[nfitz]

Well I live in Woodbridge and have been on the Sheppard Subway once when I went to see my mom, she works at Bayview and Cummer and I was already downtown. So no, I haven't really been on it, but just by reading message boards and blogs, it seems that outside of the rush hour that the Sheppard line is a ghost town aside from the two stations you mentioned.

I used to use Leslie semi-regularly off-peak. It's not the busiest station on the line, but I've never been the only one on the platform. I certainly wouldn't call it a ghost town.

 

[Paleo]

I don't understand. If this line is to be underground, why not make it a RT (subway) line? Since you're building the tunnels anyway, going from LRT to RT probably wouldn't cost much more, and it is an efficient, long-term solution.

8 billion+ for a LRT line just baffles me.

Rob Ford happened.

As for gauge, I think standard gauge for GTA LRT systems is the way to go because it leaves the door open for running on the numerous rail ROWs if they ever modernize the rules.

 

[11th]

I am sure that Rob Ford will be blamed for all decisions related to the Eglinton LRT. I think the change to fully grade seperated was made early enough that different vehicles could have been ordered.

Depends which camp you're on, one can also blame the previous administration for pulling the trigger on the vehicle order; everything seem rushed through.

 

[Dan416]

My only qualm with using LRVs on Eglinton is that they cost more than subway rolling stock. Other than that I don't care, since it's all underground anyway.

 

[Rainforest]

I am sure that Rob Ford will be blamed for all decisions related to the Eglinton LRT. I think the change to fully grade seperated was made early enough that different vehicles could have been ordered.

I imagine that Ford does know the difference between low floor LRT, ICTS or HRT, nor should he. What Ford wanted was underground transit across Eglinton. This is a political decision - right or wrong, many people voted this way. I believe it is was assumed that side-of-road, or trenched construction is acceptable since it already exsits on YUS and B-D - what he really wanted was a seperated transit line. The choice of vehicle is a technical issue that Metrolinx and TTC are resposible for determining. I don't think Ford needs to get involved in thses technical issues. I hope he does not need to decide the tunnel wall thickness or amount of steel reinforcement.

It appears that Metrolinx and TTC are ignoring the underground LRT, assuming it will never get built. They believe that Ford will be gone in 3 years time and then they can revert back to Transit City. However, if Ford wins again, or if they can't delay the EA process for Eglinton East, we will be stuck with the wrong type of transit.

First of all, people did not vote for underground Eglinton transit, or Sheppard, or any other specific transit project. The majority of Ford's supporters voted for him because he promised to freeze or cut taxes. If Ford was an LRT proponent and at the same time campaigned on the tax-cutting platform, he would get approximately same number of votes.

Secondly, Metrolinx is in a rather difficult position regarding Eglinton. The probability that Ford will be gone in 3 years is actually very high. If the next administration returns to the Transit City concepts even partially, then some segments of Eglinton will be built at-grade. Hence, the risk of selecting another vehicle type is greater (can't run on at-grade segments and must be changed once again) than the risk of sticking to low-floor LRT vehicles (not optimal for a fully separated line, but at least can operate it).

 

[Rainforest]

^ In addition, even if the funded portion of ESLRT (Jane to Scarborough Centre) is built as fully grade-separate, use of light rail vehicles leaves more options for the Airport and Malvern extensions.

If ICTS / light metro vehicles are selected instead, then both extensions must be fully grade-separate and that increases the risk that they will be never built.

 

[Dan416]

^ In addition, even if the funded portion of ESLRT (Jane to Scarborough Centre) is built as fully grade-separate, use of light rail vehicles leaves more options for the Airport and Malvern extensions.

If ICTS / light metro vehicles are selected instead, then both extensions must be fully grade-separate and that increases the risk that they will be never built.

Valid point. It does leave the option of flexibility in the future.

 

[Electrify]

The only difference between high floor LRVs and metro cars is the image they draw in one's mind. Assuming both receive power from the same source and have the same gauge, both can be used interchangeably on eachother's tracks. Take a look at Cleveland's "heavy rail" line and compare it to their LRT lines. That said, there may be some legal mumbo jumbo which prevents metro cars from being street legal (turn signals, body designed to handle collisions, etc.).

 

[Nick.]

The only difference between high floor LRVs and metro cars is the image they draw in one's mind. Assuming both receive power from the same source and have the same gauge, both can be used interchangeably on eachother's tracks.

they don't, though. our subways use third rail and the transit city cars use overhead cables.

 

[smallspy]

they don't, though. our subways use third rail and the transit city cars use overhead cables.

I think he means as a defining feature. There are subways which use overhead, and there are light rail trains that use third rail pickup. At the end of the day, the size of the vehicle has more to do than how it is powered.

Dan

 

[EnviroTO]

As has been covered many times here before, the Transit City cars have more than enough differences besides the track gauge to make them incompatible with the rest of the existing network. And the system itself is different enough to preclude using the legacy system cars on it.

If the gauge was the same the new city LRTs could run on the Eglinton line but the new TC LRTs couldn't run on the city lines. There is no reason greater ability to handle curves, more powered wheels, etc would prevent the new city LRTs from running on the Eglinton line. The new city LRTs are built to convert to pantograph as well.

Was any potential savings from being able to use existing maintenance equipment - for which there will be no rail connection anyways - really worth the potential additional expense of going with non-standard revenue vehicles? Shouldn't the revenue vehicles dictate the maintenance equipment and not the other way around?

There is really no significant cost for getting TTC gauge vehicles. They are probably making more TTC gauge vehicles in Thunder Bay than standard gauge. Even though the subway cars are TTC gauge it wasn't an obstacle to sell them to Nigeria. I think the gauge cost benefits are seriously overstated from the costs of not being able to build a network which includes the network that already exists. For example a Kingston Road LRT... what gauge? A Dundas West LRT north of Dundas West station... what gauge? An extension of the Lakeshore West LRT into Mississauga... what gauge?

If you look at the current Eglinton Line independent of any previous plans, than yes, you are correct. Taken in the context of the whole Transit City system, however, high-floor platforms and cars are a non-starter for a variety of reasons.

Of course I am looking at it in the context of what is currently planned... because when Eglinton is completely underground all the parts of TC that were logical are no longer logical.

Again, context. They are still migrating from the old plan to a new one - which will also include redoing the EA for east of Brentcliffe (at the very least). If they decide to go back to the original EA concept, with surface running east of Brentcliffe, all of a sudden those vehicles wouldn't look so out of place, would they?

Sure, if the plans change to surface LRT then the vehicles seem logical (except for gauge). If the plans turn into a branch line of the Yonge line with those vehicles needing to pop off their standard bogies to be placed on TTC gauged ones to continue downtown where platforms need to work like elevators levelling to vehicle height then the vehicles would seem very illogical. I'm judging based on what the plan current is, not on what it isn't.

 

[gweed123]

My two cents on the gauge issue:

Subways: TTC gauge. Realistically, nowhere outside of the City of Toronto will there be a heavy rail subway built in the GTA, so it can be assumed that any new subway lines will be TTC lines. As a result, for the sake of interoperability I think that they should stick with TTC gauge.

LRT lines: Standard gauge. LRT lines are the ones that are going to cross municipal borders most often. Interoperability with the existing TTC streetcar system shouldn't be a concern (unless a Queen LRT is built), so use standard gauge so the same standard can be adopted across the entire region. LRT vehicles running in Hamilton should be able to be transferred to Mississauga if needed (I'm not saying they likely ever will be, it's just good to leave the option open).

Streetcar lines: TTC gauge. The legacy network will likely remain independent from the LRT network, except for a few potential connection/overlap points (Lake Shore in Etobicoke for example). If a section of track is needed for the LRT network, it should be upgraded to standard gauge. Other than that, keep it as it is now, because the streetcar routes are so interconnected, especially when it comes to getting cars on and off certain lines, that phasing a switch over to standard gauge would be nearly impossible without having a damaging effect on service quality, not to mention the City's Capital Budget, for years. Not worth the effort.

 

[Paleo]

If the gauge was the same the new city LRTs could run on the Eglinton line but the new TC LRTs couldn't run on the city lines. There is no reason greater ability to handle curves, more powered wheels, etc would prevent the new city LRTs from running on the Eglinton line.

As long as you never had to stop at centre island platforms you'd be right.

 

[rbt]

If the gauge was the same the new city LRTs could run on the Eglinton line but the new TC LRTs couldn't run on the city lines. There is no reason greater ability to handle curves, more powered wheels, etc would prevent the new city LRTs from running on the Eglinton line. The new city LRTs are built to convert to pantograph as well.

Not even. Downtown network LRTs can not run on Eglinton because they only have doors on one side and a single cab. They require loops. Eglinton is being built similar to our subway system (double-ended with switch backs, not loops).

Gauge is easy to change. TTC staff have done it numerous times but up to TTC gauge and back to standard again and it only takes about a day to do.

 

[smallspy]

If the gauge was the same the new city LRTs could run on the Eglinton line but the new TC LRTs couldn't run on the city lines. There is no reason greater ability to handle curves, more powered wheels, etc would prevent the new city LRTs from running on the Eglinton line. The new city LRTs are built to convert to pantograph as well.

The Transit City lines will operate at a higher voltage - 750v dc rather than 600v dc. As well, the cars are wider by a foot - 9 and a half feet versus 8 and a half feet. And of course, there is the whole issue of double-ended versus single-ended, and the doors on both sides. And finally, the Transit City cars will have proper couplers and MU capability, whereas the cars for the legacy system will have couplers designed for emergency use only.

So, as we see above, the track gauge issue is almost the least of their concerns in terms of running the equipment together.

There is really no significant cost for getting TTC gauge vehicles. They are probably making more TTC gauge vehicles in Thunder Bay than standard gauge. Even though the subway cars are TTC gauge it wasn't an obstacle to sell them to Nigeria. I think the gauge cost benefits are seriously overstated from the costs of not being able to build a network which includes the network that already exists. For example a Kingston Road LRT... what gauge? A Dundas West LRT north of Dundas West station... what gauge? An extension of the Lakeshore West LRT into Mississauga... what gauge?

The cost comes from the engineering, not construction. The per-unit cost per car is probably in the same ballpark for each ($4.1mil, as per the Transit City purchase) but the total purchase price for the 204 legacy fleet cars - including all testing, prototyping and yet, engineering - brings the cost up to over $5.8mil per car.

And frankly, you can't compare the subway cars to streetcars anyways. A subway car rides on top of the trucks, much like a CLRV or PCC, and thus it is much easier to change gauges. On modern low-floor cars such as the new LRVs, the car surrounds the truck, which means that they have to be much more careful about equipment placement.

But you do raise a good point in terms of the system. I guess what will have to happen for the various lines is to figure out and compare what that future brings for them: What kind of capacity will be needed at the time of construction versus 20 years in the future? Where will they connect with other routes? Is through-routing with other routes beneficial, either at the time of construction or 20 years in the future?

Of course I am looking at it in the context of what is currently planned... because when Eglinton is completely underground all the parts of TC that were logical are no longer logical.

Agreed to a degree. But we're also stuck with the current EA, unless Mr. Ford wants to go back and start that again as well.

And, of course, changing the mode will bring back the question about what to do with the SRT, as well as planning for any extensions to it or connections with it.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.