[81-717]

b) because different vehicles were built at different times, trying to do a wholesale replacement would result either in vehicles being prematurely retired because we have new ones now, which is a waste of money

They had no qualms about prematurely retiring the H6s in order to standardize the fleet (I'm almost certain they would've done the same thing even if they weren't lemons), and PATH replaced all PA1-4s even earlier, by 2011, in order to have only 1 model (PA5), despite the youngest PA4s being barely over 20 years old and not being lemons.

or in vehicles having their lives artificially extended, possibly beyond the point of feasibility, because you don't want to waste money by retiring something on another line that is only 2/3rds through its lifespan. For example: the TRs will be life expired in 20 years, the T1 replacements will come online in, say, 10 - how would you possibly replace both at the same time?

Only if the T1s are life-extended to last until 2040 (Scenario 3 in the most recently published document), then it would absolutely make sense to replace both the T1s and TRs at the same time since the oldest TRs will also be 30 (why give the TRs a life extension instead of simply expanding the order of new cars that would be arriving in greater numbers by then?). Of course, they didn't have the foresight to look that far ahead and outline that as an option in Scenario 3.

One of the reasons I'm not a fan of it is because it is so vague and broad that it can be moulded to whatever you want. When the H5s and H6s were retiring a decade ago, there were plans to send them to Lagos, Nigeria, for use on their new 'light rail' system. Our cars are usually lighter than those that run in New York, and even New York's are feather light compared to freight locos on the continent, which is what I consider to be actual 'heavy rail'.

The term light rail / LRT should refer to any line with tramlike rolling stock, simple as that. If it's not a tram, it should not be classified as light rail, no matter how "feather light" it may be. The term light metro makes sense when referring to something like the SRT which is basically a subway line with smaller trains and possibly customized technology. I disagree with classifying OL rolling stock as a light metro rather than a heavy-rail subway, much like the IRT isn't classified as such despite being smaller than the BMT/IND.

instead of the traditional RT-75 style rolling stock that we are well used to in Toronto.

Nitpick: technically the TRs are not based on RT-75, only the M/H/T cars were. But ofc the TRs do have the same dimensions.

I see no point in a primarily overground LRT line using anything but line of sight operation.

Shhh don't let the manufacturers of self-driving cars hear that

 

[T3G]

They had no qualms about prematurely retiring the H6s in order to standardize the fleet

They didn't standardize the fleet, there are still 2 models in circulation, both of which are different and require their own parts inventory and maintenance practices.

(I'm almost certain they would've done the same thing even if they weren't lemons),

There was no plan to do this. The H6s were retired only because federal money happened to become available to exercise the option order. Had this not occurred, the plan was for the cars to last until 2019.

hen it would absolutely make sense to replace both the T1s and TRs at the same time since the oldest TRs will also be 30

I was referring to retiring the TR and T1 replacements concurrently, not TRs and T1s.

If there was a life extension done on the T1, then retiring them in tandem with unrefurbished TRs would of course have made the most sense.

The term light rail / LRT should refer to any line with tramlike rolling stock, simple as that.

If it's not a tram, it should not be classified as light rail, no matter how "feather light" it may be.

Well, you can call it whatever you like, but don't complain if people have no idea what you're talking about.

Calling something light rail based on its weight is based on an objective, easily verified property of the object in question. Any other property, such as design or aesthetics, how frequently it runs, how many people it's capable of carrying, is either superficial or too fickle to pin down. And how would you distinguish subways from freight locomotives? Suggesting they belong in the same category of machine is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst.

 

[smallspy]

The term light rail / LRT should refer to any line with tramlike rolling stock, simple as that. If it's not a tram, it should not be classified as light rail, no matter how "feather light" it may be. The term light metro makes sense when referring to something like the SRT which is basically a subway line with smaller trains and possibly customized technology. I disagree with classifying OL rolling stock as a light metro rather than a heavy-rail subway, much like the IRT isn't classified as such despite being smaller than the BMT/IND.

A large part of the problem is that you're trying to deal in absolutes when there are really aren't any to be found.

"Light rail" is named as such because of it's relative lightness in capacity to "heavy rail" metros. Historically the vehicles were built lighter than metros/subways, but in the modern parlance the weight of the vehicles is largely irrelevant.

"Light metro" is marketing wank and really has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than sounding hip and trendy and new. They can be built to the same capacity as "heavy metros" with some slight-of-hand, and are no lighter (or heavier) in weight or construction.

Dan

 

[nfitz]

A large part of the problem is that you're trying to deal in absolutes when there are really aren't any to be found.

"Light rail" is named as such because of it's relative lightness in capacity to "heavy rail" metros. Historically the vehicles were built lighter than metros/subways, but in the modern parlance the weight of the vehicles is largely irrelevant.

"Light metro" is marketing wank and really has no bearing on anything whatsoever other than sounding hip and trendy and new. They can be built to the same capacity as "heavy metros" with some slight-of-hand, and are no lighter (or heavier) in weight or construction.

As most of Line 5 is grade-separated, with a vehicle capacity similar to Line 4, and a more frequent maximum frequency, then is Line 4 Sheppard also light rail?

Perhaps most of Line 5 isn't light rail.

 

[Bordercollie]

They had no qualms about prematurely retiring the H6s in order to standardize the fleet (I'm almost certain they would've done the same thing even if they weren't lemons), and PATH replaced all PA1-4s even earlier, by 2011, in order to have only 1 model (PA5), despite the youngest PA4s being barely over 20 years old and not being lemons.

Only if the T1s are life-extended to last until 2040 (Scenario 3 in the most recently published document), then it would absolutely make sense to replace both the T1s and TRs at the same time since the oldest TRs will also be 30 (why give the TRs a life extension instead of simply expanding the order of new cars that would be arriving in greater numbers by then?). Of course, they didn't have the foresight to look that far ahead and outline that as an option in Scenario 3.

The term light rail / LRT should refer to any line with tramlike rolling stock, simple as that. If it's not a tram, it should not be classified as light rail, no matter how "feather light" it may be. The term light metro makes sense when referring to something like the SRT which is basically a subway line with smaller trains and possibly customized technology. I disagree with classifying OL rolling stock as a light metro rather than a heavy-rail subway, much like the IRT isn't classified as such despite being smaller than the BMT/IND.

But this still doesn't solve the problem that we don't have enough cars for the Scarborough extension nor do we have any rolling stock for service expansion.

Can they not take 4 TR Train sets and run them on Line 2 during rush hour to off set the shortage of T1's when the Scarborough subway opens?

 

[81-717]

They didn't standardize the fleet, there are still 2 models in circulation, both of which are different and require their own parts inventory and maintenance practices.

They did standardize it at least partially, having only 2 models is less than 3 or more, especially with only 1 model per line.

There was no plan to do this. The H6s were retired only because federal money happened to become available to exercise the option order. Had this not occurred, the plan was for the cars to last until 2019.

Well, if it weren't for them being lemons there shouldn't have been a need to even offer the option order, had they been reliable they shouldn't've had second thoughts about running them until 2019 and possibly until now, at which point there would be 2 models ripe enough for replacement...

I was referring to retiring the TR and T1 replacements concurrently, not TRs and T1s.

Well, that is definitely not a realistic scenario, given that the T1 replacements will come at least 20 years later than the TRs (as of now, the earliest they are expected to show up is 2030, albeit with a more tight delivery schedule of 3 years instead of 6). Perhaps, with a 20-year difference in age, there would also be more technological advances, rather than keeping them almost identical to the TR.

Well, you can call it whatever you like, but don't complain if people have no idea what you're talking about.

Pretty sure most people do, and most people interpret all those terms in more or less the same way.

Calling something light rail based on its weight is based on an objective, easily verified property of the object in question.

But weight is a continuous spectrum, and so there will always be borderline cases or even overlaps.

And how would you distinguish subways from freight locomotives? Suggesting they belong in the same category of machine is misleading at best, an outright lie at worst.

Not more misleading than saying a LIRR M7 is the same category of machine as a freight locomotive?

as they don't connect to any other line in the network (Finch and Eglinton, and the Ontario Line, notably)

That is one of the things I hate the most about the latest trend of building new lines here. While I fully agree that having one standardized fleet across the entire network is not the best idea (not just from a railfan perspective), I absolutely will die on the hill that having one single large integrated network is in every way superior to having every individual line completely severed from every other line, which seems like the most shortsighted, poorly-planned decision possible.

The OL, at the very least, might have a non-revenue spur connection to the CP mainline (although it would make far more sense for it to connect to lines 1, 2 & 4 and have interoperable rolling stock).

 

[Steve X]

As most of Line 5 is grade-separated, with a vehicle capacity similar to Line 4, and a more frequent maximum frequency, then is Line 4 Sheppard also light rail?

Perhaps most of Line 5 isn't light rail.

The term light rail is just a concept which differs vastly with different implementations.

It's just a modernization of streetcars adopted for faster travel. It is the North American implementation of German Stadtbahn systems.

Line 5 is light rail cause the technology isn't design for linking up more than 3 LRVs together while Line 4 trains can definitely be built to 8 to 12 car lengths if they want. However Line 5 uses ATC/ATO which is not part of a light rail system. So it's really a hybrid system.

 

[nfitz]

Line 5 is light rail cause the technology isn't design for linking up more than 3 LRVs together while Line 4 trains can definitely be built to 8 to 12 car lengths if they want.

Hybrid for sure, but what other than platform length (and presumably current software) precludes making longer trains?

 

[T3G]

Hybrid for sure, but what other than platform length (and presumably current software) precludes making longer trains?

Perhaps the fixed power plant has a limit to how many accelerating cars it can feed at once.

Otherwise, in theory you could couple an indefinite amount of the cars together.

 

[T3G]

Well, if it weren't for them being lemons there shouldn't have been a need to even offer the option order, had they been reliable they shouldn't've had second thoughts about running them until 2019 and possibly until now, at which point there would be 2 models ripe enough for replacement...

Who do you think offered the option order to whom?

The TTC contracted with Bombardier for X amount of cars delivered over Y time frame, with the option to receive an additional amount of cars if they were pleased with the product. It is then up to the TTC to decide whether they want it (and then up to the feds, to decide how generous they are with the purse strings). How satisfied they are with the current rolling stock has no bearing on the existence of an option offer whatsoever.

As a counter example, the order for 204 Flexity cars had an option for an additional 60. Due to a variety of circumstances, that option was not exercised, and now we are paying more per car for 4604-4663, than we would be if we had taken the option when it was made available

Well, that is definitely not a realistic scenario, given that the T1 replacements will come at least 20 years later than the TRs (as of now, the earliest they are expected to show up is 2030, albeit with a more tight delivery schedule of 3 years instead of 6). Perhaps, with a 20-year difference in age, there would also be more technological advances, rather than keeping them almost identical to the TR.

Read back to the very start of the conversation, and you will see why I mentioned TRs and T1s retiring together. At no point did I say it was realistic.

But weight is a continuous spectrum, and so there will always be borderline cases or even overlaps.

And aesthetics or passenger carrying capacity isn't?

A car that weighs 20k kg empty will always weigh 20k kg empty. That doesn't change. But passenger carrying capacity can change - if you couple 10 crosstown cars together, you will have greater carrying capacity than a current TTC subway train. If you coupled 100 of them together you'd have a higher carrying capacity than the GO train. How's that for "light" capacity rail? (Note: this does NOT mean I would ever expect to see 100 crosstown cars lashed up together, just pointing out how capacity is a very unstable number that can change based on number of cars coupled together, as well as other things like service frequencies).

Aesthetics also change. You are a purist who thinks trams should be distinct from subways, because reasons. There are purists who grew up on the PCCs and think that the only real type of tram is the single bodied, corner driver seat model that doesn't view these new slinkies as being real trams. Someone who wasn't alive at the turn of the millennium thinks those singled bodied cars are as ancient and outdated as if they had been operating in ancient Egypt.

Perceptions are fickle. Hard facts like weight are not. And a streetcar, being a nimble, quick, electric, high capacity transit solution has a lot more in common with the subway, another nimble, quick, electric, high capacity transit solution, than it does with a VIA or GO or CN train. So no, I do not see any compelling reason to call subway trains anything but light rail.

 

[81-717]

If you coupled 100 of them together you'd have a higher carrying capacity than the GO train. How's that for "light" capacity rail?

Then a 2–4-car GO train is also "light rail" (since we're gonna blur the lines between LRT / light metro / subway, why stop there & not go a step further? why not blur the lines between local & regional transit? if there are no absolutes/purists in different forms of urban rail transport, why would there be in local vs regional vs higher-order transit?).

You are a purist who thinks trams should be distinct from subways, because reasons.

This is why:

There are purists who think that the only real type of tram is the single bodied, corner driver seat model that doesn't view these new slinkies as being real trams.

Well, they'll get no disagreement from me there, lol. In fact, the main reason I don't think much of LRT in general is precisely because it most often tends to use "slinkies", which is why the term LRT is automatically associated with them. I can't think of many examples of LRT systems that use single-bodied trams. So, defining LRT as using "slinky" trams seems pretty clear & concise. Point being, I profusely disagree that a slinky tram and a heavy rail subway car can be lumped into the same category of vehicle. And yes, I'd sooner lump subway cars into the same category as freight locomotives (both being single-bodied & having higher ground clearance), which Europe doesn't have a problem with.

with the option to receive an additional amount of cars if they were pleased with the product

Simply being "pleased" with a product is in itself not a compelling enough reason to order more of the same thing. Why order new vehicles unless you're planning service expansion and/or have vehicles needing to be replaced?

Read back to the very start of the conversation, and you will see why I mentioned TRs and T1s retiring together. At no point did I say it was realistic.

I did, and the point of the conversation would be the same whether you use "T1 and TR" or "TR and T1 replacements". The former example would just make more sense at this time, rather than talking about replacing trains that have yet to be conceived.

 

[smallspy]

Then a 2–4-car GO train is also "light rail" (since we're gonna blur the lines between LRT / light metro / subway, why stop there & not go a step further? why not blur the lines between local & regional transit? if there are no absolutes/purists in different forms of urban rail transport, why would there be in local vs regional vs higher-order transit?).

Okay, here is where it gets absolute.

The mainline railways - CN, CP, VIA, GO and the like - are all considered heavy railways. And there are legal and regulatory definitions that reinforce this.

And thus, anything rail-based that can't intermingle with them - subways, streetcars, etc. - are considered light rail.

But it's also context-driven, too. If you're talking about transit, with transit professionals, "heavy rail" in most cases something akin to our subway system, not a GO train. They will use other terms, such as "commuter rail", to help define them versus the other modes.

Confused yet?

Dan

 

[christiesplits]

Last weekend I finally spotted security guards on the train, on Line 1. There are so many security guards in this city that it took me a moment to confirm that they were TTC-contracted guards, and not just some guards commuting to their shift.

 

[81-717]

Okay, here is where it gets absolute.

The mainline railways - CN, CP, VIA, GO and the like - are all considered heavy railways. And there are legal and regulatory definitions that reinforce this.

And thus, anything rail-based that can't intermingle with them - subways, streetcars, etc. - are considered light rail.

Not sure why regulations in North America are so different than in Europe, but in Europe subway cars can and do intermingle with (freight) rail (not in revenue service, to be sure, but when they need to be transported to/from the city they're being used in), but trams most definitely don't (some tram-trains can operate on a section of mainline track, but I've never seen / heard of a tram coupled in a freight consist, quite unlike subway cars), so at least in Europe it makes sense to call subways heavy rail and trams light rail in absolute terms, even though subway cars there aren't necessarily built more heavily than here. In any case, mainline rail is simply the next logical step above subways, the relative use of "light" vs "heavy" doesn't preclude the existence of an absolute hierarchy (mainline rail > subway > light metro > LRT).

 

[smallspy]

Not sure why regulations in North America are so different than in Europe, but in Europe subway cars can and do intermingle with (freight) rail, but trams most definitely don't (some tram-trains can operate on a section of mainline track, but I've never seen / heard of a tram coupled in a freight consist, quite unlike subway cars), so at least in Europe it makes sense to call subways heavy rail and trams light rail in absolute terms, even though subway cars there aren't necessarily built more heavily than here.

While there are a lot of historical factors as to why it was or wasn't the case, today the reasoning is because freight trains there aren't 10,000+ feet long and weigh 20,000 tonnes, and require multiple miles to come to a stop. They do here, and with regularity.

And because the size, weight and speed of the freight trains in Europe are much closer in scale to their passenger equipment, it is much easier to mix them all together.

Another reason is that there is a far, far larger spread of wayside oversight systems in place to protect trains against each other in Europe than there is in North America. PTC is a very, very recent innovation here, and while yes there were some systems in place since the 1930s, they were far more limited in scope and installation. In Europe, there are entire regions that have had systems in place since the 1960s.

Dan