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

[drum118]

Edmonton would be class as a metro/subway

As it stands now, Madrid, Barcelona, Paris, Zurich, Copenhagen, Berlin and Stockholm use double deck trains as metro, as well regional rail on the same line. They also use single levels also.

Zurich Central Train Station underground station

 

[rbt]

Bombardier's website state that the limit for the system is 51,000 pphpd (although with wider 6-car trains, possibly less seating, and crush load).

Capacity is a function of total floorplate size (length and width of the train), frequency (signal system, acceleration/decelleration curve, station capacity), and willingness of your population to stand closely together.

Some subways (Picadilly) have low capacity; some are higher.

You can fit 20+ people into a volkswagon but it really only seats 4 to 5.



My huge problem with SkyTrain technology is there is a single vendor worldwide. In 30, 50, 75 years when you want replacement trains and other parts, there is only going to be a single vendor and Toronto will pay whatever price they want. The only other option is to replace the entire system and go to something multiple vendors will support and provide parts for.


In my business career I've seen vendor lockin directly cause millions of dollars in unexpceted costs when you want customization, upgrades, or modifications. They charge slightly less for that work than a complete system replacement would cost; fine if you only do it once but we know the SRT's usefulness will outlive the lifespan of the components.

 

[JayBeeGooner]

The TTC was never able to increase the capacity of the SRT because Bombardier stopped building the Mark I's, and Toronto would have had to pay a premium for new trains.
AnsaldoBreda has opened/will open more metro systems than ART and first system opened in 2002. ART technology is too complex. Why go with a rail system with a complex propulsion system, when you can simply purchase a conventional system?

 

[Hipster Duck]

My huge problem with SkyTrain technology is there is a single vendor worldwide. In 30, 50, 75 years when you want replacement trains and other parts, there is only going to be a single vendor and Toronto will pay whatever price they want. The only other option is to replace the entire system and go to something multiple vendors will support and provide parts for.

This is a fair critique in theory, but in practice we all know that Toronto buys from a single vendor - Bombardier - for political reasons, regardless of the technology. It's true that Vancouver is forced to buy its replacement rolling stock from Bombardier, but this has never been cited as being particularly costly problem for TransLink.

Considering how may ICTS lines are used around the world, why put an white elephant back in Toronto when the first one never work in the first place??

I'm not advocating an expansion of ICTS in Toronto, but it's unfair to say that ICTS "never worked" in Toronto because, in all fairness, Toronto used ICTS technology completely improperly. The benefits of ICTS are that you can substitute train capacity for frequency, running at extremely low headways. Toronto, of course, botches this by sending an SRT down the line every 5 minutes. The other benefit of ICTS is the combination of medium capacity, automation and speed, which makes it very effective for long distance, suburban trunk route commuting. What I mean by this is that ICTS really shines in denser suburbs (which would be practically all of Toronto outside of the old city) because it's much faster than an at-grade LRT but much cheaper than a subway. You can really cover a lot of ground in a short period of time on the Skytrain and the frequencies are unparalleled, even by Toronto standards. Of course, these benefits would only be apparent if the trips were long enough - for example, from New Westminster or Coquitlam into downtown - and if the trip times weren't contaminated by a forced transfer between modes to continue the majority of trips (i.e. most users of the SRT are simply continuing further west at Kennedy and are forced to transfer). It's unfair to judge the performance of ICTS on a 6 km stub route that's basically a forced-transfer from a subway line.

 

[nfitz]

This is a fair critique in theory, but in practice we all know that Toronto buys from a single vendor - Bombardier - for political reasons, regardless of the technology.

You forget that when they put the light-rail vehicles out to bid, that it was an open bid, and Bombardier was much, much cheaper than the next bid.

 

[rbt]

This is a fair critique in theory, but in practice we all know that Toronto buys from a single vendor - Bombardier - for political reasons, regardless of the technology. It's true that Vancouver is forced to buy its replacement rolling stock from Bombardier, but this has never been cited as being particularly costly problem for TransLink.

I wasn't thrilled about the Toronto Rocket contract either despite the price actually being pretty reasonable.

The benefits of ICTS are that you can substitute train capacity for frequency, running at extremely low headways.

A great selling point when it was created. Those capabilities, however, are not tied to ICTS anymore and can be implemented with any rollingstock you choose. LIM's are not required for that acceleration and max-speed curve either.

Acceleration is restricted primarily by passenger comfort at this point.

Toronto, of course, botches this by sending an SRT down the line every 5 minutes.

This is largely due to the lack of rolling stock and the obscene cost of buying new rolling stock for the current track alignment.

 

[drum118]

You forget that when they put the light-rail vehicles out to bid, that it was an open bid, and Bombardier was much, much cheaper than the next bid.

And why was there only 2 bidder in the first place???

Why would anyone spend time and money doing a tender when they know they have no hope in hell getting the contract in the first place??? Been there and done it to the point regardless if I need the work or not, will past on the tender.

When one puts all their eggs in one baskets, they are asking for troubles, as well paying more than the market price.

One only has to look south to see systems buying small batches of cars getting a lower price per car than TTC is on its large order and they have the Buy America Clause in the tender that is higher than here. Same for the world.

Political and job protection were the main reason no real bid was put forth by the 2nd bidder, as well the rest of the market. Stadler still has the best current model out there at this time and beats Bombardier in more ways than enough.

The day Political and job protection is taken out of the picture, it will be the day TTC/Ontario systems start getting a better price than they do today for all items.

Look at Orion and how many buses did they sell in NA compare to the rest of the market and where are they??

 

[nfitz]

And why was there only 2 bidder in the first place???

There were 3 bidders in the first place. And all were ruled technically non-compliant.

If there were no other bidders than the other 3, they knew they couldn't beat Bombardier's bid.

To suggest anything nefarious would be libel.

 

[BurlOak]

It's often easier to list the things ssiguy gets factually correct than to list off everything incorrect. This way many of his posts do not require any response at all.

I actually find it refreshing to hear from an outsider who can judge things purely from a transportation point of view, and not those of locals, who have been influenced by the years of politics associated with transit.

 

[rbt]

I actually find it refreshing to hear from an outsider who can judge things purely from a transportation point of view, and not those of locals, who have been influenced by the years of politics associated with transit.

Yeah, I used to too until I started to fact check his statements.

It has nothing to do with him being an outsider or not; he frequently presents cost, capacity, capability, timeline, and other numbers to support his argument which do not match official material, are not comparable, or are incomplete.

I.e. comparing construction costs of a line without rolling stock, storage yards, etc. directly to a line which does include rolling stock, storage yards, etc. Adjustments must be made for these types of items so you are actually comparing equal implementations.

Crush loads are another problem area since what defines crush is largely cultural.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but they are not entitled to their own facts.

 

[Rainforest]

In 40-50 years from now, when the rolling stock needs replacement, Bombardier might not even be in this business any more. Having a line that can be operated with LIM-driven vehicles and nothing else, is very risky.

If we build a light metro on any route, it should be equipped with, or at least compatible with, standard rolling stock that can be purchased from multiple vendors.

Buying from Bombardier now is OK, but creating a situation when replacement equipment entirely depends on Bombardier is a bad idea.

 

[snowystar]

In 40-50 years from now, when the rolling stock needs replacement, Bombardier might not even be in this business any more. Having a line that can be operated with LIM-driven vehicles and nothing else, is very risky.

If we build a light metro on any route, it should be equipped with, or at least compatible with, standard rolling stock that can be purchased from multiple vendors.

Buying from Bombardier now is OK, but creating a situation when replacement equipment entirely depends on Bombardier is a bad idea.

Kawasaki from Japan also build LIM trains. They are used within Japan and China, about 12 lines in total, and most were constructed after 2000. Not sure if the trains are compatible, but if I remember correctly, the Japanese company did bid on the line extension in Kuala Lumpur, along with Bombardier and one other company.

 

[rbt]

Kawasaki from Japan also build LIM trains. They are used within Japan and China, about 12 lines in total, and most were constructed after 2000. Not sure if the trains are compatible, but if I remember correctly, the Japanese company did bid on the line extension in Kuala Lumpur, along with Bombardier and one other company.

Unfortunately they are not directly compatible with the Bombardier implementation. You can, of course, replace track-side components from one implementation to the other. I believe that would include at a minimum both the LIM system and signalling system software (possibly hardware too).

For a large extension, the conversion cost may round out (be under 10% of the total cost).

 

[MetroMan]

Segmented openings?

I'm sorry if this has already been explained but this thread has gone on for so long as to be impractical to review it all.

Will Eglinton open in segments or do they have to finish the entire line before putting any operating LRT trains on it?

Are we really going to have to wait a decade to get any sort of relief on midtown E-W transit?

 

[nfitz]

I'm sorry if this has already been explained but this thread has gone on for so long as to be impractical to review it all.

Will Eglinton open in segments or do they have to finish the entire line before putting any operating LRT trains on it?

Are we really going to have to wait a decade to get any sort of relief on midtown E-W transit?

All at once in 2020 is the current plan. Though given the number of times the plan has changed, who knows.