Transit City Plan

[Brandon716]

That all depends on the definition of "car" being used. The new subway will be completely walk through... so is it one car?

Good question. LOL I'm not the queen of definitions, but when discussing street cars and light rail its usually accurate to call a car an individual unit, and a car can have multiple compartments. Go figure...

At this point I think you understand what I am talking about, at least.

Here's more info about the Pittsburgh T, just FYI.

http://www.caf.net/ingles/productos/proyecto.php?cod=2&id=163&sec=datos

Every Pittsburgh T high platform station is 50m in length. During rush hours they operate two car trains. To get off at low-platform stations, you cannot enter the 2nd train while boarding at a high platform station, otherwise you will be stuck on the system until you get to a high platform stop and will have to turn around and come back in the 1st car in the other direct until reaching your destination.

I agree... multi compartments, especially in a mixed surface/tunnel light rail system can be hectic. I KNOW IT FIRST HAND. Especially if you new or visiting an area and don't know the local stops.

Speaking of which, I will be getting on the T here in the next hour to head home.

 

[Epi]

LRT in a tunnel is still going to cost hundreds of millions of dollars per kilometre. The choice has very little to do with cost.

Except the tunnel is only projected to be 1/3 the length of the entire line. And since running subway trains at ground level through neighbourhoods is a BAD idea to make it a real subway most of the line would be underground. Thus LRT is saving a LOT of money by vastly reducing the amount of money needed to create tunnels.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

Except the tunnel is only projected to be 1/3 the length of the entire line. And since running subway trains at ground level through neighbourhoods is a BAD idea to make it a real subway most of the line would be underground. Thus LRT is saving a LOT of money by vastly reducing the amount of money needed to create tunnels.

It was a choice, not due to cost, that the line will run from one end of the city to the other with no transfers (remember that the B/D subway already runs to the same places, making Eglinton redundant as a crosstown route). It was a choice to have vehicles that will stop at red lights when not in the tunnel, mind you, so you get what you pay for.

 

[Brandon716]

There is no point ordering extra cabs if they will never be used. Whether or not it works is irrelevant. I don't know how pointing out additional cabs are a waste and a lack of walk-through ability will reduce capacity is "arguing for arguing sake" when you have argued for the last {insert large number here} posts that somehow a tram is a doomsday scenario with no evidence that is will cause any issues at all.

I never, ever said a tram is 'doomsday' what I said is that if they do not build Eglinton LRT with the appropriate capacity, and at 250k passengers a day projection its a lot, that I feel a smaller tram is insufficient. And if THIS MUCH money is going to be spent, why not do it right?

That's not an outrageous comment to make, and I adjust my statements as I learn new things. For example, if a coupler is a permanent solution, and if you can pull together 2 or 3 trams at the 28m length quoted, that should be sufficient capacity.

But why would you order a customized coupler for a tram that has less width and standing room when you can just order the actual higher capacity LRV that is hot-pluggable right away, and wider?

That's all I've said. It needs to have capacity for the ridership, a single tram isn't going to do it IMO.

 

[Eug]

But why would you order a customized coupler for a tram that has less width and standing room when you can just order the actual higher capacity LRV that is hot-pluggable right away, and wider?

Compatibility with other lines?

 

[Second_in_pie]

I haven't been following this back-and-forth too much, but I would like to jump in on this point. I think TC is great in principle; there are tons of examples of European tram systems that are light-years ahead of what we're used to and moving in that direction is only for the good. But it does kind of worry me that when you scratch Miller and Giambrone on the light rail issue, they're quick to talk about how wonderfully it works in Bremen or Geneva or Amsterdam--all of which (even Amsterdam!) are piddling villages compared to the distances and numbers of people we're talking about in Toronto.

Most 'big' cities in Europe are quite a bit smaller than 'big' cities in North America--think of Stockholm, with less than a million people, or Munich, with just over that. In the only real metropoli--London, Paris, Madrid, and arguably Berlin--trams of any kind are really a peripheral part of the network.

I suppose this is me saying that we need to make sure these vehicles are as big as possible and run as fast as possible if they're going to be the backbone of the transit system.

I didn't read the other arguments (yet!) but I 100% agree with this. London, Paris and Madrid all have hugely expansive Subway networks with LRT mostly at the ends. We have 2 (and a half) subway lines. We could start building LRT routes in the suburbs, but it boils down to the fact that we'll need more than three subway lines to rely on further down the road. Even after Eglinton and the DRL are built, there are still routes in the GTA which need subway, not glorified LRT.

Good point allabootmatt

 

[golodhendil]

Brandon, before you go on a diatribe and blame others for a "pissing match" that you yourself instigated, I think it will be to your own advantage to read the materials that you posted.

While it is true that Siemens offers the Combino (and its successor Avenio) as a "tram" and the S70 "light rail" designed for the American market (where the LRT vs tramway branding seems to matter), the Combino in fact satisfies every criteria you are claiming to be the "industry standard" for classifying something as "light rail". Not only is it "modular" (where, as many people have repeatedly emphasized in this thread, each articulated "module" can be assembled and dissembled in house by the operator), it can be coupled to form multiple-car trains (look up this paraphased statement in the Siemens materials). Hungary operates some multi-module Combino trams that are 54 m long --- that's longer than any of the American examples of "LRT" you or I have brought up. And that's not even with coupling yet.

For every example that you bring up, I can cite a counterexample where the manufacturer does not make a branding difference between trams and LRT. Look at Alstom's Citadis, defined solely and exclusively as their "tramway" product. It is multi-modular, it can be coupled, its width can vary from 2300 to 2650, and there are versions that can run up to 100 kph. All while calling it one simple name, "tram". Then there is Kinki Sharyo, Nippon Sharyo, Alna Sharyo, Tokyu, Niigata, and all the other Japanese manufacturers who similarly do not differentiate between trams and light rail. AnsaldoBreda does produce two lines, LRV and Sirio, but they are careful to call Sirio a "streetcar" product, because as their own materials say and the real life examples of cities like Boston demonstrate, their LRVs can be equally well used on street-running tramways.

This will be my last word on this LRV vs tram debate. As I have said at the outset, this is a pointless debate. What needs to be decided and debated for Eglinton, and TC in general, is its implementation - the degree of grade separation, the number of stations, the opening and reserve capacity, and the best technology to do it (LRT, ICT, heavy rail). If all you're debating is whether TC should use the "tram" or "LRT" version of Flexity, then first there's an assumption TTC will also go to Bombardier for TC vehicles (not necessarily but which I also think is not unlikely); that TTC would not / not be able to get a custom-made version unlike either the tram or LRT version that fits TC's needs more specifically, or Bombardier won't have a new version of Flexity that nullifies the differences you're insisting; and that the tram version is unable to do what the LRT version can, which is untrue. If implemented well, the "lower" version can do what the "higher" version can, and if implemented poorly (as the TTC is prone to do), the "higher" version can be just as bad as the "lower" one.

Even if this debate had been about TC and Bombardier all along, it is at best premature at this stage. But by repeatedly bringing in outside examples, you yourself are, or at least unintentionally appearing to be, making sweeping general claims about what "trams" are and what "LRT" are, and be it in terms of the implementation or the vehicles, this false claim has been repeatedly shot down. Much of Europe, and the American cities that had LRT for a longer time like Boston or SF, have grown out of this artificial distinction (is Boston's T or the Muni Metro a light rail? a tram? a trolley? a subway?); perhaps the rest of America and Canada should too.

[/pointless debate]

 

[EnviroTO]

But why would you order a customized coupler for a tram that has less width and standing room when you can just order the actual higher capacity LRV that is hot-pluggable right away, and wider?

Customized coupler compared to what? There is no base model low floor LRT available in Canada. There are LRVs that are not trams which have no coupler as well. Wider by 5-10cm? How much capacity is that really? How can an extra 5-10cm of width warrant a whole new fleet type?

You are fixated on the belief that a tram has less capacity than a non-tram LRV when that is simply not the case. There is no standard design of tram and no standard design of non-tram LRV.

 

[Brandon716]

Customized coupler compared to what? There is no base model low floor LRT available in Canada. There are LRVs that are not trams which have no coupler as well. Wider by 5-10cm? How much capacity is that really? How can an extra 5-10cm of width warrant a whole new fleet type?

You are fixated on the belief that a tram has less capacity than a non-tram LRV when that is simply not the case. There is no standard design of tram and no standard design of non-tram LRV.

No, I'm sticking to the fact that a tram will be more crowded because even the manufacturers own web site states they have slightly less capacity.

Again, I never said its the end of all ends if they use a tram, I just think if they are going to be spending billions of dollars they need to go ahead and purchase the Flexity Swift LRV's for Eglinton LRT.

Note I never said they should do the same for St Clair, Finch West, etc. Just Eglinton...

I don't see why this is even controversial, its just an educated opinion and i've shown you my reasons. If you disagree its OKAY. If you think its better to have the same Flexity Outlook Tram on ALL TC lines, fine. You're entitled to that opinion.

I mean what more can be said? If you go back and look at my links I think its pretty clear why they should order Flexity Swift LRV's for Eglinton.

*Slightly more capacity
*Designed to be 2x, 3x, or 4x in length by stringing cars together straight from the factory without 'customization' or additional couplers like the outlook
*Competitive in price for purchase and maintenance, similar technology to between the models from the same vendor.

Whats there to discuss? Really not much, if it ends up being the same tram that they use on W Queen that they use below Eglinton, I suppose that's how it'll be.

I just think there is a slightly better way to build Eglinton LRT considering just how busy its intended to be, and they should use Flexity Swift LRV vehicles, low platform if they want.

It sounds like to me that you are still hung up on an opinion that there is essentially no difference between the tram and LRV. All I can say in response to that is that I've already shown you the links where every manufacturer differentiates between the two and the actual size differences, and the hot pluggability difference. No 'coupler' needs to be added and installed for customized linking on the Flexity Swift.

Again, if billions are being spent, why not spend it the best way possible?

This entire discussion is rather amazing to me, because when I was in Portland I would have friends in real life that i'd meet all the time who were transit enthusiasts and they would NEVER have the same level of stubbornness on this tram vs lrv issue. ESPECIALLY when I say that I agree they are both 'light rail variants' and openly discuss the issue around that premise. I guess when your city has a streetcar and an articulated LRV running side by side and you use it on a daily basis it makes a difference in perception. LOL On here it seems to be some big issue, which is at least fun to watch.

 

[Brandon716]

Brandon, before you go on a diatribe and blame others for a "pissing match" that you yourself instigated, I think it will be to your own advantage to read the materials that you posted.

While it is true that Siemens offers the Combino (and its successor Avenio) as a "tram" and the S70 "light rail" designed for the American market (where the LRT vs tramway branding seems to matter), the Combino in fact satisfies every criteria you are claiming to be the "industry standard" for classifying something as "light rail". Not only is it "modular" (where, as many people have repeatedly emphasized in this thread, each articulated "module" can be assembled and dissembled in house by the operator), it can be coupled to form multiple-car trains (look up this paraphased statement in the Siemens materials). Hungary operates some multi-module Combino trams that are 54 m long --- that's longer than any of the American examples of "LRT" you or I have brought up. And that's not even with coupling yet.

For every example that you bring up, I can cite a counterexample where the manufacturer does not make a branding difference between trams and LRT. Look at Alstom's Citadis, defined solely and exclusively as their "tramway" product. It is multi-modular, it can be coupled, its width can vary from 2300 to 2650, and there are versions that can run up to 100 kph. All while calling it one simple name, "tram". Then there is Kinki Sharyo, Nippon Sharyo, Alna Sharyo, Tokyu, Niigata, and all the other Japanese manufacturers who similarly do not differentiate between trams and light rail. AnsaldoBreda does produce two lines, LRV and Sirio, but they are careful to call Sirio a "streetcar" product, because as their own materials say and the real life examples of cities like Boston demonstrate, their LRVs can be equally well used on street-running tramways.

This will be my last word on this LRV vs tram debate. As I have said at the outset, this is a pointless debate. What needs to be decided and debated for Eglinton, and TC in general, is its implementation - the degree of grade separation, the number of stations, the opening and reserve capacity, and the best technology to do it (LRT, ICT, heavy rail). If all you're debating is whether TC should use the "tram" or "LRT" version of Flexity, then first there's an assumption TTC will also go to Bombardier for TC vehicles (not necessarily but which I also think is not unlikely); that TTC would not / not be able to get a custom-made version unlike either the tram or LRT version that fits TC's needs more specifically, or Bombardier won't have a new version of Flexity that nullifies the differences you're insisting; and that the tram version is unable to do what the LRT version can, which is untrue. If implemented well, the "lower" version can do what the "higher" version can, and if implemented poorly (as the TTC is prone to do), the "higher" version can be just as bad as the "lower" one.

Even if this debate had been about TC and Bombardier all along, it is at best premature at this stage. But by repeatedly bringing in outside examples, you yourself are, or at least unintentionally appearing to be, making sweeping general claims about what "trams" are and what "LRT" are, and be it in terms of the implementation or the vehicles, this false claim has been repeatedly shot down. Much of Europe, and the American cities that had LRT for a longer time like Boston or SF, have grown out of this artificial distinction (is Boston's T or the Muni Metro a light rail? a tram? a trolley? a subway?); perhaps the rest of America and Canada should too.

[/pointless debate]

It is pointless, because I more than read the links I posted. I basically had to walk people through how to get the dimensions after I had already linked the information far earlier.

How many times do I have to say I understand the differences are relatively small, but there ARE differences. A tram is a tram, an articulated/modular LRV is an articulated/modular LRV.

Every manufacturer differentiates between the variants of light rail. And I think if you want more information, you might want to go back and click the links for CAF, Siemens, and Bombardier whose selections and offerings are clearly divided into various brands of light rail.

Again, debate is really over on this tram vs lrv issue. Similar, but not identical is your answer.

 

[drum118]

We would like to hear from you
Two Open Houses will be held on May 20 and May 21. We hope you can attend. Details are as follows:

Date: Wednesday, May 20
Time: 6:30pm - 9:00pm
Location: Bliss Carman Sr Public School (gym),
10 Bellamy Road South

Date: Thursday, May 21
Time: 6:30pm - 9:00pm
Location: West Hill Public School (gym),
299 Morningside Avenue

 

[golodhendil]

I guess I will have to eat my word. I felt like banging my head on the wall so hard that I just have to respond.

It is pointless, because I more than read the links I posted. I basically had to walk people through how to get the dimensions after I had already linked the information far earlier.

How many times do I have to say I understand the differences are relatively small, but there ARE differences. A tram is a tram, an articulated/modular LRV is an articulated/modular LRV.

Every manufacturer differentiates between the variants of light rail. And I think if you want more information, you might want to go back and click the links for CAF, Siemens, and Bombardier whose selections and offerings are clearly divided into various brands of light rail.

As if CAF, Siemens and Bombardier are the only three manufacturers of light rail in the world. And as I tried pointing out to you but obviously flew over your head, Siemens doesn't even fit your "industry standard."

This is the claimed "slight differences" between trams and light rail, direct from your post:

The differences are generally that trams are a set size and cannot be modularized/expanded, trams generally run several km/h slower, and trams are smaller in width and length capacity. Generally speaking trams don't require the same quality of rails and construction as an articulated unit, especially when it comes to curves in the track. That's the difference.

To take Siemens as an example of something that you obviously did not read or care to find out the technical details:
From the Siemens Combino Plus brochure:

Vehicle lengths on the order of 18 to 72 meters can be realized with the standardized 9-meter modules. This means you get the correctly dimensioned vehicle for every traffic volume. A number of trams can also be coupled together to form a multiple-tram train for very demanding situations. Vehicle widths of 2.30 m, 2.40 m and 2.65 m are available

This paragraph alone contradicts almost every single one of your so called "industry standards" (except for the speed part which is contradicted elsewhere). Not only is the Combino tram modular, flexible, and can be coupled, it can have lengths longer than any "light rail" systems in North America and have widths as wide as the Flexity "light rail".

Moreover, if you cared to actually find out about the Siemens S70 "light rail" that you quoted, you will realize that, marketed under the European name "Avanto", it is called a tram. Case in point:

SIEMENS Press Release
Châtillon, November 18, 2006
A first in France: commissioning of a tram-train line
On Saturday 18 November 2006, Anne-Marie Idrac, President of SNCF and Jean-Paul Huchon, President of the Ile-de-France Region and President of STIF (Ile-de-France Transport Union), inaugurated the first tram-train line in France, now connecting Aulnay-sous-Bois to Bondy, in the Paris' suburb. This line, called T4 or "Ligne des Coquetiers", joins two regional trains lines: RER B and RER E, thanks to the development of innovative rolling stock by Siemens: the Avanto tram-train. Half tramway, half-train, the Avanto can run as easily on the national railway network as in a city centre.
This is the first tram-train contract for the French railway network. The Avanto tram-train, adapted to satisfy French safety standards and regulations, combines the advantages of trains and tramways and runs with a dual-current electrical power supply: 25 kV 50 Hz on the railway network and 750 V DC on the urban tracks. Thus, this system provides periurban zones with a comfortable means of quick access to the heart of cities.
The tram-train link between Aulnay and Bondy made it possible to convert a former railway link, the source of a highly sensitive interruption in the urban fabric, into a modern urban service. The tram-train equipment also offers the specific advantage of servicing surrounding communes in future extensions, thanks to its ability to run on the pavement like a tramway. Initially, line T4 will stop at 11 stations and will be able to transport more than 35 000 passengers per day.
Following this initial contract, Siemens will also provide SNCF with 12 "Avanto" tram-trains for the Mulhouse agglomeration. These tram-trains will service the modernized line of the Thur valley from the Mulhouse main line station up to Thann by running on the Mulhouse tramway tracks, then the national railway network tracks, as of 2010.
Over and above the technical performance that the tram-train represents, Siemens has also paid great attention to the aesthetic aspect of this equipment: the interior design of the Avanto received the "Red Dot Award" on June 26, 2006 at Essen (Germany), as part of the 51st design competition, attracting 2 068 candidates from 41 countries. This is the 4th international award won by the Avanto for its design.

The Avanto tram-train for SNCF
The "Avanto" range is a new generation of peri-urban vehicles with low floors, combining diverse design to technical flexibility, suitable both for running on tramway lines in town centres, as well as on railway tracks outside town.
The urban qualities of the Avanto, its accessibility, its design, as well as the tried and tested nature of the industrial solutions proposed played a primordial role in the choice of this equipment by SNCF. Avanto is part of a platform common to American and European markets. In the United States, this platform is marketed under the name S70. Siemens has already won several contracts, in Houston, San Diego and Charlotte. Calgary, in Canada, has also placed an order for this type of equipment.
The SNCF train-sets consist of five modules (whereas the North American version consists of three) with a hinged unit incorporating the motor bogie and an intermediate module without any running gear. This module, located in the middle of the train set is equipped with a two-leaf door on each side. The five doors on each side of the Avanto highlight its design as a short-trip vehicle, suited to short inter-station distances and highlevel passenger exchange rate. These doors are of the plug and slide type, incorporating a
platform gap filler.
SNCF has chosen an entirely air-conditioned vehicle in order to satisfy the current expectations of passengers. The air-conditioning equipment is located on the roof.
Also, the Siemens Avanto is equipped with a video surveillance system covering the interior space, as well as the exterior access area. A modern passenger information system takes charge of automatic announcements, the public address system, the passenger/driver intercom and a display system indicating the next station in real time.

Main technical data
Vehicle length (excluding couplings) 37 m
Vehicle width 2.65 m
Vehicle height 3.52 m (pantograph down)
Capacity (4 passengers per m²) 242 passengers, including 80 seats
Maximum speed 105 km/h
Low floor rate 80 %

All trams, by definition, are light railways. The modern terminology is arbitrary and flexible, and none of the three other biggest tram makers (Siemens, Alstom, AnsaldoBreda) other than Bombardier make any distinction, real or perceived, between "trams" and "light rail". For all intents and purposes (except when discussing the Bombardier models, which I have conceded), there are no differences, let alone "industry standard" differences, between trams and light rails.

Alright, I'm done.

 

[Eug]

We would like to hear from you
Two Open Houses will be held on May 20 and May 21. We hope you can attend. Details are as follows:

Date: Wednesday, May 20
Time: 6:30pm - 9:00pm
Location: Bliss Carman Sr Public School (gym),
10 Bellamy Road South

Date: Thursday, May 21
Time: 6:30pm - 9:00pm
Location: West Hill Public School (gym),
299 Morningside Avenue

This is specifically with regards to what?

Transit City in general? Scarborough RT? Eglinton Crosstown line?

 

[299 bloor call control.]

That's for the Scarborough-Malvern LRT - which technically isn't "Malvern" anymore, since it's been cut down to Sheppard.

 

[scarberiankhatru]

That's for the Scarborough-Malvern LRT - which technically isn't "Malvern" anymore, since it's been cut down to Sheppard.

Technically, Morningside & Sheppard is Malvern, both Malvern and "Malvern," even.