[Bojaxs]

Being situated higher up, you'd need longer platforms with ramps at shallow angles.

So?
People in wheel chairs can still access the C-train.

Ramp height seems to be the only advantage low floor has over high floor. Name another advantage of low floor.

Going low floor is cheaper and more pragmatic.

No it's not. The low floor trains have higher maintenance costs. Fixed bogies vs the more conventional bogies on a high floor train.

I think its hilarious that people are debating retrofitting or building new tunnels/building new bridges, for a line that has taken 13+ years to be built, and isn't even open yet...

Because it was a very silly idea to use low floor LRTs.

 

[stevedean]

Because it was a very silly idea to use low floor LRTs.

That is irrelevant at this point. I think you're dreaming if you think there will be any retrofit during your lifetime

 

[ishblack1]

Seeing alot of trams today, is the signal issue resolved?

 

[MrGoose]

None of this is true. The low floor LRT was chosen because the high floor ones require much larger and more intrusive loading platforms, if you want to provide accessibility. Being situated higher up, you'd need longer platforms with ramps at shallow angles. Going low floor is cheaper and more pragmatic.

Penny wise and pound foolish because as has been discussed to death already, low floor means less capacity per dollar spent.

Yea we spent an extra 3B$ on the underground stations to make them longer to accomodate the longer trams, but at least we saved 10M$ on the concrete used for the outdoor aboveground loading platforms because we lowered those platforms 20cm

 

[yurt2022]

I think its hilarious that people are debating retrofitting or building new tunnels/building new bridges, for a line that has taken 13+ years to be built, and isn't even open yet...

I think people at least here are beginning to see the problem with the design choices taken with the ECLRT. We have a pseudo subway in the west paired up with a glorified streetcar in the east, I think operational issues will be inevitable due to the distinct modes of operation.

We may even see a splitting of the line with a well served, frequent "subway" in the western section, while we see an overcrowded and slow tram service in Scarborough due to at grade operations, lack of TSP, etc. Which would then further justify the existence of an "anti-Scaborough" conspiracy at city hall (which looks more true everyday if I'm being honest).

 

[felix123]

I think people at least here are beginning to see the problem with the design choices taken with the ECLRT. We have a pseudo subway in the west paired up with a glorified streetcar in the east, I think operational issues will be inevitable due to the distinct modes of operation.

We may even see a splitting of the line with a well served, frequent "subway" in the western section, while we see an overcrowded and slow tram service in Scarborough due to at grade operations, lack of TSP, etc. Which would then further justify the existence of an "anti-Scaborough" conspiracy at city hall (which looks more true everyday if I'm being honest).

Not disagreeing about the likelihood of operational issues (and let's all hope that we're pleasantly surprised because Toronto transit really needs a good news story right now), but I don't think people here are just beginning to see the shortcomings of the ECLRT. They've been apparent since the project's inception.

 

[T3G]

So?
People in wheel chairs can still access the C-train.

Yes, because they built large ramps, ramps that take up more physical square footage than the platforms on the Crosstown do. Whether rightly or wrongly, this was not the path we decided to take here.

Ramp height seems to be the only advantage low floor has over high floor. Name another advantage of low floor.

I think you might have me confused with the people who chose the specifications for this project. I am not saying that LF was the be all, end all, I am merely trying to offer a reasoned alternative explanation to your frankly farcical assertion that LF cars were chosen so that we look more like Europe.

But as long as we're playing... evacuations are a hell of a lot easier when you don't have to jump down 700 mm into the street.

No it's not. The low floor trains have higher maintenance costs. Fixed bogies vs the more conventional bogies on a high floor train.

Care to provide an official source for this assertion?

Yea we spent an extra 3B$ on the underground stations to make them longer to accomodate the longer trams, but at least we saved 10M$ on the concrete used for the outdoor aboveground loading platforms because we lowered those platforms 20cm

Longer trams? Longer than what? Surely not a subway train?

One Crosstown car is 30.2 metres long (citation). Two cars coupled together therefore make 60.4 metres. A 4 car Sheppard subway train is 91.44 meters. A 6 car Yonge line train is 137.16 meters.

 

[MrGoose]

Longer trams? Longer than what? Surely not a subway train?

One Crosstown car is 30.2 metres long (citation). Two cars coupled together therefore make 60.4 metres. A 4 car Sheppard subway train is 91.44 meters. A 6 car Yonge line train is 137.16 meters.

Except that the 4 car Sheppard train carries 948 people at crush load and 3 crosstown cars carry 750 people at crush load.

So trams that are longer to carry the same number of people as a subway car

 

[yurt2022]

Except that the 4 car Sheppard train carries 948 people at crush load and 3 crosstown cars carry 750 people at crush load.

So trams that are longer to carry the same number of people as a subway car

Which is another shortfall of a low floor LRV design. The wheel wells take up half the space in the interior and make awkward seating positions. This is true for the Flexity at least, however the Citadis for Line 6 seems much better designed and seems more like a "true" LRV.

Maybe there should've been a switch of vehicles for the lines...

 

[urbancog]

Yawn

 

[nfitz]

I think people at least here are beginning to see the problem with the design choices taken with the ECLRT.

At last???

There's been over a decade of whining in this thread about the ECLRT design choices. I thought we'd all mostly agreed to stop discussing the ancient history in this thread. Why start it again?

 

[NoahB]

Which is another shortfall of a low floor LRV design. The wheel wells take up half the space in the interior and make awkward seating positions. This is true for the Flexity at least, however the Citadis for Line 6 seems much better designed and seems more like a "true" LRV.

Maybe there should've been a switch of vehicles for the lines...

I recommend you go back and read the last 500-1000 pages of this thread. I have read your arguments at least four different ways. People posted insightful things. It's worth a read. ( At least, read the last 100, which is what I did when I joined a couple of years ago)

It will touch on every point you have mentioned so far. I would rather have this thread talk about progress while we 'celebrate' the project's 14th year of construction. What could have been or should have been should be in a fantasy thread somewhere else.

 

[reinventingthewheel]

We could really use some sort of thread throttling…

 

[generalcanada]

We could really use some sort of thread throttling…

anyone else remember when mods shut down the Ontario line and Ontario place threads when those got heated...ahhhh good times

 

[dowlingm]

If people are going to be rehashing Eglinton subway retrofit arguments again, I am throwing in for a Lawrence LRT instead again