nfitz
Superstar
What was you user ID for the last 20 years of whining about Sheppard here?
|
|
|
Bojaxs
Senior Member
I have no idea what you're talking about.
thettctransitfanatic
Senior Member
Keep your eyes peeled to this page on the TTC site:
News
The TTC issues news releases and media advisories to local, national and international news media via e-mail. The public can also receive news from the TTC by registering with my TTC e-services.
www.ttc.ca
smallspy
Senior Member
youngblood
Active Member
urbanclient
Senior Member
We paid for 90 metre long platforms which deliver 600 passenger capacity with 90 metre long 3-car consists on Eglinton. Compare that to 80 metre trains on the Ontario Line that can carry 1000 passengers at the same crush load passenger density (6 pax/m^2). The tunnel bore for Eglinton was also nonsensically large for the 2.65 m wide rolling stock.
In China, 2.8 metre wide Type B metros using overhead wire like Eglinton can run in a 5.5 metre wide tunnel.
3.0 metre wide Type A metros on Shanghai Line 10 and Guangzhou Line 13 run in 5.7 and 5.8 metre wide tunnels respectively. Dug by 6.2 and 6.4 metre wide TBMs. Both using overhead wire, not third rail.
Eglinton's tunnel is 5.75 metres wide internally and the TBM that dug it was just over 6.5 metres wide. Those metro cars would be taller than the 2.65 m wide Flexity Freedoms as well.
Line 6 FW should be low floor, I agree. And even Hurontario has a stronger case to be low floor, albeit a weak one. But Eglinton's 90 metre platforms, like Ottawa, are an abomination. We paid more to get less, for platform length, rolling stock length, and tunnel bore.
How long are Line 4 Sheppard trains again? Oh right, about 90 metres long. We literally bore wider tunnels to fit nearly 0.5 metre narrower trains. The TYSSE Line 1 extension used 6.1 metre TBMs to dig 5.4 metre wide finished tunnels. Toronto Rockets are 3.137 metres wide. And I'm not even saying Eglinton should've been a Toronto Rocket subway. But the way it was built is stupid on so many levels.
A crime against transportation as @CapitalSeven would say.
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
You're comparing apples to oranges again.
The Ontario Line's capacity specs are basically nonsensical. If you use the TTC's numbers - where they use the same metrics upon all of their fleets, and are based on over 100 years of actually providing service, rather than what looks pretty in a marketing PowerPoint - the capacity of each Ontario Line set is about 625 passengers per train.
Dan
DSCToronto
Superstar
Board Periods are staffing intervals "The TTC formally adjusts service 10 times a year in ~6-week intervals, known as "Board Periods," which dictate scheduled service levels. "
Board meetings are meetings of the TTC Board of Commissioners/ ("The TTC is overseen by a Board of Commissioners made up of elected City Councillors and private citizens.")
urbanclient
Senior Member
Bombardier's own documentation on this shows the real capacity of the Flexity Freedoms at 6 pax/m^2. The same density applied to a 3 metre wide, 80 metre train would actually be closer to 1100 passengers, but I rounded down to account for lower capacity transverse seating. Your claim of 625 is a real number, but you are not accounting for what the passenger density is.
You are the one comparing apples to oranges by taking 6 pax/m^2 crush load from the Bombardier trains and comparing it to 2.85 pax/m^2 Hitachi trains.
For the Freedoms, the capacity would go down to about 375 for 3-cars in that case. 625 pax for 80 metres on the Ontario Line still beats 375 for 90 metres on Eglinton any day of the week.
Not to mention 625 passengers for 80 metres on the Ontario Line still beats 600 passengers for 90 metres on Eglinton. So what are you on about @smallspy
Do the math here: 56+8+4+130=198. 198*3=~600. I am being generous here with Eglinton's Bombardier Flexity Freedoms. The oft-cited 250 pax per 30 metre car is a crush load capacity beyond 6 pass./m^2. Something so ludicrous even the Chinese don't bother advertising (ASME RT-1 = AW4 = 8 pax/m^2: https://www.theurbanist.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/RFP-RTA-RP-0116-15.pdf).
The Ontario Line at 2.85 passengers/sq. m for 80 metre trains would be ~680 passengers, not 625.
(850/100)*80 or 850*0.8=680
Way to deflect from the main point with misinformation, that we all suffered from this crime against transportation, Dan... @smallspy
Care to address the issue of tunnel bore? Passenger capacity? (I know one of the reasons why the Line 5 tunnel is wider than a Line 1 tunnel)
Otherwise, let's agree to not repeat the mistakes made here again, instead of attempting and failing to be an apologist for objective weaknesses and failings of the Eglinton Crosstown.
I am still excited that it might open soon. But no way was it the optimal solution for Eglinton Avenue.
Last edited:
Itsethanmac
New Member
happy thousandth page to this thread UT 
Voltz
Senior Member
An Eglinton subway would never had made it past Yonge, Don Mills would be a dashed line on a map, not many passengers could be diverted from Line 2.
urbanclient
Senior Member
A subway where it was desperately needed, and no further might've been a bad thing in the short term. I agree. But in the long term, an eastern extension to Kennedy would've been inevitable. Western too.
Furthermore, a driverless light metro the same width as the Flexity Freedoms would've been much cheaper than a traditional Toronto subway. Not to mention eliminating most of the labour costs that contribute to 70% of the TTC operating budget. This spec is over two decades old: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Rail_Italy_Driverless_Metro
One other thing to note, the marginal cost to tunnel 1 more kilometre is little compared to the fixed cost of the TBMs, and building the tunnel portals and launch shafts. The average cost per kilometre of a bored tunnel typically decreases as the tunnel length increases. A reminder, Eglinton didn't have 1 or 2, but 4 TBMs to dig most of the ~10km main tunnel. That is 2 TBMs too many.
Eglinton goes from Mount Dennis at-grade, to elevated, to tunnelled, to at-grade, to tunnelled at Don Valley / Science Centre station, to at-grade, back to underground at Kennedy station. Half-a-dozen, mostly needless transitions inflated the cost.
Last edited:
pleaseLRT
New Member
urbanclient
Senior Member
@nfitz Please read and do the math. I am the only one comparing apples to apples, while you two persist on comparing apples to oranges. Your posts are apples to oranges because “capacity” is being quoted under different passenger density standards, so the numbers aren’t comparable without normalizing to the same pax/m^2.
For a 6-car Toronto Rocket, 1,100 pax is for a density of 2.44 passengers per square metre.
For an 80 metre, 3 metre wide generic metro, 1,100 pax is the crush load capacity at 6 passengers per square metre. 1,000 is more realistic given the Ontario Line will have lots of transverse seating.
Again, you two are deflecting from the main point: 625 to 680 passengers for an 80 metre Ontario Line train at 2.85 pax/m^2 still beats 600 passengers for a 90 metre Eglinton train stuffed to the gills at 6 pax/m^2.
Cut from my earlier screenshots:
https://assets.metrolinx.com/image/...ew-the-ontario-line-initial-business-case.pdf
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/attachments/bombardier-flexity-freedom-brochure-2011-pdf.95184/
https://www.crrcgc.cc/Portals/73/Uploads/Files/2017/4-26/636288002734565604.pdf
A 2.8 metre wide 19 to 19.5 metre long Type B metro car can carry 313 passengers at AW3 crush load which means 6 passengers per square metre. Now obviously this is an unrealistic case, because it implies 1252 passengers for a 77 metre long train (Ontario Line will be 3.0 m wide, 80 metre long).
AW3 = 6 pax/m^2, source: https://railtec.illinois.edu/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/WCRR_48779_Lin_Load_Quantification1.pdf
So I conservatively rounded down to ~1,000 passengers for an 3.0 m wide, 80 m long train @ 6 pax/m^2 crush load, to account for seated passengers, and the Ontario Line's transverse seating layout. Other sources give ~1,100 for a 6 pax/m^2 crush load for 3.0 m by 80 m with longitudinal seating only.
If anyone still doesn't understand this math, I suggest enrolling at Kumon with some kids or some adult learning with the TDSB. https://www.tdsb.on.ca/communityservices/Essential-Skills-Upgrading
Attachments
Last edited:
McGillicuddy
Active Member
If only the news had broken seven posts later.
