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

[andrewpmk]

>In fact they put the surface design out for a RFQ (request for qualification) for contractors, and have said they will actually issue the RFP (request for proposal) soon.

Does this mean that it will be tendered in 2013, or will it have to wait until 2014 or later?

Also the Don Mills station hasn't been designed yet, and will be complicated by any provisions for a future downtown relief line. I suspect that Ferrand will disappear when this happens (I don't think that the implications of making Don Mills underground or the DRL have been fully thought out yet.)

 

[BurlOak]

My guess is since the station walls will be either pile driven or bored straight down from the surface they have to put them outside of the tunnel which will be bored out first.

I think you got the right answer - this seems the most logical.

 

[CDL.TO]

Loading gauge is more than just tunnel width. Do we have any idea whether the vertical and horizontal curvature is compatible with subway conversion?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Loading gauge is more than just tunnel width. Do we have any idea whether the vertical and horizontal curvature is compatible with subway conversion?

I would presume so since the tunnels are larger than any of our subway tunnels.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Tiger:

Size of the tunnel is one thing - the gradient and curvature of the tunnel are independent factors that are optimized for the performance of LRVs (among other things), and it might not be compatible with subway trainsets.

AoD

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Tiger:

Size of the tunnel is one thing - the gradient and curvature of the tunnel is an independent factors that are optimized for the performance of LRVs (among other things), and it might not be compatible with subway trainsets.

AoD

My bad. I was thinking curvature compatibility was just a matter of ensuring that the tunnel was wide enough to handle the length of our subway cars.


I would hope Metrolinx would have the foresight to make sure it's compatible. Could save billion a few decades from now.

 

[TrickyRicky]

I don't think we need to worry about subway conversion on Eglington any time soon. The subway systems of cities with transit maps we envy often have beautiful coloured lines where the vehicles that run on them don't have any more capacity than our standard TTC streetcars.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

TR:

Beyond that, it is probably easier for TTC to name the specs for a higher capacity vehicle that can negotiate the tunnels as built and get the manufacturers to sort that out than to modify the tunnels themselves.

AoD

 

[Ramako]

I don't think we need to worry about subway conversion on Eglington any time soon. The subway systems of cities with transit maps we envy often have beautiful coloured lines where the vehicles that run on them don't have any more capacity than our standard TTC streetcars.

Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Eglinton line will be represented on subway maps like the Scarborough RT is, or ignored like the street car lines are?

 

[M II A II R II K]

Probably, or TC can have it's own type of line, and that way they can have any colour that the subway already has.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Speaking of which, does anyone know if the Eglinton line will be represented on subway maps like the Scarborough RT is, or ignored like the street car lines are?

It will certainly be on our maps. The ECLRT is a Rapid Transit line with majority underground operation similar to subways. I'm not sure if the FWLRT and SELRT will be on our maps, but considering that they are Rapid Transit, I would expect them to be on our maps.

 

[innsertnamehere]

Yes I expect them to be on the maps, but the surface portions should be a thinner line to represent the slower speeds.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Yes I expect them to be on the maps, but the surface portions should be a thinner line to represent the slower speeds.

Great way to confuse riders... But the map legend would be humorous. "Train go fast" on the bold line, "train go slow" on the thin line.

But in all seriousness, distinguishing between subway and surface LRT on maps could be disastrous from a political point of view. If the TTC wants people to believe that the LRTs are rapid transit (which they are), they should be represented similarly to subways. Whether or not they're on the map could be the difference between people viewing them as over glorified streetcars or as being just like subways, but on the street.

 

[innsertnamehere]

It would be more along the lines of "Rapid Transit" and "Surface LRT", then "faster trains" and "slower trains"

I'm not saying this is the way it will be implemented, but rather the way that it should be implemented.

 

[Ramako]

It would be more along the lines of "Rapid Transit" and "Surface LRT", then "faster trains" and "slower trains"

I'm not saying this is the way it will be implemented, but rather the way that it should be implemented.

There are portions of the regular subway lines that run on the surface, but those are not identified on the maps. Would the surface routes for the Eglinton LRT have to stop at intersections?