News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

I thought it already switched to ATC, hence why they put TRs on it since 2016?

If/when line 4 is extended, they would certainly need new rolling stock for fleet expansion, not to mention the current stock potentially reaching the end of life by the time the extensions are ready to open (probably no earlier than the 2040s, taking into account all potential delays).
The TR's are compatible with ATC, but they dont have atc infrastructure installed on it
 
Wasnt that switched up to be completely industrial ?

Absolutely not.

Bounce around this thread.


While there is an industrial/commercial component, the residential component is very substantial.
 
The TR's are compatible with ATC, but they dont have atc infrastructure installed on it

Existing rolling stock is too short anyway, we're going to full length trains/stations on Sheppard. The existing trains could be lengthened, but I can't see them bothering.
 
Is there a reason why Line 4 extension proposals don't have the line veering north slightly to intersect with Agincourt GO to allow for an easy transfer there? I guess cost prohibitive?
 
Absolutely not.

Bounce around this thread.


While there is an industrial/commercial component, the residential component is very substantial.
ah my mistake got it mixed up with the Buttonville redevelopment
 
Due to the extremely dense Downsview airport redevelopment I wholeheartedly think an extension to Downsview (Sheppard West) would be needed.
I think given the regional connectivity Downsview is going to have, I hope we reserve a good amount of development potential for employment/office use. The confluence of Line 1, Line 4 and the Barrie line has a pretty big catchment area.
 
The TR's are compatible with ATC, but they dont have atc infrastructure installed on it
Ah, so the real reason line 4 got TRs was to be compatible with line 1 ATC when moving trains to/from Davisville? For some reason I thought line 4 practically ended up getting ATC even before line 1 was completed, and served as a prototype for the latter, lol
Existing rolling stock is too short anyway, we're going to full length trains/stations on Sheppard. The existing trains could be lengthened, but I can't see them bothering.
I mean they did do the opposite when building the first 4-car TR by removing 2 cars, so hypothetically they could also add those 2 extra cars back. Ofc, if the remaining 4-car sets were built as 4-car sets from the start, they wouldn't have any extra cars to add to them. Maybe they could sandwich a pair of the newer cars, since the specs called for them to be "operated as much as possible like the existing TR fleet". The question is, what would they do with those 4-car sets if they can't lengthen them.
 
Last edited:
Is the case that strong that Sheppard needs full length trains? After 20 years they made the headways longer not shorter.
 
Is the case that strong that Sheppard needs full length trains? After 20 years they made the headways longer not shorter.
I think it is fair to say that extending Sheppard should increase ridership. How much, I don't know. But it would help more to have shorter headways than to have longer trains, which should be doable from an opex standpoint if we have ATC and PSDs.
 

Back
Top