|
|
|
Agreed completely, ssiguy2. I guess it's like this, if you have a bi-level with twice the capacity of a single level vehicle, but the same number/width of doors... it will take twice as long for the entire car to filter out/in through those doorways. The more I think about it, the more I like the idea of single level vehicles.
Plus wouldn't you need to have bigger tunnels for two level trains? If the lrt cost more underground because of the bigger tunnels than subway wouldn't this be even more expensive?
But you choose to ignore the other part of ssiguy2's point that there would be less times when the entire car is filtering out at a single station? What does it matter how long it takes to unload a full car at a single station/point in time if that is not going to happen?
I don't get this notion being presented that SmartTrack will use different vehicles from GO RER.
Too early to tell, surely.Okay, then what kind of vehicles will "GO RER" be using? Not the Bombardier/UTDC/Can-Car Bi-Lev's, so then what?I don't get this notion being presented that SmartTrack will use different vehicles from GO RER.
It does indeed. Though now something concrete is being done, maybe in a year or two we'll see what it's really to look like.Sounds like the same thing - high-frequency electrified commuter rail.
It does indeed. Though now something concrete is being done, maybe in a year or two we'll see what it's really to look like.
Is it? I hadn't heard; what is being done?
And of course the Smartrack Work Plan, which we dicussed earlier - http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-74960.pdf
And of course the Smartrack Work Plan, which we dicussed earlier - http://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2015/ex/bgrd/backgroundfile-74960.pdf
Which to me just looks like they will cede to GO on the Kitchener and Stouffville portions, and set up a study that will kill heavy rail on Eglinton West and hopefully lead to the "compromise" of extending the Eglinton line to Renforth.
Yeah - that's what we've been discussing the last few pages. Personally I don't see any difference between "GO RER" and "SmartTrack". Sounds like the same thing - high-frequency electrified commuter rail.
I think we may be looking in the wrong end of the telescope here. and let's not get all foamy about which design we "like" best (or looks best in the fans' photos).
The selling point for bilevels is the capacity, not the loading time. (yes, it takes longer to load more people, so they have longer dwell time)
If the passenger loads are heavy, a single level train won't load quickly, and the system won't achieve its objective.
If the passenger loads are light, a bilevel will load quickly, but there will be excess capacity (empty seats).
There may be capital and operating cost tradeoffs (which is cheaper for the same capacity - two car bilevel train vs four car single level)
My unscientific wild-eyed guess would be that bilevels would be cheaper, even if loads are light. Smaller fleet and shorter trains. If it matters, the Montreal-NJT bilevels conform to a single-level clearance template, so I'm not wedded to the traditional GO bilevel design. Paris RER uses bilevels quite effectively in a quasi-subway mode, Parisiens don't seem to mind.
If Smarttrack is worth building, and if it is supposed to in some way offset need for a Relief Line, we need to plan for heavy loads, not light loads. If we are wedded to single level in subway format, buy more TR's - so we have consistency and economy of scale.
So I would argue for bilevels. The worst that can happen is they run partly empty. Better than running out of capacity.
- Paul
