Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs

[TheTigerMaster]

This seems like a prudent move to me. Metrolinx is trying to avoid a K-W-like scenario where the line will be ready, but no vehicles to run on it. If Bombardier does deliver, then these trains can be shifted to the FWLRT or HULRT. Or at the very least, sold to Ottawa as part of their Phase II (or maybe even Phase III) expansion.

Point is, with all the LRT being built in Ontario, they can find a home for them somewhere.

Metrolinx would faces fines of $500,000 per day if Eglinton Line opened late, regardless of whether or not Bombardier's incapability of delivering LRVs on time was the cause. This is a highly prudent move.

 

[rbt]

Point is, with all the LRT being built in Ontario, they can find a home for them somewhere.

Maybe. They actually have too many on order from Bombardier alone for Finch/Hamilton/Mississauga/Eglinton. It'll be interesting to see if they can get out of the full Bombardier order.

I'd like to think they'll ask to transition half their order (90 units) into downtown style LRVs and gift them to Toronto.

 

[Steve X]

Be aware of this, and how the Citadis satisfies the low floor concept brilliantly, far more than the Flexities:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...algary-edmonton-adopt-low-floor-approach.html

Top speed of the Citadis is 65 mph! (105 kph)

Pointless for the GTA LRT lines. LRT running on roadways are limited by the same speed limit posted on the road for safety reasons. Finch West won't see they run any faster than 60 km/h. The Crosstown can reach 80 km/h in the tunnels. 100 km/h is not practical for 1km station spacing. Calgary plans for 2km spacing on it's own corridor which can allow for 100 km/h operations.

It's like buying a car that can reach 400 km/h but you can't even reach over 150 km/h without getting it impounded.

 

[44 North]

Actually this appears to be them getting it right for once.

Be aware (and discussion on exactly this has ensued for the last week on Steve Munro's blog) that the very same model could be used on the Relief Line:

No question this is a solid vehicle. But if we were to use LRVs for the RL I think it'd make more sense to use high-floor/high-platform rolling stock. I'm of the opinion we should've used high-floor for Crosstown, and am certain we should've done the same for Line 3 upgrade (when we had the chance). Low floor is optimal when running tram-style through a high density urban environment, which RL wouldn't be doing since it'll be underground through Old Toronto. Ditto for Crosstown through midtown. So a lot of the benefits of low-floor are a wash because the actual in-median surface stops will be in less urban areas and along wider arterials.

 

[steveintoronto]

No question this is a solid vehicle. But if we were to use LRVs for the RL I think it'd make more sense to use high-floor/high-platform rolling stock. I'm of the opinion we should've used high-floor for Crosstown, and am certain we should've done the same for Line 3 upgrade (when we had the chance). Low floor is optimal when running tram-style through a high density urban environment, which RL wouldn't be doing since it'll be underground through Old Toronto. Ditto for Crosstown through midtown. So a lot of the benefits of low-floor are a wash because the actual in-median surface stops will be in less urban areas and along wider arterials.

I disagree, and so do Calgary and Edmonton (and a number of other US and European cities)

Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach

The two pioneering Canadian LRT cities, Calgary and Edmonton, located in the western province of Alberta, are both planning a major shift in their design and operating philosophies.

Edmonton, Alberta’s capital, opened its first line in 1978; Calgary followed three years later.

Both systems, from the outset, adopted high-platform boarding. Edmonton’s stations have been somewhat simple and utilitarian, for the most part, apart from those in the subway section, while Calgary’s have tended to be elaborate and expensive.

Edmonton has about three miles of subway, extending from the northwest fringe of downtown to the University of Alberta, south of the center city. This approach was quite costly, and hindered significant extension of the line for a number of years. To this day, Edmonton Transit operates one long line from the northeast to the southern sector, with a short, recently opened branch to the northwest.

Calgary, from the outset, took a different approach to contain costs, utilizing a transit mall instead of a subway in the downtown, and generally limiting tunnels to short sections. Since 1981, Calgary’s system has grown extensively, culminating in two lines that serve the northwest, northeast, western, and southern sections of the city. The system has grown from its original 8 miles to just over 37 miles.

Siemens LRVs have been the car of choice in both cities, with newer models ordered as the original models pass their 30th anniversaries.

Both cities have recently decided, since low-floor operations can be implemented at significantly lower cost, to pursue this approach on two completely new lines. These will be completely separate operations from the existing high-floor lines, although transfer will be possible. That said, both Calgary Transit and Edmonton Transit have extensions to the existing high-platform routes on the drawing boards, for future construction.

Another advantage of low-floor LRT is that it can be situated on local streets, on reserved track, with less obtrusive stations more acceptable to local residents.
[...continues at length with maps, diagrams and detail...]
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...algary-edmonton-adopt-low-floor-approach.html

A low floor vehicle offers the same load, unload rate as a high-platform vehicle, at a much reduced cost. So why would you want to complicate both forward compatibility to shared running with RER and street running?

 

[steveintoronto]

I just erased answers to all your points save the following. I suggest you do some reading and reference your points. I can't be bothered rehashing my research on this.

The trams themselves are heavier, less power efficient and each cost significantly more than subway trains moving equivalent passenger loads.

That pretty much sums up how completely un-based your claims are. It's the complete opposite, unless you have Titanium subway cars in mind.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I just erased answers to all your points save the following. I suggest you do some reading and reference your points. I can't be bothered rehashing my research on this.

That pretty much sums up how completely un-based your claims are. It's the complete opposite, unless you have Titanium subway cars in mind.

A single Flexity tram has a capacity of 130 persons, and weighs 48,200 kilograms. That's 379.8 kg/person on board that tram

A single Toronto Rocket has a capacity of 1,080 passengers and weights 205,000 kg. That's 190.0 kg/person

In this case, a Flexity tram moving the same number of people as a Toronto Rocket will weigh exactly twice as much as the TR. This extra dead weight is also why the tram is less power efficient than an equivalent subway train

The TTC spent $290 Million to supply electricity between 2010 and December 31, 2014. If all the trains on the system were replaced by heavier, less power efficient trams, this cost would skyrocket.

Tram-trains also have a ton of duplication of expensive mechanical and electronic components (part of the reason why trams are so heavy), which will drive up long term maintenance costs.

 

[44 North]

I disagree, and so do Calgary and Edmonton (and a number of other US and European cities)

Wednesday, April 05, 2017
Calgary, Edmonton adopt low-floor approach

Ok, but are you saying the RL should be running tram-style through the core? Because that won't work. If you read the plans for cities like Edmonton and their move to LFLRVs it's pretty much the inverse of what an LRT-DRL would be. Edmonton is doing an LRT that runs tram-style through its downtown (what they call an "Urban LRT" and not much different than 509, 510, 512); whereas an RL has to be running below-grade through the entire core stretch.

And do low-floor vehicles offer the same load/unload rates as their high-floor counterpart? Maybe on paper, but having the floor morphing overtop the bogies kinda makes for a weird interior setup and rough passenger flow. I don't have the greatest impression with the Outlooks for that reason.

That pretty much sums up how completely un-based your claims are. It's the complete opposite, unless you have Titanium subway cars in mind.

Granted I can't say I know this stuff well, but I believe what TTM wrote is true. Standard LRVs built for street-running operation are significantly heavier than subway/metro vehicles, by default are less energy efficient just because the greater weight, and that they do genuinely cost a lot more per vehicle vs typical subway/metro vehicles.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The single biggest issue with using trams for the DRL is that they'd need their own MSF. TTC just finished building Leslie barns, which was expected to cost $350 Million and ended up costing $500 Million. I wouldn't expect the DRL to require an MSF as extensive as Leslie Barns, but regardless, this would be an enormous cost that would not have to be incurred if using traditional subway cars, which could be maintained and stored out of Greenwood or Wilson Yard.

 

[Steve X]

A single Flexity tram has a capacity of 130 persons, and weighs 48,200 kilograms. That's 379.8 kg/person on board that tram

A single Toronto Rocket has a capacity of 1,080 passengers and weights 205,000 kg. That's 190.0 kg/person

In this case, a Flexity tram moving the same number of people as a Toronto Rocket will weigh exactly twice as much as the TR. This extra dead weight is also why the tram is less power efficient than an equivalent subway train

The TTC spent $290 Million to supply electricity between 2010 and December 31, 2014. If all the trains on the system were replaced by heavier, less power efficient trams, this cost would skyrocket.

Tram-trains also have a ton of duplication of expensive mechanical and electronic components (part of the reason why trams are so heavy), which will drive up long term maintenance costs.

Trams have to be built heavier and sturdier to survive T-boning and other major collisions that can't happen on metro systems.


Low floor tram bogies also wears out quicker than metro trains. It cost more to run low floor than high floor vehicles. It's stupid to run low floor vehicles on a completely grade separated line. The only reason why cities are going low floors is accessibility and urban integration. It's cheaper and simpler to add streetcar like platforms than high floor platforms to an urban street. Less space usage and avoid a huge block of concrete that's visually unappealing. However, ride quality and maintenance suffers.

The single biggest issue with using trams for the DRL is that they'd need their own MSF. TTC just finished building Leslie barns, which was expected to cost $350 Million and ended up costing $500 Million. I wouldn't expect the DRL to require an MSF as extensive as Leslie Barns, but regardless, this would be an enormous cost that would not have to be incurred if using traditional subway cars, which could be maintained and stored out of Greenwood or Wilson Yard.

Both yards are full!!! TTC needs a new yard somewhere. Best idea to to build the Yonge extension and stick the yard in their backyard as compensation for having TO taxpayers to pay for their fares. Greenwood is full. TTC might need another yard at Kipling to ease Greenwood to support the DRL. It will be cheaper to build a connection around Pape than downtown.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Both yards are full!!! TTC needs a new yard somewhere. Best idea to to build the Yonge extension and stick the yard in their backyard as compensation for having TO taxpayers to pay for their fares. Greenwood is full. TTC might need another yard at Kipling to ease Greenwood to support the DRL. It will be cheaper to build a connection around Pape than downtown.

Yes, all of our yards are "full". However Wilson Yard has an abundance of TTC-owned property around it for expansion. If the limitation on yard capacity is an issue of storage space (rather than maintantanence capability), it's not very expensive to install additional tracks to Wilson to store additional trains. TTC also owns a chunk of land east of Kipling Station that can be used for train storage.

The DRL necessitates the addition of eight trainsets to the subway fleet. I can't imagine a whole new yard being built for just eight trains. Especially when we're planning to build Relief Line North not long after Relief Line Short. Existing yards will just have to absorb the maintance of the eight trains until Relief Line North is built

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Notice that there has been no discussion of building a MSF from any of the agencies working on the Relief Line. Officially, project technology has not been decided, but this lack of discussion around an MSF near guarantees that this will be using traditional subway rolling stock, maintained out of exiting TTC facilities. Any other technology would necessitate its own MSF. This also strongly implies this line will be operated and maintained by the TTC

You're not going to see an MSF added to this project this late in the game.

 

[gweed123]

Maybe. They actually have too many on order from Bombardier alone for Finch/Hamilton/Mississauga/Eglinton. It'll be interesting to see if they can get out of the full Bombardier order.

If everything does work out and they have a surplus of LRT vehicles, Metrolinx can always just build more LRT lines to put them on . That'd be a nice problem to have! The Eglinton east and west extensions would require a fairly significant number of vehicles, since it would be basically doubling the amount of trackage on the Eglinton Line.

 

[Allandale25]

This was just tweeted out by Metrolinx and Alstom:

@Metrolinx statement on Alstom/Bombardier bit.ly/2q94KIs

 

[smallspy]

Yes, all of our yards are "full". However Wilson Yard has an abundance of TTC-owned property around it for expansion. If the limitation on yard capacity is an issue of storage space (rather than maintantanence capability), it's not very expensive to install additional tracks to Wilson to store additional trains.

Wilson has a shit-ton of room around it. But it doesn't mean a thing if they are constrained by how quickly they can put the vehicles into service - which they are. Part of the expansion is a new track to allow more vehicles to be able to enter and exit service at the same time, and even that has its limits.

That's why beyond the current ongoing expansion the yard will not be expanded again.

TTC also owns a chunk of land east of Kipling Station that can be used for train storage.

Yes they do, although the yard at Kipling won't make a lick of difference for service on Line 1.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.