[CDL.TO]

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.

And don't forget signalling. The plan has always been for the Eglinton tunnel to use ATO.

 

[CapitalSeven]

The Transit City LRT vehicles are only about 4 inches wider than the streetcars. 2.65 metres vs. 2.54.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And the length on Eglinton will be the equivalent of 5 subway cars in length.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Wonder if they will have a mock-up of one of the Eglinton LRV's for us to look at, as they did with the mock-up of the new streetcars. The streetcar prototype is to arrive in 2012, before the production models, to work out the bugs and gain driver experience. Maybe they could display a LRV mock-up with the streetcar prototype at the same time, if they time it right. Maybe having the two vehicles next to each other will have solve some (not all) arguments.

 

[smallspy]

The Transit City LRT vehicles are only about 4 inches wider than the streetcars. 2.65 metres vs. 2.54.

I had been told by the TTC engineers at one of the Eglinton open houses way back when that they will be 2.9 meters wide, which is almost exactly 9 and a half feet.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[nfitz]

And the length on Eglinton will be the equivalent of 5 subway cars in length.

A 3-car LRV would be about 90 metres long. A subway car is about 23 metres long. A 4 subway cars would be 92 metres long, so a 3-car train on Eglinton would be about the same as the existing 4-car subway train on Sheppard.

I had been told by the TTC engineers at one of the Eglinton open houses way back when that they will be 2.9 meters wide, which is almost exactly 9 and a half feet.

Everything I've seen says 2.65 m.

Wonder if they will have a mock-up of one of the Eglinton LRV's for us to look at, as they did with the mock-up of the new streetcars.

Wouldn't that be pretty much the same mock-up they took to New Orleans under the name Flexity Freedom?

 

[BurlOak]

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).

1. I would guess that a number of people did vote against Transit City. We will never know for sure unless we bring in a referendum - a different thread I believe.

2. TTC and Metrolinx should not be assuming Ford will not be elected. Perhaps Metrolinx was adamant about LRT vehicles as part of the Memo of Understanding. Otherwise, I would assume these public organizations should be following direction from the political leaders - which is a fully grade separated line.

2a) I am not so sure that Ford will not win again. The last 2 Mayors have won re-election. Most time in the GTA the incumbent wins re-election. McGuinty won re-election twice even though logically he probably deserved to lose both times. Also, presumably the economy will be better in 3 years time and that would also improve Fords chances.

2b) I am not sure if the desire is for the LRT to be extended (to the airport and to Malvern) or is it to branch out at the ends. For example, the UofT Scarborough-Kingston-Eglinton line could interline with the currently planned ECLRT. Also, in the West, one branch could go up to the Airport, while another goes along Eglinton to Mississauga. From some DRL discussions, and long ago TTC experience, it appears that interlining a subway is very difficult - even though a subway is a closed system and it should be relatively easy. So how could interlining LRT, that runs (partially) in traffic (i.e. still has strong potential for traffic delay, bunching, etc.) be any easier. This brings us back to the reason for LRT being extension of the line. But as I know it, separated ROW already exists (almost) from Jane (Black Creek) to the airport and for extension from STC to Malvern.

 

[Eug]

1. I would guess that a number of people did vote against Transit City. We will never know for sure unless we bring in a referendum - a different thread I believe.

Most definitely. It's amazing how many people hate "streetcars".

The argument that the vote against Transit City may be a good one or a bad one is a different discussion, but nonetheless a lot of drivers were concerned about surface rail.

 

[ssiguy2]

Curious............if Toronto continues to go with LRT for some inexplicable reason, have they looked at the Primrose system?
It is made by Bombardier which we all know is a requirement for any TTC contract and is catanary-free.
It's quite a unique idea and they are already in service in Europe. They came about due to many older European cities that wanted trams but not the unsightly wires in their historic districts. Basically it is powered from underneath the rail line with a cable and an inductive motor contactlessly supplies power from that cable but only when the train is directly overhead.
Although I would think it would be cheaper than standard LRT to construct due to not needing the catanary power lines, the vehicles themselves maybe more expensive so I don't know about any potential savings on any new line. It would, however, save a small fortune and time on the conversion of the SRT.
One of the largest expenses of time and money on the SRT conversion will be the need to "raise the roof" on all the current stations as they don not have the height for an LRT system with overhead power supply. It would be the same height of the current SkyTrain cars.
There is a great video of it on the Primrose website at Bombardier if anyone, unlike myself, has any computer skills and can put it up here.
I still would think of it as the worse of option of the 4 technologies available...........standard subway, SkyTrain, or monorail but if the TTC continues in using LRT, it certainly would be a time and money saver on the current SRT conversion.

 

[leopetr]

Curious............if Toronto continues to go with LRT for some inexplicable reason, have they looked at the Primrose system?

Primove system. I would really rather they not consider any exotic, proprietary technology. LRT's great because it's bog standard and everyone manufactures it in a compatible format -- Bombardier, Siemens, Alstom, Skoda, whoever.

Although I would think it would be cheaper than standard LRT to construct due to not needing the catanary power lines,

Catenary's quite cheap AFAIK.

One of the largest expenses of time and money on the SRT conversion will be the need to "raise the roof" on all the current stations as they don not have the height for an LRT system with overhead power supply.

They will have to renovate all the stations regardless to extend the loading area as well as either raise the tracks or lower the platforms. Also, Kennedy's being rebuilt from scratch underground.

How low are the roofs? I don't remember SRT station roofs being particularly low, but I haven't ridden it in a couple years.

 

[ssiguy2]

When I contacted the Crosstown office, he stated that much of the extra expense of conversion is due to having to raise the roof of the stations to allow for the catenary power lines which would not be a problem {or expense} if the used standard subway, SkyTrain, monorail or the Primrose LRT systems.

 

[Palma]

Most definitely. It's amazing how many people hate "streetcars".

.

Those people are the ones that are driving the car and feel the streetcar is holding up traffic when its the CAR that is. You should not be surprised how many people love them - the ones who use them.

 

[Eug]

Those people are the ones that are driving the car and feel the streetcar is holding up traffic when its the CAR that is. You should not be surprised how many people love them - the ones who use them.

You seemed to have missed the point. The point is that there are a lot of voters who drive cars and don't like streetcars blocking their way.

That streetcars offer advantages and streetcar-supporting voters also exist is beside the point. Hence my following statement:

The argument that the vote against Transit City may be a good one or a bad one is a different discussion, but nonetheless a lot of drivers were concerned about surface rail.

 

[Palma]

You seemed to have missed the point. The point is that there are a lot of voters who drive cars and don't like streetcars blocking their way.

That streetcars offer advantages and streetcar-supporting voters also exist is beside the point. Hence my following statement:

You are missing the point. I already stated thats why the people who hate streetcars do, is because they feel the streetcar is holding them up but its the reverse. A conservative estimate of 60 people on a streetcar yet a single passenger car is complaining because the streetcar is in front holding them up. Is something not wrong with this picture?

 

[Eug]

You are missing the point. I already stated thats why the people who hate streetcars do, is because they feel the streetcar is holding them up but its the reverse. A conservative estimate of 60 people on a streetcar yet a single passenger car is complaining because the streetcar is in front holding them up. Is something not wrong with this picture?

Seriously, you ought to get off your high horse and discuss the question at hand. The question isn't whether these people are justified in their belief. The question is if they exist, and if they vote for people like Rob Ford. There are a LOT of car drivers out there, and it's a big mistake to think they don't exist if you're running for office. Now, a politician can choose not to pander to complainer motorists, but that should be an educated decision, as opposed to some lefty just hiding his head in the sand in the mistaken belief that everyone loves the streetcar.

BTW, if you really want to talk about car traffic vs. public transit, remember that Ford claims he is a big supporter of public transit... as long as it's a subway. IMHO, this had quite the effect on voters.

Now, it's true that Ford now has a relatively poor approval rating, and it's probably deserved. However, I also think that if the next few years sees significant progress on the Eglinton Crosstown, he could get himself elected again with the support of that.