News   May 30, 2024
 352     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 1K     2 
News   May 30, 2024
 545     0 

Danforth Line 2 Scarborough Subway Extension

The unfunded busway is $60 million. But platform/terminal at the terminals, transit priority, and design is another $40 million. And that doesn't include the 57 extra buses they need - which would have cut this years bus purchase down by 57 vehicles ... which at the (most recent) cost of $1.7 million a bus adds another 98 million to the cost. And there won't be much left of those buses, with bustitution likely going for at least 8 years.
All of those things you listed could have been required either way because the SRT would have to be shut down for a period of time to perform the upgrades. Yes, it's possible to run an on-street shuttle without priority and avoid those costs (which the TTC has already been doing for over a month).

Nonetheless if you add up your numbers and cost escalate the $170 million vehicle cost in the 2006 report to account for inflation with a 3x multiple, the bus replacement would still be less expensive. I will agree that it's less expensive than a Subway or an LRT conversion however.

Ignoring other factors (extra operating costs, bus mid-life replacement, and that the extra 2006 cost for the then unnecessary Ellesmere tunnel upgrades, Kennedy loop replacement, station extensions, and wayside/yard modifications), I still think it would have been cheaper (or at least as cheap) to have issued a tender for shorter vehicles; two decades ago. If Vancouver can do open tenders for Skytrain rolling stock, so could have TTC.

If you go back far enough, the right choice would have been to build the LRT in the 1980s as originally planned instead of the SRT.

If the TTC had decided to replace the SRT vehicles. They would likely still have the same issues travelling through snow as the ones we have today (and as they do in Vancouver).

According to Steve Munro this is because snow on the reaction rails gets melted when a train passes over, the water freezes forming ice. The ice layers build up and cut off contact between the train and the reaction rail causing the train to stop. You could switch to conventional propulsion. However, the steep grades at Kennedy station would likely result in wheel slip issues (also faced by the existing system thanks to its small wheels).
 
However, the steep grades at Kennedy station would likely result in wheel slip issues (also faced by the existing system thanks to its small wheels).
What is the grade at Kennedy station? It doesn't appear to be steeper than the Bathurst St hill north of Davenport, which streetcars handle fine.
 
Will the old SRT cars be available for sale?
For scrap. Who would buy them
All of those things you listed could have been required either way because the SRT would have to be shut down for a period of time to perform the upgrades. Yes, it's possible to run an on-street shuttle without priority and avoid those costs (which the TTC has already been doing for over a month).

Nonetheless if you add up your numbers and cost escalate the $170 million vehicle cost in the 2006 report to account for inflation with a 3x multiple, the bus replacement would still be less expensive. I will agree that it's less expensive than a Subway or an LRT conversion however.



If you go back far enough, the right choice would have been to build the LRT in the 1980s as originally planned instead of the SRT.

If the TTC had decided to replace the SRT vehicles. They would likely still have the same issues travelling through snow as the ones we have today (and as they do in Vancouver).

According to Steve Munro this is because snow on the reaction rails gets melted when a train passes over, the water freezes forming ice. The ice layers build up and cut off contact between the train and the reaction rail causing the train to stop. You could switch to conventional propulsion. However, the steep grades at Kennedy station would likely result in wheel slip issues (also faced by the existing system thanks to its small wheels).
What about getting the same cars but without the reaction rail? Similar to what they use on the YUS line now? Did BBD or now Alstom have that as an option? That reaction rail from my understanding means, your stuck with that one supplier and can't explore other options to get a better competitive deal.
 
What about getting the same cars but without the reaction rail? Similar to what they use on the YUS line now? Did BBD or now Alstom have that as an option? That reaction rail from my understanding means, your stuck with that one supplier and can't explore other options to get a better competitive deal.
They have that option now, but I think it was a relatively recent option.
 
Nonetheless if you add up your numbers and cost escalate the $170 million vehicle cost in the 2006 report to account for inflation with a 3x multiple, the bus replacement would still be less expensive.
I thought we were discussing the "millions" in extra costs for using the shorter Mark I vehicle length, rather than the length that's now being used in the Mark II to Mark V vehicles. I think $170 million was a given.

If you go back far enough, the right choice would have been to build the LRT in the 1980s as originally planned instead of the SRT.[/qoute]According to Steve Munro this is because snow on the reaction rails gets melted when a train passes over, the water freezes forming ice.
Yes ... but I don't think there was ever any further design to mitigate this. For example, would heating the reaction rail solve this? Or switching to overhead catenary (which would be a challenge in the tunnel).

Either way, I think we are getting into faeries on pinhead territory. :)
 
For scrap. Who would buy them?
If we were in most other developed countries of the world, at least one car would've been saved. And there have been stories of old transit vehicles being purchased for use as garden sheds and such like.

The thought is unusual only in Toronto, who's political and cultural MO seems to only be to destroy as much of our heritage, with as much prejudice, as quickly as possible.
 
If we were in most other developed countries of the world, at least one car would've been saved. And there have been stories of old transit vehicles being purchased for use as garden sheds and such like.

The thought is unusual only in Toronto, who's political and cultural MO seems to only be to destroy as much of our heritage, with as much prejudice, as quickly as possible.
If it’s anywhere that I expect a Mk I to be saved it’s Vancouver. They have a heritage fleet they actually take pride in. Saving a metro car might be more difficult, but they seem like the kind of system that will find a way.
 
Honestly, given the recent realization that they even still have that weird three door Mk1 on site in Kingston, my best hope is that Alstom holds on to the actual prototypes.
 
I strongly hope HCRY picks up at least one SRT pair

Something tells me they won't but I hope they will.

They have alot on their plate the moment with repairs, restoration, etc and these are not exactly modern or small.

Much like the ALRV and CLRV fleet, the tech in these cars is severely outdated. Don't forget it used mid-1980s technology which by now is almost impossible to keep running.

Keep in mind too it used LIM technology which means you can't just hook up a pantograph and call it good.

If anything it would be a static display without any significant movement.
 
Something tells me they won't but I hope they will.

They have alot on their plate the moment with repairs, restoration, etc and these are not exactly modern or small.

Much like the ALRV and CLRV fleet, the tech in these cars is severely outdated. Don't forget it used mid-1980s technology which by now is almost impossible to keep running.

Keep in mind too it used LIM technology which means you can't just hook up a pantograph and call it good.

If anything it would be a static display without any significant movement.
I think preserving a car or two for a static display would be great considering these trains aren't just a piece of Toronto's history but also the provinces since it was the provinces UTDC that designed the trains and a lot of the tech surrounding them. They are a piece from a bygone era when the Province was more actively involved in the development of new technologies. They can be used as a set piece for the history of Ontario's involvement with the development of Mag-Lev technology, to the unbuilt GO ALRT project, the the development of one of the first successful Light-Metro systems.
 

Back
Top