Dan416
Senior Member
Kind of ironic with how highly standardized GO Transit is, especially with something like the bilevels.
|
|
|
Bojaxs
Senior Member
It's has to be one of the GO train's biggest strengths. It makes the system so versatile and efficient. Not just in terms of operations but also in managing staff and ordering spare parts. Plus using existing infrastructure.
How many different types of rolling stock does the city of Toronto require? So now we have to train mechanics to maintain every different type of train, and train drivers to operate every different type of train. Order different parts/ components for all the different rolling stock. What a nightmare to manage. More people on the government payroll to oversee all of this.
Rainforest
Senior Member
That's a potential problem, particularly if Metrolinx hopes to extend both lines into Pearson within the next 10 years. Might have to build two separate pairs of tracks.
That said, the cars will not last forever, and when the time comes to replace the cars, they could change the voltage and the control system as well. Not a trivial task, but should be a lot easier than making structural changes. At least, both lines will run standard-gauge low-floor cars, that are identical or very close in width.
Last edited:
Rainforest
Senior Member
Any kind of structural rebuild of Eglinton LRT is extremely unlikely. That would cost too much, the transit funds can be used elsewhere, and there is no fundamental problem with the current design that can't be solved in a much cheaper way.
If the line can handle the demand, just runs slower than it could in the east - they will do nothing. Just think of Subway Line 1 that has a few slow-order sections; those stretches are a bit annoying, but noone panics.
If the demand exceeds the capacity, they will replace 2-car trains with 3-car trains. The current design allows that, with minimal changes.
If the demand still exceeds the capacity, TTC will try to tweak the bus routes, meanwhile exploring new lines that could take some pressure off Eglinton (OL North, Lawrence, Vic Park).
If the line can handle the demand, just runs slower than it could in the east - they will do nothing. Just think of Subway Line 1 that has a few slow-order sections; those stretches are a bit annoying, but noone panics.
If the demand exceeds the capacity, they will replace 2-car trains with 3-car trains. The current design allows that, with minimal changes.
If the demand still exceeds the capacity, TTC will try to tweak the bus routes, meanwhile exploring new lines that could take some pressure off Eglinton (OL North, Lawrence, Vic Park).
dowlingm
Senior Member
This is incorrect, isn’t it? Aren’t both Finch and Eglinton 750VDC?
(The downtown network IS different, being 600VDC)
Bojaxs
Senior Member
If trains run slower in the eastern portion compared to the rest of the line, won't it lead to "bunching up" of trains? Something similar to what we see with the streetcars in downtown.
They're totally unacceptable and make transit less desirable. We shouldn't try to normalize this.
T3G
Senior Member
No, because the streetcars are bunched up downtown due to poor schedule management and operators playing games.
If all vehicles operate at the same speed, and at the same headway, they will each arrive at a given point in correct time. If one vehicle travels 80 km most of the way, then 50 km the rest of the way (example speeds), the only way that a second vehicle will be able to catch up and bunch is if it is travelling at a markedly different speed than its leader. All that will change is how quickly they will travel between stops.
Vanniell
New Member
I get what you're saying. From my experience, light rail on Eglinton might just end up being a mess, especially with the at-grade sections. I’ve seen how gridlock can ruin things, and having multiple vehicles show up at once just creates chaos. In my opinion, short-distance subways that make more frequent stops would be a lot better. They’d handle the crowding way better than an LRT that struggles with traffic. The Eglinton subway sounds like a more practical solution to me.
smallspy
Senior Member
Well, hold on here.
First off, it was the TTC, not Metrolinx that created the standards for the LRT lines.
And the LRT lines are being standardized - just not to a standard seen before in Toronto. 750V dc, standard gauge, 25m curves and 8.8m wide cars is a standard used all around the world, with cars produced by a multitude of vendors. And in that case, that's fine as there was going to be maybe only one place where they could have interfaced with the legacy streetcar fleet - at Jane and St. Clair. They didn't need to be interoperable with the legacy Toronto system, they only needed to be interoperable with themselves - and by and large, they will be. (Yes, the signal systems will be different, but at the end of the day that's a far less big deal than the others.)
It's easy to do so when you have no capability for corporate history. Or worse yet, you're fresh out of university and haven't yet had the experience to see why things are done in the way they are. Both of these are the case at Metrolinx.
"It's always been done that way" can be a failing. But in many cases it's also because it was found a long time ago to be the best way to do things considering the circumstances.
Within reason, yes. If all of the LRTs were the same type and manufacturer then they'd all use the same parts, and so the fact that they were spread around to two or three different places wouldn't be such a big deal. And the sheer number of vehicles required for the Ontario Line will mean that no matter what it was always going to require it's own facilities and tools and techniques that would rival Greenwood or Wilson.
Dan
Rainforest
Senior Member
It does not have to. In the slower section of the line, the distance between the trains will be shorter, but the time between arrivals at each stop will be the same as in the faster section.
Sure you can write to your city councillor, and ask to repair the tracks ASAP. What I mean is that noone suggests digging up and rebuilding Line 1 because of those problems.
JBR
Active Member
Yes it’s incorrect. Not sure where he got that info from. Previous government made an emergency order of Alstom vehicles to use on Eglinton as they thought Bombardier couldn’t deliver on time (now that’s funny on its own). So of course the Alstom vehicle and Bombardier vehicle would have to use the same power supply.
Now, the Alstom vehicles are exclusively for Finch and Bombardier (now Alstom anyways) are exclusively for Eglinton. The Alstom units are longer and 2 alstoms = 3 bombardiers in length.
innercrow
New Member
I don't really understand the comparison here. Lots of people are very frustrated with slow zones or other limitations on line 1. They don't suggest rebuilding line 1 because that is obviously not the solution to the problem, maintenance and modernization is, and that is clearly on the long-term agenda!
Even with theoretically perfect operation and maintenance there are non-trivial capacity and speed limitations to road median tramways that grade separation potentially addresses. Whether you think that eventually will/should happen is another thing that I don't really care to argue about, but it's clearly not unorthodox. The first ttc subways were themselves built to replace streetcar lines. And the SSE most recently was always premised on ripping up the RT. Transit infrastructure is often iterative, this seems rather uncontroversial to me
Bojaxs
Senior Member
dowlingm
Senior Member
The Citadis in Ottawa is 1500VDC.
zang
Senior Member
I believe mechanics are generally supplied by the manufacturer as part of the purchase. I get standardization of the track widths, but standardization of rolling stock means less flexibility and a greater chance of a systemwide problem. If all Flexity trains were found to have a potentially fatal flaw in them, our entire streetcar system would be shut down right now (ahem, moreso than it currently is). If the Toronto Rockets had a similar type of flaw, we could at least pull the old T1s onto the Yonge line and provide at least some semblance of service for a while. Having mixed stock is an advantage.
Likewise, costs go up with standardized stock. Once you're set with a particular stock, you're stuck with it. No leverage for better pricing, no incremental improvements in the vehicles, etc. And the manufacturer knows that. You'll end up paying more in the long run.
In Europe, standardized stock is not very common across an entire system, and we should be following their example in transit value for money.