Search results

Definitely people falling for marketing. Seeing posts that "light tech" has more capacity, which doesn't make sense on a couple of fronts. Also seen pantographs give more capacity, again nonsense. Here's another marketing line - OL is longer! Considering the scope of the predecessor was...

Oh c'mon. I've supported light metros in the GTA for years. But "lighter tech"? It's not magic, it's a shorter train with lower capacity. And with pantos added the profile of the train is now bigger. Also this is the only subway project that shouldn't be light on capacity. You mention down the...

This is kinda dumb. RL was in the Big Move for 2031, TTC pushed for it, the City pushed for, Prov accepted it at least on paper, data showed it was needed. Yet for some reason Metrolinx came out and said it wasn't needed, despite it being in their RTP. Literally the only project in their...

Yeah this makes sense and is sort of what I assumed. Doing something different for the sake of doing something different.

We're really getting into the weeds now. Half asleep and may come off Malcolm Gladwell-ish. One theory is that it's branding. It's the Prov's line, they want it to stand out from conventional TTC subways. How? Put a panto on it. Another one is that it's fashionable. Now hear me out. Recall the...

This is accurate. But am curious if a healthy (and possibly more successful) alternative to such high quality commuter rail is quantity. As in: more lines spread across the GTHA. Brantford, Bolton, North Brampton, North Oshawa, Cambridge. All areas not served by any "RER" plans, but all capable...

Considering there's a modern, elevated (and exposed), third rail line right by there - that may soon be extended - one wonders if this section of coverage is more to do with legacy rolling stock. The other cities using these trains also seem to have the legacy sections largely underground as well.

Dollar figures no. But I leave it up to you to decide. Which I explained. Larger bore by 1.5m, 16k extra dump trucks of spoil that needs to be hauled and deposited to some distant spot, hundreds of masts, then more maintenance vis a vis third rail.

You claimed there was one part of Moscow's legacy metro that ran outside. That's not true, irrespective of Line 12. No mention of possible issues with legacy rolling stock in winter, it was specifically third rail. And I haven't heard of issues with Line 12. It's built, runs elevated, has third...

It's certainly more than one poster. And I have brought up a city with catenary. It's subway was down for a week. Oh I see now. Yes sorry I didn't mean "winter cities", although I wrote that. I meant to say cities with winter (ice, snow, minus 0 temps). Apologies for my phrasing. I guess I...

Getting into the weeds here, again. But "um" all you want. They both get winters, and snow, and ice, and sub0 temps. If we're to believe some of the more inaccurate posts made on the previous pages, just an iota of one of those things supposedly cripples a 3rd rail subway line. Yet it doesn't...

That's what I'm saying they did. Iirc it was pics of third rail trains on guideways in Copenhagen and Vancouver - both very much winter cities btw.

Some of this is simple logic. What do you need cited? And Mtl gets twice as much snow than TO on average and listed it as a leading reason they went with catenary. Not sure which is worse for ice storms, TO or MTL, but hopefully it got sufficient weighting in the decision. Not unlike how snow...

oh god. You think it was nimbys that led to this decision? Why?

yes ty, was tongue in cheek. Was going to jest more about the depth, like how South African gold mining companies could qualify. Figured it would go over people's heads.

They should issue a separate RFQ for Royal Orchard station just for how insanely deep it will be. Anyone else remember when the province said we shouldn't tunnel under rivers or have deep stations.

It should be convincing. And compared to all the untruths people were waxing poetic about catenary, it's relevant. As well as local and recent. To recap, third rail: -lower capital cost -lower operating/maintenance cost -greater ease of planning/construction (obvious since train profile way...

If the trains are the same there'd be no cost to convert. Our trains are wide. But interestingly they have a significantly smaller profile than those proposed for the Ontario Line. And 12k pphpd is a lot of capacity and effectively future-proofed.

A Sheppard subway extension needs to be light metro. Not a one-off contraption, could be Toronto Rockets. But if anyone realistically wants to see something built that's what you should be advocating. Two cars, max. That's 12k pphp - which is above and beyond any ridership needed this century...

Yes, a miniscule stretch and well away from people. But at least something local to show. To the west there will be a much longer structure crossing the valley, again well away from people. When it is to approach homes it will dive underground at considerable cost - despite the roadway being...