salsa
Senior Member
Are there any examples of this in other cities?
Toronto Ontario Line 3 | ?m | ?s
- Thread starter JasonParis
- Start date
Are there any examples of this in other cities?
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
And just what would you say the difference between a light metro and a fully grade separated LRT is?
Hint: the functionality is exactly the same, something that's going to be driven home in Ottawa.
Tuck
Active Member
Well at least in Toronto's case, they wouldn't use those god awful low floor vehicles.
syn
Senior Member
I actually laughed when I read that. Are we to assume the Ontario Line will run 24 hours?
This line also caught my attention:
"For a system where capacity is the goal, the doors have the added benefit of being safer and cut down on debris littering tracks."
For a system where capacity is the goal, why not use the same, larger subway trains we use now and build it underground as was intended?
Metrolinx is becoming quite the purveyor of propaganda.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
The Relief Line is to be in an exclusive right-of-way. The bad news is that to be accessible, they need escalators and elevators.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
A lot, one has the potential to be automated, one tends to use high floor platforms, one is lighter (hint, it's not the LRT), one is generally better at accelerating (see the previous hint), etc.
LRT is being used as the blanket "cheap" alternative to "expensive" rapid transit, except, like every other form of transportation, it has its own set of challenges. It's less space-efficient, it costs more to operate (higher electricity usage, longer platforms, longer dwell times, driver salaries, maintenance of individual vehicles is arguably more expensive since certain components are overused) when you increase capacities, dwell times increase, speeds decrease, and there are plenty of others. C-train (and maybe even the Confederation Line) might be able to get away with it, but ETS will not in the future, Eglinton likely won't, and the Relief Line certainly would not.
Kyle Campbell
Active Member
Actually Ottawa's existing system can run fully automated, they chose not to (much like the SRT). That's more a function of signaling than vehicle. For Ottawa they chose one level down, ATO for normal operations, but the equipment is capable of running without a driver. Of course if they had chosen full ATC then having drivers cabs would be wasted space.
There's a few other unique factors in Ottawa's case, such as the geometry being designed for road vehicles since it's a converted busway, and so LRT is a bit of a more natural fit for conversion and thus was less expensive.
Last edited:
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
Ottawa IS as automated as our subway, Calgary and Edmonton are high floor, all accelerate at or near the limits of steel on steel and passenger comfort.
In short every point there is true in some situation and not in others.
Meanwhile a page back we were hearing about how unusable light metro's are as opposed to the somehow dramatically better light rail.
What is it about Toronto that leads people to be so determined to directly attach all features of a transit line to the type of vehicle being run? Yes, I've seen in in other cities, but never to this extent; How it is that so few people are able to understand just how little changed with the SRT/LRT retrofit, or just how similar an LRV is to any other rail vehicle utterly baffles me.
In short every point there is true in some situation and not in others.
Meanwhile a page back we were hearing about how unusable light metro's are as opposed to the somehow dramatically better light rail.
What is it about Toronto that leads people to be so determined to directly attach all features of a transit line to the type of vehicle being run? Yes, I've seen in in other cities, but never to this extent; How it is that so few people are able to understand just how little changed with the SRT/LRT retrofit, or just how similar an LRV is to any other rail vehicle utterly baffles me.
smallspy
Senior Member
Oh, I'm perfectly aware. And I'm in Ottawa enough to be looking forward to the opening of their line.
My comment was more directed at "Tuck" who seemed to be preaching the benefits of "light metro" without accounting for the fact that we've had one here in Toronto for almost 35 years. Thankfully, his edit clarified that.
Dan
Tuck
Active Member
Yeah that was my bad, sorry again. The point I was trying to get at (which I'm sure plenty will disagree with) is this:
I'm glad Toronto is back to exploring light metro (i.e a medium capacity, grade separated transit system) again. I've done a 180 on light rail (i.e the hybrid Eglinton or street running finch). Not a fan anymore. The technology is fine and doesn't really matter, as Bureau's post says. But I've fallen off cheering for Toronto's implementation of it. It's so... Bare minimum, and I don't really think it will meet the expectations of what people have been clamoring for. I think a lot of people are going to be disappointed by it, though I'd love to be proven wrong in a few years when they open.
That is all largely off topic though - the heart of my post was "I'm glad a fully automated, fully grade separated medium capacity rail system is back on the menu" though at the same time, I'm not sure the Ontario line is really the best place for it for capacity reasons as other posters have laid out.
As an aside, light rail is tricky to talk about because it can be so many things. On one end it can be a streetcar and on the other, effectively a light metro.
Kyle Campbell
Active Member
The menu might have lots of options, but I don't have a lot of faith that the chefs in the kitchen will serve up a tasty dish. Here's hoping though.
rbt
Senior Member
It might (with 20 minute frequencies) if single track operations is an up-front consideration. Outages would still be required but generally only at switch points.
Existing TTC electrical supplies both tracks through a section. To work on one side, the other also gets powered off. Changing that would expensive enough that they've not tried to put a price on it.
So, it's possible, but still not a free feature so needs to be a requirement in the tender.
Last edited:
Steve X
Senior Member
The term light rail is so stupidly used nowadays, there is absolutely no meaning to the term in regards to speed nor capacity. Converting to low floor LRVs still makes it like a light metro than LRT since it will still have the capacity of a light metro and operate with ATO. I believe it's both a LRT and a light metro. The SRT replacement would be better received if it was advertised as an upgrade instead of a downgrade to LRT. I blame the stupidity of city staffs for overusing light rail which had a bad impression in the public's eyes.
Technically the Confederation Line is a light metro system using LRVs. The Trillium Line however is not even a LRT line. They're using railway graded cars on a Transport Canada regulated railway corridor making it heavy rail. It's a short train just like the UPX. I don't think anyone will agree the UPX is a LRT line. Then we have ION on the opposite side of the spectrum. The ION should really be labelled streetcar. Going offroad on its own corridor is still considered streetcar in Europe. Europeans will not all the ION anything more than a "tramway".
Personally I believe the term LRT should be aligned with the German term Stadtbahn. An upgraded streetcar line operating with LRVs with significant subway-like portion(s) for carrying more riders and operating faster in the core. Thus some LRT lines could be light metros but not all light metros are LRTs.
Streety McCarface
Senior Member
Just to clarify, my point is that the term "LRT" is used so loosely, and is generally used to describe "cheaper" transit. This is not helpful, as it creates confusion between different modes of rail transportation. It also gives politicians an excuse to cheap out certain sections of needed rapid transit corridors (Eglinton), and this doesn't help anything.
If you have a term that describes all rail transit between buses and heavy rail subways/regional rail, something is wrong with the terminology we use. Why is it that we can have 10 distinct ways of describing heavy rail (MRT, HRT, Regional Rail, Regional Express Rail, subway, metro, light metro, commuter rail, intercity rail, Rapid transit), yet we only have one blanket term (LRT) to describe lighter rail lines? Even the TTC is calling expansions to the streetcar network "Light Rail" now. It may be technically correct, but it's not at all helpful.
If you have a term that describes all rail transit between buses and heavy rail subways/regional rail, something is wrong with the terminology we use. Why is it that we can have 10 distinct ways of describing heavy rail (MRT, HRT, Regional Rail, Regional Express Rail, subway, metro, light metro, commuter rail, intercity rail, Rapid transit), yet we only have one blanket term (LRT) to describe lighter rail lines? Even the TTC is calling expansions to the streetcar network "Light Rail" now. It may be technically correct, but it's not at all helpful.
Kyle Campbell
Active Member
We'd have way less to fill up the airtime on forums if that was the case
