News   Jul 15, 2024
Twilight Glow
 51     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.7K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.3K     1 

Finch West Line 6 LRT

salsa said:
Don't think this one was posted yet.


View attachment 132585

DTwzst2X0AEk9bk.jpg:large
Click to expand...


A few comments:
- generally, vehicle manufacturers increase crush loading capacity by removing seats (you can fit more people standing than sitting), so having 292 as a listed capacity would not mean you can "always find a seat"
- of all the environments to have a multi-billion dollar, high capacity, modern LRT line, why would you render it as going through single family detached bungalows?
- it looks like almost all the seats are facing each other, which is awkward and uncomfortable.
 
robmausser said:
Crush load? Absolutely.
Click to expand...
Both Metrolinx and TTC were using 130 for their peak capacity, for their respectivfe 30-metre cars.

That suggests that the Alstom car would be 195. Let's call it 200, with 110 seats.

292 would be very crush load - you don't see this on TTC with people wearing coats, and carrying briefcases and knapsacks. The only time you see anything close is when it's all point-to-point - like a completely empty car boarding at Exhibition, after a football, or CFL game, and people are younger, thinner, and aren't carrying much (because of stadium restrictions. And they all enter together and are much better about squeezing in and going to the back than you see in regular service.

But if you do see this in regular service - it's a nightmare at each stop, as people struggle to get to the doors, and many people get out, wait for one person to get out, get back in, while a few more try and squeeze in.

I suppose if the 110 seats, all had an infant on their las, then you'd be at 310!

Still, it's great news that Metrolinx is increasing the frequency, so there'll always be seats (at least on an average basis I'd assume).
 
nfitz said:
Both Metrolinx and TTC were using 130 for their peak capacity, for their respectivfe 30-metre cars.

That suggests that the Alstom car would be 195. Let's call it 200, with 110 seats.

292 would be very crush load - you don't see this on TTC with people wearing coats, and carrying briefcases and knapsacks. The only time you see anything close is when it's all point-to-point - like a completely empty car boarding at Exhibition, after a football, or CFL game, and people are younger, thinner, and aren't carrying much (because of stadium restrictions. And they all enter together and are much better about squeezing in and going to the back than you see in regular service.

But if you do see this in regular service - it's a nightmare at each stop, as people struggle to get to the doors, and many people get out, wait for one person to get out, get back in, while a few more try and squeeze in.

I suppose if the 110 seats, all had an infant on their las, then you'd be at 310!
Click to expand...

Story time. On my way to the Christmas Market, I boarded an LFLRV at King Street. The tram appeared absolutely packed. I could just barely squeeze in the vehicle, with by back smooshed against the door. But the tram wasn't anywhere near full! I looked down the tram into the first module, and saw that it was almost completely empty. I start telling people that there's room in the front of the LRV, and a few of them reluctantly move down there. Even then, there was tons of room left in that first module; I could've easily laid across the floor if I wanted to. Because of that collective stupidity, the capacity of the tram was effectively cut by 20%.

nfitz said:
Still, it's great news that Metrolinx is increasing the frequency, so there'll always be seats (at least on an average basis I'd assume).
Click to expand...

Ehh, I wouldn't make that assumption based on a Tweet that was probably sent by someone not at all familiar with the technical details of the line. Plus, I'm pretty sure the TTC will be setting service levels, as they will be running the service, and the service will be funded by the City of Toronto.
 
At first blush, my primary observation is that the passage way between the sets of seats is awfully narrow.

This is an issue if you expect people to flow (spread out) through the vehicle.

Both physically and psychologically people are disinclined to walk through narrow spaces to get to another spot.

I hasten to add, are those walkways even large enough for today's strollers? They certainly don't seem wide enough for scooters.
 
Northern Light said:
At first blush, my primary observation is that the passage way between the sets of seats is awfully narrow.

This is an issue if you expect people to flow (spread out) through the vehicle.

Both physically and psychologically people are disinclined to walk through narrow spaces to get to another spot.

I hasten to add, are those walkways even large enough for today's strollers? They certainly don't seem wide enough for scooters.
Click to expand...

Agreed that narrow passage and seats facing each other without sufficient leg space for both sides is a prevalent problem on the new street cars.
 
TheTigerMaster said:
Story time. On my way to the Christmas Market, I boarded an LFLRV at King Street. The tram appeared absolutely packed. I could just barely squeeze in the vehicle, with by back smooshed against the door. But the tram wasn't anywhere near full! I looked down the tram into the first module, and saw that it was almost completely empty. I start telling people that there's room in the front of the LRV, and a few of them reluctantly move down there. Even then, there was tons of room left in that first module; I could've easily laid across the floor if I wanted to. Because of that collective stupidity, the capacity of the tram was effectively cut by 20%.
Click to expand...
You see the same everywhere. Many a time, I've though through the CLRV crowd from the front doors, to discover empty seats at the back. It's even more true on buses, where you are crush-loaded, and then find out no one is even standing on or above the stairs.

But these days on the CLRV - that's why I always head to the back door.

I would assume over time, the regulars would start figuring out where the empty seats are always found, and things will shift. Personally, I haven't taken a single peak-loaded ride yet (haven't been travelling as much at peak lately), let alone crush. Front eh ...


Northern Light said:
At first blush, my primary observation is that the passage way between the sets of seats is awfully narrow.

This is an issue if you expect people to flow (spread out) through the vehicle.
Click to expand...
You don't though - the assumption is, that you stay in your section. People will start loading more sensible as time passes.

Northern Light said:
I hasten to add, are those walkways even large enough for today's strollers? They certainly don't seem wide enough for scooters.
Click to expand...
This is to keep them in the accessible section I'd think. They don't really want them trying to move back through the whole train to get to the ramp to exit.

Can't see I've seen much of either yet.

TheTigerMaster said:
Ehh, I wouldn't make that assumption based on a Tweet that was probably sent by someone not at all familiar with the technical details of the line. Plus, I'm pretty sure the TTC will be setting service levels, as they will be running the service, and the service will be funded by the City of Toronto.
Click to expand...
I was being sarcastic. Though I've congratulated Metrolinx for increasing the frequency and making the policy, and asked TTC when did they authorize and fund this?

I expect more news soon ... :)
 
aquateam said:
A few comments:
- of all the environments to have a multi-billion dollar, high capacity, modern LRT line, why would you render it as going through single family detached bungalows?
Click to expand...

That's a streetview shot from Finch and Elmview. Does this mean the line is being extended east to Yonge? ;-)

Before anyone disses the colours - maybe those are Mammo's favourite colours. Gotta get him riding the new line somehow.

- Paul
 
I wish we went with partial-low-floor LRVs, (usually 70% low-floor) where each car has a central low-floor area, but the ends are high-floor, over the trucks. It makes for a somewhat better seating arrangement and more room to maneuvre. The lower section should be mostly reserved for priority seating, areas for mobility devices and luggage/bikes, while the upper area should be general seating.

We got rid of the 100% low-floor buses - the Orion VIs - because they were just so crappy. The buses we have now are partial low-floors.
 
I honestly dont understand the fetish for 100% low floor for an LRT line. Even having a 85% low floor would allow for some modification to the narrow passageways around the where the bogies are. With 100% low floor, those areas act as a significant bottleneck in the vehicles, especially when people are moving throughout the area to pay a fare or exit the vehicle.

Another fetish I dont understand is the 2+2 inward facing seats. I dont care if I have to face someone when i'm commuting that's not the point, the issue is that these seats are completely useless for anyone who is ~5'7 " and over. It's just a lazy way to put seats into an LRV.
 
Amare said:
Another fetish I dont understand is the 2+2 inward facing seats. I dont care if I have to face someone when i'm commuting that's not the point, the issue is that these seats are completely useless for anyone who is ~5'7 " and over. It's just a lazy way to put seats into an LRV.
Click to expand...

It's not about wanting to make people face each other, it's about putting two rows of seats back to back so a bogie (a truck, that thing with two axles and four wheels) can be tucked under the seat bottoms. It's the price of 100% low floor.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top