News   Apr 24, 2024
Latest Iteration of 50 Eglinton West Proposes 46- and 58-Storey Towers
 453     1 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Sustainability Month: Mass Timber Construction Showing Long-Term Economic Benefits
 632     0 
News   Apr 24, 2024
Aspen Ridge Freehold Townhomes at Crosstown in Master-Planned Community
 506     0 

Sheppard Line 4 Subway Extension (Proposed)

nfitz said:
The only thing that makes the Canada line a light metro, is the tiny 40-metre long trains, not much longer than a streetcar!

If they ran 92-metre long trains like the Sheppard line, or 90-metre trains, which the stations on the Eglinton line are built for, it would be heavy metro.
Click to expand...
But that's what Light Metro is. The REM will be running on the exact same vehicles as the Sydney Metro - Alstom Metropolis, with the only difference being that the REM will run 2 coupled 2 car sets meanwhile the Sydney Metro runs an open gangway 6 car set with room to expand to a full 8 car set in the future. Despite this, the REM is considered to be a Light Metro, meanwhile the Sydney Metro is full Metro. Its almost as if train lengths and capacity is what defines a light metro 🤔
 
JSF-1 said:
I don't really think you can blame the city for that though. The SRT corridor was never meant to be a light metro. It was planned for an LRT with standards built more closely to the Streetcar network. It was the Province that forced the ICTS trains on us, and said that they could handle the corridor as it was planned, I don't believe any changes to the alignment itself and its clearance were made.
Click to expand...

You are right. I forgot that it was the Province mostly responsible for the ICTS rollout, and the associated technical choices.

But the main point stands; if the public entity overseeing the line had been thinking long-term, we wouldn't have the physical constraints that prevent the deployment of larger trains of any kind.
 
nfitz said:
Sheppard is most certainly not light metro! Nor would Ontario line be if it's running 80-metre trains every 90 seconds.
Click to expand...
Depends - its the fuzzy border where its hard to say. When Lagos ordered our old H5 cars for use in their metro network, it was part of the project that was called the Lagos LIGHT RAIL, so even our big wide TTC Gauge subway cars are enough to be considered Light Rail in some places.
 
ARG1 said:
When Lagos ordered our old H5 cars for use in their metro network, it was part of the project that was called the Lagos LIGHT RAIL, so even our big wide TTC Gauge subway cars are enough to be considered Light Rail in some places.
Click to expand...
Width is immaterial - Canada line is light metro, and their trains are quite wide, almost as wide as TTC, and much wider than the Montreal Metro.

Besides, Lagos was planned as light rail years ago. About the same time as they talked about possibly using the old H5/H6 cars, they also moved away from the light rail branding.
 
robmausser said:
Even the ICTS is not proprietary technology, Bombardier has repeatedly stated that other companies are allowed to build for the technology. However none want to. That is definitely an issue when going with a specific technology like ICTS, but most Light Metros are not and use pretty standardized technologies, like, ding ding, the Canada Line.
Click to expand...

To piggyback on this, Bombardier also offered their Innovia (aka "ICTS") with third rail variants, maybe even panto too. I don't think anyone ever bought it. But the option to customize was in the brochure. So even when off the shelf it still wasn't exactly off the shelf.
 
nfitz said:
The only thing that makes the Canada line a light metro, is the tiny 40-metre long trains, not much longer than a streetcar!

If they ran 92-metre long trains like the Sheppard line, or 90-metre trains, which the stations on the Eglinton line are built for, it would be heavy metro.
Click to expand...

Like all things, these terms of Light Metro and Heavy Metro are mostly invented terms to put things into easy to understand boxes for the general public. Engineers etc dont care about such terms, they just care about the technical requirements of each job.

So, theres obvious overlap between Light Metro, Heavy Metro etc.

The only thing I will say, is that beyond the length of the Sheppard Line, the induvidual cars of the TR Rocket trains are not only a bit wider and longer than the Canada Line trains, they are also a bit heavier.

This is one of the foreseen 'advantages' of a Light Metro over heavy metro: the smaller turning radiuses, grade angles and lighter cars allow for cheaper costs for elevating the line, and the ability to fit the line around areas with tighter curves etc.

Although the Canada Line trains are on the bigger end of Light Metro cars, there is still another reason they are considered Light Metro while the TTC subway system is not.

The TR Rockets also while having the technology for ATC in them, can be driven by a driver and work on a fixed block system, and the Canada Line trains are entirely automated, with no driver cab. Its rare for a Light Metro to use a fixed block system, they almost all exclusively use some kind of PTC or ATC, even if driver controlled. While you can find Light Metro trains with a driver cab, a fully automated system with no driver cab is quite rare for a system that is considered a "heavy metro".

Thats why the Millennium Line is considered Light Metro, even though they operate quite long trains now. The induvidual trains are quite small, narrow and light, and they are completely driverless and automated.

You have to kind of tick off a bunch of boxes to be considered Light Metro, but not all of them.

The Canada Line ticks off the completely automated box, even though the cars themselves are almost big enough to be considered Heavy Metro, but the platforms and train length is short and that ticks off another box. The Millennium Line trains are now long enough to be considered Heavy Metro, but they are small, narrow and light cars, and they are fully automated. Enough ticks in the light metro category.

The TTC subway system ticks off none of the light metro boxes. If it was running 2 car trains, maybe, but even that is barely enough considering the weight, size and driver cabs of the trains.
 
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster said:
Why do light metro systems tend to be proprietary?
Click to expand...
nfitz said:
They aren't. Nor is the SRT technology. This was discussed a couple of years ago in this Vancouver document - https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/2019-05-06-skytrain-and-competitive-bidding-process.pdf

Recall that the most recent order for cars for the Expo/Millennium lines in Vancouver went to a completive bid, and there was another bidder.
Click to expand...

In a loose sense, "proprietary" means one of two things: 1) One vendor holds a patent and nobody else can make the same thing; or 2) Any vendor can legally make the thing, but noone but the original maker is actually prepared to do so.

Perhaps "proprietary" is not an accurate word for the second case, and we should be talking about "niche technology" or "custom technology" instead. But the practical outcome is very similar: a single vendor for the refurbishment or extension, or no vendor at all if the original product is discontinued or upgraded with no backward compatibility.

As of why proprietary / niche technologies are more common for Light Metro than for LRT .. my guess is that having a fully separate right-of-way encourages the vendors to experiment. Say, they came up with the Linear Induction propulsion, and they need the third rail for that to work. It is easier to design a fully separate right-of-way with the third rail, rather than somehow add it to the street median route. So, they focus their R&D efforts on a light metro LIM system, and try to sell it to transit agencies, before they even think if LIM can work with LRT.

And that's probably good from the long-term perspective, because a few of those niche innovations may become the standard in the future. Say, if LIM could dramatically outperform the conventional motors, then eventually someone would find a way to use it on LRT etc.

But many of the new designs never live up to the expectations, and eventually get abandoned or sidelined. And the transit agency ends up having an orphan line, that is hard to refurbish, extend, or turn into something else.
 
afransen said:
Maybe orphan, but this is more when no maker is willing to support a technology.
Click to expand...
More often the case, no vendor thinks it can possibly underbid the incumbent, so no point bidding, especially when it's not off-the-shelf.

The use of niche technology like this is a great tactic by design-build winners to lock in future expansions. Perhaps another reason the Ontario Line should use the existing technology - or at least a vehicle that would run on existing lines (yet able to handle tighter turns and steeper gradients).
 
nfitz said:
More often the case, no vendor thinks it can possibly underbid the incumbent, so no point bidding, especially when it's not off-the-shelf.

The use of niche technology like this is a great tactic by design-build winners to lock in future expansions. Perhaps another reason the Ontario Line should use the existing technology - or at least a vehicle that would run on existing lines (yet able to handle tighter turns and steeper gradients).
Click to expand...
As has been said many times though, considering how badly the SRT performed, its extremely unlikely that the Ontario Line will go for any unusual designs. Its almost certainly going to be just standard Light Metro tech, Alstom Metropolis, Hitachi Driverless, etc.
 
ARG1 said:
As has been said many times though, considering how badly the SRT performed, its extremely unlikely that the Ontario Line will go for any unusual designs. Its almost certainly going to be just standard Light Metro tech, Alstom Metropolis, Hitachi Driverless, etc.
Click to expand...
It will also go to a standard Light Metro tech because its open tender so the consortium that builds it will more than likely choose a standard technology thats "off-the-shelf" as they say. There would be huge risk for them to build something custom.
 
robmausser said:
It will also go to a standard Light Metro tech because its open tender so the consortium that builds it will more than likely choose a standard technology thats "off-the-shelf" as they say. There would be huge risk for them to build something custom.
Click to expand...
ARG1 said:
As has been said many times though, considering how badly the SRT performed, its extremely unlikely that the Ontario Line will go for any unusual designs. Its almost certainly going to be just standard Light Metro tech, Alstom Metropolis, Hitachi Driverless, etc.
Click to expand...
The days of customization are over, and that's a great thing.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top