superelevation
Active Member
Something we should keep in mind when discussing width is that the TR's walls are completely vertical, which maximizes interior space. The Metropolis trains Alstom built for Shanghai are 3.2m in width, but feel more cramped than the TR because it curves in at head height.
View attachment 275538
View attachment 275537
If we get 3.0m wide trains that also curve inwards, that's probably going to be a problem.
Has anything suggested we will? I am not sure why this was posted . . .
Honestly I keep flipping back and forth on whether this line will be overcapacity or not within a few decades but you're right. What I am hoping for is that they at least provide provisions to expand the capacity when the line ultimately becomes sardine'd. I mean, platform extensions for longer trains (that's an easy one), I can't think of anything else besides fixing certain stations *cough* science centre *cough* for better capacity. After all, just because we can build another line, doesn't mean we shouldn't try our best to optimize our lines under development.
Many people are pressed that they aren't getting the full rockets on this line. I think OL is good, and there are ways to push its capacity even further. And, tbh, this is a pretty high capacity light metro, it's not exactly gonna be the SRT or SkyTrain. Could it be more like Sydney Metro, if I could take a guess? I don't know if that's a good comparison, anyways Idk much about trains so I'd like to know of your guesses as to what would be a similar system existing today. Sydney's metro line is being designed with the potential to upgrade capacity to 46k ppdhd by means of extending platforms and higher frequencies.
Its not a light metro, it will be similar in size to sheppard (trains will actually be longer according to reports posted here), just because its smaller than a TR does not mean it is a light metro.