News   Apr 18, 2024
Long Term Care Facility to be Built at Hennick Bridgepoint Hospital
 656     0 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Canada's Tallest Tower to be Taller, Again
 5.8K     1 
News   Apr 18, 2024
Originate Developments Achieves Zoning Approval for Two Ambitious Residential Projects
 2.4K     4 

Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

I haven't done any exhaustive research to compare length and seating capacity, but from riding the new TTC cars, all those linked segments seem to take up a lot of linear space that can't be used for seating. If I were looking for a higher-capacity vehicle, I'd be looking for something with a longer carbody that has fewer joint segments and flat ends. The Siemens SD-160's just look like they hold more people, for instance.

Bloor/Yonge is a good comparator in commercial/office development. To be honest, I'd imagined Eglinton/Yonge getting denser than that - there are lots of office buildings eastwards to Mount Pleasant. I guess I'm reflecting a west-end bias, but I know lots of people who live in the Eglinton/Kipling/Islington area and use TTC to work downtown. Right now, if a job opened up at Yonge and Eglinton or Yonge/St Clair, they might not find it appealing because the commute would take them down to Bloor, along the Subway to Yonge, and then back northwards. Objectively, that's not much longer than going down to King/Bay but it just seems further. But with Crosstown open (and especially with it extended westwards) it would be an attractive alternative to working downtown, and a nicer commute.

- Paul
 
nfitz said:
The platform length is 90 metres. A 4-car Toronto subway train is 92 metres long.

Yes, it could be upgraded to subway, though you'd have to build platforms in each station (among other details). Most importantly, the tunnel diameter is slightly larger than that on on the Vaughan extension.
Click to expand...

A four car subway would defeat the purpose. The whole benefit of heavy rail is that you can get more people on each train by having considerably longer train sets. Converting the whole line to accomodate four car subway (max. 825 people) rather than three car LRTs (max. 750 people) would not provide enough of a benefit to be worthwhile.
 
Last edited:
At one time, Bloor and Yonge was mostly low-rise two or three story buildings. This is in 1951, with the low-rises in the background, as they are building the transfer platforms from Bloor streetcars to the Yonge Subway.

s0381_fl0123_id8231-5.jpg
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Your first point isn't true. The Eglinton Line platforms can accommodate trains of at least 93 metres, compared to 138 metres on Yonge Line. It's closer to two thirds the length. It's also equal to the length of the platforms on the Sheppard Line
Click to expand...

A set of six cars is 138m. A set of 8 like is currently used on Lines 1 and 2 are 184m long, so it's actually about half.
 
howl said:
A four car subway would defeat the purpose. The whole benefit of heavy rail is that you can get more people on each train by having considerably longer train sets. Converting the whole line to accomodate four car subway (max. 825 people) rather than three car LRTs (max. 750 people) would not provide enough of a benefit to be worthwhile.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure where your numbers are coming from. A 4-car T1 train peak capacity (not crush) is 670, so the new 4-car TR trains will be about 730. And a 3-car LRT train is closer to 400 to 450, not 750!

howl said:
A set of six cars is 138m. A set of 8 like is currently used on Lines 1 and 2 are 184m long, so it's actually about half.
Click to expand...
Each subway car is approximately 23 metres long. The 6-car trains are 138 metres long.

The 4-car trains are 92 metres long.

There are no 8-car trains, or subway platforms that are 184 m long. The subway platforms are about 152 metres long (500 feet).
 
Last edited:
Isn't the underground section of the LRT is literally a subway by definition?

sub·way
ˈsəbˌwā/
noun
  1. 1.
    NORTH AMERICAN
    an underground electric railroad.

Am I wrong assuming that the only reason it's considered an LRT is because it's mixed in with traffic when it's at street level. I can't see the only reason it not being considered a subway is due to it's width compared to our other rolling stock that are considered subways. The length certainly can't be the reason since it's almost identical to our Sheppard trains.
 
Last edited:
Given that and the realization that the freedom vehicles are actually less than half the length of our Sheppard trains - is the at grade section of the LRT the only reason this line is considered an LRT overall or is the length actually another reason?
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
Of course trains with open gangways and 2 cabs (no mid-train cabs) could be used.
Click to expand...

This is the heart of why I was suggesting that the Flexity Freedom vehicles is a"light" solution for Crosstown. A 3-unit Flexity "train" will have six cabs, two between-car coupling gaps, and 12 bending diaphragm areas where the full width of the carbody can't be used for seating or standing. That's a lot of non-revenue floor area. Whereas a 4-car "Tube style" or "TR clone" train (no need to be more specific than that) with full width interior gangways would have only two cabs and three bending diaphragm areas - and hence more potential passenger capacity.

One would not have to change platform height or other specs to find such a car, I suspect. It doesn't sound like there will be many sharp curves where you would need a "slinky" style vehicle, although a four-car TR dimensioned carbody might be too long for this line's geometry.

So, if the Flexity isn't sufficient, a higher capacity vehicle could be found that meets the non-underground needs of this line. That makes me sleep better. What term you use to describe it is a futile debate.

- Paul
 
jcam said:
Eglinton tunnels are about ~15" larger diameter than TYSSE (256" TBM vs. 241" TBM) mostly because of requirements of the overhead catenary.
Click to expand...

I don't remember the dimension, but the TYSSE tunnel is larger (8"?) than Sheppard because it has tight curves that need to be bigger to fit a 23 m long rectangular subway car through.
 
howl said:
A set of six cars is 138m. A set of 8 like is currently used on Lines 1 and 2 are 184m long, so it's actually about half.
Click to expand...

Sheppard line uses 4 car trains. 1 car is 23 metres. 23 metres * 4 = 92 metres.

The Eglinton crosstown can use 3 car trains. 1 car is 31 metres. 31 metres * 3 = 93 metres

They're the same length.
 
kotsy said:
Given that and the realization that the freedom vehicles are actually less than half the length of our Sheppard trains - is the at grade section of the LRT the only reason this line is considered an LRT overall or is the length actually another reason?
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, light rail is supposed to refer to capacity, but the use of the term around the world is so inconsistent that there really isn't any point in debating it. We'll never find an exact catch-all definition.

Here in Toronto it's appears to be used because of the tram-style vehicles and the surface section.

And the length of the trains can be the same length as on the Sheppard Line, depending on the service configuration.
 
crs1026 said:
This is the heart of why I was suggesting that the Flexity Freedom vehicles is a"light" solution for Crosstown. A 3-unit Flexity "train" will have six cabs, two between-car coupling gaps, and 12 bending diaphragm areas where the full width of the carbody can't be used for seating or standing. That's a lot of non-revenue floor area. Whereas a 4-car "Tube style" or "TR clone" train (no need to be more specific than that) with full width interior gangways would have only two cabs and three bending diaphragm areas - and hence more potential passenger capacity.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Different rolling stock, even with current dimensions, could have quite a bit of additional capacity.

It should be possible to mix & match trains provided the dimensions are the same. Flexity trains might run the full length of the line and a specialized (driverless, cabless, open-gangway) train could run the tunnel section at very high frequencies via ATC. The Flexity train would also run via ATC within the tunnel; I believe this is planned but it's hard to tell what details survived the hand-over to Metrolinx.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top