News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.5K     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
 5.4K     0 

Towered said:
No air conditioning? In 2012? What a joke.
Click to expand...
Given how much cooler Montreal subway platforms are in the summer, and how much warmer they are in the winter, do they need to air-condition the cars? There's no outdoor segments, and the tunnels are pretty well sealed, and generally much deeper than here.

I don't recall it ever being quite as hot in the Metro, than the old unairconditioned cars here.

I remember as a kid, travelling around the Metro system in the winter, and not even bringing a sweater with me. That would be a challenge in Toronto.
 
When the whole system is enclosed underground it probably makes more sense to put ventilation in the trains and air conditioning in the stations, than to have air conditioning in the trains pushing hot air onto the platforms like Toronto.
 
It is actually impossible to put ac on subway cars. Montreal metro is an enclosed system all underground and pretty deep too, air conditioning on cars would dangerously heat up the stations and tunnels. AC is going to have be a separate project, it will have to apply to stations and tunnels, the whole system will have to be cooled, it cannot be a project related to the subway cars themselves.
 
nfitz said:
The main issue for Montreal is the narrow cars. Which are even narrow than the legacy Toronto streetcars.
Click to expand...

The cars are 8'3" wide but the tunnels are higher and so are the cars, a decision made in 1966 in an attempt to make future expansion cheaper. It worked, for instance the 3 new stations in Laval were over budget (that's Mtl style) but the cost per kilometer was very good compare to larger systems. The trains are a bit longer to compensate for the width, they are 500 feet long, that is why the entrances in the stations alternate along the length of the train. The capacity is 160 passengers per car (really packed), and there is 9 cars per train, and the new train will allow a few more people where the train join, just like the new concept on the Toronto cars.

I wonder how that compares to the Toronto capacity of trains, I haven't been able to calculate it.
 
pier50 said:
It worked, for instance the 3 new stations in Laval were over budget (that's Mtl style) but the cost per kilometer was very good compare to larger systems.
Click to expand...
If you read the enquiry into it being overbudget, it wasn't so much that the work cost too much, but the budget was grossly, if not criminally, underestimated ... likely to get the work funded. Yes, it's going to be cheaper ... as they only need one tunnel with the narrow trains, and that they are tunnelling in consolidated relatively low permeability materials, as compared to Toronto where they tunnel in unconsolidated high permeability materials. I've heard it said that in Montreal they tend to try and go deeper, to get into this material, to save money; Toronto doesn't have this option, as the geology is so different.

Also, the budget numbers are difficult to compare to other systems, as Montreal did not add any rolling stock, garage space, maintenance capabilities, as part of the extension. Even some of the station construction costs, seemed to be part of different budgets.

pier50 said:
The trains are a bit longer to compensate for the width, they are 500 feet long, that is why the entrances in the stations alternate along the length of the train.
Click to expand...
I believe that's almost exactly the same length as the Toronto platforms, which put 450 foot trains on 500 foot platforms - and the same length of the Toronto trains if the 50 foot 7th car is added.

pier50 said:
The capacity is 160 passengers per car (really packed), and there is 9 cars per train, and the new train will allow a few more people where the train join, just like the new concept on the Toronto cars.

I wonder how that compares to the Toronto capacity of trains, I haven't been able to calculate it.
Click to expand...
Probably easiest thing to do is scale it based on the area of the train. Their cars are 2.5 metres wide and 16.9 metres long. 9 of these cars would be about 380 square metres. Our cars are 22.9 metres long and 3.1 metres wide; 6 of these cars would be 425 square metres; adding the 7th car would bring it to about 473 square metres. Of course, there's details regarding cabs, doors, seating, etc. but that should ballpark it.
 
Last edited:
The_Architect said:
But less busy.
Click to expand...
And certainly no where near as scary on the platforms, at least for the new section with the platform doors. (though I suppose in an extreme crushing event, at least with no platform doors, people can start falling onto the track, and someone can cut the power ... I'd have thought there was more danger for being crushed to death with platform doors ... though I guess falling onto track without doors and getting hit by a train, is probably more of a problem).

I tend to avoid rush-hour when I'm in London, so I've never seen the worst of it ... but I find Picadilly stations like Russell Square start to feel claustrophobic even when they are empty, after you've walked down nearly 200 stairs down a narrow spiralling staircase to the platform (I was too impatient to wait for the elevator) - the Jubilee stations, being about 100 years newer, are designed differently and feel less claustrophobic.
 
nfitz said:
Probably easiest thing to do is scale it based on the area of the train. Their cars are 2.5 metres wide and 16.9 metres long. 9 of these cars would be about 380 square metres. Our cars are 22.9 metres long and 3.1 metres wide; 6 of these cars would be 425 square metres; adding the 7th car would bring it to about 473 square metres. Of course, there's details regarding cabs, doors, seating, etc. but that should ballpark it.
Click to expand...

Then with a 380/425 ratio on square meters and with the current arrangement the capacity is still a bit smaller in Montreal.

Believe it or not, the legacy 1960 strategy to increase the system's capacity is to increase the speed of the trains and therefore the frequency. So the new trains are going to (or are suppose to) be able to go 10 to 20km/hr faster than the current 1966-76 stock of cars. That is one of the many good and bad reasons they chose rubber tire at the time, and before many advancements made metal wheels almost as performant, rubber was to allow quicker acceleration and braking (it does allow the car to ride on some pretty steep inclines in the tunnels). I'm a fan of the Mtl metro, but I remain sceptical that this will really work, but we'll see.
 
nfitz said:
I've heard it said that in Montreal they tend to try and go deeper, to get into this material, to save money; Toronto doesn't have this option, as the geology is so different.
Click to expand...

That is absolutely true and was one of the bad/good reason rubber tires were chosen for the cars to take on inclines, the tunnels are full of surprisingly steep inclines and curves in an attempt to dig in the best possible layers. This is why some station are much deeper than others, it really depends on the ground.
 
pier50 said:
Then with a 380/425 ratio on square meters and with the current arrangement the capacity is still a bit smaller in Montreal.

Believe it or not, the legacy 1960 strategy to increase the system's capacity is to increase the speed of the trains and therefore the frequency. So the new trains are going to (or are suppose to) be able to go 10 to 20km/hr faster than the current 1966-76 stock of cars. That is one of the many good and bad reasons they chose rubber tire at the time, and before many advancements made metal wheels almost as performant, rubber was to allow quicker acceleration and braking (it does allow the car to ride on some pretty steep inclines in the tunnels). I'm a fan of the Mtl metro, but I remain sceptical that this will really work, but we'll see.
Click to expand...

The rubber pneumatic also generate more heat (using more electricity in the process). Though the generated heat is of good benefit in winter, not so in summer, ventilation has to be stronger.
 
W. K. Lis said:
The rubber pneumatic also generate more heat (using more electricity in the process). Though the generated heat is of good benefit in winter, not so in summer, ventilation has to be stronger.
Click to expand...

At the beginning, many were concerned that the stations and tunnel were not heated and even the engineers were not too sure if heating would be required, but as it turns out the tires and the equipment makes so much heat that it's never cold underground in winter, even when the outside temperature drops to minus 20. In summer they simply increase the ventilation with huge air chimneys to the point where it's pretty windy down there. I notice it's pretty open in Toronto, do they have to heat the underground stations?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top