Toronto Eglinton Line 5 Crosstown West Extension | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx

[EnviroTO]

What is this "LRT" technology people are referring to? Are we talking about electric motors, steel rails, regenerative brakes, powered door opening and closing mechanisms? I don't think maglev, rubber tires, cable car, swan boat, or transporter technology was being considered, and I don't think linear induction motors were being considered either. There is no huge difference between LRT and Metro without talking about running speed, train + station length, and train + station capacity.

The max speed of the Eglinton LRT is 80km/h, and the subway is 88km/h... only 8km/h difference... and really these speeds are not realized most of the time anyway.

The planned train length is a 3 car (5 segments each) train about 90m long, but a longer LRT could have been selected. This compares to the Toronto subway which is a 6 car train about 140m long (i.e. 55% longer train).

The stations (which is the part of the decision which really defines the capacity you are limited to) are set to about 100m compared to 150m... so regardless of the train car used you are going to run into a limit where the platform length is 50% bigger for the subway so the capacity would be reduced a similar amount.

The expected 3 car (15 segment) train is expected to seat about 204 as compared to the subway seating 400.

If the LRT platform length was 150m long and the TTC didn't care about being able to right size trains to match need, a crazy 27 segment LRT train could seat 650 which is more than the subway which seats 400. Why you would order a 27 segment LRT is a question, because an LRT is more complex and expensive as a vehicle per passenger, is beyond me... but it isn't a "technology" problem.

So in summary... why talk about "LRT technology" because LRT technology and metro technology are pretty much the same thing, except LRTs are over-designed for tunnel operation (no need to handle tight turns and have crashworthiness expected running around street traffic). Let's talk platform lengths, stop spacing, and delays at intersections because that is really what matters for urban rail. Once the focus is on those things it seems to me that the "Ontario Line" is likely to have a very similar operating characteristics to the tunnel portion of the Eglinton Line except the Ontario Line vehicles will be cheaper and there might be platform doors (although I have heard mixed messaging on that). From a capability perspective, there will be almost no difference.

 

[W. K. Lis]

What is this "LRT" technology people are referring to? Are we talking about electric motors, steel rails, regenerative brakes, powered door opening and closing mechanisms? I don't think maglev, rubber tires, cable car, swan boat, or transporter technology was being considered, and I don't think linear induction motors were being considered either. There is no huge difference between LRT and Metro without talking about running speed, train + station length, and train + station capacity.

The max speed of the Eglinton LRT is 80km/h, and the subway is 88km/h... only 8km/h difference... and really these speeds are not realized most of the time anyway.

The planned train length is a 3 car (5 segments each) train about 90m long, but a longer LRT could have been selected. This compares to the Toronto subway which is a 6 car train about 140m long (i.e. 55% longer train).

The stations (which is the part of the decision which really defines the capacity you are limited to) are set to about 100m compared to 150m... so regardless of the train car used you are going to run into a limit where the platform length is 50% bigger for the subway so the capacity would be reduced a similar amount.

The expected 3 car (15 segment) train is expected to seat about 204 as compared to the subway seating 400.

If the LRT platform length was 150m long and the TTC didn't care about being able to right size trains to match need, a crazy 27 segment LRT train could seat 650 which is more than the subway which seats 400. Why you would order a 27 segment LRT is a question, because an LRT is more complex and expensive as a vehicle per passenger, is beyond me... but it isn't a "technology" problem.

So in summary... why talk about "LRT technology" because LRT technology and metro technology are pretty much the same thing, except LRTs are over-designed for tunnel operation (no need to handle tight turns and have crashworthiness expected running around street traffic). Let's talk platform lengths, stop spacing, and delays at intersections because that is really what matters for urban rail. Once the focus is on those things it seems to me that the "Ontario Line" is likely to have a very similar operating characteristics to the tunnel portion of the Eglinton Line except the Ontario Line vehicles will be cheaper and there might be platform doors (although I have heard mixed messaging on that). From a capability perspective, there will be almost no difference.

The station boxes are 150m long. They can handle 5 light rail car trains, by taking down the cinder box partitions to extend the platforms in the future.

From link.

On the surface sections, they just have to extend the platforms into the traffic lanes (lol).

 

[generalcanada]

What is this "LRT" technology people are referring to? Are we talking about electric motors, steel rails, regenerative brakes, powered door opening and closing mechanisms? I don't think maglev, rubber tires, cable car, swan boat, or transporter technology was being considered, and I don't think linear induction motors were being considered either. There is no huge difference between LRT and Metro without talking about running speed, train + station length, and train + station capacity.

The max speed of the Eglinton LRT is 80km/h, and the subway is 88km/h... only 8km/h difference... and really these speeds are not realized most of the time anyway.

The planned train length is a 3 car (5 segments each) train about 90m long, but a longer LRT could have been selected. This compares to the Toronto subway which is a 6 car train about 140m long (i.e. 55% longer train).

The stations (which is the part of the decision which really defines the capacity you are limited to) are set to about 100m compared to 150m... so regardless of the train car used you are going to run into a limit where the platform length is 50% bigger for the subway so the capacity would be reduced a similar amount.

The expected 3 car (15 segment) train is expected to seat about 204 as compared to the subway seating 400.

If the LRT platform length was 150m long and the TTC didn't care about being able to right size trains to match need, a crazy 27 segment LRT train could seat 650 which is more than the subway which seats 400. Why you would order a 27 segment LRT is a question, because an LRT is more complex and expensive as a vehicle per passenger, is beyond me... but it isn't a "technology" problem.

So in summary... why talk about "LRT technology" because LRT technology and metro technology are pretty much the same thing, except LRTs are over-designed for tunnel operation (no need to handle tight turns and have crashworthiness expected running around street traffic). Let's talk platform lengths, stop spacing, and delays at intersections because that is really what matters for urban rail. Once the focus is on those things it seems to me that the "Ontario Line" is likely to have a very similar operating characteristics to the tunnel portion of the Eglinton Line except the Ontario Line vehicles will be cheaper and there might be platform doors (although I have heard mixed messaging on that). From a capability perspective, there will be almost no difference.

as far as im concerned the only difference is in the rolling stock.

Using low-floor streetcars instead of high floor open trains like the toronto rockets. That is essentially LRT in a nutshell, LRT is a combination of streetcars and grade separated right of ways.
In comparison, Ontario Line is using "light-metro" trains like the skytrain in vancouver. it has a much higher capacity.

There is a reason why the EGLRT isnt using subway trains:

Eglinton Crosstown West Extension

Extending the Eglinton Crosstown LRT 9.2 km farther west into Etobicoke and Mississauga.

www.metrolinx.com

Ontario Line

A 15.6-km subway line in Toronto that will run from Exhibition Place to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

www.metrolinx.com

almost 10x the capacity

 

[44 North]

A “subway” means rapid transit. Using OL tech doesn’t improve speed or overall transit experience. I could consider Skytrains not a subway under the TO subway standards.

You can call it crippled subway add it carries less riders. East Asia would call our subway crippled as it only carries 30-35k instead of 60-80k.

Using another technology for Eg West creates another problem. Where will the trains be stored. The crosstown of already built with yard space for all that’s needed. A transfer at Mt Dennis also creates an additional transfer those heading across Eg. Best to keep it to what we got.

With a high-floor metro vehicle I think it's safe to say there'd be a slight uptick in speed and experience relative to a low-floor LRV. It would have better acceleration and more optimal internal layout. Also there would be cost savings since the stations for a separate line wouldn't by default have to be 90m Crosstown lengths. They could be ~35m with metro technology, or rather a line with 12k pphpd. Such a line could be extended to MCC, south to Kipling, north to Pearson, with likely capacity to spare. Bump it up to 50m just to fully future proof and that gives 18k pphpd, with about 50% shorter platform lengths of Crosstown.

Storage, yeah that would have to be figured out. New yard, sizable cost. However with that factored in I think there's merit and cost savings when scaled out into the future (i.e not just Mt Dennis to Renforth in isolation). It certainly hits the right notes of subway building, finding savings, and of a grande subway vision. MCC-Black Creek-Kipling-Pearson, two services, as its own separate line.

 

[Amare]

Regarding the talk of low-floor vehicles (LRT) vs high-floor, Eglinton should have absolutely seen high-floor vehicles (light metro/metro/whatever you want to call it) used along the entire line.

Using low-floor vehicles was idiotic from the very start for numerous reasons including but not limited to: wasted space between vehicles (capacity which will be needed in the future), and bogies reducing interior capacity/space.

The station boxes are 150m long. They can handle 5 light rail car trains, by taking down the cinder box partitions to extend the platforms in the future.

View attachment 386945
From link.

On the surface sections, they just have to extend the platforms into the traffic lanes (lol).

The stations can accommodate 3-car trains max. There's no room for 4th or 5th cars to be added.

 

[EnviroTO]

The station boxes are 150m long. They can handle 5 light rail car trains, by taking down the cinder box partitions to extend the platforms in the future.

View attachment 386945
From link.

On the surface sections, they just have to extend the platforms into the traffic lanes (lol).

Looks like from the diagram the stations are set up for 2 car trains, with a more simple expansion to 3 car trains. The question is what is in the services area on the bottom level, and how easy would it be to move that elsewhere and use the 150m length while still meeting for code

 

[EnviroTO]

as far as im concerned the only difference is in the rolling stock.

Using low-floor streetcars instead of high floor open trains like the toronto rockets. That is essentially LRT in a nutshell, LRT is a combination of streetcars and grade separated right of ways.
In comparison, Ontario Line is using "light-metro" trains like the skytrain in vancouver. it has a much higher capacity.

There is a reason why the EGLRT isnt using subway trains:

Eglinton Crosstown West Extension

Extending the Eglinton Crosstown LRT 9.2 km farther west into Etobicoke and Mississauga.

www.metrolinx.com

Ontario Line

A 15.6-km subway line in Toronto that will run from Exhibition Place to the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.

www.metrolinx.com

almost 10x the capacity

The Canada Line SkyTrain uses 2 car trains which seat around 40 and has a platform length of 50m. The 3 car (15 segment) train on the Eglinton Crosstown that the stations were designed to accomodate is expected to seat about 200. Therefore the Canada Line would need to run at a frequency 5 times higher to have as many seats go through the station. The Mark III on the Expo Line runs 4 car trains and a platform length of 80m and has about 125 seats per train, so still the Expo Line would need to run more frequently to carry the same number of people.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Join us LIVE to learn more about what we are planning for underground stations and to learn more about upcoming construction work including headwall construction at Martin Grove and Kipling.​

From link. Click to register and ask questions.

On Wednesday March 30, we will be hosting a virtual open house from 6:30PM to 7:30PM to talk about this work. Representatives from Metrolinx project team and our constructors, West End Connectors, will give a presentation on these topics and answer your questions. We encourage you to submit and vote on questions now. You may also submit questions during the meeting.

If you cannot attend, the video recording will be available on this page after the event.

 

[Steve X]

The station boxes are 150m long. They can handle 5 light rail car trains, by taking down the cinder box partitions to extend the platforms in the future.

View attachment 386945
From link.

On the surface sections, they just have to extend the platforms into the traffic lanes (lol).

I don’t know how many times this needs to be explained. Mechanical and electrical rooms, ventilation shafts and emergency exit also take up space.

 

[ARG1]

The Canada Line SkyTrain uses 2 car trains which seat around 40 and has a platform length of 50m. The 3 car (15 segment) train on the Eglinton Crosstown that the stations were designed to accomodate is expected to seat about 200. Therefore the Canada Line would need to run at a frequency 5 times higher to have as many seats go through the station. The Mark III on the Expo Line runs 4 car trains and a platform length of 80m and has about 125 seats per train, so still the Expo Line would need to run more frequently to carry the same number of people.

And both the Canada Line and Expo Line are in far better positions to run that frequently because they're automated and fully grade separated. Eglinton, due to the at grade segment east of Laird, is unable to run at such high frequencies, and as such needs much longer trains in order to achieve a similar PPHPD.

 

[EnviroTO]

Streetcars can definitely run at high frequencies, on the Queen line I have seen them running 1 minute apart. They seem to arrive in a pattern of 17min, 1min, 1min, 1min, 12min, 1min, 1min.

The at grade section will only be less than ideal if the city is messing things up. If the feds declared it a railway then there would be no delays at intersections... arms would come down and the train would roll through. However, in the tunnel it is full ATC and there is a turnaround track in the controlled area at both ends so they should be able to maintain a regular schedule in the core.

 

[ARG1]

Streetcars can definitely run at high frequencies, on the Queen line I have seen them running 1 minute apart. They seem to arrive in a pattern of 17min, 1min, 1min, 1min, 12min, 1min, 1min.

The at grade section will only be less than ideal if the city is messing things up. If the feds declared it a railway then there would be no delays at intersections... arms would come down and the train would roll through. However, in the tunnel it is full ATC and there is a turnaround track in the controlled area at both ends so they should be able to maintain a regular schedule in the core.

You kind of answered your own question. If you want to keep any semblance of consistent speeds or headways, you can't ran trains that closely. 1 minute headways means there is no way in hell some trains aren't going to spend an eternity waiting at every red light, or just turning the tunneled section into "DV Parking Lot#2: This time with trains".

If you want any semblance of having a consistent speed that goes through all green lights and avoids bunching, you're locked to a minimum of 5 minute headways, which leaves the underground section at around 2.5 minute headways.

There's a reason why both the Eglinton Line and Canada Line have their ultimate capacities listed at 15k PPHPD - the planners weren't smoking when they made those numbers.

 

[EnviroTO]

This is in Phoenix... the United States... land of cars. Proper prioritization that wouldn't cause delays to transit and a roundabout so even the cars continue to flow through. OMG the US!!

 

[ARG1]

This is in Phoenix... the United States... land of cars. Proper prioritization that wouldn't cause delays to transit and a roundabout so even the cars continue to flow through. OMG the US!!

View attachment 387280

There is nothing that your typical "urban boulevard urbanist" doesn't seethe at more than the idea of placing down those gasp, EVIL EVIL BOOM GATES.

No seriously, I once saw Steve Munro in an argument on twitter against installing boom gates on Eglinton - it wasn't a pretty conversation.

 

[kamira51]

There is nothing that your typical "urban boulevard urbanist" doesn't seethe at more than the idea of placing down those gasp, EVIL EVIL BOOM GATES.

No seriously, I once saw Steve Munro in an argument on twitter against installing boom gates on Eglinton - it wasn't a pretty conversation.

By boom gates you mean the same ones that ION uses?

Those work great from my experience.