Kyle Campbell said:
Does it? How does dwell time compare between Montreal and Toronto?
Click to expand...
They're about the same, but not on the Azurs. Door numbers and size of entrance are better indicators of dwell times, width actually helps but not significantly. If there's a greater width in the train, there's more room for people to enter at a particular point, as opposed to space running out and people having to rush to other doors, however, this is generally not significant since trains in both cities barely ever go from completely empty to crush loads in regular operations.

Dwell times on the older rolling stock was better than Toronto's because they had 4 doors per 17-meter car (compared to the 4 doors on a 23-meter car (it was worse for the H-Series because those doors were so narrow)), and because doors opened before the train fully stopped. On the rockets, the trains sit there for 1-2 seconds while the door interlocking system (which I don't believe is an interlocking system but rather a computer) ensures that the train is completely stopped before releasing door operations to the guard.
 
amnesiajune said:
Single bore and smaller trains. Toronto has absurdly wide subway trains, which is definitely a big driver of the high cost of subway expansions here. Most cities in Europe use smaller and much shorter trains, single bore tunnels and side platforms (not to mention that their stations aren't as grand as ours).
Click to expand...
The width has become standard across the world. East asian have the same width with 5 times more riders. Yet they seem to be able to handle the load better than us. Stations are even bigger than ours.
 
  • Like
Reactions: syn
raptor said:
Look what I've found by a simple URL manipulation:

www.metrolinx.com

Ontario Line

A 15.6-km subway line in Toronto that will run from Exhibition Place to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
www.metrolinx.com

O_Line_1920x806_Map.jpg
Click to expand...
You all realize that Line 5 is completely absent as though it’s not a real subway. And Line 6 Finch West too. This map is weird or political or dumb all at the same time.
 
Steve X said:
The width has become standard across the world. East asian have the same width with 5 times more riders. Yet they seem to be able to handle the load better than us. Stations are even bigger than ours.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if you told us what this standard width was. Is there a standard length of car as well.? Standard turning radius?
 
TransitBart said:
You all realize that Line 5 is completely absent as though it’s not a real subway. And Line 6 Finch West too. This map is weird or political or dumb all at the same time.
Click to expand...
Armchair Transit Planner who did no research on current plans except for the Ontario Line.
 
BurlOak said:
It would be nice if you told us what this standard width was. Is there a standard length of car as well.? Standard turning radius?
Click to expand...
The size of a TTC subway car. The common width of a train is around 3.1m on most newly built mass systems around the world. A lot of the systems picked 23m as the length for each car. To call the TTC subway cars too wide is just absurdly. I can't believe this even came up as an argument. The only reason why large European cities have narrow ~2.5m width cars is cause their system is outdated and built over 100 years ago.

Hong Kong MTR has one of the most efficient system in the world. There cars size are pretty much the same as ours but uses 8 car trains with 10 sets of doors per train.
NYC MTA uses 3.05m width cars on half their system with a shorter length. They should have more people riding than us.
Singapore Metro uses 3.2m, ~23m length cars. Pretty much same as TTC
Most metro systems in China also operate similar size subway cars as the TTC
The Canada Line uses 3.0m cars.

Width isn't a problem. The number of sets of doors IS. The next generation trains should utilize bench seatings and 10 sets of doors instead of 8. TTC gone with wider doors instead of more doors. They should do both since people bring huge objects on the train here. Baby stroller is of course not common in Asia. I don't think they'll let you take one through the fare gates.

We'll have a lot more problems with 2.6m width trains. Let's see how the Crosstown plays out. I wouldn't even say the Crosstown is cheaper to build with narrower and shorter trains either.
 
Steve X said:
The size of a TTC subway car. The common width of a train is around 3.1m on most newly built mass systems around the world. A lot of the systems picked 23m as the length for each car. To call the TTC subway cars too wide is just absurdly. I can't believe this even came up as an argument. The only reason why large European cities have narrow ~2.5m width cars is cause their system is outdated and built over 100 years ago.

Hong Kong MTR has one of the most efficient system in the world. There cars size are pretty much the same as ours but uses 8 car trains with 10 sets of doors per train.
NYC MTA uses 3.05m width cars on half their system with a shorter length. They should have more people riding than us.
Singapore Metro uses 3.2m, ~23m length cars. Pretty much same as TTC
Most metro systems in China also operate similar size subway cars as the TTC
The Canada Line uses 3.0m cars.

Width isn't a problem. The number of sets of doors IS. The next generation trains should utilize bench seatings and 10 sets of doors instead of 8. TTC gone with wider doors instead of more doors. They should do both since people bring huge objects on the train here. Baby stroller is of course not common in Asia. I don't think they'll let you take one through the fare gates.

We'll have a lot more problems with 2.6m width trains. Let's see how the Crosstown plays out. I wouldn't even say the Crosstown is cheaper to build with narrower and shorter trains either.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the clarification. When you said "width has become standard", I thought you meant standard such as the track gauge is 1435mm - not standard, such as width have generally been in the range of 3 to 3.2m.
I agree with that wider is better and we should use the widest of the common sizes (notwithstanding turning radius restrictions).
 
raptor said:
Moving along...

Fall 2019
-> Technical Advisor procurement to advance design work
-> Procurement Options Analysis to solidify approach to delivery
-> Initiate studies required for environmental approvals
-> Analysis of Transit-Oriented Development & early/progressive works opportunities

Spring 2020 -> Issue Request for Qualifications
Fall 2020 -> Issue Request for Proposals
Click to expand...
On page 13 (page 18 of the PDF), there is this map which shows that Exhibition station on the OL lies east of the GO station and the line will head past Gerrard/Carlaw to Jones before curving back to Carlaw. Possibility they are planning an elevated station with a portal east of that station. Hopefully they don't take that elementary school's playground (Jones/railway corridor) as the TBM launch site. That is just wrong.
OL_map.png
 
Steve X said:
On page 13 (page 18 of the PDF), there is this map which shows that Exhibition station on the OL lies east of the GO station and the line will head past Gerrard/Carlaw to Jones before curving back to Carlaw. Possibility they are planning an elevated station with a portal east of that station. Hopefully they don't take that elementary school's playground (Jones/railway corridor) as the TBM launch site. That is just wrong.
View attachment 202492
Click to expand...
Is this the least back of the napkin plan we’ve seen about the Ontario Line?
 
Steve X said:
On page 13 (page 18 of the PDF), there is this map which shows that Exhibition station on the OL lies east of the GO station and the line will head past Gerrard/Carlaw to Jones before curving back to Carlaw. Possibility they are planning an elevated station with a portal east of that station. Hopefully they don't take that elementary school's playground (Jones/railway corridor) as the TBM launch site. That is just wrong.
View attachment 202492
Click to expand...

Hmm, no station on that easterly jaunt.........looking at the location.............the wonder if that is to facilitate use of Greenwood Yard after all.........there not quite that far east, but close enough for an easy spur, and no other reason I can discern for that side trek.
 
Northern Light said:
Hmm, no station on that easterly jaunt.........looking at the location.............the wonder if that is to facilitate use of Greenwood Yard after all.........there not quite that far east, but close enough for an easy spur, and no other reason I can discern for that side trek.
Click to expand...

The lack of a station for Distillery when the line veers south right by it always irked me.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top