Finch West Line 6 LRT

[smallspy]

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.

Indeed - the only other option is to have the seats facing inwards, and depending on the design of the car and trucks you may lose even more space.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Amare]

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.

Indeed - the only other option is to have the seats facing inwards, and depending on the design of the car and trucks you may lose even more space.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Or a 3rd option which is more along the lines of what I was thinking; based on the picture posted on the last page, rotate those 4 inward facing 2+2 seats (2 on each side) 180 degrees and remove the 4 seats behind them. Yes it would result in a net loss of 4 seats overall, but it would allow for increased room for those sitting in that area.

 

[Rainforest]

292 people can’t fit in that tram. Not a chance.

Is that the whole tram though, or just one car of a 2-car consist? 150 people per car, about 300 per the train, sounds pretty reasonable.

 

[Voltz]

Is that the whole tram though, or just one car of a 2-car consist? 150 people per car, about 300 per the train, sounds pretty reasonable.

They would have to extend the planned platform lengths on Finch to fit a two car Alstom train.

 

[smallspy]

Or a 3rd option which is more along the lines of what I was thinking; based on the picture posted on the last page, rotate those 4 inward facing 2+2 seats (2 on each side) 180 degrees and remove the 4 seats behind them. Yes it would result in a net loss of 4 seats overall, but it would allow for increased room for those sitting in that area.

Again, depending on the size of the car, you will end up losing more than that as well.

Because the trucks of the Alstom and Bombardier cars rotate, they need extra clearance around them. So much so that you wouldn't be able to put the seat backs on the inwards-facing seats against the walls.

Not only would you lose 4 seats per truck, but you'd not gain any room back for standees - making it a net loss in capacity.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Amare]

Again, depending on the size of the car, you will end up losing more than that as well.

Because the trucks of the Alstom and Bombardier cars rotate, they need extra clearance around them. So much so that you wouldn't be able to put the seat backs on the inwards-facing seats against the walls.

Not only would you lose 4 seats per truck, but you'd not gain any room back for standees - making it a net loss in capacity.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Fair point, well I digress this whole 100% low-floor LRV choice isnt exactly the most optimal choice for light rail lines. For streetcars sure they'll pass since they serve street stops, but since LRTs use platforms for boarding directly there would have been no harm in boosting the platforms up a few inches higher.

 

[smallspy]

Fair point, well I digress this whole 100% low-floor LRV choice isnt exactly the most optimal choice for light rail lines. For streetcars sure they'll pass since they serve street stops, but since LRTs use platforms for boarding directly there would have been no harm in boosting the platforms up a few inches higher.

Except that then you're talking about having distinct and different fleets of vehicles - and the resultant requirement for different training and maintenance regimens, supplies and fixed plant to go with them. Design it for one type of vehicle - say, low floor - and there's no reason why you can't transfer equipment around from line-to-line if you quickly need more on one of the lines.

From a strictly capacity standpoint, they may not be ideal - that much is true. But if only one design was to be chosen, the low floor one is the appropriate one for the Toronto area. And especially for the street-level lines.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[BurlOak]

Except that then you're talking about having distinct and different fleets of vehicles - and the resultant requirement for different training and maintenance regimens, supplies and fixed plant to go with them. Design it for one type of vehicle - say, low floor - and there's no reason why you can't transfer equipment around from line-to-line if you quickly need more on one of the lines.

From a strictly capacity standpoint, they may not be ideal - that much is true. But if only one design was to be chosen, the low floor one is the appropriate one for the Toronto area. And especially for the street-level lines.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

If Streetcars wouldn't exist, then Low Floor is likely the way to go. Now with new, bigger streetcars, it should have been High Floor for the suburban "rapid" lines and streetcar for the Waterfront LRT.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Bombardier Outlooks are 2.54 m wide. The Bombardier Freedoms are 2.65 m wide. A difference of .11 m or 4.33 inches. The seating sizes would probably remain the same, but we may get wider aisles.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Except that then you're talking about having distinct and different fleets of vehicles - and the resultant requirement for different training and maintenance regimens, supplies and fixed plant to go with them.

Is the maintenance issue really pertinent now that the TTC won't be handling maintenance of Eglinton or Finch Line?

and there's no reason why you can't transfer equipment around from line-to-line if you quickly need more on one of the lines

I don't see how this would be possible. The Transit City lines use a different rail gauge, and I believe their electrical systems are incompatible with the legacy network as well. You couldn't have an Eglinton Line car on the 501 Queen without significant modifications.

That said, if the TTC were still maintaining the TC lines, a benefit would be that parts and maintenance procedures could be shared between the two fleets. And the larger fleet of nearly identical cars should also make it possible to get parts at lower prices from suppliers.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The TTC have different bus manufacturers. They had different PCC streetcar manufacturers. They had different subway car manufacturers. Same with the light rail vehicles.

 

[smallspy]

Is the maintenance issue really pertinent now that the TTC won't be handling maintenance of Eglinton or Finch Line?

Maybe....maybe not. I guess it depends on how all of that maintenance arrangements end up getting taken care of. There's also the issue of what will happen after these first contracts are completed - will they get tendered anew, or will they be given to the TTC or whatever entity exists at that point to provide transit?

I don't see how this would be possible. The Transit City lines use a different rail gauge, and I believe their electrical systems are incompatible with the legacy network as well. You couldn't have an Eglinton Line car on the 501 Queen without significant modifications.

I was referring to the different Transit City lines, and even the other LRT lines in Mississauga, K-W and Hamilton that will be built. It's not likely that the cars will be shuffled around, but it allows for the opportunity for it to happen.

That said, if the TTC were still maintaining the TC lines, a benefit would be that parts and maintenance procedures could be shared between the two fleets. And the larger fleet of nearly identical cars should also make it possible to get parts at lower prices from suppliers.

Precisely.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[nfitz]

They would have to extend the planned platform lengths on Finch to fit a two car Alstom train.

Presumably they are going with 90-metre platforms, now that they've selected a 45-metre car, rather than the planned length.

Particularly with them only running every 5 minutes at peak, with 45-metre cars that have 120 seats, and no one standing.

The EA had a peak point of 130 people every 2:45 and 260 every 5:30. So to only run every 5 minutes will be 236 passengers. Which requires 2 cars, with 118 sitting in each one.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Presumably they are going with 90-metre platforms, now that they've selected a 45-metre car, rather than the planned length.

Particularly with them only running every 5 minutes at peak, with 45-metre cars that have 120 seats, and no one standing.

The EA had a peak point of 130 people every 2:45 and 260 every 5:30. So to only run every 5 minutes will be 236 passengers. Which requires 2 cars, with 118 sitting in each one.

What’s the seating capacity of the LRV? Each one can actually seat 118 people?

 

[nfitz]

What’s the seating capacity of the LRV? Each one can actually seat 118 people?

120 according to Metrolinx.

Sad to see that aren't going to be sticking to TTC standards for rapid transit.