Allandale25
Senior Member
For some reason I thought they could fit four at Union. I guess my visualization must have been off. Good to know.
Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited
For some reason I thought they could fit four at Union. I guess my visualization must have been off. Good to know.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Even if they could (and I don't think they can) they certainly cannot fit 4 at Pearson and I believe the high platforms at Weston and Bloor were designed to be 3 car long because of those limitations too.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I just thought of something from last week that I forgot to post.....last week I rode an AMT train......it was a bilevel Bombardier car...one of the new ones and while it was similar in many ways to the GO trains we use....there are obvious differences and one of which is that it appears each car has extra doors...some for high platforms and some for low platforms.....both my departure station and arrival station were low platforms so I never saw if they actually use both doors but (aside from nearly missing my station in confusion trying to use the wrong door) it seemed like a really flexible solution.......one that (if they were used on UP for example) would allow for, say, a weekend addition of the Etobicoke north station as a gathering/car pool/park and ride station for folks in the NW GTA without having to do any platform work.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
The roof at the station at Person would have to be raised to allow for bi levels to be used at it plus the bridge o spur leading to the airport may not be able to support the weight of them.
smallspy
Senior Member
Those are Multi-Level cars, and are quite a bit different structurally from the BiLevel cars. The biggest issue with them is that are designed to a far more restrictive loading gauge due to the electrified tunnels that they run in, and so have a lower capacity than the BiLevel cars. As well from an operations standpoint they weigh a whole hell of a lot more, and draw a lot more power - and are generally despised by the crews in Montreal due to their small doorways.
For the record, the BiLevel design allows for high-level doors, too.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
TOareaFan
Superstar
^thx...for adding technical knowledge to my un-technical, anecdotal, observation.
EDIT: I should add, as a passenger, I enjoyed the ride in that train...was very comfy....maybe just the newness but I left thinking "that is a wee bit better than our GO trains" (not to knock our GO trains at all....just that this "felt" better).
EDIT: I should add, as a passenger, I enjoyed the ride in that train...was very comfy....maybe just the newness but I left thinking "that is a wee bit better than our GO trains" (not to knock our GO trains at all....just that this "felt" better).
Last edited:
Allandale25
Senior Member
Great insights. I hadn't realized the BiLevels allowed for high-level doors but it makes complete sense.
smallspy
Senior Member
For all of their faults, they are quite nice cars. I've found that they ride quite a bit better than the BiLevels (which aren't terrible in their own right). I don't know if that's by virtue of the design being 25 years newer, being designed for 125mph operation on the North East Corridor, or something else. I'd think that all else being equal, the design would lend itself quite well to a more long-distance purpose - with the appropriate changes for seating and baggage, of course.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Student99
Active Member
doors at different levels seems like it would cause problems for riders with accessibility issues. it would require either a raised accessibility platform at all stations or ramps on the train, wouldn't it?
TOareaFan
Superstar
quite the opposite....the doors on the Montreal trains were such that each car had high and low doors.....if it the train arrived at a low platform station (as the two I used were) it was the low doors that opened......I presume if it ever arrived at a high platform station the higher doors would open.
I did not spend enough time looking to see how accessibility was handled inside the cars....but I have to think they have figured that out too.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Don't forget Quebec has different rules regarding things like accessibility then we do in Ontario, Look at how far behind the Montreal Metro is in terms of accessibility compared to the TTC. Don't they have like an absurdly low number of stations that have elevators like maybe 5 or 10 out of the entire system?
Voltz
Senior Member
But how does a handicap passenger who boarded a train at a low platform station get off the train at a high platform station?
smallspy
Senior Member
As you probably noticed, both sets of doors open into the intermediate area at the ends of the cars. In Montreal, the inner sets of the doors is used for high-level platforms only, while the outer sets are used for low-level platforms only.
This is contrast to New Jersey and Baltimore, who've spec'd the cars with folding traps at the outer doors - allowing for 4 sets of doors on each car to be used at high-level platforms. (Of course, they're also a lot more plentiful down there.)
It isn't, basically because accessibility is has simply not been thought about until very recently in Montreal. As far as I can tell, until the opening of the Mascouche Line there were only 2 accessible stations on the entire AMT network - Central Station and Deux-Montagnes. Even on the Mascouche Line, only a couple of the stations - not all of them - are equipped with high-level platforms.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
The first subway I rode on as a little kid was Washington DC Metro (Dad used to work in the Canadian Embassy).
Built in the late 1970s, it was built accessible from the ground up, with every station having an elevator, and the existence of wide faregates (yes, electronic card faregates in 1970s!) allowed wheelchair freedom.
Full wheelchair accessibility in the seventies!
Boy, STM is behind the times. They're retrofitting with the ultimate goal of full accessibility in something like a couple decades.... they're still only at 12 stations now. Alas, just built a few years before accessibility mandates. Lovely system in the winter though, all underground, more artsy stations, toasty warm in the winter, can T-shirt my way through mid winter from an indoor destination to indoor destination. While great in winter, hellishly hot in summer.
Last edited:
Hieberrr
New Member
I took the UP last week to and from the airport and I have to say, I'm pretty impressed with it. The price seemed justified to me for the ride duration and the ease of connection to T1 and Union. Ridership seemed good to me (all seats filled, albeit still standing room).
I'd say in terms of ease of use, it was pretty much on par with what I had experienced in Barcelona and Lisbon with their subway and Aeorbus services.
The only thing I would've liked to have seen is a better lineup flow or design at Union and maybe longer trains (which the current platforms can't accommodate).
I'd say in terms of ease of use, it was pretty much on par with what I had experienced in Barcelona and Lisbon with their subway and Aeorbus services.
The only thing I would've liked to have seen is a better lineup flow or design at Union and maybe longer trains (which the current platforms can't accommodate).