Platform 27
Active Member
Oh, very much agreed, and I meant no criticism of what is a prudent response to an evident truth. I was more amused by the typically corporate way it refused to call a spade a spade.
|
|
|
- Thread starter p5connex
- Start date
Oh, very much agreed, and I meant no criticism of what is a prudent response to an evident truth. I was more amused by the typically corporate way it refused to call a spade a spade.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Two interesting factoids from the report - they are adding a 7th carriage to the 2 LINK trains (which should be in progress right now) and they are contemplating an airside link between T1 and T3.
I have a feeling GTAA might have made the wrong choice in the people mover vehicle.
AoD
I have a feeling GTAA might have made the wrong choice in the people mover vehicle.
AoD
JasonParis
Moderator
What does an 'airside link" mean? Sorry if it is stupidly obvious.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Inside customs/border controls - basically a way to let users get from one terminal to another without having to go through security.
AoD
AoD
rbt
Senior Member
The 1 vehicle per track thing always seemed limiting, but at the same time it was a really cheap system and has been running for nearly a decade (it is somewhat disposable at this point). Interesting fact, peak service is from 3:30am to 7:30am) which tells me that it is mostly staff using it; creative shift changes could probably spread this out.
They also have the option to install what DCC calls a "Continuous Movement System" which would allow for multiple trains per track with headways as low as 1 minute (currently runs peak at 4 minute headways) giving the system a capacity of 10,000pphpd. That should be sufficient for decades to come.
Stations were originally built to accommodate 7-car trains; this was not a major modification.
I imagine the air-side people mover has more to do with avoiding security and making inter-airline transfers easier than capacity constraints.
Last edited:
Platform 27
Active Member
They've been lengthened since last fall. During the multi-month closure last year to allow the Union-Pearson guideway to be added, the LINK trains were also modified.
vatche
Senior Member
Isn't traffic up though?? More and more passengers are going thru the airport I thought! Maybe not growing as fast as they thought????
drum118
Superstar
No kidding. It not bad as a roller coaster since they added the 7th car as well being slower.
If it wasn't a cable thing, you could extend the ends to allow crossover so each line ran one way only and to have more trains on line with reduce headway.
In place of doing a crossover at each end today, you extend the line to meet GO at Woodbine and go down to Eglinton. That where you put in the crossovers. Woodbine would deal with all GO service from the west while Eglinton would connect to the transit hub plan for the area.
As noted, the 7th car was added during the shut down of the line for the building of the UPX. They had problems for about a month using the 7th car after service started up as doors weren't working at times. Was on one that went out of service at the end of the run.
rbt
Senior Member
They can run 1 minute headways even with the cable thing by installing what DCC calls a "Continuous Movement System". Fully built out capacity of that people mover is about 10,000pphpd; at this time with the 7th car its about 2,500pphpd.
Last edited:
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
T3 is looking really quite shabby - cracked, uneven and haphazardly repaired terrazzo/tile flooring, uninspiring ground-side retail/beverage options; dirty facilities (tables that aren't cleared, stained, sticky flooring); surly, badly kept CATSA personnel milling about the Tim's. It makes for a horrible first and last impression.
AoD
AoD
Last edited:
allabootmatt
Senior Member
I agree. I was very negatively surprised by my most recent T3 experience, which was the first in while. T1 stands up pretty well by international standards -- especially now that food options have been improved -- but T3 felt incredibly tired. With a number of marquee foreign carriers there (BA, AF, CX, AA) you might think they'd be pushing GTAA for improvements.
I know the standards for North American airports aren't terribly high, but we really should be aspiring to approach or equal the standards of the better European hubs like Munich and Copenhagen, which are of a similar scale.
I know the standards for North American airports aren't terribly high, but we really should be aspiring to approach or equal the standards of the better European hubs like Munich and Copenhagen, which are of a similar scale.
TOareaFan
Superstar
If you see the terminal that AA use to connect people through New York to other destinations....you might actually describe T3 as palatial.......not sure you should expect much pressure from them
Tim MacDonald
Senior Member
I flew international (pier C) through T3 back in February and my impression wasn't quite as bad. Still, it was a long way from opening day back in February of 1991 when it was owned and operated by Lockheed Air Terminal of Canada - anyone remember that? I worked in T3 when it opened and then as recently as 2001 and there is no doubt the building is starting to show its age. Compared to the original 1961 version of Terminal One, moving to Terminal 3 felt like paradise.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
Yes, I remember when it was called the Trillium Terminal. In some ways I wish they could just tear it down and build up T1 Pier G and H instead.
AoD
Tim MacDonald
Senior Member
That's right! I forgot about the Trillium part. I do remember Cookies by George and the Cinnabon location on the departures level. Amazing the number of food service providers that have come and gone since opening day. I don't think there is a single original one left.