News   Jul 12, 2024
199 Church Showcases Heritage Facade and Artwork at Street Level
 1.3K     0 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Six Points Plaza Redevelopment Advances With 36-Storey First Phase
 1.1K     1 
News   Jul 12, 2024
Trading Spaces: Can Real Estate Conversion Help Boost Housing Supply?
 393     0 

SRT to be shut down for refurbishment (2015)

I think for easy reference a Metro is grade separated and at-grade isn't. Whether that Metro be standard subway, SkyTrain, LRT or monorail they are all grade separated. The easiest definition is, if they can be automated they are Metro and if they can't be then they are standard at garde systems.

The thing is is that the stations will have to be much larger for at grade LRT than the grade separated systems. At grade can run atmost every 3 minutes each way to allow for any cross section traffic and automated systems can run at more than twice that frequency but be faster, more reliable, and have lower operating costs due to automation. Elevated LRT is much more expensive than SkyTrain or especially monorail yet have the lowest capacity as the monorail and subway trains are wider and SkyTrain has the highest speed and pickup.
 
I suspect a big definition most people have for any kind of medium or intermediate capacity RT is that it be entirely grade separated and capable of very high running frequencies.

If the proposal was simply to replace whatever Bombardier's current trade name for skytrain (innovia?) with whatever its current LRT trade name (flexity?) I suspect no one would care. Issues like 3rd rail vs. pantograph are kind of arcane for most. The controversy probably comes from building these mixed surface-segregated lines.

LIM is the only somewhat unique feature to Bombardier's Skytrain that I can see; everything else (signalling, automation, etc.) is very wide spread and mostly predates the 1983 SRT installation.
Click to expand...

Couldn't this argument just be reversed? Like you say, Skytrain really isn't such a 'one of a kind system.' Even it's apparently signature feature, the LIMs, isn't even a necessary feature anymore. Yet there is endless derision of the SRT.

If the TTC had build essentially the same system in the 1980s but with, notionally, Calgary's C-Train rolling stock it's not like the line would have been any more or less successful (or even a B-D extension). Yet for some reason ICTS get's constantly derided as being some kind of fantasy project or gadget bahn.
 
Rating ICTS systems for how effective the operators utilize them for the features that ICTS has (10 = best, 1 = worst)

Skytrain, Vancouver, Expo-Millennium Line, from Waterfront to Columbia: 10
Skytrain, Vancouver, Millennium Line, from Columbia to VCC-Clark: 7
JFK Airtrain: 6
TTC SRT: 3
Detroit People Mover: 1
 
diminutive said:
Couldn't this argument just be reversed? Like you say, Skytrain really isn't such a 'one of a kind system.' Even it's apparently signature feature, the LIMs, isn't even a necessary feature anymore. Yet there is endless derision of the SRT.
Click to expand...

Some of the bigger problems with the SRT are directly related to the LIM.

* Issues with snow. Pantograph and 3rd rail pickups with standard traction handle larger amounts of snow before encountering issues.
* Low frequency/unreliable trains/lack of rolling stock. We can only buy from Bombardier due to them being the only provider of that LIM implementation, and Bombardier won't sell something we can use for an agreeable price.


If the TTC had build essentially the same system in the 1980s but with, notionally, Calgary's C-Train rolling stock it's not like the line would have been any more or less successful (or even a B-D extension). Yet for some reason ICTS get's constantly derided as being some kind of fantasy project or gadget bahn.
Click to expand...

If the SRT was built for the downtown CLRV/ALRV rolling stock, which was the original plan, then the SRT could receive new trains starting 2013 with a simple overhead conversion (trolly pole to pantograph; takes about a weekend). This could double frequencies by ordering extra trains (current capacity issue solved) and make the line more reliable.

If built for C-Train rolling stock (I believe they use standard curve/incline tollerances which the CLRV exceed), we likely would have ordered additional rolling stock to increase SRT frequencies over 10 years ago as the number of off-the-shelf vehicle options are very high.


So yeah, partial blame for the SRT problems rests directly on the LIM and on Bombardier discontinuing that specific rolling stock size making a small rolling stock order very expensive.
 
Last edited:
Why not do something completely radical.........when replacing the track add the very cheap heating mechanisms?

Also HIPSTER DUCK.......I agree that the Expo Line is a 10 but so is the Millenium or soon will be when the interlined Evergreen starts rolling in 2014 and frequency on the line doubles and of course the line is being extended to UBC as well.

I must confess I agree with your assessment of the SRT being a 3 but it's not for lack of trying. The TTC has been trying it's to bring it down to a 2 for decades so the province will replace it. Give them another couple of years of complete neglect and I'm sure a "2" is well within grasp.
 
It's too bad that company back in the day dropped out of creating the maglev version of it which would have solved the noise and the snow problem.
 
Thanks - That's for the power rails.

There's also a potential issue with the 1 cm gap betwen the reaction rail and the LIM motor.
SkyTrain addresses that in winter conditions by continuously running the trains (24 hrs) when it is snowing to blow the snow off the reaction rail. I would guess that TTC does not do that because they do not run in fully automated mode.

I agree with Diminutive that the main issue is probably with the non-exclusive RoW / exclusive RoW aspect, automation and the resulting impacts on frequency.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
So yeah, partial blame for the SRT problems rests directly on the LIM and on Bombardier discontinuing that specific rolling stock size making a small rolling stock order very expensive.
Click to expand...

In 2006 the TTC estimated the cost of new Mk.II rolling stock at 180m vs. 120m for the 24 LRT cars. Given that the current Toronto streetcars are costing about 6m/each, that would imply rolling stock costs of 140m.

Fine, the SRT is stupid in that it's route doesn't easily allow for Mk I -> Mk.II. Given the TTC though, it's hardly unreasonable to guess that the route could have been designed around the CLRV and needed work to upgrade to a Flexity.

As far as rolling stock is concerned though, Bombardier's skytrain rolling stock isn't hugely more expensive than standard LRT stock, regardless of LIMs.
 
diminutive said:
As far as rolling stock is concerned though, Bombardier's skytrain rolling stock isn't hugely more expensive than standard LRT stock, regardless of LIMs.
Click to expand...

When they were quoting the TTC $5mil per car, as they were in 2004 or so, than yes, it is hugely more expensive.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
diminutive said:
In 2006 the TTC estimated the cost of new Mk.II rolling stock at 180m vs. 120m for the 24 LRT cars. Given that the current Toronto streetcars are costing about 6m/each, that would imply rolling stock costs of 140m.
Click to expand...

Yes, MKII rolling stock is reasonably priced but MKII's will not work on that system without extensive changes.

The unofficial quote for MKI rolling stock were roughly equal to the cost of MKII rolling stock plus the structural overhaul. Bombardier wanted to charge for a full factory retool for a custom LIM based car with the same footprint as the original MKI.
 
Last edited:
rbt said:
Yes, MKII rolling stock is reasonably priced but MKII's will not work on that system without extensive changes.

The unofficial quote for MKI rolling stock were roughly equal to the cost of MKII rolling stock plus the structural overhaul. Bombardier wanted to charge for a full factory retool for a custom LIM based car with the same footprint as the original MKI.
Click to expand...

So, in order to make everything works, they choose LRT cars that requires even bigger change..

Kennedy curve too sharp? Rebuild it. Ellesmere tunnel not enough clearance? Cut it open and raise it. Not enough clearance for stations? Raise the roof or lower the platform. Station too short? Extend it. Guideway unable to support longer and heavier vehicles? No problem, modify every column and rebuild the entire superstructure! Basically, the only thing left from the original SRT is the bottom half of each support column...
 
smallspy said:
When they were quoting the TTC $5mil per car, as they were in 2004 or so, than yes, it is hugely more expensive.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Click to expand...

So its either Bombardier trying to specifically rip Toronto off, or Toronto is artificially inflating the price to make the option less attractive.

Vancouver's 2009-2010 orders were 4.1M in average. The initial order of 34 cars were 4.3M each; option 1 (exercised) were 3.7M each for 14 cars; options 2 (did not exercise) were 3.1M each for 24 additional cars. The rolling stock requirement for SRT without extension should be around the same as Vancouver's base order + option 1.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top