[JayBeeGooner]

I rode the entire Skytrain system. Great system. The SRT still sucks. ICTS technology does not fit into the network the TTC is hoping to build. With the Eglinton LRT, and the Sheppard East LRT, why stuck with a proprietary technology? Makes no sense.

 

[M II A II R II K]

The ICTS can work fine if it's not used as a tacked on linear transfer and certainly not used as a substitute for where heavy rail is supposed to take the bulk of ridership along a route.

 

[diminutive]

The ICTS can work fine if it's not used as a tacked on linear transfer and certainly not used as a substitute for where heavy rail is supposed to take the bulk of ridership along a route.

ICTS/VAL/Canada Line and such could act as a pretty good suburban feeder lines, imo. Considering the Spadina and Yonge extensions, medium capacity systems operating on viaducts would clearly be more appropriate in terms of travel speed, capital costs and capacity. Also, the ability to operate at higher frequencies could allow more interesting experiments in branching without diluting service frequency too much. Three lines with ~5m headways feeding into a subway terminal every ~90s.

The major downside would be a forced transfer. Assuming the YUS line moves to 90s headways though and a notional ICTS Yonge/Spadina extension operated at the headways it's capable of, the actual transfers should be fairly seamless. Two or three minutes, perhaps. Not ideal but considering we're planning on short turning trains into Vaughan anyways the 'one seat ride' on the subway may not be as seamless as thought.

Really, the SRT gets a bad rep, but it's a very capable concept. The LIM aspect is totally gadget-bahn, but apparently ICTS is now offered with regular motors.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And does great in places around the world except in the place that invented it.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

Yeah. Vancouver, and Kuala Lampur. The rest are shuttle lines.

ART is a great airport people mover system.

 

[M II A II R II K]

Speaking of airports it would have been better for the line to have gone from Kipling to the airport instead as it wouldn't have ended up becoming too crowded or a liability.

 

[unimaginative2]

Yeah. Vancouver, and Kuala Lampur. The rest are shuttle lines.

We often hear this "Nobody on Earth uses the Skytrain technology. Except...except...except..." I'm not sure why "shuttle lines" are any different from other applications, but either way you also missed Bangkok and, arguably, Detroit. But all of that is beside the point: ICTS/Skytrain is Bombardier's offering within a family of automated light metro technologies, which are extremely popular and successful around the world--outside North America, dare I say, nearly as popular as LRT! Paris is building literally hundreds of kilometres of them, London has the ever-growing DLR, Copenhagen has its new Metro, Bangkok and KL have their Skytrains, some of the new Spanish lines are best considered automated light metro, and there are countless other examples scattered around Asia. There are a lot of advantages to the technology including low cost of construction, relatively low impact on surrounding communities when elevated (i.e. quieter and narrower footprint than TTC-style subways), speed, reliability, and the cost and operational benefits of automation. In addition to the cost savings from automation, there are even bigger benefits for passengers since it becomes no more expensive to run shorter trains more frequently. That means that automated light metros often offer 2 minute headways late at night, while a manned system would need to have lower frequency. In Copenhagen, the automated metro even runs 24 hours.

 

[nfitz]

... but either way you also missed Bangkok and, arguably, Detroit.

Bangkok's "Skytrain" doesn't use the same technology. The vehicles weren't Bombardier, they were Siemens. The did get some Bombardier cars recently, but they are not the same technology at all as Vancouver or Toronto ... they are closer to our subway trains than anything else.

Detroit ... hard to take that one too seriously.

 

[Amy Rose]

I think most who hate the SRT would quickly change their minds if they came to Vancouver where they use the MK111 and actually keep the system in excellent repair. Comparing Toronto's SRT to Vancouver's SkyTrain is like comparing Toronto's diesel rail line to Shanghai's Maglev. Even Steve Munro, who would love nothing more than be there for the blowing up the SRT corridor, is a fan of Vancouver's SkyTrain.

You could thank the premier at the time that bribed the TTC funding if they converted the SLRT to ICTS right when they started construction.

 

[rbt]

Bangkok's "Skytrain" doesn't use the same technology. The vehicles weren't Bombardier, they were Siemens. The did get some Bombardier cars recently, but they are not the same technology at all as Vancouver or Toronto ... they are closer to our subway trains than anything else.

Detroit ... hard to take that one too seriously.

Ditto for the DLR as far as I can remember. Standard motors, 3rd rail, and a mixture of rolling stock providers (Bombardier for the new stuff). Off-the-shelf moving block signalling from Alcatel (only feature the SRT shares with DLR).

Perhaps Drum has some recent photographs to share.


If not for the patent encumbered LIM system the SRT has, we likely would have simply tendered for new custom or modified rolling stock 10 years ago and had capacity doubled by now. 3rd rail and overhead hookups are made by many companies in varying widths and shapes.

Bombardier is our only choice for SRT and evidently wants to charge enough for a dozen trains that it's cost-effective to rebuild the entire line instead. Single vendor lock-in; it always gets expensive at some point.

 

[drum118]

Ditto for the DLR as far as I can remember. Standard motors, 3rd rail, and a mixture of rolling stock providers (Bombardier for the new stuff). Off-the-shelf moving block signalling from Alcatel (only feature the SRT shares with DLR).

Perhaps Drum has some recent photographs to share.


If not for the patent encumbered LIM system the SRT has, we likely would have simply tendered for new custom or modified rolling stock 10 years ago and had capacity doubled by now. 3rd rail and overhead hookups are made by many companies in varying widths and shapes.

Bombardier is our only choice for SRT and evidently wants to charge enough for a dozen trains that it's cost-effective to rebuild the entire line instead. Single vendor lock-in; it always gets expensive at some point.

Which type of photos are you looking for and from where???

The photos I have shot on transit for Glasgow, Edinburgh, London, Croydon UK, Paris, Madrid, Barcelona, Marseille, Nice, Monte Carlo, Milan, Venice, Rome, Zurich and some of Geneva are up on my site at this time.

Just type "Photos of (city) (country) Transit" and you should get them all. Otherwise, I have them setup in sets as that and under collection of Europe Trip.

Still have to fix photos for Amsterdam, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Hamburg, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest and Frankfurt. Only up to Aug 1st with 2nd and 3rd to go up in the next day or so when I have time. I am really behind in fixing photos at this time and this includes ones shot in Sept-Oct.

Sole source suppliers will kill you in the long run regardless how cheap they are up front.

 

[ssiguy2]

First the SRT/SkyTrain is built by Bombardier.......the TTC's sole rail provider. I know they go thru the public relations exercise of putting contracts out to tender but at the end of the day Bombardier always wins and always will.

The ICTS is part of Bombardiers ART system of trains.....Automated Rapid Transit. There are basically 3 types, airport movers, SkyTrain, and monorail. Seeing Bombardier is building a 100km Sao Paulo monorail system as we speak as well as in Saudi Arabia, and has an excellent chance of getting several large Indian city contracts which will be a total of over 1000 km in India alone by 2028, and the fact that Bombardier just built a monorail test track in Kingston Ont it is clear that the ART family of trains is going no where. They may use different technologies but the basic frame and structure of the trains are the same.

 

[officedweller]

I think the thrust of the discussion is that TTC should look at intermediate capacity exclusive RoW rapid transit technologies as feeder lines - regardless of manufacturer.

All of the various systems named are intermediate capacity despite using different technologies and meet the lower capacity requirements of their particular installations.

Canada Line and Copenhagen's Metro are very similar in terms of route length, branching, vehicle size, automation, etc. - and neither uses a Bombardier product.

The only way the SRT using the Bombardier technology would make sense is if it were expanded - whether down Eglinton or as a small network centred on Scarborough Town Centre (analogous to DLR in London).

 

[diminutive]

It's important to not overly associate Skytrain/ICTS with LIMs though, a feature which at best distracts from the system's successes in other regards. The basic goals and idea which lead to ICTS (the need for a lower cost, lower capacity rapid transit system) are obviously still influential. Looking globally in fact, most new 'metros' seem to have way more in common with skytrain/ICTS than what the TTC would traditionally consider "subway." LIMs are the biggest exception, but that shouldn't distract from the utility of a lower cost, lower capacity rapid transit system.

If anything, it shows that there are ways to design & construct rapid transit without resorting to the TTC's default interpretation of 'rapid transit' as massive 6,7,8 car trains designed to push 50k pphpd through tunnels deep enough to nearly reach China while stopping at palatial stations.

 

[rbt]

It's important to not overly associate Skytrain/ICTS with LIMs though, a feature which at best distracts from the system's successes in other regards. The basic goals and idea which lead to ICTS (the need for a lower cost, lower capacity rapid transit system) are obviously still influential.

This post is strictly about getting my definitions straight as I'm confused as to what people actually mean at this point.


LIM is the only somewhat unique feature to Bombardier's Skytrain that I can see; everything else (signalling, automation, etc.) is very wide spread and mostly predates the 1983 SRT installation.

In fact, I think GO is installing the Alcatel signalling kit into the Union Station corridor but operating in fixed-block mode. Sales enables/disables features as required but the software behind it is the same albeit a newer revision, as the DLR and Vancouver Skytrain and SRT have installed.


So, if not the LIM system what is the outcry about using an ALRT (Alacatel signalling + driver control + Flexity) instead of ALRT (Alacatel signalling + driver control + Skytrain) in the SRT corridor?

It's not pantograph versus 3rd rail. Many small capacity metro systems used as examples above of ALRT use pantographs including some in Madrid.

DLR started with street-safe LRT vehicles not unlike Calgary's trains, so it's not a 'street safe' versus 'not street safe' thing.

What else is there other than LIM versus more traditional traction?


Also, how do the Eglinton tunnel section not qualify as ALRT? No, it's not as cheap as it could be, but it seems to hit the checklist of ALRT features (Automated driver control, moving-block signalling, relatively short trains/smaller stations, etc).

Shrinking the underground stations on Eglinton basically requires changes to building/fire code. Above ground stations are about as small as possible. It's not even rolling stock related. Likewise, elevated or not has zero to do with rolling stock.


I guess I'm just really confused as to what people want versus the defintions they are using.