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 

snowystar said:
I'm not sure what do you mean by larger size. The TBM diameter used for Eglinton is 6.7m, and the one going to be used for Vancouver's Evergreen Line is only 5.7m. Even Canada Line with 3m train only used a 6.1m wide TBM. Regarding to platform length, since the automated line can run at least twice as often as the at-grade LRT line, theoretically the train would only need to be half as long to carry the same amount of people.
Click to expand...

dowlingm talked about the cost of SRT upgrade/extension, not about the Eglinton line.

The main cost components of the SRT upgrade/extension are:
- Extension from McCowan Stn to Centennial College and Sheppard Ave.
- Rebuilding the curve between the Ellesmere Stn and Midland; the existing curve is OK for old MK-I vehicles, but is too tight for either LRT or for new MKs.
- Rebuilding the Kennedy terminus; the existing one is too small and located too far from the subway platform.

All those costs are mandatory, whether ICTS (new MKs) or LRT technology is selected for the Scarborough line.

Retaining ICTS certainly won't save $1 billion compared to LRT; I doubt that it will save anything at all. The TTC's 2009 study predicted very close costs for both options.

On the other hand, using LRT will result in some future operational savings if several street-median LRT lines are built in Toronto. ICTS cannot run in street median, and is not interoperable with LRT.
 
Rainforest said:
dowlingm talked about the cost of SRT upgrade/extension, not about the Eglinton line.

The main cost components of the SRT upgrade/extension are:

- Rebuilding the Kennedy terminus; the existing one is too small and located too far from the subway platform.

.
Click to expand...

If it is a interlined line with eglinton then the people can transfer at yonge once instead of being forced to transfer once at kennedy and once at yonge. Obviously the counter argument will be that the yonge line is over capacity. The counter counter argument is that the DRL will go up to eglinton and don mills anyway so again there is only one transfer instead of 2.
 
Rainforest said:
dowlingm talked about the cost of SRT upgrade/extension, not about the Eglinton line.

The main cost components of the SRT upgrade/extension are:
- Extension from McCowan Stn to Centennial College and Sheppard Ave.
- Rebuilding the curve between the Ellesmere Stn and Midland; the existing curve is OK for old MK-I vehicles, but is too tight for either LRT or for new MKs.
- Rebuilding the Kennedy terminus; the existing one is too small and located too far from the subway platform.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean tunnel and not curve at Ellesmere. I thought the concern was tunnel size (width) and not radius, although I suppose radius and width are related since longer vehicles need a wider tunnel to make a curve.

This, however, is still open to debate.

In 2006, TTC stated that there "may be a need to provide for widening of the safety walkway along side the existing track and to make track modifications within the Ellesmere tunnel" (http://www.toronto.ca/srtstudy/pdf/srt-strategic-plan-report.pdf).
In 2006, Steve Munro stated that "At first it was thought that even Mark II’s would not fit, but they seem to think now that this is not the case" (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=216#comments)
In 2012, Steve Munro stated that "The Mark II cars won’t fit through the tunnel either" (http://stevemunro.ca/?p=6538)

So, the answer to the question of whether the existing curve/tunnel is ok.

Probably ok, Thinks its ok, not ok.

pretty simple and important question - it is amazing that the answer has not been definitively given.
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what do you mean by larger size. The TBM diameter used for Eglinton is 6.7m, and the one going to be used for Vancouver's Evergreen Line is only 5.7m. Even Canada Line with 3m train only used a 6.1m wide TBM. Regarding to platform length, since the automated line can run at least twice as often as the at-grade LRT line, theoretically the train would only need to be half as long to carry the same amount of people.
Click to expand...

Ouch. So, to make a few leaping assumptions and Grade 11 math, if a Canada line train is approximately the same width and height (if not length) as a TTC subway car, and if it only requires a 6.1m bore instead of a 6.7m bore, over a 10 km tunnel length (not including station boxes), excavating for a LRT will require the removal of an additional 240,000 cubic meters of fill; a LRT-width third rail system like ICTS would have saved almost 400,000 m3 of fill removal.

All this so we can run a narrower light rail vehicle with low platform boarding.

I'm not even suggesting that we could have substituted the LRT for a subway or even a 2-car Canada line train. Had we used some kind of high floor LRT like Calgary with 3rd rail pickup for the tunneled portions, we would probably have saved a pretty penny on the excavation costs, plus you wouldn't have to worry about all the other negatives of low platform systems, such as narrow interiors above the trucks and people wandering onto the tracks to see when the next train is coming.
 
Last edited:
Hipster Duck said:
Ouch. So, to make a few leaping assumptions and Grade 11 math, if a Canada line train is approximately the same width and height (if not length) as a TTC subway car, and if it only requires a 6.1m bore instead of a 6.7m bore, over a 10 km tunnel length (not including station boxes), excavating for a LRT will require the removal of an additional 240,000 cubic meters of fill; a LRT-width third rail system like ICTS would have saved almost 400,000 m3 of fill removal.
Click to expand...

The 4 TBMs currently used by Spadina extension are 6.13m in diameter. I suppose it is the same-sized TBM used in Canada Line, and the different is just due to rounding.
 
Hipster Duck said:
..
All this so we can run a narrower light rail vehicle with low platform boarding.

I'm not even suggesting that we could have substituted the LRT for a subway or even a 2-car Canada line train. Had we used some kind of high floor LRT like Calgary with 3rd rail pickup for the tunneled portions, we would probably have saved a pretty penny on the excavation costs, plus you wouldn't have to worry about all the other negatives of low platform systems, such as narrow interiors above the trucks and people wandering onto the tracks to see when the next train is coming.
Click to expand...
Just a thought, if they do use high-platforms on the line, shouldn't it be possible to just use the subway trainsets? :rolleyes:
 
​
CDL.TO said:
No. The surface section would prevent them from doing so.
Click to expand...

Buffalo has a partly underground light rail system (similar to what is proposed with Eglinton) which uses high floor light rail vehicles running in 2-4 car formations. It uses overhead wire with pantographs. In the above ground section in downtown Buffalo, it uses low platforms and retractable staircases, except one part of the platform has a high floor section with a ramp for wheelchairs. In the underground section high platforms are used.
 
andrewpmk said:
Buffalo has a partly underground light rail system (similar to what is proposed with Eglinton) which uses high floor light rail vehicles running in 2-4 car formations. It uses overhead wire with pantographs. In the above ground section in downtown Buffalo, it uses low platforms and retractable staircases, except one part of the platform has a high floor section with a ramp for wheelchairs. In the underground section high platforms are used.
Click to expand...
The only reason they have high platform was the fact that lowfloor cars didn't exist at the time.

Same can be said for a number of systems built in the 70's and 80's with Calgary and Edmonton among them. Very hard to change to lowfloor now.
 
Just been reported in twittersphere that TTC is back as the operator of the line.

Of two minds about this - I do think that they should come to a happy consensus, i.e. TTC should move away from project planning, construction contract management (up to Metrolinx) and the provision of non-core services (cleaning, vehicle maintenance, to the private sector) while keeping operation of the line itself in house, though not without an eye toward increasing automation where possible.

AoD
 
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar said:
...though not without an eye toward increasing automation where possible.
Click to expand...

Change this to reducing cost per passenger.

Most automation is done to increase consistency and throughput. Since automation often comes with very heavy maintenance costs it's often not cheaper unless there are buyers for that throughput which Eglinton can't have (feeding into Yonge faster than Yonge can clear it away would be really really bad).


I have a few friends doing PLC (computer control) design for various GTA factories. In many cases you can hire dozens of staff for what they charge for a year to automate a simple system.

Automating driving in the tunnel makes sense (with a driver on-board for emergencies).

Automating station painting on the other hand would be silly despite being easily implemented (Hacklab could whip together a robot over a couple of months).
 
LRT back in the hands of the TTC.

Toronto’s four new LRT lines will be operated by its public transit agency and not a private company, transit officials said on Wednesday.

The announcement was made at a joint press conference with Ontario Transportation Minister Bob Chiarelli and TTC Chair Karen Stintz, putting to rest a simmering conflict over the management of the new lines.

The new deal means that that the lines will remain publicly owned and will be operated by the TTC.

The tracks and stations will be built and maintained by private operators, Chiarelli said.

* * *

Metrolinx, the province’s transit planning group, said last month that it would seek a private company to run the new lines, rather than hand day-to-day operations over to the TTC.

The TTC claimed that private operations of the new lines would cause serious problems with how the LRT lines fit within Toronto’s transit system.

Stintz said on Wednesday that the new deal means that TTC riders will be able to use the entire system without being forced to pay separate fares and face hassles when transferring between lines.
Click to expand...
 
rbt said:
Change this to reducing cost per passenger.

Most automation is done to increase consistency and throughput. Since automation often comes with very heavy maintenance costs it's often not cheaper unless there are buyers for that throughput which Eglinton can't have (feeding into Yonge faster than Yonge can clear it away would be really really bad).
Click to expand...

In Vancouver, they were proposed to cut 45,000 annual hours of SkyTrain service and re-allocate the fund to other projects such as Surrey rapid bus. The cut itself would save $500k per year. So this gives an operating cost of around $11 per hours for the service being cut.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top