The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[TorontoDrew]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is what Toronto should use on it's developing RER system. Many large systems in the world are near or even totally catenary including Toyko, Shanghai, Delhi, Barcelona, and Hong Kong is name just a few. In fact so is the closest system to Toronto..........Cleveland.

I would think that this would be almost impossible to implement with out some massive tunnel work that would give enough headroom for pantographs to be installed on retrofitted subway cars. They must be cheaper to install then 3rd rails so that might be the reason why they aren't use in many older metro lines.

Also over on wiki thses are some of the reasons why they aren't considered in places with harsher climates.

Overhead line equipment can be adversely affected by strong winds causing swinging wires.[4] Power storms can knock the power out with lightning strikes on systems[citation needed] with overhead wires, stopping trains if there is a power surge.

During cold or frosty weather, there is a risk of ice build-up on overhead lines. This can result in poor electrical contact between the collector and the overhead line, resulting in electrical arcing and power surges.[5]

[1overcosc]

^ Edmonton does just fine with overhead wires and they're quite a bit colder and snowier than Toronto.

[Doady]

Average Annual Snowfall

Toronto: 133cm
Edmonton: 115cm

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/forecasts/statistics/ontario/toronto
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/forecasts/statistics/alberta/edmonton

[GreaterMontréal]

overhead wires are better than 3rd rails during wintertime. The REM will be powered by overhead catenary.

[feepa]

Originally Posted by Doady

Average Annual Snowfall

Toronto: 133cm
Edmonton: 115cm

https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/forecasts/statistics/ontario/toronto
https://www.theweathernetwork.com/ca/forecasts/statistics/alberta/edmonton

a big difference though is that when it snows in Edmonton in mid October or early November, that snow tends to stay around and pile up until late March or early April. In Toronto, you do get a lot of snow, but it doesn't stick around or pile up.

[caltrane74]

I never thought about it that way feepa, but that makes sense.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

This is what Toronto should use on it's developing RER system. Many large systems in the world are near or even totally catenary including Toyko, Shanghai, Delhi, Barcelona, and Hong Kong is name just a few. In fact so is the closest system to Toronto..........Cleveland.

They are far superior to third rail when travelling primarily outside and especially along current corridors. This is because if using a current corridor that also has other trains using it {ie VIA} it allows for those tracks to be repaired without the safety concerns of electrification using third rail. Also safer for emergency evacuation or services for other trains along the route. Third rail also has a more difficult time thru snow or ice than catenary.

I thought it was a forgone conclusion RER will be overhead. Regardless, why even bring this up? It just seems so random even for you.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

^ Edmonton does just fine with overhead wires and they're quite a bit colder and snowier than Toronto.

Colder may be better. I would assume the wet heavy stuff is more of a problem.

[eemy]

It's my understanding that third rail isn't an option above certain speeds. Does anyone know when that point is reached?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The end ramps of conductor rails (where they are interrupted, or change sides) present a practical limitation on speed due to the mechanical impact of the shoe, and 160 km/h (100 mph) is considered the upper limit of practical third-rail operation. The world speed record for a third rail train is 174 km/h (108 mph) attained on 11 April 1988 by a British Class 442 EMU.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail#Safety

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by feepa

a big difference though is that when it snows in Edmonton in mid October or early November, that snow tends to stay around and pile up until late March or early April. In Toronto, you do get a lot of snow, but it doesn't stick around or pile up.

True, but it's not the snow that's sitting on the ground all winter that's the problem; that can be managed easily enough. It's the heavy snowfalls and their immediate aftermath that cause problems. Toronto has a wetter climate and shorter winters than Edmonton, which means that the snowfalls are more concentrated and Toronto gets significantly more snow at the height of winter. In January for example, Toronto gets an average of 37 cm of snow compared to Edmonton's 25 cm. In the spring and fall it's the opposite.

Either way, snow isn't an issue. Edmonton and Toronto both already have overhead wires in their transit systems. As does Montreal, which gets almost as much snow as Toronto and Edmonton combined.

[ssiguy]

I think the Canada Line is a great service to Richmond & YVR but to build 40 meter stations that are "expandable" to just 50 meters is incredibly short sighted. Can you name ANY city on the planet that has built a Metro with just 40 meter stations? Just one example will do.

I do realize that they can increase capacity due to having more trains and getting the small mid-car of 10 meters but that is still very low capacity for any Metro system. I also find the stations very thin and with only one exit/entry far more congested than any Metro system with similar ridership. Capacity is an issue in Richmond as they have had an incident where they had to control the number of people getting onto the station because the station was full. Also technically be able to run higher frequencies is far more difficult for the Canada Line than the other 2 SkyTrain lines because they have to pay a king's ransom to do it due to being PS and Translink doesn't have the money.

As for using it, I do it about once or twice a month and during rush hour I have had to be in a line at the door at Bridgeport that went to the other side of the platform.....very dangerous.

It's a great service but to build such incredible small stations, no extra space for a train at Waterfront, and using single track in Richmond and YVR is very short sighted.

[jmt18325]

I don't understand how someone can hate Vancouver so much.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think the Canada Line is a great service to Richmond & YVR but to build 40 meter stations that are "expandable" to just 50 meters is incredibly short sighted. Can you name ANY city on the planet that has built a Metro with just 40 meter stations? Just one example will do.

I do realize that they can increase capacity due to having more trains and getting the small mid-car of 10 meters but that is still very low capacity for any Metro system. I also find the stations very thin and with only one exit/entry far more congested than any Metro system with similar ridership. Capacity is an issue in Richmond as they have had an incident where they had to control the number of people getting onto the station because the station was full. Also technically be able to run higher frequencies is far more difficult for the Canada Line than the other 2 SkyTrain lines because they have to pay a king's ransom to do it due to being PS and Translink doesn't have the money.

As for using it, I do it about once or twice a month and during rush hour I have had to be in a line at the door at Bridgeport that went to the other side of the platform.....very dangerous.

It's a great service but to build such incredible small stations, no extra space for a train at Waterfront, and using single track in Richmond and YVR is very short sighted.

We shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The Canada Line could have had full-size stations with elaborate entrances and exits, but then it would have cost significantly more, took more time, and have been subject to more risk and delays. Since expediency to meet an Olympic deadline was the key, this is what we got.

The Canada Line serves its purpose: it is the north-south transit line in a mid-sized city region oriented east-west, and where there isn't much growth in additional travel demand north-south in the long term. Sure, there will be some infill development along the Cambie Corridor and Richmond might grow a bit, but not compared to the cities to the east.

If the Canada Line really reaches breaking point one day, I'd rather that they build a parallel line from scratch than that they expand the stations/trains.

Given that we have a grade-separated metro, we could probably pick up the additional slack with light rail anyway.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by jmt18325

I don't understand how someone can hate Vancouver so much.

he hates everywhere.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think the Canada Line is a great service to Richmond & YVR but to build 40 meter stations that are "expandable" to just 50 meters is incredibly short sighted. Can you name ANY city on the planet that has built a Metro with just 40 meter stations? Just one example will do.

I do realize that they can increase capacity due to having more trains and getting the small mid-car of 10 meters but that is still very low capacity for any Metro system. I also find the stations very thin and with only one exit/entry far more congested than any Metro system with similar ridership. Capacity is an issue in Richmond as they have had an incident where they had to control the number of people getting onto the station because the station was full. Also technically be able to run higher frequencies is far more difficult for the Canada Line than the other 2 SkyTrain lines because they have to pay a king's ransom to do it due to being PS and Translink doesn't have the money.

As for using it, I do it about once or twice a month and during rush hour I have had to be in a line at the door at Bridgeport that went to the other side of the platform.....very dangerous.

It's a great service but to build such incredible small stations, no extra space for a train at Waterfront, and using single track in Richmond and YVR is very short sighted.

Lille is currently doubling its stations platforms to 52m! Lausanne has 30m stations.

40m stations are the norm in Copenhagen...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

I think the Canada Line is a great service to Richmond & YVR but to build 40 meter stations that are "expandable" to just 50 meters is incredibly short sighted. Can you name ANY city on the planet that has built a Metro with just 40 meter stations? Just one example will do.

London, UK. The DLR was originally built with stations long enough for a single 28m train.

They're now long enough for three of those, to be fair.

[le calmar]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Lille is currently doubling its stations platforms to 52m! Lausanne has 30m stations.

40m stations are the norm in Copenhagen...

The stations in the Lille subway were actually already built at their full length, but access to the unused sections of the platforms was close to public. It was obvious that 25 m platforms would eventually not support the demand.

[J.OT13]

I can't speak for Canada Line's capacity needs, but is worth looking at the cost difference between 90-120 meter platforms and 40-50 meters.

Both lines have a cost of 2.1 billion (not adjusted for inflation). Confederation has 12.5 kilometers and 13 stations, 3 of which (new) are underground. 10 existing stations have 90 meter platforms, 3 new undergrounds will have 120 meters.

Canada has 16 stations, 10 underground, 6 surface (11 at 40 meters, 5 at 50 meters).

Platform length has a significant impact on the cost, especially underground. If you don't need 120 meter platforms, don't build it.

I expect the ridership through Confederation's tunnel will be similar to Canada's (140,000 phpd).

[manny_santos]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toro...street-coming-totoronto/article32828137/

What I found interesting about this article was the section on Highway 7 in Markham, and it is an incredibly one-sided article. Highway 7 through this area (not far from where I live) is basically now un-usable and a major choke point in York Region. A friend of mine works just off of it and he hates having to drive on it, because of how this redesign has created massive gridlock. In his case, using public transit is not an option, as it takes him 10 minutes to get to work driving versus almost an hour on VIVA. (He is able to avoid using 7 to get to work, which of course, means more traffic on other roads)

Increased traffic congestion is a side of this story you don't hear about in the downtown Toronto media that has been cheer-leading these changes.

This all said, tolls on nearby Highway 407 are definitely a contributing factor as well.