News   Jul 24, 2024
Infill Towers Proposed on Markham Road South of Ellesmere
 201     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
Hullmark, First Capital, and Woodbourne Break Ground on 1071 King West
 750     0 
News   Jul 24, 2024
News Roundup for July 24, 2024
 552     0 

TTC: Flexity Streetcars Testing & Delivery (Bombardier)

nfitz said:
I don't doubt you ... but I don't see anything documenting the different widths for different cities - perhaps I'm not looking in the right place. Though as I pointed out, the Toronto version are going to be a bit wider than those very narrow units in Vancouver ... just doesn't seem as wide as a CLRV.
Click to expand...

If you look at the technical data for a city, you will see information on the vehicle. For example, Brussels has a length between 32 / 43.4 m and a width of 2.3 m. Berlin has a width of 2,400 mm. Milan has a width of 2,470 mm. London has a width of 2,650 mm. Minneapolis has the same 2,650 mm width.

Toronto's CLRV's have a width of 2,560 mm depending on where the measurement is taken. If the Transit City vehicles do not run in the downtown, then they could be wider at 2,650 mm.
 
golodhendil said:
From W.K.Lis' link, go to "Flexity Trams", choose from each of the cities under "Reference Projects" and take a look at their technical data.
Click to expand...
Ah .. I was completely missing the Reference Projects box on the right-hand side of the page. Thanks!

Wow, pretty detailed data. That gives me some hope - I was hugely disappointed with the Vancouver unilts - they just seemed so narrow, with a lot fewer seats than a CLRV (or two CLRVs I guess would be the correct comparison for length) - as they were using 2 Brussels units, it looks like they were 32 metres long and only 2.3 wide. Hopefully that extra foot will make a lot of difference.

Are any wider than 2.65 metres? I'd have thought the lack of tight curves and loops on the Transit City lines would have allowed for greater than 2.65 m (and faster units), but I don't see any.
 
Last edited:
nfitz said:
Ah .. I was completely missing the Reference Projects box on the right-hand side of the page. Thanks!

Wow, pretty detailed data. That gives me some hope - I was hugely disappointed with the Vancouver unilts - they just seemed so narrow, with a lot fewer seats than a CLRV (or two CLRVs I guess would be the correct comparison for length) - as they were using 2 Brussels units, it looks like they were 32 metres long and only 2.3 wide. Hopefully that extra foot will make a lot of difference.

Are any wider than 2.65 metres? I'd have thought the lack of tight curves and loops on the Transit City lines would have allowed for greater than 2.65 m (and faster units), but I don't see any.
Click to expand...

For other comparisons, Toronto HRT subway cars are 3,134 mm wide, while Montréal's Metro cars are 2,514mm wide. So, Toronto's streetcars and/or low-floor light rail vehicles are about the same width like the Montréal's Metro, but narrower than the TTC HRT subway cars.
 
W. K. Lis said:
For other comparisons, Toronto HRT subway cars are 3,134 mm wide, while Montréal's Metro cars are 2,514mm wide. So, Toronto's streetcars and/or low-floor light rail vehicles are about the same width like the Montréal's Metro, but narrower than the TTC HRT subway cars.
Click to expand...
Isn't it feasible then to get close to a 3-metre width for Transit City LRT vehicles?

It seems ironic that the subway tunnel for the Eglinton LRT has to be a larger diameter than a regular Toronto subway tunnel (thus increasing tunnelling costs), and yet we are putting through a narrow train. And surely that is the benefit of revisiting the vehicle-type for this line in particular, as I'd think either you want a vehicle that takes advantage of the larger diameter; or you go for a vehicle that doesn't require such a large diameter tunnel.
 
nfitz said:
Isn't it feasible then to get close to a 3-metre width for Transit City LRT vehicles?

It seems ironic that the subway tunnel for the Eglinton LRT has to be a larger diameter than a regular Toronto subway tunnel (thus increasing tunnelling costs), and yet we are putting through a narrow train. And surely that is the benefit of revisiting the vehicle-type for this line in particular, as I'd think either you want a vehicle that takes advantage of the larger diameter; or you go for a vehicle that doesn't require such a large diameter tunnel.
Click to expand...

they need a larger tunnel diameter to accommodate the overhead wire. Unlike 3rd rail used in subways overhead wire and pantograph take up more room.
 
saiho said:
they need a larger tunnel diameter to accommodate the overhead wire. Unlike 3rd rail used in subways overhead wire and pantograph take up more room.
Click to expand...
Yes I realise ... and I wonder if some kind of third-rail system, or something that switches to third-rail in the tunnels might be more suitable.
 
saiho said:
they need a larger tunnel diameter to accommodate the overhead wire. Unlike 3rd rail used in subways overhead wire and pantograph take up more room.
Click to expand...

All depends on how you mount the wire. Also with low floor LRT, you need a wider tunnel when you bore, as you need to have the running surface be the full width of the LRT cars, instead of being able to mount the tracks at a point where the tunnel is narrower than the car body. As you can see in this photo, the tunnel starts curving up right at the sleepers.

26891455_21b4e7de9b.jpg

Source: RTA from SSP here

With the floor being higher, the roof of the LRT is higher, which means you need a bit of clearance for the pantograph and catenary. But still the main tunnel width issue is car width. With low floor cars a third rail would require even wider tunnels!
 
Last edited:
In Bordeaux they use ground level supply through historic districts to avoid unsightly catenary. There are two problems with it though; it is much more expensive (both the infrastructure and the trams require two modes of pick-up) and reliability is not 100% mostly due to water problems. But I wonder if there would be enough of a cost savings from a smaller tunnel diameter to offset the cost of a ground level supply. Reliability should be easier to ensure in an enclosed environment.

I doubt it would be worth it, but maybe it should be considered.
 
jwill said:
In Bordeaux they use ground level supply through historic districts to avoid unsightly catenary. There are two problems with it though; it is much more expensive (both the infrastructure and the trams require two modes of pick-up) and reliability is not 100% mostly due to water problems. But I wonder if there would be enough of a cost savings from a smaller tunnel diameter to offset the cost of a ground level supply. Reliability should be easier to ensure in an enclosed environment.

I doubt it would be worth it, but maybe it should be considered.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about the PRIMOVE Catenary-Free Technology from Bombardier? See http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/sustainability/technology/primove-catenary-free-operation for more information. Water will not be a problem with it, but since it is more expensive, I don't see it in Toronto.

[video]http://www.bombardier.com/files/en/supporting_docs/image_and_media/products/PRIMOVE.wmv[/video]
 
This is not a post about the new streetcars but about a new route. The route is the 507 streetcar and if you want to read about it get on Facebook and look up 'Reinstate the 507 Streetcar. The route would replace the 501 Queen car so that that streetcar would go as far west as Roncesvalles, and then have its loop in that area. The newly reinstated 507 would have its western terminus at the Long Branch Loop and head east to Roncesvalles and then north on that street to the Dundas West Station, which would need a major overhaul as well.

I support this idea, if you want to support it look it up and maybe join the petition on Facebook I mentioned. I recently moved here to Toronto from Vancouver and it is great watching, and being part of it in a small way, the TTC evolve and change for the better. Apparently the reason that they are reconsidering the 507 car is that ridership is fairly low on the western leg of the 501 so they thought they might break it up a bit and make that long line a little easier to manage as well. Get on Facebook and read more about this proposal and put in your own two cents.
 
To literature doesn't say that the501 would terminate at Roncesville but that was talked of at the last commission meeting.
 
Swarley said:
There's a new public consultation website for the streetcars - http://lrv.ttc.ca/default.aspx
They're soliciting submissions for the outside wrap and the inside color scheme, to be reviewed by a design panel.
Click to expand...

I'd love the old cream maroon paint scheme.

As for shape that's an interesting one. Our city symbol is either a Moose or the CN tower, depending on how you look at it. How do make an LRV match that?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top