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

[fanoftoronto]

I found this quote from 6 months ago on Reddit in the TTC subreddit providing an answer on comparison between the Flexity Freedom and Citadis Spirit, supposedly from one of the testing operators.

Of note, there's a statement in the quote stating that the reason for the delay is the difference between operating modes between the surface and grade separated portions of the line. I've bolded the relevant section in the quote below:

Im one of the testing operators for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.. even tho the track gauge is the exact same both the Flexity and Citadis are completely differently vehicles and will not be interchangeable because of that. The original plan was for all the lines to use Flexity vehicles but due to Bombardier being late delivering the first vehicles: Metrolinx cancelled the contract and gave a new contract to Alstom (Prior to Alstom taking over Bombardier) Thus thats why all the other lines (Finch, Hurontario) will have different cars than Eglinton.

For starters on Line 5 Eglinton - each train car is considerably smaller compared to the finch line (Flexity cars are the exact same as the current TTC Streetcar) thus will always have a minimum of 2 units coupled together at all times on the line. These trains also have CBTC (Communications Based Train Control aka a moving block) but also have UTO and ATO mode available. All trains on the line 5 will run in ATO mode (Automatic Train Operation) between Mount Dennis and Laird (The tunnel section) and at Laird station Eastbound trains will switch to ATP-M Mode (Essentially becoming a streetcar) - while Westbound Trains switch into ATO mode. The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar. Straight up UTO and ATO are some of the biggest reasons Line 5 is not open yet. Trains keep randomly emergency braking in ATO mode causing wheels to go flat. Metrolinx is too scared to tell the public this or just be honest about anything with the line in general.

The line 6 Finch West LRT will instead use Alstom Citadis trains (Same fleet as the O-Train disaster in Ottawa). The Citadis are much longer trains (1 car length is approximately a car and a half when compared to Flexity vehicles). So these trains will all run as single units and not be coupled together. Like Line 5 these trains will also have CBTC and ATP-M but unlike Line 5, these trains will not have UTO or ATO Mode due to the whole line being in the in the middle of the road street like a streetcar for the entire line. The Citadis train cars are much longer compared to the Flexity cars, are simpler to operate but the downside is the drivers cab on the Alstom vehicles is significantly smaller, so if you're very tall or very large youll have a hard time getting comfortable in the drivers seat. The layout of the passenger doors on the Alstom train doesnt make any sense and will bother commuters (They really should of copied the simple and efficient flexity door layout) but otherwise these cars will be alot easier to run and maintain due to them being run as a single unit and having less computer systems.Line 5 Eglinton is supposed to be getting a few of the Alstom cars to supplement the Eglinton west extention but these cars will also have UTO / ATO mode so they will not be used on the finch line and will also be run as single units. No flexity vehicles will ever run as single units in service.

Overall if you took out the computer systems and took away the things like UTO/ATO the Bombardier Flexity trains would be the superior vehicle.

They should of just made both of these lines regular TTC streetcar routes, they both would have been long opened by now.

Absolutely no way to source check the information presented but figured I'd bring this forward for discussion. Also, I'm choosing to fully reject the last statement regarding making both these routes as streetcar routes! I don't even know what that means!

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Even taken at face value, this isn’t actually identifying genuine incompatibility in any sense but the fleets not being interchangeable with zero modification. Frankly it reads as being FUD on the level of the regular proclamations we saw over the years that TTC gauge made anything approaching a standard streetcar impossible.

 

[T3G]

I would accept "The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar." as an argument if the cars in question were refurbished PCCs. Either this is misinformation (assume everything on Reddit is garbage unless otherwise indicated), or otherwise it says a lot of very negative things about BBD's signalling division that they couldn't figure out how to enable line of sight operation on a signalling system. But I'm going with the former, Reddit is like Facebook for those who think they are too cool for Facebook.

 

[Aplus23]

Wait, is the west extension a separate line that will be a transfer? Or one day will we have 1 line from renforth to Kennedy?

 

[Voltz]

I would accept "The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar." as an argument if the cars in question were refurbished PCCs. Either this is misinformation (assume everything on Reddit is garbage unless otherwise indicated), or otherwise it says a lot of very negative things about BBD's signalling division that they couldn't figure out how to enable line of sight operation on a signalling system. But I'm going with the former, Reddit is like Facebook for those who think they are too cool for Facebook.

I disagree with that argument also, the same vehicles are being used as LRT elsewhere, and there are differences between the Eglinton vehicles and the downtown streetcars, such as width, doors, number of motors, turn radius.

 

[Amare]

Wait, is the west extension a separate line that will be a transfer? Or one day will we have 1 line from renforth to Kennedy?

When the Crosstown West opens the line will run from Renforth to Kennedy, no transfers. Unless the decision is made to have some trains do scheduled short-turn runs.

 

[ARG1]

I would accept "The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar." as an argument if the cars in question were refurbished PCCs. Either this is misinformation (assume everything on Reddit is garbage unless otherwise indicated), or otherwise it says a lot of very negative things about BBD's signalling division that they couldn't figure out how to enable line of sight operation on a signalling system. But I'm going with the former, Reddit is like Facebook for those who think they are too cool for Facebook.

I think you're pulling too many hairstrings over the "Streetcar vs LRT" nomenclature.

The poster is clearly referring to the difference in running the LRT using ATO vs on street operation, in which case this is a very valid problem. There are very few, if any, instances of ATO being used on LRTs around the world, nevermind LRTs that have to swap from ATO to regular manual operations in between stations like Eglinton needs to do. To say that the tech behind this are complicated is an understatement to say the least. In layman's terms, the Eglinton LRVs need to be able to switch from operating like a metro to operating like a tram, while at speed. It can't be understanded just how complicated that is from a technical standpoint, not to mention that actual operations themselves.

With something like Ottawa, sure that's been a complete mess, but at least in Ottawa it consistently uses ATO throughout the entire length of the line: at no point do operators need to switch signalling systems and start manually operating the train. Its relatively easy to design one or the other, it's not easy to make both.

P.S: I actually want to bring in another system that faced a similar problem recently, that being Crossrail in London. There, they had to come up with a system where trains would transition from being mainline trains operating with standard mainline operations and signalling, to metro like operations and signalling that can handle 90s headways in the tunnels. Decoding the signalling for that delayed the project by 18 months.

We're basically asking Eglinton to do the same thing, except now we're dealing with tram street side operations.

 

[Admiral Beez]

When the Crosstown West opens....

Wishful thinking there. But I choose to share your optimism, if only for my own sanity.

 

[T3G]

I think you're pulling too many hairstrings over the "Streetcar vs LRT" nomenclature.

The poster is clearly referring to the difference in running the LRT using ATO vs on street operation, in which case this is a very valid problem. There are very few, if any, instances of ATO being used on LRTs around the world, nevermind LRTs that have to swap from ATO to regular manual operations in between stations like Eglinton needs to do. To say that the tech behind this are complicated is an understatement to say the least. In layman's terms, the Eglinton LRVs need to be able to switch from operating like a metro to operating like a tram, while at speed. It can't be understanded just how complicated that is from a technical standpoint, not to mention that actual operations themselves.

With something like Ottawa, sure that's been a complete mess, but at least in Ottawa it consistently uses ATO throughout the entire length of the line: at no point do operators need to switch signalling systems and start manually operating the train. Its relatively easy to design one or the other, it's not easy to make both.

But doesn't Line 1's ATO system allow manual operations, too?

 

[ARG1]

But doesn't Line 1's ATO system allow manual operations, too?

It allows for it, but only.in emergency situations. Even when we had partial availability of ATC, the transition took place at stations where trains could transition at a standstill.

With Eglinton, not only do we need to transition as a regular part of the lines operations, but the transition needs to happen whilst the train is running at speed between Laird and Sunnybrooke Park.

The following is me spit balling, but a potential fix I imagine could be to resignal the section directly east of laird with manual signalling, and allow drivers to swap signalling systems while Idling at Laird. However I imagine this solution would cause problems to being able to short turn trains there, as it would need to be done manually without ATO assistance. Someone can correct me on this part however.

Edit: in some cases the transition wasn't at stations, and in those cases the train would have to stop mid tunnel to transition systems. This happened at Eglinton where the train had to stop a few train lengths north of the platform to switch to manual operations.

 

[generalcanada]

What i took from that reddit post is that that "june software update" was in relation to the mentioned transition between ato and manual operation. which would explain a bunch of the delays. they needed to really develop the software much futher than probably thought.

 

[smallspy]

I think you're pulling too many hairstrings over the "Streetcar vs LRT" nomenclature.

The poster is clearly referring to the difference in running the LRT using ATO vs on street operation, in which case this is a very valid problem. There are very few, if any, instances of ATO being used on LRTs around the world, nevermind LRTs that have to swap from ATO to regular manual operations in between stations like Eglinton needs to do. To say that the tech behind this are complicated is an understatement to say the least. In layman's terms, the Eglinton LRVs need to be able to switch from operating like a metro to operating like a tram, while at speed. It can't be understanded just how complicated that is from a technical standpoint, not to mention that actual operations themselves.

With something like Ottawa, sure that's been a complete mess, but at least in Ottawa it consistently uses ATO throughout the entire length of the line: at no point do operators need to switch signalling systems and start manually operating the train. Its relatively easy to design one or the other, it's not easy to make both.

P.S: I actually want to bring in another system that faced a similar problem recently, that being Crossrail in London. There, they had to come up with a system where trains would transition from being mainline trains operating with standard mainline operations and signalling, to metro like operations and signalling that can handle 90s headways in the tunnels. Decoding the signalling for that delayed the project by 18 months.

We're basically asking Eglinton to do the same thing, except now we're dealing with tram street side operations.

You're stretching an awful lot here.

ATC/ATO can be installed on virtually any modern steel wheeled transit vehicle, regardless of the form the outside of it takes. In fact, the control equipment is very similar in most.

So yes, if they wanted to, they could install it on the Flexities used on the legacy system. Now, there's no good reason to do so - but the equipment itself is agnostic to the environment it operates in, and is perfectly capable of having it installed.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

Wishful thinking there. But I choose to share your optimism, if only for my own sanity.

Oh I don't know - Crosstown West seems to be moving on surprisingly quickly. I doubt it will be a half-decade (or more) behind schedule like the original Crosstown. I wouldn't be surprised if (optimistically) Crosstown opens in 2025 or 2026, while Crosstown West opens in 2031.

The biggest question I think is when the third phase (Renforth to Pearson) will open. They seem to be dogging the current tranche of projects (the Line 4 and 5 extensions).

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

You're stretching an awful lot here.

ATC/ATO can be installed on virtually any modern steel wheeled transit vehicle, regardless of the form the outside of it takes. In fact, the control equipment is very similar in most.

So yes, if they wanted to, they could install it on the Flexities used on the legacy system. Now, there's no good reason to do so - but the equipment itself is agnostic to the environment it operates in, and is perfectly capable of having it installed.

Dan

This. Plus if Waterloo's vehicles are able to do the transition from ATP to LOS while moving the point being made by the redditor is moot.

 

[ARG1]

You're stretching an awful lot here.

ATC/ATO can be installed on virtually any modern steel wheeled transit vehicle, regardless of the form the outside of it takes. In fact, the control equipment is very similar in most.

So yes, if they wanted to, they could install it on the Flexities used on the legacy system. Now, there's no good reason to do so - but the equipment itself is agnostic to the environment it operates in, and is perfectly capable of having it installed.

Dan

I don't think it's about whether or not it can be installed (although I think there is value in the idea that the flexities weren't designed with them in mind), but rather the complexities of transitioning to/from ATO whilst the vehicle is in motion, travelling through Brentcliffe Portal.

Making an ATO system isn't difficult, making a hybrid system is.