefit from going with Skytrain is that we get to avoid most of the reconstruction of the SRT corridor (for instance, widening the tunnel for LRT vehicles) and converting the Sheppard subway would be much easier (since the LRT vehicles we're ordering are low-floor and converting Sheppard would therefore require lowering the platforms unless we get some custom LRT vehicles).

 

[nfitz]

Hyundai to produce vehicles [/URL]for their evergreen line, but apparently they don't run on LIMs and are incompatible with the rest of the network.

The Evergreen line is going to run standard Bombardier equipment, including the Mark I vehicles that are also used in Toronto.

I think you are thinking of the Canada line, which was done as a PPP, with out much control over what vehicles were selected.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Maybe a customized LRT should be used for Sheppard, you have to buy LRTs anyway and the T1s would end up getting replaced to have to pay for that too.

 

[dowlingm]

An elevated Sheppard would get interesting at the Agincourt grade separation specifically built with the intention of median LRT. The issue with ICTS is that it has zero flexibility in situations where even a small amount of at grade running would save a ton of money, whereas LRT is built to take side as well as front impacts. This combined with the power rail vs snow issue make LRT + overhead the better choice for Toronto where subway level ridership doesn't justify exclusive running.

 

[BurlOak]

An elevated Sheppard would get interesting at the Agincourt grade separation specifically built with the intention of median LRT. The issue with ICTS is that it has zero flexibility in situations where even a small amount of at grade running would save a ton of money, whereas LRT is built to take side as well as front impacts. This combined with the power rail vs snow issue make LRT + overhead the better choice for Toronto where subway level ridership doesn't justify exclusive running.

I believe that the Sheppard Subway plan had the GO station being moved south of Sheppard. I see the an elevated Sheppard line having an elevated station on top of the GO station - actually, just East of it. I think I left about 125m to drop 6m to go under the CP line just after the Agincourt station.

 

[BurlOak]

I took the Schabas report at face value that the Sheppard SkyTrain could go over highway 404. There was about 350m from the station to the 404 Southbound off-ramp. I figure this would work for a subway that is 12m below grade at the station, and 6m above grade at the ramp. However, when I checked Google Earth, it seems that Sheppard rises about 7m from Don Mills to 404. That means I would have had to climb 25m, not 18m. I also do not know exactly how deep the Don Mills station is. Interestingly, the Dr. Chong Report included the EA approved subway route along Sheppard, but the plan and elevation drawings were missing for the 404 crossing.

Does anyone have a link or drawing of the subway crossing of 404 to know the elevations involved?

 

[innsertnamehere]

the subway would have gone under the highway, just like the LRT will.