[Richard White]

Perhaps we can find a way to get subway trains to last 50 to 60 years ... which will surely happen if there's no funding.

London, UK is facing this situation now with the Bakerloo Line and their 1972 Stock.

The Bakerloo is currently using trains which are 52 years old and are less than reliable. Like here, there is talk of replacing them but the money is not there so they keep them going as long as they can.

The original T1 Trains are turning 30 next year. There is only so much life you can get out of them before parts start to become unavailable like they did with the ALRV and CLRV fleet.

 

[81-717]

Perhaps we can find a way to get subway trains to last 50 to 60 years ... which will surely happen if there's no funding.

Then the TTC will need new, more rigorous design standards for their track and structures to handle the heavier equipment. Plus a plan (and budget) with which to replace all of the existing with the new.

Dan

Which will surely cost more than new trains, meaning that without funding we can't have one or the other.

I'm curious though as to whether there is indeed a direct correlation between how heavy the equipment is vs. its design lifespan? Montreal's equipment isn't heavier than Toronto's, yet they want to have it last 60 years.

 

[nfitz]

Then the TTC will need new, more rigorous design standards for their track and structures to handle the heavier equipment. Plus a plan (and budget) with which to replace all of the existing with the new.

Dan

Hang on.

Are you saying that the Line 2 extension to Sheppard isn't being built to handle the weight of the current rolling stock?

 

[nfitz]

London, UK is facing this situation now with the Bakerloo Line and their 1972 Stock.

The Bakerloo is currently using trains which are 52 years old and are less than reliable. Like here, there is talk of replacing them but the money is not there so they keep them going as long as they can.

The original T1 Trains are turning 30 next year. There is only so much life you can get out of them before parts start to become unavailable like they did with the ALRV and CLRV fleet.

The Bakerloo stock was upgraded in the 2010s to get them until mid-2030s. 60 years old.

Only so much life for 25-to-30 year-old trains, means we can push of a decision for a decade or two, if we start making other plans soon.

 

[max]

Which will surely cost more than new trains, meaning that without funding we can't have one or the other.

I'm curious though as to whether there is indeed a direct correlation between how heavy the equipment is vs. its design lifespan? Montreal's equipment isn't heavier than Toronto's, yet they want to have it last 60 years.

Montreal runs an entirely underground coupled bus service so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

 

[T3G]

London, UK is facing this situation now with the Bakerloo Line and their 1972 Stock.

The Bakerloo is currently using trains which are 52 years old and are less than reliable. Like here, there is talk of replacing them but the money is not there so they keep them going as long as they can.

The original T1 Trains are turning 30 next year. There is only so much life you can get out of them before parts start to become unavailable like they did with the ALRV and CLRV fleet.

Good thing we waffled on the T1 life extension for so long instead of securing the fleet while we still had the chance

Also not all the T1s are turning 30. The youngest ones are only 23.

 

[81-717]

Montreal runs an entirely underground coupled bus service so it's not really an apples to apples comparison.

Sure, but I don't think being underground vs above ground is necessarily the biggest factor contributing to wear & tear (and if anything, I'd think rubber tires would only add more wear & tear). Montreal is also not the only system that comes to mind; Stockholm is more than 50% above ground and has smaller & lighter trains than Toronto, some of which (though certainly not all) lasted just past 50 years.

Also not all the T1s are turning 30. The youngest ones are only 23.

2031 is only a few short years away and will be here before we know it.

 

[Richard White]

Also not all the T1s are turning 30. The youngest ones are only 23.

Correct. Car 5000 was delivered in 1995.

 

[smallspy]

Hang on.

Are you saying that the Line 2 extension to Sheppard isn't being built to handle the weight of the current rolling stock?

How can you possibly come to that conclusion from my original post?

Dan

 

[nfitz]

How can you possibly come to that conclusion from my original post?

Dan

I think you said that if they don't get the new Line 2 rolling stock, and instead rehab the T1s, then "Then the TTC will need new, more rigorous design standards for their track and structures to handle the heavier equipment".

I'm not sure what Line 2 track and structures you are referring to then, if it's not the Line 2 extension currently under construction.

 

[Northern Light]

I think you said that if they don't get the new Line 2 rolling stock, and instead rehab the T1s, then "Then the TTC will need new, more rigorous design standards for their track and structures to handle the heavier equipment".

Nope, that's not what he said.

He was replying to your post:

Perhaps we can find a way to get subway trains to last 50 to 60 years ... which will surely happen if there's no funding.

Its my understanding than what he was saying is that the existing rolling stock cannot, at least cost-effectively, have its life extended that far;

Further, that to design or spec trains that would have such a lifespan, the rolling stock would need to be sturdier and made of heavier metals/components, and the weight increase would be such as to increase stress/wear on rails and other systems/parts as currently designed.

 

[nfitz]

Nope, that's not what he said.

He was replying to your post:

??? My post about replacing the T1 rolling Stock.

The full sequence was:

Unfortunate the budget didn't include Line 2 news.

Perhaps we are slowly moving towards a Line 2 shutdown.

Perhaps we can find a way to get subway trains to last 50 to 60 years ... which will surely happen if there's no funding.

Then the TTC will need new, more rigorous design standards for their track and structures to handle the heavier equipment. Plus a plan (and budget) with which to replace all of the existing with the new.

Are you saying that the Line 2 extension to Sheppard isn't being built to handle the weight of the current rolling stock?

How can you possibly come to that conclusion from my original post?

Ah - I see. I thought that some life extension beyond 30 years had been an option when they were ordered. I guess I misremembered, and there can be no life extension.

 

[T3G]

Perhaps they ought to take a page from NYC's book and design the T1 replacements for 40-50 years of operation.

 

[81-717]

Perhaps they ought to take a page from NYC's book and design the T1 replacements for 40-50 years of operation.

Indeed, the specs called for a 35- rather than 30-year design life.

But otherwise there's no point if the tracks & infrastructure can't handle it.

 

[smallspy]

I think you said that if they don't get the new Line 2 rolling stock, and instead rehab the T1s, then "Then the TTC will need new, more rigorous design standards for their track and structures to handle the heavier equipment".

I'm not sure what Line 2 track and structures you are referring to then, if it's not the Line 2 extension currently under construction.

I said nothing of the sort.

You made the comment about ordering equipment that lasts longer. To last longer will require it to have weight added (stronger trucks, stronger traction motors, higher rated drive equipment, etc). If you make the trains heavier, you may also require all of the stuff around and underneath the trains to get strengthened to account for that.

Dan