[car4041]

Why do we have to look to Amsterdam? We have examples of this done in North America.
Boston's Blue Line switches from third rail to pantograph too.

But even after the switch, the Blue Line continues to run as grade-separated heavy rail. CDL.TO's point about Amsterdam is that it also switches to a median LRT line, which is what some have said is impossible.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And if the tunnel is extended past the 404 the LRVs can continue to use a 3rd rail until it emerges into the street.

Also if they have foresight they can make the McCowan Road stop underground to make for a convenient transfer to Sheppard East station. Better yet to build them at the same time even if the BD extension isn't ready yet.

 

[nfitz]

Also if they have foresight they can make the McCowan Road stop underground to make for a convenient transfer to Sheppard East station. Better yet to build them at the same time even if the BD extension isn't ready yet.

Difficult to do if they haven't finalized the location of that extension yet - some potential alignments don't include a station at McCowan/Sheppard.

 

[crs1026]

With all the artistic/CAD talent on UT - It would be helpful if someone could produce a graphic with the cross section of the Sheppard Subway tunnel (at its most restrictive point) with a Flexity pasted into it - to show exactly how little or much clearance there is.

This should be followed by a graphic showing just how far a pantograph would have to retract into the ceiling of a Flexity to meet the tunnel clearances. (I'd like to see it modelled in Supermarionation, just like a Thunderbirds vehicle changing states.... but I'm being a bit tongue in cheek here). I bet there would still be more passenger headroom than you get in a TR subway car under that HVAC module. If the Flexity is just plain not doable, substitute any other brand of LRT vehicle available on the market worldwide. There must be one that fits.

The point being....yes, some version of an LRT fits. It's a question of how long you would have to close the subway and how much it would cost to modify the station platformss, signalling, etc to transform the subway into an LRT. Those parameters may be too pricey to be worth the bother. But in theory, the Sheppard subway COULD be remodelled into an LRT so that it's a seamless line.

- Paul

 

[ehlow]

San Francisco, Boston and Brussels all have light rail vehicles running in short tunnels with pantographs, right?

I would think the bigger problem is the low-floors not matching the existing platforms.

The even bigger problem is convincing people that shutting down the subway and spending money on converting a subway to run smaller vehicles is worth it.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Then don't involve the public.

 

[WislaHD]

Running smaller and lower capacity vehicles in the Sheppard tunnel would logically mean running higher frequencies, no?

That along with removing the transfer should be a win for anyone using the Sheppard line.

 

[CDL.TO]

The point being....yes, some version of an LRT fits. It's a question of how long you would have to close the subway and how much it would cost to modify the station platformss, signalling, etc to transform the subway into an LRT. Those parameters may be too pricey to be worth the bother. But in theory, the Sheppard subway COULD be remodelled into an LRT so that it's a seamless line.

I would think the bigger problem is the low-floors not matching the existing platforms.

The even bigger problem is convincing people that shutting down the subway and spending money on converting a subway to run smaller vehicles is worth it.

The whole point is that you can procure a LRV that doesn't require you to modify the platforms or signals. Depending on the specifics, it could cost literally zero dollars and zero days of shutdowns to run LRVs in the Sheppard Subway rather than T1s.*

There is the option to choose a vehicle which is designed to fit with the existing infrastructure. It isn't necessary to spend hundreds of millions on making the infrastructure fit to the vehicle.

For comparison, we bought new streetcars that work on the existing streetcar network (designed to work with the TTC's specifications for track gauge, loading gauge, grades, minimum turning radius, and single-point switches). It would have been crazy if Toronto had bought non-compatible vehicles and then shut down the streetcar network and spent hundreds of millions rebuilding it to fit the vehicles, no? But why do so many people think the "crazy option" is the only choice when it comes to the Sheppard corridor?

*(I don't want to keep harping on the Amsterdam example, but on November 30, 1990 LRV trains started running in their subway tunnel with no major modifications or shutdowns required.)

 

[44 North]

(So it really gets my goat when people on UT suggest that a LRV I ride every week is either non-existent or impossible.)

Sorry, didn’t mean to get anyone’s goat. I don’t know that much about this, so I wasn’t sure. You’re right that it would’ve been smart for the City or Metrolinx to have looked at this type of LRV for the SELRT. But IMO it still would’ve been smarter to have initially built Sheppard with a tunnel diameter large enough to fit a standard LRV (w/out one requiring retractable pantos). Although there’d be a slightly higher capital cost than a conventional subway - this would pay itself off in the end because we wouldn’t be faced with:

-there being little business case for extending the line as heavy rail subway
-spending big bucks to raise the tunnel’s ceiling for LRT conversion
-having to purchase LRVs with unique components (3rd rail, retractable pantos)
-or the existing option which is a despised transfer

And plus, it shouldn’t have been a foreign concept to have planned Sheppard as a pre-metro LRT. Many of the plans for Queen were for a pre-metro line, and even Eglinton was ID’d as a potential pre-metro line decades before the Crosstown’s incarnation. Potential LRT use should've been on their minds when Sheppard was designed.

 

[Dan416]

44 North you still don't get it.

The subway is there. There's no point talking about what could have been. CDL.TO is pointing out that we should be designing the LRT and procuring LRVs that would enable us to build a continuous line on Sheppard without having to make any modification to the existing line.

 

[Woodbridge_Heights]

I'm sure I've mentioned this before. Pittsburgh has streetcars that have both low floor and high floor doors. High floor for when the trains operate in the tunnels downtown, and low floors for operations otside the core in the semi dedicated row in the suburbs. Only change needed would be to have a ramp up from the low doors rather than steps

 

[44 North]

@CC. I get that the "subway is there". I'm not advocating for the TTC to convert the tunnel into a time machine to go back twenty years.

And if we were to cancel the current LRV order, change the SELRT plans, put out a tender for an entire new fleet of vehicles with a special pantograph feature etc....wouldn't that be about on par in terms of costs, complexity, time as, say, making the tunnels larger for the current LRV fleet?

 

[WislaHD]

The fleet of vehicles ordered for the Sheppard line could realistically be moved to Finch, Hurontario, K-W or Hamilton. This is one of the benefits of the SELRT being a Metrolinx project.

Plus I wonder what cost-savings we would achieve by recycling the T1's to Line 2.

 

[crs1026]

@CC.

And if we were to cancel the current LRV order, change the SELRT plans, put out a tender for an entire new fleet of vehicles with a special pantograph feature etc....wouldn't that be about on par in terms of costs, complexity, time as, say, making the tunnels larger for the current LRV fleet?

That's why we need the technical experts to take a politically and organizationally unfettered look at this....to tell us what really will and won't work, and what would be cheaper than what. Some of the pushback to this whole concept comes from people who like things as they are. There should be a proper challenge process.

It is likely more prudent to assume that some modification would be required, than to gloss over this and then have a 'surprise' emerge that leads to delays or overruns.

I suspect that if someone inventoried on-the-market LRT offerings, they would find one or more that would fit....with one or two problems. Maybe the platform level is a couple inches too high, or too low, or the platform needs to be a couple inches wider, or narrower etc. Something will have to be adjusted somewhere. (I have replaced the odd kitchen appliance in my time, and that's how the world works!) Maybe it's the rolling stock that is adapted, or maybe it is the tunnel and station structure. Some adjustments may be doable, but some may be prohibitive.

As a lay person, I suspect that there is a solution short of designing testing and certifying a whole new model of railcar. But we need real expertise here. And a "can do" approach.



- Paul

 

[UD2]

The sibway platforms are quite high so it might not be practical to run LRT the height of our subway trains on the street as a tram. But we should be able to modify the station platforms and lower their height without shutting down the system. Remember thst all sheppard line platforms are designed to accomedations 6 car trains but currently are only configured to fit 4 cars. All we need to do is to lower the platform at the two car section to start and then extend the lowered section after the service switch over.

This and duel mode powered LRTs will easily make the sheppard line a mode service.