|
|
|
nfitz
Superstar
Eug
Senior Member
Thx.
Nice to see all of this progressing. I think some were east of Leslie as well (in the area originally planned for at-grade LRT only).
Nice to see all of this progressing. I think some were east of Leslie as well (in the area originally planned for at-grade LRT only).
ssiguy2
Senior Member
Toronto's choice of using LRT, the most expensive option available between subway, SkyTrain, and monorail, had nothing to do with Toronto and everything to do with Thunder Bay.
Even Ford would love to be able to say Eglinton is getting a real subway as opposed to a tunneled LRT but Queen's Park would have none of it. Those LRT trains are being built in Thunder Bay and that meant real jobs for that depressed area. This was an election year and everyone knew that McGuinty wwould not get the cakewalk he did in the last 2 elections and he needed every seat available.
Now that the election is over Queen's Park may be willing to change their technology choice. As long as Bombardier gets the same size contract I can't imagine them bitching too much as no manufacturing of the LRT trains will begin for years.
Even Ford would love to be able to say Eglinton is getting a real subway as opposed to a tunneled LRT but Queen's Park would have none of it. Those LRT trains are being built in Thunder Bay and that meant real jobs for that depressed area. This was an election year and everyone knew that McGuinty wwould not get the cakewalk he did in the last 2 elections and he needed every seat available.
Now that the election is over Queen's Park may be willing to change their technology choice. As long as Bombardier gets the same size contract I can't imagine them bitching too much as no manufacturing of the LRT trains will begin for years.
TransitPolicyChanger
Active Member
It may be worth it to mention that our Subway trains are also built in Thunder Bay.
JPG
New Member
accura407
Car is King
I dont think it should be a concern if the crosstown can be converted into a subway. Leave it as it is withe same specs. 3 car LRT size stations. That is all we need. Automation can add capacity through increased frequencies.
If eglinton ever reaches capacity point (which btw we technically have yet to reach on the bloor/danforth line 50 years later) then we just build out Sheppard in the east and Finch LRT in the west. That plus improvements and electrification of go transit should be plenty. Add A DRL to that and your good to go. If bloor danforth numbers drop because of ghe crosstown, consider an eastern extension along eglinton to Markham road. Thats a super dense stretch there...and it connects to a go station as well.
Keeping the eglinton line lrt with 3 cars means we can build compact and more reasonable elevated stations between Leslie and Birchmount. There is so much open spaces of land we can use for transit atations. My favourite is the empty triangle at victoria park and eglinton. Its like that spot was made for an elevated transit hub....train above and multi bus bay station below.
Lets not forget the future eastern extension to malvern which is mostly elevated...smaller stations is key for the overall line. Stick to what is planned...3 lrt trains. No need to convert.
If eglinton ever reaches capacity point (which btw we technically have yet to reach on the bloor/danforth line 50 years later) then we just build out Sheppard in the east and Finch LRT in the west. That plus improvements and electrification of go transit should be plenty. Add A DRL to that and your good to go. If bloor danforth numbers drop because of ghe crosstown, consider an eastern extension along eglinton to Markham road. Thats a super dense stretch there...and it connects to a go station as well.
Keeping the eglinton line lrt with 3 cars means we can build compact and more reasonable elevated stations between Leslie and Birchmount. There is so much open spaces of land we can use for transit atations. My favourite is the empty triangle at victoria park and eglinton. Its like that spot was made for an elevated transit hub....train above and multi bus bay station below.
Lets not forget the future eastern extension to malvern which is mostly elevated...smaller stations is key for the overall line. Stick to what is planned...3 lrt trains. No need to convert.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't see your point, I really don't.
Just because a tunneled line goes from LRT to subways doesn't mean you all of a sudden have to double the length of the stations....in fact quite the contrary.
100 meter {roughly 3 LRT trains} of subway has higher capacity than LRT as does 100 meter SkyTrain or monorail trains. If you are going to build 100 meter stations then why not build the systems with the highest capacity and get the most bang for your buck?
LRT is naturally more expensive to build {as confirmed by the Eglinton LRT office} than any other type of tunneled system due to the extra expense of the overhead power supply infrastructure. The whole advantage of LRT over other mass transit is that it can work along existing roadways and rail ROW where it does not need to be completely grade separated. This line is going to be completely grade separated so the advantage of LRT is completely gone. Toronto is building a system with lower capacity at a higher price with trains with shorter life expectancy than the other 3 major systems.
Add to that the fact that that because these are not compatible with the legacy streetcar replacement trains an entire new LRT garage, maintenance, and control centre must be built.
Using SkyTrain or subway cars would require expanded yards but that is still much cheaper than an entire new garage, maintenance, and support centre.
This is a ridiculous waste of funds and after it's all said and done it will be an expensive, lower capacity system.
Just because a tunneled line goes from LRT to subways doesn't mean you all of a sudden have to double the length of the stations....in fact quite the contrary.
100 meter {roughly 3 LRT trains} of subway has higher capacity than LRT as does 100 meter SkyTrain or monorail trains. If you are going to build 100 meter stations then why not build the systems with the highest capacity and get the most bang for your buck?
LRT is naturally more expensive to build {as confirmed by the Eglinton LRT office} than any other type of tunneled system due to the extra expense of the overhead power supply infrastructure. The whole advantage of LRT over other mass transit is that it can work along existing roadways and rail ROW where it does not need to be completely grade separated. This line is going to be completely grade separated so the advantage of LRT is completely gone. Toronto is building a system with lower capacity at a higher price with trains with shorter life expectancy than the other 3 major systems.
Add to that the fact that that because these are not compatible with the legacy streetcar replacement trains an entire new LRT garage, maintenance, and control centre must be built.
Using SkyTrain or subway cars would require expanded yards but that is still much cheaper than an entire new garage, maintenance, and support centre.
This is a ridiculous waste of funds and after it's all said and done it will be an expensive, lower capacity system.
nfitz
Superstar
Because that capacity is not needed. It also limits future extensions. Imagine how much easier it would be to extend Sheppard if it wasn't HRT technology.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Yeah. I don't think Eglinton needs to be an HRT subway. If it ever reaches that capacity, non-local passengers can be diverted by building out Sheppard and Finch.
Paleo
Active Member
Take it easy on the guy, he doesn't even live on this side of this country.
Markster
Senior Member
Capacity on Eglinton will be added by:
1) Automatic Train Control
2) "Rocket" style continuous articulated vehicles
3) Digging out larger station boxes
4) Parallel lines (Sheppard, Finch, and given time Lawrence and others) to take away traffic that doesn't originate on Eglinton
5) Perpendicular lines (Don Mills, Jane, Bayview, Avenue, etc...) to take away traffic that doesn't terminate on Eglinton
Paleo
Active Member
Page 9 here shows a "typical platform plan".
You can see a 2-car 60m platform with an additional 30m reserved area for expansion to 3-car trains. The jury is still out on whether platform space can be expanded into the areas marked as services or not. It will become clearer once detailed designs come out.
You can see a 2-car 60m platform with an additional 30m reserved area for expansion to 3-car trains. The jury is still out on whether platform space can be expanded into the areas marked as services or not. It will become clearer once detailed designs come out.
Rainforest
Senior Member
If needed in future, some capacity (perhaps 10% to 20%) can be added to this line by changing the rolling stock, without rebuilding the tracks or stations. Currently, the Metrolinx order is for dual-cab cars, that will be connected into 3-car trains. Thus, each trains will have 6 cabs, of which only 2 outermost will be used during the normal operation.
But in future, when this rolling stock approaches retirement (or even earlier if it can be transferred to other lines), it is possible to build custom trains for this line, made of 3 permanently connected cars (similar to the T1 subway trains). Such trains will be same length (90 m) and still use overhead power, but they will have higher capacity due to the removal of unused cabs.
But in future, when this rolling stock approaches retirement (or even earlier if it can be transferred to other lines), it is possible to build custom trains for this line, made of 3 permanently connected cars (similar to the T1 subway trains). Such trains will be same length (90 m) and still use overhead power, but they will have higher capacity due to the removal of unused cabs.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
My point is that if the stations are going 60 or 60 or 80 meters or whatever why would they build the most expensivee system, with the lowest capacity, and with vehicles that have the shortest life expectancy.
Also, why would they use another technology which will need all new maintenance infrastrucyure unlike if they used subway or SkyTrain?
There is no logic to LRT. If the line was at one point to run at grade or using rail ROW with a level crossing then LRT is the only option but according to Metrolinx that will not be the case as they want to automate the line.
Also, why would they use another technology which will need all new maintenance infrastrucyure unlike if they used subway or SkyTrain?
There is no logic to LRT. If the line was at one point to run at grade or using rail ROW with a level crossing then LRT is the only option but according to Metrolinx that will not be the case as they want to automate the line.