My thoughts on gangway trains as a Torontonian

[MisterSG1]

On 3/3/2021 at 2:45 PM, R10 2952 said:

 

You also have to ask yourself at one point do these designs begin to outweigh the cost.  Just look at where the mentality regarding wider doors has got us- the side windows on the R211 are tiny.  What's next, no windows at all? The real solution to overcrowding is to build new subway lines, not some band-aid half-measures.

You hit the real nail on the head, you can do things like introduce ATC, but hypothetically, assuming commuting returns to normal sometime in the future, these lines will eventually be jammed again. As we know, building a subway now is next to impossible, the incredible costs of the SAS and the incredible amounts of politics involved, not to mention the snail pace at which it moves, all seem to be a futile effort.

At least in Toronto's case, all subway projects since the 1970s have been incredibly political, the trains of the SRT in 1985, a subway in suburbia because an egotistical mayor wanted one, and an extension outside of city proper because Ontario's finance minister was the member of Ontario Parliament where the subway ended. While those new stops which opened in 2017 benefited me, I will admit it's a heck of a long ride from up there, around 45 minutes to get downtown and sees very little ridership.

Toronto's Yonge Line, which some say is busier or is at least as busy as the Lex, newer projects the TTC wants won't do anything to alleviate this, they only want to build some east-west LRT lines (yeah, a city like Toronto is building LRT when it's already clearly a transit city already, I was opponent of this a decade ago and still am, the biggest waste of money they'll ever do) and these new east-west lines will just jam the Yonge line further. This is a rant and I will stop now.

 

 

As for windows, they are more important than you might think they are. One of the key concepts in navigating a subway system is wayfinding. Sure, while modern trains announce the stops in a clear voice, and not an angry mumble like operators did in the past in both cities, there are certain times these systems fail. I've seen it happen many of times and even knocked on the guard's door to let him know the announcements aren't happening. This then shows the importance of windows, to see what station you are at when you stop.

Another interesting observation about the Toronto Rocket train is that the lights on that trainset are much brighter than previous cars, as a result, it's often difficult to read the name on the station wall, I'm serious about this.

Sure, most of us who take the same route day after day don't need wayfinding, but wayfinding becomes extremely important when you are going to a place you have never gone before.

 

Finally, for the record, I believe train cars in Toronto have always been married, I know they have been since the later H series cars.

[Deucey]

4 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Toronto's Yonge Line, which some say is busier or is at least as busy as the Lex, newer projects the TTC wants won't do anything to alleviate this, they only want to build some east-west LRT lines (yeah, a city like Toronto is building LRT when it's already clearly a transit city already, I was opponent of this a decade ago and still am, the biggest waste of money they'll ever do) and these new east-west lines will just jam the Yonge line further. This is a rant and I will stop now.

Paris has and is building perimeter/crosstown LRTs, as is Île-de-France (Paris’ region). London has the automated light DLR. Madrid has LRT and heavy; Mexico City too.

And Toronto had LRT streetcars before the subway.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

[bobtehpanda]

17 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

As I said, I wasn't 100% sure of this, but I was referring to the overall habitable space between the end of one car compared to the next. A gangway isn't entirely as wide the rest of the cross-section of the train, is there really a net gain or loss of space? I'm unsure of the answer but even so, it's a very small amount. The subway cars used in Toronto are 75 feet by the way, so the amount of space would be even smaller compared to a 60 foot car.

You're "unsure of the answer" because it doesn't meet your preconceived notions.

Here's the exact picture of a Toronto Rocket you posted to start this thread:

You'll notice that there is a bench with a man sitting on it right before the gangway. The inner walls of the gangway are no further out than the tips of his feet.

3 feet of space is 3 feet of space but you're doing all these mental gymnastics to say there's not enough space, when clearly there is at least the same amount of standing room as there would be if you were standing directly in front of the man. (I really hope you're not standing any closer than that to someone sitting on a bench.)

[MisterSG1]

1 hour ago, bobtehpanda said:

You're "unsure of the answer" because it doesn't meet your preconceived notions.

Here's the exact picture of a Toronto Rocket you posted to start this thread:

You'll notice that there is a bench with a man sitting on it right before the gangway. The inner walls of the gangway are no further out than the tips of his feet.

3 feet of space is 3 feet of space but you're doing all these mental gymnastics to say there's not enough space, when clearly there is at least the same amount of standing room as there would be if you were standing directly in front of the man. (I really hope you're not standing any closer than that to someone sitting on a bench.)

Yes, but what I was getting at more so was the "dead space" between the train cars.

As Toronto uses married-sets, this means that the T1s had one cab that the operator/conductor could sit in on opposite ends of each set of two cars. In other words, in a two car set, there would be a cab at the front of the lead car, and at the rear of the trailing car, thus a six car T1 train uses three of these married pairs.

 

The space added by the gangway is almost negligible, it really is trivial compared to the potential to add capacity by interesting ATC to a subway line (which Toronto is in the process of doing).

Space or no space, one of the main complaints I and many others have, is how the riffraff can more easily move through the train.

[MisterSG1]

14 hours ago, Deucey said:

Paris has and is building perimeter/crosstown LRTs, as is Île-de-France (Paris’ region). London has the automated light DLR. Madrid has LRT and heavy; Mexico City too.

And Toronto had LRT streetcars before the subway.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Sigh, a lot can be said about this, and it's honestly worthy of its own thread. One can't really speak in brevity regarding the complicated history of the term "LRT" in Toronto. This is a site dedicated to NYC Transit, and well if you want me to post the long history of this on another thread, I can.

In a nutshell, you're suggesting that a streetcar and a light rail are one in the same, while there is some truth in that statement, the context of the difference changes by each city honestly. Would you say for starters that the old streetcars of Brooklyn were in fact light rail? (I don't know much about Brooklyn's streetcar system that existed in the past)

This is the beginning of the argument, as to what in fact "light rail" means. I'm sure most of us can agree it's a lower capacity rail vehicle that's usually powered by an overhead wire, which technically fits what we call a streetcar, but unlike subway/metro which all of us generally understand what it means, light rail isn't universal on what kind of service it provides.

For example, at one end of the spectrum, if we consider any of Toronto's streetcar routes, in which most run in mixed traffic to be "light rail", at this point you have something that is more or less a bus on a rail. Indeed, Toronto until sometime in the 2010s didn't show any special maps of its streetcar routes intertwined with the main subway diagram. Streetcars and buses were in the past referred to collectively as "surface routes" in Toronto because they were practically equals in the kind of service level they provide (and honestly they still are). The iconic Toronto CLRVs (Canadian Light Rail Vehicle.....uh yeah), which are now all retired, had that same yellow pull string you see on a bus.

At the other end of the spectrum lies something like the Green Line in Los Angeles, something that is totally grade separated, has no interference from any road traffic whatsoever, and can possibly reach speeds faster than a subway line but is always referred to as a light rail line.

Thus, unlike subway/metro systems around the world, light rails aren't usually one and the same.

 

And in honesty, two of the new light rail systems being built in Toronto will be no different really than the streetcar lines which have "right of ways".

Before you try to compare us to the big boys around the world, I remember when this meme spread around, it's painfully true.:

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

In a nutshell, you're suggesting that a streetcar and a light rail are one in the same...

Obviously you're not discerning enough to know when someone's ridiculing your "argument" with examples - in this case, it's you calling the "Light Metro" (global term) method of transit delivery as a waste of money and me showing other large transport systems outside Asia Pacific having and building them to compliment their Heavy Metro (global term) systems.

Your words:

21 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

(yeah, a city like Toronto is building LRT when it's already clearly a transit city already, I was opponent of this a decade ago and still am, the biggest waste of money they'll ever do)

Seems to me politicians and transport engineers championing, financing, constructing, operating, expanding, and maintaining these "complimentary" Light Metro systems might know more than some guy from T.Dot complaining about the TTC's equipment choices on a New York (as in not that municipality in Northern Toronto or those neighborhoods on Toronto's Western side) transit discussion site in the New York Subway forum instead of the World (non-USA) transit subforum, but that's never stopped anyone from banging keys or ranting at a bar or on the train.

[MisterSG1]

You’re missing my point, this discussion started because the MTA needs more subway lines.

it doesn’t belong here sure, but again, you’re assuming that what Toronto is building is akin to light metro, the Finch West LRT is much more similar in actuality to the streetcar route on Spadina. Interestingly, the first ever streetcar route with a right of way was first branded as the Harbourfront LRT, when service sucked on it, which it does, it got reclassified as a regular streetcar route.

Using stopwatches, I’ve timed the amount of time it takes both the Spadina streetcar and University subway to cover the same north-south distance. I estimated the Spadina streetcar spends roughly 30% of its time stopped at lights, this isn’t factoring in actual stops. 
 

The eglinton crosstown when it pops out of the ground close to Scarborough, will also be in a right of way and yup, bound by traffic lights. The entire Finch West LRT won’t have any totally isolated sections at all. It’s in essence the same crap on Spadina, Queens Quay, and St Clair.

Yet the TTC plans to treat these new routes as “equals” to the subway lines.

You missed my original point, the green line in LA is a light metro, but it’s also defined as a light rail system. The 509 streetcar route originally opened as the Harbourfront LRT, and it’s definitely not a light metro, anything that’s bound by extensive waiting at traffic lights is not worth building.

the LRT plan in Toronto was something Adam Giambrone drew up in his bedroom one night, just like his stupid BQX. As he says, the streetcar is the vehicle of the future. Sure, and while you’re at it, why don’t you tel me the rotary phone is the telephone of the future.

[Deucey]

23 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

You’re missing my point, this discussion started because the MTA needs more subway lines.

No, it started because The Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail require a subscription to comment on articles, and you chose not to pay for one.

Somehow this is Google and Facebook's fault.

[MisterSG1]

Let us not forget why I made this topic, it was about my opinion on articulated trains with gangways and my experiences with them over the last decade.

This is why I came here, this topic has derailed somewhat, but the topic somewhat turned into a discussion if these articulated trainsets have a significant increase on capacity. Someone else here said that the true fault lies with the lack of new serious subway infrastructure.

18 hours ago, Deucey said:

And Toronto had LRT streetcars before the subway.

This here is why I made my posting about what a “light rail” is. Toronto had nothing like a modern “light metro” prior to 1954 unless you are talking about the interurban lines. If you are than I take it back.

The word “streetcar” usually means a vehicle that runs on the street, as you quoted it as “LRT streetcars”.

[Deucey]

2 minutes ago, MisterSG1 said:

The word “streetcar” usually means a vehicle that runs on the street, as you quoted it as “LRT streetcars”.

So the LA Blue, Gold, Expo and Crenshaw Lines are streetcars?

Minneapolis' too?

What about Calgary's?

[MisterSG1]

Are you being difficult for the sake of being difficult, in this case I was differing between the traditional streetcars and the interurbans which used to run in what we now call the GTA.

I want a definition of what you meant by “LRT streetcars”.

[MisterSG1]

Also, if you want to talk about LA. My original point still stands, although the Blue Line and Gold Line are both classified as LRT lines. The levels of service achieved with both can be drastically different even if both are classified as “light rail”. 

There’s a significant section of the Gold Line which runs in a right of way and of course is bound by traffic lights. You know as well as I do that the efficiency of service in this section is not going to match what is on the Blue Line.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, MisterSG1 said:

Also, if you want to talk about LA. My original point still stands, although the Blue Line and Gold Line are both classified as LRT lines. The levels of service achieved with both can be drastically different even if both are classified as “light rail”. 

There’s a significant section of the Gold Line which runs in a right of way and of course is bound by traffic lights. You know as well as I do that the efficiency of service in this section is not going to match what is on the Blue Line.

Except that Regional Connector tunnel thingie Metro's building between Metro Center and Union Station is going to merge the Blue Line with the Pasadena to Azusa end of the Gold Line, and the Expo Line with the East LA end.

So they're building a $1.75 Billion tunnel to cut service?

1 hour ago, MisterSG1 said:

Are you being difficult for the sake of being difficult...?

Nope. Just pointing out the flaws in your logic since you contradicted yourself on this whole digression when you said this:

1 hour ago, MisterSG1 said:

Also, if you want to talk about LA. My original point still stands, although the Blue Line and Gold Line are both classified as LRT lines. The levels of service achieved with both can be drastically different even if both are classified as “light rail”. 

...when you earlier said this:

1 hour ago, MisterSG1 said:

The word “streetcar” usually means a vehicle that runs on the street, as you quoted it as “LRT streetcars”.

...as by your own definition and invocation of LA Metro's system (and by extension, every other "LRT" in the world) every transport line that runs on the street is now a streetcar and/or Light Rail.

(Technically, that would also encompass Amtrak, VIA, and freight trains that have active tracks in traffic lanes on city streets, but I'm not tryna make your head explode, but rather to really think about all you're saying in this whole post and aim for either more precision or accept that blurred lines exist.)

Or as the song goes, you may be wrong but you may be right.

Edited March 11, 2021 by Deucey
Apple Music's infinity played Billy Joel on my EDM session

[T to Dyre Avenue]

On 3/7/2021 at 8:05 PM, RR503 said:

As a general rule, I try to stay out of rolling stock discussions on here, but some quick points:

- Having married pairs or single units actually decreases reliability. Because you can't spread systems across the set, and because you have more coupling points, you end up with significant duplication and more points of failure. In isolation, the flexibility is nice, but NYCT's experience with the fleet in recent years -- to say nothing of the experiences of other countries -- should vindicate the perspectives of those who see linked sets as the way to go here.

- The "more capacity" point is one that I think is getting too little stress here. More standing room/car will obviously help smooth peaks, but OGs likely will also shorten dwells. If you're more able to move throughout the train, the chronic end-loading seen on some lines should moderate. Even if this affect is only slight, it counts for something. 

I just wish there was a quicker, easier way to go from five to four cars in a set, so if the Eastern Division is short cars again, they’d be able to send sets of cars from elsewhere in the system to ENY to address the shortage. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like ENY frequently finds themselves with car shortages and there seems to be no easy way to address it, like there was in the past when it was mostly 60-foot single and paired cars in the B-Division (outside of the leftover BMT cars and the R44/46 cars that came later).

Edited March 11, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I just wish there was a quicker, easier way to go from five to four cars in a set, so if the Eastern Division is short cars again, they’d be able to send sets of cars from elsewhere in the system to ENY to address the shortage. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like ENY frequently finds themselves with car shortages and there seems to be no easy way to address it, like there was in the past when it was mostly 60-foot single and paired cars in the B-Division (outside of the leftover BMT cars and the R44/46 cars that came later).

Would seem that a better investment would be to have all yards follow the best practices of the Yards that have the most units in service most often.

I don't really pay attention to the chatter here about who's best or worst, but if Jamaica is the best at keeping trains on the rail, for example, why isn't Pitkin or Concourse doing the same style work and ops?

That matters more - to me - than fleet flexibility.

[MisterSG1]

Let us start again, this is basically what I believe each type of rail transit refers to. I tried to dummyproof it as much as possible.

 

Streetcar - A railed vehicle that runs in mixed traffic on city streets. Streetcars are generally iconic for their trolley that powers the streetcar via an overhead wire, although many modern streetcars now use a pantograph to draw power from the overhead wire.

Light Rail Transit (LRT) - A railed vehicle that runs in its own right-of-way, an LRT will not have heavy capacity (compare with my definition of subway) Similar to the streetcar, it is usually powered via an overhead wire

Subway/Metro - A subway (or metro as what it's mostly called in the rest of the world) is a railed vehicle that runs in its own GRADE SEPARATED right-of-way. A subway has a much higher capacity than light rail. It's also generally powered by third rail (although Santo Domingo's metro is powered by overhead wire) Contrary to popular belief, a "subway" does not need to be underground, indeed very few subway systems around the world are completely 100% buried, the only example I can think of is Montreal's Metro off the top of my head

Light Metro - An intermediate capacity mode, in which a railed vehicle runs in its own grade separated right-of-way. However, the capacity on the individual trains is much less than what is found on a typical subway system. The most common example of such a system is TTC's Line 3, the Scarborough RT

Commuter Rail - A rail system which uses regular rails (same as those by regular freight railroads) and is generally designed to reach towards the outer suburbs. Commuter rail trains are usually larger than all other forms, and generally run on a schedule. Indeed, some schedules can make frequencies as strong as subway systems in some cities, but in most cases, commuter rail trains have a lower frequency of service.

 

By this definition of LRT, you can as I said in the past, have something which stops at traffic light after traffic light, despite being in its own lane. Or you can have something that practically replicates service of a light metro. In Toronto, what is now Route 509 - Harbourfront, originally opened as the Harbourfront LRT. By the definition I showed above, there is no reason why the aforementioned route can't be considered a "Light Rail Transit" route. It's a route with lousy service, but nevertheless, it's as much a Light Rail Transit route as the Blue Line in Los Angeles.

Remember, this debate was started because of a term you said that didn't make any sense "LRT streetcars", again I've asked many of times, what are you implying that Toronto had before 1954.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

7 hours ago, Deucey said:

Would seem that a better investment would be to have all yards follow the best practices of the Yards that have the most units in service most often.

I don't really pay attention to the chatter here about who's best or worst, but if Jamaica is the best at keeping trains on the rail, for example, why isn't Pitkin or Concourse doing the same style work and ops?

That matters more - to me - than fleet flexibility.

I’d be surprised if there isn’t one set of rules for how work is done on the rolling stock at all of the yards based on best practices. But then again, this is the MTA we’re talking about.

It’s just that there should be some value in having five-car sets that can be easily converted into four-car sets, to avoid perennial car shortages in the Eastern Division. They retired the R30s prematurely (only a few years after overhauling them), they didn’t order enough 4-car 160s, necessitating the R179 order, which has already had quite a service history despite being in service only a few years (and being several years late in entering service). Wouldn’t it be better if they could have been able to send a few R160s from elsewhere in the system, instead of having to hold onto the older cars to fill in for the R179s every time they got sidelined? (Yes, it would have been even better if Bombardier built them so they wouldn’t have so many teething problems that forced them out of service, I am aware of that.)

6 hours ago, MisterSG1 said:

Let us start again, this is basically what I believe each type of rail transit refers to. I tried to dummyproof it as much as possible.

 

Streetcar - A railed vehicle that runs in mixed traffic on city streets. Streetcars are generally iconic for their trolley that powers the streetcar via an overhead wire, although many modern streetcars now use a pantograph to draw power from the overhead wire.

Light Rail Transit (LRT) - A railed vehicle that runs in its own right-of-way, an LRT will not have heavy capacity (compare with my definition of subway) Similar to the streetcar, it is usually powered via an overhead wire

Subway/Metro - A subway (or metro as what it's mostly called in the rest of the world) is a railed vehicle that runs in its own GRADE SEPARATED right-of-way. A subway has a much higher capacity than light rail. It's also generally powered by third rail (although Santo Domingo's metro is powered by overhead wire) Contrary to popular belief, a "subway" does not need to be underground, indeed very few subway systems around the world are completely 100% buried, the only example I can think of is Montreal's Metro off the top of my head

Light Metro - An intermediate capacity mode, in which a railed vehicle runs in its own grade separated right-of-way. However, the capacity on the individual trains is much less than what is found on a typical subway system. The most common example of such a system is TTC's Line 3, the Scarborough RT

Commuter Rail - A rail system which uses regular rails (same as those by regular freight railroads) and is generally designed to reach towards the outer suburbs. Commuter rail trains are usually larger than all other forms, and generally run on a schedule. Indeed, some schedules can make frequencies as strong as subway systems in some cities, but in most cases, commuter rail trains have a lower frequency of service.

 

By this definition of LRT, you can as I said in the past, have something which stops at traffic light after traffic light, despite being in its own lane. Or you can have something that practically replicates service of a light metro. In Toronto, what is now Route 509 - Harbourfront, originally opened as the Harbourfront LRT. By the definition I showed above, there is no reason why the aforementioned route can't be considered a "Light Rail Transit" route. It's a route with lousy service, but nevertheless, it's as much a Light Rail Transit route as the Blue Line in Los Angeles.

Remember, this debate was started because of a term you said that didn't make any sense "LRT streetcars", again I've asked many of times, what are you implying that Toronto had before 1954.

Those are spot-on descriptions of all those modes of passenger rail transportation. Though there are definitely some examples that don’t fit the mold of each one perfectly. Though from the pictures I’ve seen, interurban vehicles looked to be a bit larger than streetcars and that seems to hold true today with LRV’s versus streetcars. Though while street-running segments of LRV systems are subject to traffic signals, said segments should be fitted with LRV-specific signals that are given priority over the automotive traffic to keep things moving. I believe the Eglinton and Finch West LRV routes will have them, as they should. 

Probably a good example that won’t fit perfectly into any specific mode is the proposed Ontario Line, which is the current plan for relieving the perennially overcrowded Yonge Line. From what I’ve read about the Ontario Line, it sounds like it will be an automated light metro line. And from what I’ve read on various Toronto-focused forums and other social media, there seem to be quite a few people who are opposed to this and either want to go back to the previous Relief Line traditional subway proposal or not build anything. But why? Here in New York, we had people taking a similar attitude of “Four tracks or NO tracks!” with the Second Avenue Subway. And I wondered why. How would no tracks have been better than a subway with two tracks? It certainly would not have been better to do nothing! Likewise, in Toronto, I would support the Ontario Line proposal as opposed to doing nothing or pining for a traditional subway that there may never be enough money for. How would doing nothing be better? The Yonge Line is probably less crowded now than before Covid struck, but once more people are vaccinated, you’ll likely be seeing overcrowded Yonge trains again and the need for an Ontario Line, be it subway, light metro or light rail will be there again. 

And going back to what I said earlier, isn’t it possible that an Ontario Line could use identical rolling stock to the Toronto Rockets? With the same open gangways the Rockets? I guess it would be like the Scarborough RT Line on steroids. But maybe using a different kind of propulsion technology, unlike what Scarborough uses. I guess it would then be an automated “heavy rail”. The rolling stock used on Vancouver’s Canada Line looks quite big, but the trains are only two cars long. But I’m sure something similar can be used on the Ontario Line in longer trains. 

 

Edited March 12, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[MisterSG1]

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Those are spot-on descriptions of all those modes of passenger rail transportation. Though there are definitely some examples that don’t fit the mold of each one perfectly. Though from the pictures I’ve seen, interurban vehicles looked to be a bit larger than streetcars and that seems to hold true today with LRV’s versus streetcars. Though while street-running segments of LRV systems are subject to traffic signals, said segments should be fitted with LRV-specific signals that are given priority over the automotive traffic to keep things moving. I believe the Eglinton and Finch West LRV routes will have them, as they should. 

The recent construction going on in Eglinton in the Scarborough section, they have installed the transit signal, and well, it looks like a typical red-yellow-green signal as seen on the downtown streetcar routes with right-of-ways as well as the VIVA Rapidways within York Region. But I think it should be wise not to dismiss automotive traffic.

Remember, this project will forever change how traffic will move on Eglinton. You say that the LRT should get priority, how do you do that exactly? On the downtown sections with right of ways, the city in the vast majority of cases runs them with a leading FPLT movement. Meaning that to add insult to injury, the streetcar/lrv has to wait for the FPLT phase to end before the streetcar can continue. I can count on one hand the amount of intersections in the whole GTA which have a LAGGING FPLT (or even PPLT) movement.

Let's not forget the importance of Eglinton as an arterial in Scarborough, and in this case, and entire lane was removed, a bike lane was added (which will see absolutely no bikes in it, just go ask Highway 7 in York Region) All intersections now have FPLT, because a PPLT intersection would be impossible since that would create a conflict with a left turning vehicle and a streetcar/lrv. How many people other than government "urban planners" actually think the complete streets concept works? I'm currently studying civil engineering with a focus in transportation engineering, 

One last aside, the new ION LRT in Kitchener has actual light rail signals, and from the pic below, this does not look like them that are currently covered up by the tarp.

1 hour ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Probably a good example that won’t fit perfectly into any specific mode is the proposed Ontario Line, which is the current plan for relieving the perennially overcrowded Yonge Line. From what I’ve read about the Ontario Line, it sounds like it will be an automated light metro line. And from what I’ve read on various Toronto-focused forums and other social media, there seem to be quite a few people who are opposed to this and either want to go back to the previous Relief Line traditional subway proposal or not build anything. But why? Here in New York, we had people taking a similar attitude of “Four tracks or NO tracks!” with the Second Avenue Subway. And I wondered why. How would no tracks have been better than a subway with two tracks? It certainly would not have been better to do nothing! Likewise, in Toronto, I would support the Ontario Line proposal as opposed to doing nothing or pining for a traditional subway that there may never be enough money for. How would doing nothing be better? The Yonge Line is probably less crowded now than before Covid struck, but once more people are vaccinated, you’ll likely be seeing overcrowded Yonge trains again and the need for an Ontario Line, be it subway, light metro or light rail will be there again. 

And going back to what I said earlier, isn’t it possible that an Ontario Line could use identical rolling stock to the Toronto Rockets? With the same open gangways the Rockets? I guess it would be like the Scarborough RT Line on steroids. But maybe using a different kind of propulsion technology, unlike what Scarborough uses. I guess it would then be an automated “heavy rail”. The rolling stock used on Vancouver’s Canada Line looks quite big, but the trains are only two cars long. But I’m sure something similar can be used on the Ontario Line in longer trains. 

 

In the case of the Ontario Line, and of the current LRT lines under construction especially Eglinton. My original point I tried to say to Deucey about Toronto being a transit city, was that unlike other places that are building these kind of lines like Phoenix, Toronto is already a serious transit city. We may have a small amount of true rail based rapid transit, but our usage is second in North America after you guys. So why waste money on an inferior mode of transportation, and something that's a significant investment which would be impossible to convert to a subway, when you should go the whole nine yards from the beginning.

It's also infuriating when you consider that Sheppard (albeit a short line) has a subway line and Eglinton doesn't, the ridership and density in comparison of both areas is insulting. Bessarion Station on Sheppard sat outside a typical suburban strip mall when it opened in 2002.

See the subway entrance? Yes, it is.

Then there's the case of the Spadina Subway extension. Out of the main termini of the subway system, the least utilized section got the extension, first approved in 2005 and finally built in 2017. Yet, Eglinton must suffer with an inferior mode of transportation.

 

As for the DRL, they've been arguing about that honestly for a century. Building subways was discussed over 100 years ago. A DRL in some from was seriously proposed as part of the Network 2011 proposal which would have saw Eglinton and Sheppard get a full line as well as a DRL. This proposal came to light after further freeway projects were shelved because of protest actions by Jane Jacobs. The city insisted since that point in 1971 that they would build transit, but they haven't done much, Scarborough RT (which infamously is on its last legs now), Sheppard, and the Spadina extension. All of these projects were mired in politics and were projects that were definitely not urgent.

 

Lastly, the Scarborough RT, if I recall, that project was supposed to be used with Toronto Streetcars, but somehow it got changed to the system we know today, I think it was experimental to show it works for Vancouver to invest in the equipment. 

I think the original plan was for the Scarborough LRT to have multiple branches after reaching STC in a similar fashion to Boston's Green Line. 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

@MisterSG1, you’re right that this recent discussion in the thread is somewhat off-topic. So I replied to your most recent post in this thread, which may be a more appropriate place to discuss it, if you want to.

 

[RR503]

On 3/11/2021 at 9:52 AM, T to Dyre Avenue said:

I just wish there was a quicker, easier way to go from five to four cars in a set, so if the Eastern Division is short cars again, they’d be able to send sets of cars from elsewhere in the system to ENY to address the shortage. Maybe it’s just me, but I feel like ENY frequently finds themselves with car shortages and there seems to be no easy way to address it, like there was in the past when it was mostly 60-foot single and paired cars in the B-Division (outside of the leftover BMT cars and the R44/46 cars that came later).

You only need that flexibility when you make major fleet planning mistakes. Shortages of late have been the result of the aberrantly tortured introduction of the R179 class in conjunction with the R44's early retirement. Better planning and better contract management can make up much of the difference here -- and what it can't can be solved by relinking sets if you absolutely must. As the saying goes, organization > electronics > concrete.

[T to Dyre Avenue]

15 hours ago, RR503 said:

You only need that flexibility when you make major fleet planning mistakes. Shortages of late have been the result of the aberrantly tortured introduction of the R179 class in conjunction with the R44's early retirement. Better planning and better contract management can make up much of the difference here -- and what it can't can be solved by relinking sets if you absolutely must. As the saying goes, organization > electronics > concrete.

Unfortunately that’s exactly what the MTA did. True that better planning and contract management can make that difference going forward. But a large number of people already don’t trust the MTA to be capable of getting both of these right. We can only hope they’ve learned their lessons from the problems with the R179s. The early retirement of not just the R44s, but also the R30 Redbirds in 1992 - only a few years after they were overhauled - caught the B-Division flat footed. In fairness to the MTA though, would they have been able to foresee ridership rebound on the  the way it did years later, which necessitated the purchase of 212 R143s instead of the 100 they originally intended to purchase?

Edited March 13, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[R10 2952]

5 hours ago, T to Dyre Avenue said:

Unfortunately that’s exactly what the MTA did. True that better planning and contract management can make that difference going forward. But a large number of people already don’t trust the MTA to be capable of getting both of these right. We can only hope they’ve learned their lessons from the problems with the R179s. The early retirement of not just the R44s, but also the R30 Redbirds in 1992 - only a few years after they were overhauled - caught the B-Division flat footed. In fairness to the MTA though, would they have been able to foresee ridership rebound on the  the way it did years later, which necessitated the purchase of 212 R143s instead of the 100 they originally intended to purchase?

I would go further and say that we know the MTA in it's current form can't get these things right on the first try; Andy Byford tried to plan for the best-case scenarios, and look how that turned out.  With this agency, the only you can do is account for the worst-case scenario and nothing else, really.

And to add on to what you mentioned about the R30s, I would even question what the rush was in retiring all the R27s, to be honest. 

Edited March 13, 2021 by R10 2952

[T to Dyre Avenue]

3 hours ago, R10 2952 said:

I would go further and say that we know the MTA in it's current form can't get these things right on the first try; Andy Byford tried to plan for the best-case scenarios, and look how that turned out.  With this agency, the only you can do is account for the worst-case scenario and nothing else, really.

And to add on to what you mentioned about the R30s, I would even question what the rush was in retiring all the R27s, to be honest. 

Byford tried. Unfortunately, Cuomo the megalomaniac dictator pushed him out. Seems like it’s politics before organization before electronics before concrete in this organization...and pretty much everything else in Albany. 

I read 27 R27s were rebuilt and repainted into Redbird colors, while the others were just sent to scrap. This I didn’t know. I thought the only B-Division cars to have been painted into Redbird colors were the 110 overhauled R30s. This was unlike the 40 R17s which were repainted into Redbird colors, but not overhauled like the later R26-R36 cars. But why spend so much money to overhaul 25-year old cars only to withdraw, then scrap them after just a few years. I read those cars were supposed to remain in service until 1997.