News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.9K     0 
I think this is one of the first (and maybe only so far) pictures of one of the Crosstown LRV sitting on the CP Rail-MSF siding waiting for unloading.

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

^ what's the relevance of the Royal York Road? You mentioned "for 433 Front St W" but the link in bold is for the dev app for the Mimico GO Station. Curious browser behaviour. I have cut and pasted many things since I was looking at Royal York Road, and I don't know why my browser would point...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
 
Allandale25 said:
I think this is one of the first (and maybe only so far) pictures of one of the Crosstown LRV sitting on the CP Rail-MSF siding waiting for unloading.

GO Transit: Construction Projects (Metrolinx, various)

^ what's the relevance of the Royal York Road? You mentioned "for 433 Front St W" but the link in bold is for the dev app for the Mimico GO Station. Curious browser behaviour. I have cut and pasted many things since I was looking at Royal York Road, and I don't know why my browser would point...
urbantoronto.ca urbantoronto.ca
Click to expand...
Have a good shot of 6207 on the flat waiting to be pickup by CP for TB and will post it when I get to it.
 
robmausser said:
It will be nice to see the shocked Pikachu faces on all the LRT naysayers who claim its just a glorified streetcar when they see the coupled trains in action.
Click to expand...
Except they are? The only thing separating Finch West and Eglinton East of Don Mills, and the 510/512 Streetcar, is the larger stop spacing and the fact that doors can open on both sides of the train. In every other way they are identical, and coupling the LRVs doesn't change that.
 
ARG1 said:
Except they are? The only thing separating Finch West and Eglinton East of Don Mills, and the 510/512 Streetcar, is the larger stop spacing and the fact that doors can open on both sides of the train. In every other way they are identical, and coupling the LRVs doesn't change that.
Click to expand...

Coupling the LRV's changes the passenger capacity, something LRT haters claim is insufficient on these routes, and wider stop spacing is not just wider stop spacing, it's better speed, performance etc.
 
Voltz said:
Coupling the LRV's changes the passenger capacity, something LRT haters claim is insufficient on these routes, and wider stop spacing is not just wider stop spacing, it's better speed, performance etc.
Click to expand...
Ok, but that's frankly the smallest point? Not to mention that low floor LRVs even if coupled still have worse capacity than the equivalent light metro counterparts. Look at the Confederation Line in Ottawa where the entire system is significantly hampered by the fact that it runs on Low Floor LRVs. Imagine if the Eglinton Line was fully grade separated and ran on automated light metro technology similar to the Skytrain, it would've been so much better and so much more fitting for the corridor. Too bad the Councillors over at City Hall have their heads stuck so far up their asses where apparently, having the LRT cross intersections is somehow more favourable to elevated rail.
 
Last edited:
20201124_132139.jpg
 
ARG1 said:
Ok, but that's frankly the smallest point? Not to mention that low floor LRVs even if coupled still have worse capacity than the equivalent light metro counterparts. Look at the Confederation Line in Ottawa where the entire system is significantly hampered by the fact that it runs on Low Floor LRVs. Imagine if the Eglinton Line was fully grade separated and ran on automated light metro technology similar to the Skytrain, it would've been so much better and so much more fitting for the corridor. Too bad the Councillors over at City Hall have their heads stuck so far up their asses where apparently, having the LRT cross intersections is somehow more favourable to elevated rail.
Click to expand...

The Eglinton LRT capacity is fitting for the corridor, and much of it is grade separated, having the LRT's cross intersections is preferable when it costs much less and where it does not need to be tunneled or elevated.
 
ARG1 said:
Ok, but that's frankly the smallest point? Not to mention that low floor LRVs even if coupled still have worse capacity than the equivalent light metro counterparts. Look at the Confederation Line in Ottawa where the entire system is significantly hampered by the fact that it runs on Low Floor LRVs. Imagine if the Eglinton Line was fully grade separated and ran on automated light metro technology similar to the Skytrain, it would've been so much better and so much more fitting for the corridor. Too bad the Councillors over at City Hall have their heads stuck so far up their asses where apparently, having the LRT cross intersections is somehow more favourable to elevated rail.
Click to expand...

The issues with the Ottawa system have nothing to do with the choice of technology and everything to do with being the first line to use the Citadis Spirit (teething issues) and the incompetence of the p3 organization that built the line, worsened by a particular rag newspaper operating in Ottawa that will do anything it can to attack the current administration, blowing some of the smaller issues with the O-Train out of proportion.
 
robmausser said:
The issues with the Ottawa system have nothing to do with the choice of technology and everything to do with being the first line to use the Citadis Spirit (teething issues) and the incompetence of the p3 organization that built the line, worsened by a particular rag newspaper operating in Ottawa that will do anything it can to attack the current administration, blowing some of the smaller issues with the O-Train out of proportion.
Click to expand...
I feel like we're on different pages here. I'm ignoring any of the issues that arose of the line itself because its not the fault of the technology. In a perfect world where the line worked perfectly fine, why on earth does it use Low Floor LRVs? You are using a lower capacity mode of transport, with none of the benefits since its all grade separated.
Voltz said:
The Eglinton LRT capacity is fitting for the corridor, and much of it is grade separated, having the LRT's cross intersections is preferable when it costs much less and where it does not need to be tunneled or elevated.
Click to expand...
As Vancouver shows, the cost of elevating a line is not that much more expensive than having it at grade, and yet it will improve the service tenfold. Also, yes I agree that the Eglinton LRT capacity is fitting for the corridor, but don't forget that Toronto is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, and TOD will begin to spring up like crazy. Can you safely say that the LRT will have enough capacity in 10 years? How about 15? Don't forget in the future that the line will directly connect the Mississauga Transitway and Pearson Airport, so the demand will also massively increase. The Eglinton Crosstown would've been much better off as a grade separated light metro, akin to the Skytrain or Ontario Line.
 
ARG1 said:
s Vancouver shows, the cost of elevating a line is not that much more expensive than having it at grade, and yet it will improve the service tenfold. Also, yes I agree that the Eglinton LRT capacity is fitting for the corridor, but don't forget that Toronto is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, and TOD will begin to spring up like crazy. Can you safely say that the LRT will have enough capacity in 10 years? How about 15? Don't forget in the future that the line will directly connect the Mississauga Transitway and Pearson Airport, so the demand will also massively increase. The Eglinton Crosstown would've been much better off as a grade separated light metro, akin to the Skytrain or Ontario Line.
Click to expand...

Even though the western section of the line will needlessly and wastefully be in a tunnel, the line would have handled the ridership just fine when that part was planned to be on the surface. I can definitely say the line will have enough capacity in 15 years since it was modeled out well beyond that time frame to be well under capacity.
 
Voltz said:
Even though the western section of the line will needlessly and wastefully be in a tunnel, the line would have handled the ridership just fine when that part was planned to be on the surface. I can definitely say the line will have enough capacity in 15 years since it was modeled out well beyond that time frame to be well under capacity.
Click to expand...
Yes, because when I think of a line that goes to the airport, I think of a line that has to stop at every intersection and make a ton of extra stops. Seriously name me one rapid transit line in a major city around the world, where the airport link is at grade. I'm waiting.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top