Bojaxs
Senior Member
Consider how the city had to expand capacity at Bloor & Yonge.
And now look at how busy Eglinton & Yonge is already getting.
Last edited:
|
|
|
And now look at how busy Eglinton & Yonge is already getting.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Line 5 is a "subway".
The width of the light rail vehicles on Line 5 are 2.65m. The width of the Montréal Metro train cars are 2.5m. The Line 5 cars are wider than the Montréal Metro cars. They are wider then a bus (2.6m), and wider than a streetcar (2.54m). They are however, narrower than the TTC subway cars at 3.137m, but wider than the Ontario Line train cars in Toronto, which are designed to be approximately 2.49m.
The width of the light rail vehicles on Line 5 are 2.65m. The width of the Montréal Metro train cars are 2.5m. The Line 5 cars are wider than the Montréal Metro cars. They are wider then a bus (2.6m), and wider than a streetcar (2.54m). They are however, narrower than the TTC subway cars at 3.137m, but wider than the Ontario Line train cars in Toronto, which are designed to be approximately 2.49m.
Bojaxs
Senior Member
Good! So upgrading Line 5 to match the Ontario Line is a very real possibility.
Thaboss
Active Member
Not sure how you came to that conclusion...but no it is not
Jonathan's Junction
New Member
That would involve basically ripping out every single platform, so it would be a non starter. Plus, you would have to sever the line from the at-grade section. Line 5 should have really been "Ontario Line style" to begin with, but that ship sailed long ago and we have to deal with what was built.
lastcommodore
Active Member
Re: Capacity, i think it's a bit early to cast 5 as some failure in the waiting.
To be clear, I am also on the side that LRT was not the best choice for this corridor, and I would have preferred some sort of grade separation for the eastern section, either elevated or underground.
But People give this too little faith and think it will quickly be overwhelmed... The TTC has 38 vehicles for 5 (Correct if wrong). Assuming a 90% uptime rate, 34 vehicles available, at 110m round time (inc. recovery) we're looking at a peak rate of 3.3m headway. This alone is a lot of passengers... Add that frequency will also (hopefully) be increased as tunnel speeds increase and stronger TSP is implemented. All of this is without even buying any new rolling stock to run more frequent or with 3 car trams.
I do not know what is the maximum allowable headway between trams on 5, but even if it is every 2.5 minutes it should be acceptable.
I think that it will be a very, very long while before we seriously need to consider re-building 5 into a proper subway to alleviate crowding. Even 1 is only overcrowded due to indirect/feeder traffic, and I dont think 5 will experience this problem soon.
It may not reach "Every rider gets a seat at rush hour", but I don't think it will reach Tokyo level "We need to hire people to stuff them in harder" within the next three or four decades.
To be clear, I am also on the side that LRT was not the best choice for this corridor, and I would have preferred some sort of grade separation for the eastern section, either elevated or underground.
But People give this too little faith and think it will quickly be overwhelmed... The TTC has 38 vehicles for 5 (Correct if wrong). Assuming a 90% uptime rate, 34 vehicles available, at 110m round time (inc. recovery) we're looking at a peak rate of 3.3m headway. This alone is a lot of passengers... Add that frequency will also (hopefully) be increased as tunnel speeds increase and stronger TSP is implemented. All of this is without even buying any new rolling stock to run more frequent or with 3 car trams.
I do not know what is the maximum allowable headway between trams on 5, but even if it is every 2.5 minutes it should be acceptable.
I think that it will be a very, very long while before we seriously need to consider re-building 5 into a proper subway to alleviate crowding. Even 1 is only overcrowded due to indirect/feeder traffic, and I dont think 5 will experience this problem soon.
It may not reach "Every rider gets a seat at rush hour", but I don't think it will reach Tokyo level "We need to hire people to stuff them in harder" within the next three or four decades.
crs1026
Superstar
I really think that going forward, this thread should be split in two....one to discuss the reality of the current line 5, its observed performance, and what can realistically be done in the near term to improve it.... and another to deal with the fantasy aspects of what our grandkids might do some day and all the coulda shoulda commentary about what wasn't built.
What's done is done, and I'm a lot more interested in the former than in imaginary redesigns of the line. So great to have it, better or worse.
- Paul
What's done is done, and I'm a lot more interested in the former than in imaginary redesigns of the line. So great to have it, better or worse.
- Paul
NoahB
Active Member
Incorrect. Ontario Line trains will be 3m wide.
From the Business Case:
I see no indication that has changed.
81-717
Active Member
The IRT fleet is also basically the same width (2.68 m), but that doesn't mean L5 vehicles belong in the same league. Again, the vehicles themselves have a streetcar design (hence: LRT / light rail), the IRT cars do not. But it's surprising to hear they're wider than the 500-series streetcars, if anything I expected the opposite.
nfitz
Superstar
They certainly felt wider, being crush loaded in them last week after a security-related shutdown at Cedarvale; a bit easier to pass people in the centre of the quad-seats.
We've discussed how unusually wide these vehicles are for LRT. Though not quite as wide as the Canada line cars in Vancouver; though both have the potential of being heavy rail transit (HRT) one day with increased frequencies. Though I'd already argue that Line 5, but not Line 6 are intermediate rail transit (IRT).
Being wider than some London, and Paris trains, and similar width to many New York city subway trains - I don't think anyone would call them unusually narrow! Though the Toronto Line 1/2/4 trains are unusually wide compared to many cities, even a slightly wider than the widest NYC trains - and are about as wide as they come.
81-717
Active Member
I didn't think much about the width, but thought there may be a height difference because the L5 Flexities seem a bit sleeker & slightly less boxy than the 5XXs, which I thought might've been due to height or something. In any case, the width differences of various rolling stock are often unexpected, like how freight cars are wider than GO cars, whereas HO scale freight cars are about the same width as HO scale IRT (R21) cars, which are narrower than GO cars. You'd think the same'd be true of the real thing, assuming the scale modelling is accurate. Once again, it's not so much capacity that determines whether something is an LRT or not, it's also the vehicle design (if it looks like a streetcar, it's a streetcar/LRT; if not, it's a subway or a light metro; and the IRT is considered a subway not a light metro, despite being smaller than the BMT/IND, which are roughly the same width as ours (and length, for the R46/68)).
asher__jo
Active Member
Cedarvale was a very technically complex station to build below an active line, so compromises were made. Not sure what your objection to trash is; easy to see when full and thus easily changed.
nfitz
Superstar
I think they are the same; but perhaps that's jus a perception because they are wider.
The 2.3-metre wide cars Bombardier ran in Vancouver almost felt claustrophobic - even though the height is similar. Certainly all are taller than the London tube trains, where even average height people have to duck.
canucks2030
New Member
However, the trains are longer in Montreal. Approx.150 meters. The maximum length of the crosstown considering the current platforms would be approx 90 meters (30m per 3 cars).
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
The underground station box has room for 5 car platforms (150m), after renovations in the 22nd century. The surface stop platforms have space for platform extension as well.