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 
felix123 said:
Yeah, it's misleading, especially Line 6 appearing as a subway when it's actually just three light rail trains in a trench coat.

Still happy to see the map up though, because it now seems like both lines are opening imminently.
Click to expand...
Are those "subway" maps or just "RT" (sort of) maps?
 
mrgrieves said:
light rail ≠ heavy rail
Click to expand...
subway ≠ heavy rail.

The Waterloo & City line in London isn't heavy rail. Trains are only 64-metre long, with narrow cars than Line 5. Would you say that an underground line isn't a subway?

Glasgow subway trains are only 40-metres long, and even narrower!

T3G said:
How much does a subway car weigh, and how much does an LRV weigh?

The only passenger carrying heavy rail we have is GO and VIA.
Click to expand...
Weight has nothing to do with something being light or heavy rail! It's a measure of capacity, not mass!
 
T3G said:
How much does a subway car weigh, and how much does an LRV weigh?

The only passenger carrying heavy rail we have is GO and VIA.
Click to expand...
The Flexity outlook weights 48,200 kg for 28m. The TRs weight 34,250 kg for 23m. When you do the math, you'll find out that the Flexitys are indeed the heavier rail cars by length. Based on weight, Line 5 and 6 are the heavy rail lines, Lines 1, 2 and 4 would be light rail.
 
nfitz said:
Weight has nothing to do with something being light or heavy rail! It's a measure of capacity, not mass!
Click to expand...
That seems like a pretty nebulous quantifier... the 504 King, traditionally "light rail", carries a hell of a lot more people than the Sheppard line or the Franklin Avenue shuttle in New York, which most traditionally define as "heavy rail".
 
T3G said:
That seems like a pretty nebulous quantifier... the 504 King, traditionally "light rail", carries a hell of a lot more people than the Sheppard line or the Franklin Avenue shuttle in New York, which most traditionally define as "heavy rail".
Click to expand...
Forgot about "heavy" and "light" rail

There are two main design differences I see between Line 5 EC and the legacy subway lines (Lines 1, 2 and 3)
1) Line 5 EC was designed with significantly less capacity
2) Line 5 was designed to be partially grade-separated

This has probably been discussed ad nauseum here with people questioning or supporting these design decisions. This topic came up though in the context of the update maps that started appearing this week. The issue being that the updated maps don't distinguish between the differences in Line 5 vs the legacy lines.

To passengers, the capacity probably doesn't matter since the speeds are similar (?) in the grade separated portions (unless there is a major outage and legacy line passengers are forced to rely on Line 5, in which I would imagine capacity constraints). But IMO passengers should definitely be informed via the map design where the non separated portions are since the line performs differently there, including no true enclosed stations as we think of them.

What's worrisome is that Cedarvale signs went up without saying the former station name (Eg West). This can be easily fixed with some stickers. But it doesn't give me a ton of hope that the TTC will communicate the new line capabilities properly.
 
T3G said:
How much does a subway car weigh, and how much does an LRV weigh?

The only passenger carrying heavy rail we have is GO and VIA.
Click to expand...
"Heavy Rail" versus "light rail" is not measured in absolutes.

Yes, as you point out, GO and VIA (and CN, and CP) are heavy rail versus subways, LRTs and streetcars. But that is in the railway regulatory sphere and the tell is their crashworthiness and strength capabilities, not their weight..

From a transit standpoint, the subway is absolutely considered "heavy rail" when compared to LRTs and streetcars by virtue of their ultimate passenger carrying capacities.

Dan
 
APTA-2048 said:
This aversion to putting line 5 and 6 on the map always seems silly (and kinda irrational). You look at the Los Angeles rapid transit map and it has subway, light rail, and even bus lines on it. I don’t see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
agreed - but they should appear differently where appropriate (eg thin or dotted line for Line 5 at grade portions and Line 6)
 
APTA-2048 said:
This aversion to putting line 5 and 6 on the map always seems silly (and kinda irrational). You look at the Los Angeles rapid transit map and it has subway, light rail, and even bus lines on it. I don’t see a problem with that.
Click to expand...
If that is the case, the grade separated Streetcar lines should also be on the map.
 
mrgrieves said:
agreed - but they should appear differently where appropriate (eg thin or dotted line for Line 5 at grade portions and Line 6)
Click to expand...

I personally think that would be unnecessary, and maybe more confusing? People riding from one end to the other are not going to care the line comes up from underground. They’re already on the train and it’s just going to be a continuous ride.
 
APTA-2048 said:
I personally think that would be unnecessary, and maybe more confusing? People riding from one end to the other are not going to care the line comes up from underground. They’re already on the train and it’s just going to be a continuous ride.
Click to expand...
The TTC has a "subway map", and a "streetcar and subway map". on the latter, streetcar lines are thinner. and no distinction is made between ROW or mixed traffic lines. Line 5 EC is a hybrid line due the partial grade separation. and so I think it would be misleading for passengers to expect the on-grade sections to be the same as grade separated. they are much slower, more stops, and no stations
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top