News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 691     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 6.2K     2 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2.4K     4 

Does Toronto look to North America or elsewhere for inspiration for transit/infrastructure?

Johnny Au said:
Don't forget that during the 1960s, the Glasgow Subway was so filthy, the New York City subway seemed hygienic in comparison during the same era.

The narrow platforms can be a safety hazard.
Click to expand...
like i said, the platforms get a bit scary after matches.....but other than that they work fine....at some of the busier stations the two circles no longer share a platform but Ibrox and Cessnock still do....and they can get jammed.
 
The platforms from my point of view are normal. Any platform with excess crowds will be an issue including TTC ones.
 
I think that a two-car light rail train in our Crosstown LRT would be BIGGER than the Glasgow subway train, and will carry more passengers.

_57316022_modernsubwaytrain976by549.jpg
 
lol Glasgow's subway is pretty damn small, and quirky. Still tho I'd suspect that theoretically it could carry more than a 2-car Crosstown vehicle. If the Outlook is any indicator, the Flexity Freedom will be a bit awkward on the inside - what with a narrow aisle and steps to seats on different levels. Although these Glasgow trains are like test tubes for ants, they'll probably be more open/spacious.

And if they were to ever automate and use an open gangway (something that isn't really possible with the in-median portion of the X-Town), I'd guess these trains could have higher capacity.
 
^quite possibly...the 3 car glasgow sets have a capacity of 277 people (112 sitting) and daily ridership was last reported as around 35k.
 
TOareaFan said:
^quite possibly...the 3 car glasgow sets have a capacity of 277 people (112 sitting) and daily ridership was last reported as around 35k.
Click to expand...

Hm, so I guess one would need to know the highest (but realistically) achievable frequency for the in-median portion of the Crosstown. If it's 3min, that'd give a 2-car Flexity something like 10k per hr per direction capacity. If Glasgow automated their subway (offering say 90sec frequency), it'd have a bit over 11k pphpd.

o/t, but on the topic of smaller-sized subway/metro systems across the pond I've always liked London's DLR. The system originally ran with 1-car, but has become so popular that they're continually expanding and in the process of converting virtually the whole thing to 3-car. And I believe they're also looking at an open gangway concept for new orders. The vehicles were originally based off a standard high floor LRV, but reverse-engineered for automation and metro operation. Other than having a different operator and branding, it's really no different than their underground in look/feel. Would love to see something similar built in the GTHA this century.
 
^not sure how we got on the topic of Glasgow's subway....but to bring it back to the topic thread, the only lesson I see from it that Toronto/GTA can (should?) learn is that there is no "one size fits all" transit solution....what works one place may not work in another and each mode of transit has an application somewhere....just not, necessarily, everywhere.
 
Its true that one size is not a fit all, how we do it and what is use does.

Other than GO Transit, who runs push pull trains as long as they do?? Most seem to be 3-5 cars long in the US.

Then there is the lenght of a subway train as well been continues walk from one end to the other for the TR.

Other than a few places, TTC does have everyone beaten when it comes to headway service system wide. Even a number of the 905 systems beats most US systems fore headway 7 days a week.

With TTC going to 5 section LRV that are almost 100' long, existing and new US systems are going 66' as 2-3 sections and running them up to 3 cars long trains. Some have 100' 3 section cars.

How we run systems is a different story that was better before the 90's and starting go back that way some what. Funding is another story when it comes to cost ratio, as TTC has everyone beaten there.
 
44 North said:
Hm, so I guess one would need to know the highest (but realistically) achievable frequency for the in-median portion of the Crosstown. If it's 3min, that'd give a 2-car Flexity something like 10k per hr per direction capacity. If Glasgow automated their subway (offering say 90sec frequency), it'd have a bit over 11k pphpd.
Click to expand...

Unlike the underground portion, which operate using ATO and complex signalling systems to safely space trains, there's no absolute upper limit of the frequency of surface LRT. Max capacity quoted by Metrolinx is 15,000 pphpd, which would be one train every 90 seconds (40 trains/hour).
 
Tünel in Istanbul is the worlds second oldest and probably also the world's smallest underground railway for public transport. It's merely 550 meters long, it has two stations and two cars, and there's an altitude difference of 61 meters between the two stations.
 
You could put a pantograph on that Glasgow trainset and it would still fit in the Sheppard Subway tunnel. Now, just gotta figure out how to make it low-floor......

- Paul
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Unlike the underground portion, which operate using ATO and complex signalling systems to safely space trains, there's no absolute upper limit of the frequency of surface LRT. Max capacity quoted by Metrolinx is 15,000 pphpd, which would be one train every 90 seconds (40 trains/hour).
Click to expand...

I guess I didn't think about it much, but with 90sec for the grade-separated central portion the Crosstown would have something like 30k pphpd capacity. That's absolutely enormous, and much higher than I originally thought. Not sure why but was thinking 15k was the max for the central portion, and the in-median portion maxed out at 10k-ish (even with 3-car operation).
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top