TOtramz
Active Member
Given all the issues with signal software integration with the Flexity vehicles, are we pretty much locked into the Flexity line for future orders if we want to avoid more lengthy signal related issues?
|
|
|
Voltz
Senior Member
That is from before the line was taken over by Metrolinx, I haven't seen any indication that the stations were built with those services areas in the structure, and the reserved areas were built as regular platform areas, not walled off like on Sheppard.
The cars were built with cabs at one end only, a three car train would only have one extra cab.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
Each car only has one cab as it is. They will be operated back-to-back to allow for operators cabs at the outside ends.
You assume too much.
The signal issues had nothing to do with the equipment running on the line.
Dan
urbancog
Active Member
In 2018, the City received a document Eglinton Crosstown LRT Interchange Stations - Final Design, which "presents the final Metrolinx/Crosslinx Transit Solutions designs of the 3 interchange stations". This included the plan or the Cedarvale Station LRT platform showing built-space for 3 connected LRVs, with service rooms at each end. No dimensions are provided.
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
Probably designed to "save money" by ignoring future expansion possibilities. Unless the Sheppard Subway is extended east AND west.
ShonTron
Moderator
I don’t like talking badly about other people, especially someone like RM – who has taken a lot of undeserved insults and harsh criticism for previous work he did – but some of the hot takes I’m seeing these days drive me bonkers.
Northern Light
Superstar
As someone who very much has concerns about the long-term capacity of the line; and some of its design/operating plan deficiencies for the eastern above-ground segment........
I have never had concerns it would be over-capacity on day one.
I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably draw that conclusion.
We can certainly discuss the very high density proposals at Don Mills, Bermondey/Sloane and VP and points east and say IF/When those come to fruition....whether there will be capacity issues.
All the expert analysis I've seen suggests there will be.
But that's at least 12-15 years away, and maybe 20+
I have never had concerns it would be over-capacity on day one.
I'm not sure how anyone could reasonably draw that conclusion.
We can certainly discuss the very high density proposals at Don Mills, Bermondey/Sloane and VP and points east and say IF/When those come to fruition....whether there will be capacity issues.
All the expert analysis I've seen suggests there will be.
But that's at least 12-15 years away, and maybe 20+
nfitz
Superstar
If that's to scale, that's a 90-metre platform. Maybe 92.5. Less than the 100 metres that Smallspy says - perhaps not to scale.
Which expert analysis is this? I've seen nothing in the public realm.
Except during the brief period that they were going to extend Line 5 to Scarborough Centre, up the old Line 3 alignment - which they feared would keep people on Line 5 from Scarborough Centre to at least Don Valley.
Steve X
Senior Member
For starters, if you add another module on an existing LRV, then entire train would have to be retested and rectified. All the operating characteristics would change. This includes the amount of power needed per motor, how the vehicles handle curves, power distribution, software control and etc. It’s not as simple as dragging a trailer around on a pickup truck.
They are better off buying a different length next time so they don’t need to redesign and retest everything.
They are better off buying a different length next time so they don’t need to redesign and retest everything.
crs1026
Superstar
I stand corrected......I think I knew this, once.... but it has sure been a long time since those trams arrived !
I would still be thinking about cabless midtrain units with a little higher capacity. Numbers and curvature permitting, maybe the end segments could eke out an extra couple of feet in length.
- Paul
TOtramz
Active Member
With the streetcar network, the TTC often shuts down stretches of road for months at a time to perform track and road maintenance, and streetcars are replaced by buses. With the crosstown having at-grade sections, do you guys anticipate the same having to be done for line 5, with buses substituting the surface section for weeks or months?
T3G
Senior Member
They don't shut stretches of road for months to do maintenance, they do it for full-scale track replacement. The Crosstown will not require that for 20 years or more, and when it does, it will be on both the at-grade and underground sections, and I suspect it will be done piecemeal like on the subway, due to the political ramifications of shutting down a "rapid transit" line for weeks or months.
crs1026
Superstar
Can't say it will never happen, but one would hope that such full-scale replacement of end of life components is a long way off. One would hope that with an unpaved dedicated row that isn't shared with auto traffic, much more can be done incrementally without shutting down the entire line for long periods....similar to how the subway is maintained.
Those who endured the lengthy 501 outages on the Queensway rebuild may beg to differ, but let's hope.
- Paul
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
The one place where slightly more frequent maintenance might be required is at intersections, but even then railroad crossing repairs can usually be done fairly quickly.
What makes the streetcars complicated is that many major intersections also are junctions between streetcar lines, requiring the entire intersection to shut down while they replace switches. That's not the case here
ShonTron
Moderator
Yeah. There are a few switches for emergency turnbacks, but it’s all in open track. Simplifies things considerably.