CDL.TO
Moderator
Yes. So each wheel needs to be moved out by 1 3/16 inches.
Enough to cause a $2 billion problem?
|
|
|
Yes. So each wheel needs to be moved out by 1 3/16 inches.
Enough to cause a $2 billion problem?
robmausser
Senior Member
Remind me to never let you be my accountant.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
They need to be moved in, the TTC gauge is 2 3/8 inches bigger than the standard gauge. Since the crosstown and other LRT lines are using standard gauge, it would be logical to convert the Sheppard tunnel to standard gauge. Which means you have to rip out the tracks and the concrete blocks they sit on, replace it with the standard gauge tracks and blocks. Plus they would have to remove the third rail for the power, replace it with an pantograph, then we come to the issue with the stations. Since the LRT's are ground level where the subway has all its components underneath, you would have to either raise the tracks to platform level, but have no room for the pantograph, unless you added anther floor above all of the ceiling above the each station tracks. Or lower the platform, which means you have to knock out a large amount of concrete, re-configure the station art, elevators and starirs. And you can see why they didn't want to do it.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
lol, you could have put a little more thought into your almost original response if you said "contractor" instead of "accountant".
Still, we've been over this on this form before, Transit City and the subways use different track gauges. None of them can fit on one another. So let's get back on topic of why rebuilding the Scarborough RT is a bad idea.
D
Duck
Guest
I think the issue with the tunnel at Ellesmere is more of a length of vehicle issue than height. The MK II trains are a bit longer, which means the chord they form when they take the curve cuts inward further than the MK I trains.
crs1026
Superstar
As well, Mk I trains have a taper, meaning they are not as wide at roof level as at floor level, whereas Mk II are just as wide at roofline. This could affect clearances. So we are stuck with Mk I, (which might not be procurable, although perhaps we could buy some new Mk IIs and swap them for Skytrain Mk I's - a stretch, perhaps) or with any of the articulated LRT designs that we know and love so well.
The pantograph thing is a red herring....just retract it and use the third rail thru the tunnel. As for the other alterations, most are solved with a jackhammer and some non complex concrete pours.... pretty cheap stuff relative to tunnelling.
- Paul
jcam
Active Member
Just to be clear, despite all of the political posturing, they will never be dropping Bombardier. With 20%+ Canadian content requirements by the Province (something that was maintained in the recent trade agreements), any other foreign manufacturer coming in to compete would have to sink the cost of a factory into the price of the vehicles. So add in the price of cancelling, the price of a new factory AND the markup of a foreign manufacturer who knows the TTC would be buying under duress, and you'd pay waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more.
Fact is the quality of the vehicles that have been accepted is so much better than the old vehicles. Bombardier is locked in until someone drops the in-Canada requirement....they'll always be cheapest under that structure.
Fact is the quality of the vehicles that have been accepted is so much better than the old vehicles. Bombardier is locked in until someone drops the in-Canada requirement....they'll always be cheapest under that structure.
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
It would be Mark 3 vehicles now.
cplchanb
Senior Member
Well itll be a political decision then. GO and YRT bought foreign vehicles previously and it all worked out fine
dowlingm
Senior Member
It's SRT or compatible (with Crosstown etc., 750v DC, overhead, 1435mm) light rail. Some sort of third choice would be utter lunacy. And why are we talking about Sheppard on the SRT thread??
CodeMonkey
Active Member
I'm all open to the idea of rebuilding (and even extending) the SRT using the ICTS/ART/Innovia Metro technology under one condition; the city doesn't pay a dime for it. The province force it upon the TTC in the 80's they can rebuild if they want to help Bombardier, or the federal government? They said they're willing to help Bombardier if the business case is right, why not get them to build a system that can service Scarborough and they can bolster to other buyers of the technology.
It may seems like an outrageous request, but we have two other transit options on the table, so if they want us to take rebuilding the SRT seriously, they have to give us more of an incentive.
It may seems like an outrageous request, but we have two other transit options on the table, so if they want us to take rebuilding the SRT seriously, they have to give us more of an incentive.
cplchanb
Senior Member
well....with Brampton refusing the free money maybe the Libs will redirect it here
Amare
Senior Member
I think the city should be forced to pay for 100% of the cost if they chose to revert back to SRT or LRT technology because of all the political games they have been playing with this line. Metrolinx should just ignore any other requests the city makes regarding the line. Typically I would never say something like that, but City Hall is completely lost when it comes to transit planning in the city.
CodeMonkey
Active Member
If the TTC blacklists Bombardier, expect the city to pay 100% of everything from now on. Metrolinx, by extension the Province and the Federal government don't care what technology choice the city makes, as long as they chose Bombardier as their vehicle supplier.
The recent push to refurbish/rebuild the SRT is from the Toronto Region Board of Trade, and if they want to make this option an viable option, they have to make it more appealing.
BurlOak
Senior Member
Metrolinx is the ones who said in 2009 that the LRT on SRT route was the best option and then in 2013, under MTO Minister Murray, said that the subway extension was the best. The Province and City Council can share the blame.