News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 5.4K     0 

Whether stock is stored under cover or not is down to the commissioning agency. If they say “build a covered barn or at least a gas station type roof, we have the $”, the construction designer will open the relevant template and slap it on the drawing. However, the supports for that will require the right footings, may increase minimum spacing between some tracks, would change drainage management for heavy rain or snow melt. Only upside would be being able to slap a bunch of solar panels or a green roof above, neither of which can be classed as transit essential. More useful than some of the public art which is slapped into budgets these days though.
 
drum118 said:
Housing can be built over yards, and you only have to look at TTC Davisville yard that has been on the books for decades of having development over it. Look at what is taking place in NYC where yards are being covered up.
Click to expand...
It would sure help to solve the housing crisis. It could also make their lives easier living at a transit station.
 
dowlingm said:
Only upside would be being able to slap a bunch of solar panels or a green roof above, neither of which can be classed as transit essential.
Click to expand...
Only upside? I would think that not leaving the vehicles under the wide open sky and lessening weather related wear and tear would be a pretty substantial upside in and of itself. Especially in the case of the Crosstown, where the cars have been around for 5 years without seeing any passengers.

drum118 said:
Belgium, Frankfurt, Nice come to mind and did not see every yard for them, other than Nice back in 2012.
Click to expand...
Well, I can tell you that Prague, Bratislava, Brno, and Košice all have indoor storage at most of their facilities. There is one yard in Bratislava which has been criticized for the last 40 years for not having indoor storage, and there is a vapourware plan kicking about to cover it over.
 
T3G said:
Only upside? I would think that not leaving the vehicles under the wide open sky and lessening weather related wear and tear would be a pretty substantial upside in and of itself. Especially in the case of the Crosstown, where the cars have been around for 5 years without seeing any passengers.


Well, I can tell you that Prague, Bratislava, Brno, and Košice all have indoor storage at most of their facilities. There is one yard in Bratislava which has been criticized for the last 40 years for not having indoor storage, and there is a vapourware plan kicking about to cover it over.
Click to expand...
Looking at yards and OMSF was not on my list of places to visit during my/our trips for trams. The ones I noted were the ones I/we came upon during our travels. All RR yards were not covered regardless of it being fright or passenger in Europe. I have seen a few tram yards in the US that I have gone looking for with a few you can't get close to them like RR yards. Otherwise, leave it to others that have seen Europe OMSF to tell us what takes place over there.
 
Don't know if this has already been asked but.............seeing the speed limit on Eglinton is 50km/hr, will the LRT have an exemption from this {ie 70km/hr} or is this $12 billion "rapid" transit line going to warp out at 50?
 
Paint is cheaper than building a roof, but rubber seals degrade from UV. Water will eventually find its way in, regardless of whether the cars are carrying passengers or sitting unused.
There was really no way to shrink-wrap the Crosstown fleet - or maybe they could have been, for a time anyways, although Toronto’s damp climate is unlike a desert airplane boneyard - but the aging of the carbodies started at delivery and the clock is running, roof or no roof.
Had the construction happened on schedule the cars would be out in service all day and the MSF would be empty - so I don’t fault anyone for designing the MSF as outdoor storage. The roof would be moot. But we should have no illusions - the Crosstown fleet has begun to age.

- Paul
 
micheal_can said:
Could a case for subsidized housing be built above the yard such that the yard is covered? I know soundproofing would be a challenge, but it could make use of dead air space.
Click to expand...
If you look closely at the proposed Thorncliffe TOC and Ontario Line OMSF you’ll see that a portion of the yard will actually be underneath the apartments/mixed use buildings.
 
ssiguy2 said:
Don't know if this has already been asked but.............seeing the speed limit on Eglinton is 50km/hr, will the LRT have an exemption from this {ie 70km/hr} or is this $12 billion "rapid" transit line going to warp out at 50?
Click to expand...

For the tunnel portions and elevated portions, pretty sure the street speed limit does not apply.

For street-median portion, don't know, but even if it does then the impact on the travel time will be small. If the average stop spacing is 700 m, and the comfortable acceleration / deceleration is no greater than 1 m/s^2: the time to get from one stop to the next will be 64 sec if the top speed is 50 kph, or 55 sec if the top speed is 70 kph. You save 9 seconds per stop.

Even if the acceleration was 2 m/s^2: that time will be 57 sec if the top speed is 50 kph, or 45 sec if the top speed is 70 kph. Thus, 12 seconds per stop.

A lot of time is spent servicing the stops, and some time is spent accelerating and decelerating. The % of the overall travel time saved by allowing 70 kph travel speed instead of 50 kph will be a lot less than what one might expect just comparing the two numbers.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top