Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[nfitz]

Are those trains articulated? I can't remember. The pictures suggest they are.

The cars are articulated (5 segments making up a 30 metre car); but the trains aren't. So if you ran a 3-car train it would be 90-metres long, but with 3 separate cars. Compare to the current 6-car subway trains; each car is 23-metres long, so the train is 138 metres long (or 92-metres long on the 4-car Sheppard Line).

 

[sixrings]

ARE They being extremely conservative with the LRT speed number or is the LRT for whatever reason slower then a subway? I was under the impression that a LRT could actually accelerate faster then a subway... The reason Im asking is that this line is technically 1 Km shorter and a few stops shorter but is only 3 minutes faster. I would have thought that the 35 min number would have been from JANE to STC versus what it is from BLACK CREEK to Kennedy...

 

[gweed123]

The cars are articulated (5 segments making up a 30 metre car); but the trains aren't. So if you ran a 3-car train it would be 90-metres long, but with 3 separate cars. Compare to the current 6-car subway trains; each car is 23-metres long, so the train is 138 metres long (or 92-metres long on the 4-car Sheppard Line).

Out of curiosity, what's the capacity of one of the TC LRVs? I know the cars that Ottawa ordered are 150 for practical load, 200 for crush load. They aren't articulated in the same way though, but I'd imagine it would be somewhere in the same ballpark.

 

[nfitz]

Out of curiosity, what's the capacity of one of the TC LRVs? I know the cars that Ottawa ordered are 150 for practical load, 200 for crush load. They aren't articulated in the same way though, but I'd imagine it would be somewhere in the same ballpark.

That's the magic question - it seems somewhat subjective. And seems to depend on the bias of who gives the estimate.

Best thing to do is look at the actual spec's. Metrolinx released a document last year that had the dimensions of the existing CLRV, ALRV, and the new LRVs for the legacy streetcars, and Transit City: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LRV-Fact-Sheet.pdf

The length's seem a bit wonky (list 24 metres for ALRV, while TTC uses 23 metres - and has the Flexities at 28 metres and 31 metres, while TTC is using 30 metres), but it also gives the widths. 2.54 metres for all, except 2.65 for the Transit City LRV.

Assuming the TTC lengths are correct, and the Metrolinx widths are correct, then a CLRV has an area of (assuming it's a rectangle) of 38 m², an ALRV has 58 m², a legacy Flexity has 76 m², and a Transit City Flexity has 80 m².

Reported CLRV capacities are 102 normal, and 132 crushed (from Transit Toronto, and ALRV is 155 normal and 205 crush.

Scaling this, the Transit City LRV would have a capacity of 212 normal and 277 crush. (and the new legacy LRVs would be 203 normal and 266 crush - this is similiar to the 260 number being bounced around last year).

Conservatively then, I'd say the crush load is 270 per car on Eglinton (about 800 per train).

What has been ordered in Ottawa? This seems quite low - lower than a Toronto ALRV. Hmm, sounds like a Toronto ALRV ... used?

 

[gweed123]

That's the magic question - it seems somewhat subjective. And seems to depend on the bias of who gives the estimate.

Best thing to do is look at the actual spec's. Metrolinx released a document last year that had the dimensions of the existing CLRV, ALRV, and the new LRVs for the legacy streetcars, and Transit City: http://stevemunro.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/LRV-Fact-Sheet.pdf

The length's seem a bit wonky (list 24 metres for ALRV, while TTC uses 23 metres - and has the Flexities at 28 metres and 31 metres, while TTC is using 30 metres), but it also gives the widths. 2.54 metres for all, except 2.65 for the Transit City LRV.

Assuming the TTC lengths are correct, and the Metrolinx widths are correct, then a CLRV has an area of (assuming it's a rectangle) of 38 m², an ALRV has 58 m², a legacy Flexity has 76 m², and a Transit City Flexity has 80 m².

Reported CLRV capacities are 102 normal, and 132 crushed (from Transit Toronto, and ALRV is 155 normal and 205 crush.

Scaling this, the Transit City LRV would have a capacity of 212 normal and 277 crush. (and the new legacy LRVs would be 203 normal and 266 crush - this is similiar to the 260 number being bounced around last year).

Conservatively then, I'd say the crush load is 270 per car on Eglinton (about 800 per train).

What has been ordered in Ottawa? This seems quite low - lower than a Toronto ALRV. Hmm, sounds like a Toronto ALRV ... used?

From the Environmental Project Report: "A generic set of Light Rail Transit technology vehicle specifications have been used as part of the study. A typical Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) will have a length of approximately 30 m and a width of 2.65 m. The passenger capacity is expected to be up to 200 per car, although for service planning purposes a capacity of 150 per LRV has been generally assumed. The line has been planned and designed to accommodate 6-car (180 m) trains, although it is likely that operation will commence using 3 or 4-car trains (90 and 120 m respectively)."

http://www.ottawalightrail.ca/media/pdf/Section6_2.5MB.pdf

I don't know why there's such a large variation, especially considering the vehicle lengths and widths are virtually identical to the Transit City vehicles. Interesting.

PS: I had to go digging like mad to try and find where I read that, haha. So many reports on the Ottawa LRT website!

 

[nfitz]

From the Environmental Project Report: "A generic set of Light Rail Transit technology vehicle specifications have been used as part of the study. A typical Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) will have a length of approximately 30 m and a width of 2.65 m. The passenger capacity is expected to be up to 200 per car, although for service planning purposes a capacity of 150 per LRV has been generally assumed. The line has been planned and designed to accommodate 6-car (180 m) trains, although it is likely that operation will commence using 3 or 4-car trains (90 and 120 m respectively)."

30 metres long and 2.65 metres wide? That's a Bombardier Flexity 2 for Metrolinx. Same capacities.

I don't know why there's such a large variation, especially considering the vehicle lengths and widths are virtually identical to the Transit City vehicles. Interesting.

I think it just comes down to not being written clearly. It looks like they are using the normal capacity of about 200 to 210 instead of the crush capacity. And then for planning purposed using a factor of 75%. Seems very reasonable - no one wants to see crush loading on a vehicle - it slows travel times with the delays of people trying to get on and off the vehicle.

The closest existing vehicle to the Metrolinx LRVs is the Flexity 2 Blackpool. Same width, but 32 metres long instead of 30 metres. Using the CLRV/ALRV capacities this would give a normal capacity of 227 and a crush capacity of 298. Bombardier reports the capacity as 222.

 

[JoeParez]

-tunnels will be large enough to convert to subway in the future if necessary

I'm surprised nobody touched on this.
And I'm also surprised at this specific point -- first because it shows a little bit of forward planning; secondly, what would the costs be like for full subway conversions? I mean aren't the new LRT Trains going to be "standard gauge" and not "TTC gauge"?

 

[superman]

I'm surprised nobody touched on this.
And I'm also surprised at this specific point -- first because it shows a little bit of forward planning; secondly, what would the costs be like for full subway conversions? I mean aren't the new LRT Trains going to be "standard gauge" and not "TTC gauge"?

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a tunnel for an LRT needs to be wider than a tunnel for Subway trains anyway.

 

[nfitz]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a tunnel for an LRT needs to be wider than a tunnel for Subway trains anyway.

You are correct. The TBMs for Eglinton are bigger than those they've got for the Spadina extension. It's a throw-away line.

And not really relevant. Toronto subway trains are quite wide. You could simply order a train that would fit any tunnel. The Eglinton LRT cars are 2.65 metres wide - which is wider than the 2.50 metre wide subway cars they use in Montreal!

For all intents and purposes, we are building an Eglinton subway.

 

[JoeParez]

Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe a tunnel for an LRT needs to be wider than a tunnel for Subway trains anyway.

I actually did not know that! However, my question is more geared towards the train technology and not the tunnel width!

And thank you to nftiz; but the Spadina extension is not a throw away line. And you can read my opinion on this subject in its actual thread!

 

[gweed123]

30 metres long and 2.65 metres wide? That's a Bombardier Flexity 2 for Metrolinx. Same capacities.

I think it just comes down to not being written clearly. It looks like they are using the normal capacity of about 200 to 210 instead of the crush capacity. And then for planning purposed using a factor of 75%. Seems very reasonable - no one wants to see crush loading on a vehicle - it slows travel times with the delays of people trying to get on and off the vehicle.

The closest existing vehicle to the Metrolinx LRVs is the Flexity 2 Blackpool. Same width, but 32 metres long instead of 30 metres. Using the CLRV/ALRV capacities this would give a normal capacity of 227 and a crush capacity of 298. Bombardier reports the capacity as 222.

Wouldn't surprise me if Ottawa used the same type of vehicles ordered by Metrolinx. You can see exactly what you're getting, all you'd have to do is drive down the 401. I think that they used ballpark numbers for this report though, as a number like 222 would have people guessing if they had already picked a vehicle before the project was even out of the planning stages. 200 is a nice round number that doesn't bind them to a specific vehicle, as I would imagine most LRT vehicles would be in and around that same capacity.

Also doesn't surprise me they would be going with Bombardier. The first LRT contract was with Siemens, and they pretty much burned that bridge when they cancelled the plan. That doesn't leave too many other manufacturers to deal with.

 

[nfitz]

And thank you to nftiz; but the Spadina extension is not a throw away line. And you can read my opinion on this subject in its actual thread!

I was referring to the piece of text that said "tunnels will be large enough to convert to subway in the future if necessary"

I was referring to the writing about the Eglinton Line - not the Spadina subway line. I too have written in support of the Spadina extension (at least to Steeles) in that thread.

 

[gweed123]

And not really relevant. Toronto subway trains are quite wide. You could simply order a train that would fit any tunnel. The Eglinton LRT cars are 2.65 metres wide - which is wider than the 2.50 metre wide subway cars they use in Montreal!

Yeah, many cities use different rolling stock on their different lines. NYC uses two different rolling stocks for the lines that were previously two separate systems.

Although if they did want to interline, I'd assume they'd change the track gauge to TTC standard so that they can use existing rolling stock.

Realistically though, 4 car LRT trains at a capacity of 800 per train, running at 90 second headways gives you a capacity of 32,000 pphpd anyway. Wait, the are the stations being built to accomodate 3 car LRT trains or 4 car LRT trains? I can't remember now.

 

[nfitz]

Realistically though, 4 car LRT trains at a capacity of 800 per train, running at 90 second headways gives you a capacity of 32,000 pphpd anyway. Wait, the are the stations being built to accomodate 3 car LRT trains or 4 car LRT trains? I can't remember now.

According to the EA the stations are being built with a 150-metre station box, consisting of a 60-metre service area (platforms can't be extended here), a 60-metre platform for 2-car trains, and a 30-metre reserved area to extend to 3-car trains in the future (with a walled off area, similar to what was done on the Sheppard line to extend from 4-car to 6-car trains in the future).

 

[nfitz]

You can see exactly what you're getting, all you'd have to do is drive down the 401.

Reading this again ... I'm not understanding this comment. The only Flexity vehicles I've seen are those that Vancouver ran on the Olympic line last year. Though those were 2.3-metres wide and 32-metres long (they were Flexity Outlooks for Brussels that were borrowed).

However, the 401 doesn't go all the way to Vancouver ... am I missing something?