Truee, but these trains won't be like the ole rusty RT - longitudinal seating, for one, no operator cab, and open gangways. This system does use short trains, but I intend to make up for it with very high frequencies. With headways of 75 seconds (realistic bare minimum, I think, for an automated metro) it can do around 20k pphpd. Keeping the trains short saves me station construction costs (54 m vs 90 m platforms) which is important because I want to highlight that this plan might actually be more cost-effective than the mostly-tunnelled LRT. I think many are correct to say Eglinton doesn't really support a full-blown heavy rail subway line, so I think this mini-metro has fair capacity, I guess?Very cool including an infographic like that. I think if building it as a subway then 54m is too short. That's like the same train length as current Line 3. Then again if the Prov is projecting extremely high 40k pphpd with 100m trains for OL, this roughly follows that belief. Which I think is pushing things a bit. Still I'd get on board with this retroactive proposal.