Bojaxs
Senior Member
David Miller? Is that you?Can someone remind me why we are using unique rolling stock for the Ontario line? Where the original tunnels dug under Queen not big enough for LRT cars?
David Miller? Is that you?Can someone remind me why we are using unique rolling stock for the Ontario line? Where the original tunnels dug under Queen not big enough for LRT cars?
Huh? How exactly would an LRT car have problems with headways or grades?Because to manage the headways, expected traffic, and to hit the steep grade the right rolling stock was needed.
LRTs are simply ill suited for all of the above.
Because marketing wank.Can someone remind me why we are using unique rolling stock for the Ontario line? Where the original tunnels dug under Queen not big enough for LRT cars?
LRTs are not well suited for the line for a variety of reasons, that much is true. Gradeability is not one of those reasons, but that's neither here nor there.Because to manage the headways, expected traffic, and to hit the steep grade the right rolling stock was needed.
LRTs are simply ill suited for all of the above.
Using standard subways would allow interlining and consolidation of rolling stock.Because marketing wank.
LRTs are not well suited for the line for a variety of reasons, that much is true. Gradeability is not one of those reasons, but that's neither here nor there.
But subways are well suited for this line. And as it turns out, we already have a standard design here in Toronto. Which we did not use.
Dan
My understanding was that steep grades and tight turns near science center station (or whatever we're calling it now) necessitated smaller and lighter trains than is currently in use on lines 1 & 2, is that not true ?Because marketing wank.
LRTs are not well suited for the line for a variety of reasons, that much is true. Gradeability is not one of those reasons, but that's neither here nor there.
But subways are well suited for this line. And as it turns out, we already have a standard design here in Toronto. Which we did not use.
Dan
CN (or their predecessor Grand Trunk) constructed the original Credit bridge with one track. The Province paid to expand the bridge to accommodate 2 more tracks and implement 1 additional track. Therefore the Province should get exclusive access to 2 of the 3 tracks on the built-out bridge and CN can pay to add a 4th if it requires it.The piers are in place for the 3rd reack over the credit river on the north side that was done when the 2nd track was added almost 2 decades ago. to put in the 4th track on the south side wiil require an extension to the piers that is long over due..
if it is about damn time....At West Highland Creek on the Stouffville Line, there's equipment being set up and new materials (those white "bails" they put in the water, I think?). Could this be the start of the great crossing?
The one killed in Verster’s time was a rail-rail separation at Scarborough Junction.I thought those Scarborough grade separations had quietly died? Surprised to see them back alive again.
The one killed in Verster’s time was a rail-rail separation at Scarborough Junction.
Galloway is a 3 track crossing whereas Poplar and Morningside are two track so presumably Galloway is higher risk score. Probably want get that finished before doing another close by one, and Golf Club Rd (west of Guildwood station) is also pending and has 3 tracks




