News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 10K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 42K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.9K     0 

Yes, ish.

The actual physical station box is about one more LRT train longer than the platform.
Is that it? Ten metres?

And is that expandable at all (other than at extreme costs)? You still need all that stuff, so they'd have to expand the station boxes! I think most TTC and Metrolinx stations have a much bigger station box than the 150-metre platform!
 
Whatever money used for platform extensions in the highly theoretical world that the Crosstown demand would necessitate that, would be much better off being used in changing the type of vehicles used and modifying the MSF facility to accommodate those vehicles.

The amount of space wasted between the coupled Flexities is pretty significant (more so than the space between two T1's for instance).
 
From the Environmental Assessment...

1745525671228.png


Haven't found the actual blueprints.
 
From the Environmental Assessment...

View attachment 646222

Haven't found the actual blueprints.
The EA differs greatly from the built form of the line.

All station platforms - including surface ones - are built for 100m / 3-car trains. 2-car trains will be operating on day1. Zero work will be required to start using 3-car trains if they so choose.

Dan
 
Whatever money used for platform extensions in the highly theoretical world that the Crosstown demand would necessitate that, would be much better off being used in changing the type of vehicles used and modifying the MSF facility to accommodate those vehicles.

The amount of space wasted between the coupled Flexities is pretty significant (more so than the space between two T1's for instance).

A fair point. Bombardier even made a 7 segment train of the Flexity for the Edmonton Valley Line

1745526944069.png

Perhaps it would even be possible to refurbish the existing Crosstown trains to be something like two 8 segment cars, rather than buying new trains. They would have to be sent back to T-Bay, similar to how the TTC streetcars were with the welding issues.

On top of that, it could even turn out that in the future it is cheaper to elevate the portion between Laird and Kennedy, and put 100% ATC on the entire line, rather than modifying the station boxes for larger trains. This would mean you could greatly increase frequency of the whole line, which is an overall greater benefit than simply bigger trains.

The interesting part about fully grade separating the East portion of the at-grade crosstown is you would'nt even need to do it until you get to Bermondsay road in the East.

There are only two intersections that cross the existing at-grade LRT until Bermondsay: Leaside and Credit Union. Credit Union could be simply barred from crossing, its a minor street, and Leslie could have fly over/unders for the road, rather than elevating the trains.

That means that you would only have to elevate 5km of the line from Bermondsay to Kennedy.
 
Last edited:
There are only two intersections that cross the existing at-grade LRT until Bermondsay: Leaside and Credit Union. Credit Union could be simply barred from crossing, its a minor street, and Leslie could have fly over/unders for the road, rather than elevating the trains.

That means that you would only have to elevate 5km of the line from Bermondsay to Kennedy.

You also have the issue of the Don Valley Parkway off-ramps and the pedestrian crosswalks for users to access Aga Khan and Wynford stations.

This could be solved with a full cloverleaf modification of the DVP at Eglinton (which may make it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists) so the ramps at Eglinton should be designed at 90 degrees to ensure stop compliance and slower speeds

Wynford and Aga Khan if kept as is would need extensive modifications or bridges just to access these tiny platforms in order to prevent any cross-traffic interference.

Aga Khan could just be removed and residents are told to suck it up and walk to Science Centre instead, and Wynford could be really tedious and have transit users use the Wynford Drive underpass to cross Eglinton and access the other side instead of the current crosswalk to access the station.
 
You also have the issue of the Don Valley Parkway off-ramps and the pedestrian crosswalks for users to access Aga Khan and Wynford stations.

This could be solved with a full cloverleaf modification of the DVP at Eglinton (which may make it unsafe for pedestrians and cyclists) so the ramps at Eglinton should be designed at 90 degrees to ensure stop compliance and slower speeds

Wynford and Aga Khan if kept as is would need extensive modifications or bridges just to access these tiny platforms in order to prevent any cross-traffic interference.

Aga Khan could just be removed and residents are told to suck it up and walk to Science Centre instead, and Wynford could be really tedious and have transit users use the Wynford Drive underpass to cross Eglinton and access the other side instead of the current crosswalk to access the station.

Honestly, pedestrian bridges and road ramps are still way cheaper than fully elevating a line.
 
Perhaps it would even be possible to refurbish the existing Crosstown trains to be something like two 8 segment cars, rather than buying new trains. They would have to be sent back to T-Bay, similar to how the TTC streetcars were with the welding issues.
@smallspy will be able to speak more authoritatively on this, but as far as I'm aware adding new modules will not be possible without extensive engineering work, as none of the systems are designed to have another module dropped in.
 
I know there has been trouble with greenwood yard because of married pairs but would converting mount Dennis to work with flexities and a longer LRV model be easy?
 
i don't recall seeing three-unit trains being used in any of the testing or training to date. I would hope that some such sets are tested during the revenue service simulation.

Not that I'm a worrywart or anything, but Murphy, like rust, seldom sleeps.

- Paul
 
@smallspy will be able to speak more authoritatively on this, but as far as I'm aware adding new modules will not be possible without extensive engineering work, as none of the systems are designed to have another module dropped in.
I'm pretty sure it's feasible, there's examples of other cities (Dallas, Hudson NJ) inserting modules into existing LRVs, long after they were built, and Ottawa's long term plan always expected to add a module to the Citadii to bring them to 59m long vehicles (118m long trains). However it's a major rework, and probably would be timed to a major refurbishment.
 
Perhaps it would even be possible to refurbish the existing Crosstown trains to be something like two 8 segment cars, rather than buying new trains. They would have to be sent back to T-Bay, similar to how the TTC streetcars were with the welding issues.
They couldn't build a version with 8 modules. Because of the design of the cars, with a suspended module being mounted between two truck-equipped modules, the number of modules on each could would have to be odd-numbered. 3, 5, 7, 9, etc.

@smallspy will be able to speak more authoritatively on this, but as far as I'm aware adding new modules will not be possible without extensive engineering work, as none of the systems are designed to have another module dropped in.
The design is expandable to a point and to be truthful I don't know what that point is. 3 module cars have been advertised, and they've obviously built 5 and 7 module versions. It seems to me that 9 module versions should be feasible as well - especially considering they're currently building some for Berlin.

But could the current cars be expanded to say 7 modules? I don't see why not - depending on how elaborate they want to make it, it may not require any major work at all, and largely just software changes and upgrades to the existing equipment installed in the cars. And I don't think that it would require sending the cars back to Thunder Bay, or La Pocatière, or any Alstom facility. The Black Creek facility is perfectly capable of pulling the cars apart and putting them back together, and of doing all of the connections between modules.

I'm pretty sure it's feasible, there's examples of other cities (Dallas, Hudson NJ) inserting modules into existing LRVs, long after they were built, and Ottawa's long term plan always expected to add a module to the Citadii to bring them to 59m long vehicles (118m long trains). However it's a major rework, and probably would be timed to a major refurbishment.

Precisely - it becomes a costing problem. You don't want to spend the money developing all of this for equipment that is close to life-expired. Until the cars are 10 or 15 years old, it can make sense from a financial standpoint depending on how much Alstom chooses to charge for the pleasure. (And note, when I say 10 or 15 years old, I mean of service - not of the time spent since their actual construction.) Plus any changes required to the shops to handle the longer cars. Plus the changes required out on the line, such as moving the inter-car barriers on the platforms and the walkways on the spare tracks. Plus any changes necessary of the signalling system, if any.

And that's the thing, these changes don't happen in a vacuum. Change one part of the system, and there will be knock-on changes necessary to other parts of the system that can increase the total costs of making that change substantially.

Dan
 
One has to wonder if the first step might be to deactivate the operator cabs and semipermanently link some trams to increase internal volume.

A three car trainset with rounded component ends and an operator cab at both ends of each car is inherently a poor use of linear space.

If the line did ever max out, I would expect the next generation of equipment would be single fixed trainsets designed to the maximum for the platform length..... a TR equivalent.

Channelling my inner G-car memories....

- Paul
 

Back
Top