It seems unlikely that the streetcar network will undergo any expansion, beyond minor expansions similar in scope to Cherry St (though I even doubt that much), within the foreseeable future. As for LRT lines, I haven't heard of any of the potential lines having a problem with bridge clearance since those are on more major roads--if it can fit a truck, it can fit an LRV or streetcar+wire. Look at King near Atlantic, that's a pretty low bridge and it works fine.
Right now, the Cherry St underpass is a problem today and could cost $50 million to fix it for everyone. Got to build new bridges for the Portland area as well Dufferin St to support Streetcars. May need a new bridge over the Humber River if the Western Waterfront Line stays on the Lake Shore. A possibility of a tunnel at Bathurst/Fleet/Lake Shore/Queens Quay. Then you got the Union Station mess.
As for King, how slow do the streetcar travel under that bridge?
If I look at 2035 for expansion, you got CNE loop to Dufferin by 2021, You got Dufferin to Park Lawn by 2 different routes; you got Cherry St extension along with the Commissioner line. Then the Queens Way E Union to Parliament and then to Cherry St. There talk about putting Parliament back in service from Queens Quay to Castle Frank. The Broadview extension to Commissioner under the GO Corridor. Eglinton east and west extension. These aren't small expansion. You could see a line on the Queensway out to Sherway Mall and the Kipling line that been in TTC rear view mirror. The next 10-20 years could see more if ones allow it to happen aka Sheppard.
Going to repost something I put in TTC catch all since it should had been here in the first place and not by me.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Perhaps the most pertinent question is the Costs (CAPAX and Operational and Maintenance) associated with Wire-Free. In Sydney the new light rail extension (CBD and South East Light Rail – CSELR) now under construction has committed to 2kms of APS in the centre of the city with the remainder of the system, some 12 kms being supplied by overhead.
Attempting to establish the additional costs associated with the APS system is difficult as the proponents of APS both here and elsewhere maintain a virtual iron curtain around this information. Nevertheless local sources are suggesting that the 2 km APS section will add an extra $200 million to the overall project cost. The proponents have neither confirmed nor denied this $200 million figure.
Observations of the Dubai and Bordeaux systems reveal a constant and ongoing need to replace mechanical components both on the tram and within the contact zone area of the ground level power contacts. Here again the costs associated with this maintenance are tightly held by the APS proponents. How can an informed buyer for the tramway system establish that the tramway system is getting value for money?
A further question is the increase in the capital cost per tram and the weight penalty added to each tram resulting in increased power consumption over the life of the vehicle.
Operational criteria applying in system operations cannot be overlooked, this involves frequency of service, load of Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning systems on the power supply system of the LRV, the operational speeds of tramway operation and the system gradients and dwell time at stops and the number of stops all of which can increase power demand. The marketers of wire-less system always showcase systems that have significant recovery times at termini and/or very leisurely system operating speeds.
It is noteworthy that there are 18 UNESCO World Heritage listed cities with tramways in Europe, the ultimate in terms of the need for historic and aesthetic sensitivity. These are Riga, Tallinn, Graz, Vienna, Bern, Edinburgh, Strasbourg, Florence, Naples, Porto, Lyon, Le Havre, Budapest, Kracow, St Petersburg, Yaroslavl, Prague and Warsaw.
In every one of these without exception, the trams are powered by overhead wire, even in the French cities of Nice (the site of an early trial of wireless power) and Le Havre. UNESCO has pretty onerous requirements about management of the heritage of these cities with which member states are treaty-bound to comply. In all the reports I've seen, never have tram wires been raised as an issue.
Several of the cities, including Budapest, Prague, Vienna and Warsaw, have among the busiest tram systems in the world, demanding infrastructure and trams to be as cost-effective and as fail-safe as possible. Many of the cities are not terribly wealthy, with few exceptions like Vienna which even lately has admitted it has financial difficulties that prevent it undertaking, for example, intensive maintenance work like Melbourne does.
What seems to come out of this is that jurisdictions entertaining wireless power are characterised by a combination of one or all of the following factors: pretension, a surfeit of money and/or a not very onerous operation.
Although it is becoming somewhat vintage the following Systra Report gives a good background to the wire-free debate. The report was commissioned by the historic city of Dublin and resulted in Dublin’s decision to continue to use overhead wiring and not incorporate wire-free.
<https://1f19be030965d7aa9cd5-0ea8ebfb2bc7a6161d6ab1bbbbe2306e.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/NA0004SystraReport.pdf>
A further consideration is the ability/willingness of the grid supply authority to provide for a highly ‘peaked’ power demand required by fast charge on board storage systems. Ideally a supply authority seeks to achieve a constant demand for its electricity as this enables the supply authority to minimise its supply infrastructure, cabling sizes and system fluctuations costs. To supply a fast charge load the supply authority will usually demand a capital contribution and significant ‘peak demand surcharge penalty' on the tramway request for power.
Tony P wrote:
Yes I think this is what will happen Tony. The French have brought in their own standards that are not entirely compatible with the 1990s local standards under which IWLR was built and TfNSW is too weak/uninformed to challenge that. The problem is that the French standards will likely preclude any future competitor taking over from them. That's they way they operate. French industries help each other, hence the commercial success (with often mediocre products).
Further feedback from Europe (where I often learn more about what's happening in Australia than I hear from Australia, because here it's "commercial in confidence" whereas there it's openly known) is a claim (which I can't substantiate at this stage) that Systra was involved in design of GCLR and designed it for Citadis trams. It then, according to this information, had to be redone when the consortium with Bombardier won. Digging back through documentation that I have, I find that Systra did the depot design but I can't put my finger on anything else yet. Perhaps somebody else knows.
This is not a surprise to me in any case. This is a typical aggressive national strategy for market dominance and good luck for the French, not so good luck for others who find themselves dealing with all that mass-concrete track built for Citadis in 30 years when it wears out.
Personally, I would welcome it if they could use the Citadis trams on IWLR because that four-door CAF design is a disaster for the demand that they didn't predict. How lucky too that the line is almost all side-platforms so that they can extend them without disrupting the service. I agree that double-length trams would be a good idea at least at peaks. They need to duplicate the Dulwich Hill terminus though.
