Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[urbanclient]

Well, common sense would dictate anticipating a problem before it happens and trying to deal with it right away. It has been known for more than 20 years that, all else being equal, a low floor tram can't handle turns as well as a high floor one, and other cities have adopted exactly such solutions to deal with the problem. But considering that the we didn't even bother to look at best LRT practices from KW, never mind anywhere from Europe....

You still see this kind of exceptionalist thinking on this forum. Every time someone suggests a solution from Europe, and is called a Europhile, the person doing the calling is just creating more of the culture that they are trying to avoid having. Lines 5 and 6, in the exact forms we received them in, could've been smash successes, but we as a city are far, far too arrogant to contemplate the idea that we may have something to learn from others, and that's why transit in this city looks the way that it does.

Ok I totally agree here. But having overtly banked turns doesn't seem to be necessary to make trams successful, including in Europe.

The term europhile was thrown around by others because of pervasive hand-waving "do it like Europe" without any careful consideration of what exactly makes European trams successful. Put simply, these LRTs we have so far in Ontario are only superficially similar to some lines in Europe, in that they use low floor trams. That's about it.

 

[Steve X]

I’m just afraid of the trains scraping against the tunnel liners if they go too fast with unevenly worn out wheels.

 

[APTA-2048]

Line 5's rolling stock is outdated, even @APTA-2048 has admitted as such. It's not entirely the rolling stock manufacturer's fault, as project delays lead to train tech aging for no fault of their own.

I did not say they were outdated.

The meat of the argument is that Canadian rolling stock tends to be more expensive, less reliable, and somehow also less technologically advanced than European or Asian-built counterparts. Often sharing the same family name, but the end product is demonstrably inferior. Do I need to repeat the the Citadis Spirits are worse in basically every relevant way, and yet cost 30% more than the Citadis 405s for Paris?

You keep going back to the Citadis Spirit as your one example. But I need to see some actual analysis that Canadian rolling stock is demonstrably inferior across the board

 

[pmacpherson68]

Similar sign at Don Mills and Eglinton (I assume they're at all station stops)
View attachment 712467

the 32 used to go all the way out to Renforth station, I guess another bus at Mount Dennis station will do that?

 

[pmacpherson68]

Does anyone have the new Bus Route info that will be in place for Sunday?

 

[Steve X]

the 32 used to go all the way out to Renforth station, I guess another bus at Mount Dennis station will do that?

Yeah that’s the new 32.

 

[urbanclient]

Kuala Lumpur bought Mk IIIs long after their system opened, though. Who were the three that didn't use Canadian built trains?

This is not really relevant to my main argument, as I have defended Innovia metro from being called obsolete or outdated by @6ixGod recently. Everline, Beijing Capital, Riyadh. KL I believe bought some Canadian-built, but later orders were locally assembled + tech transfers or something: https://www.railvolution.net/news/innovia-metro-trains-for-kuala-lumpur The point is, Innovia is rare and proprietary, making comparisons of outdatedness impossible, and reliability very difficult. Of course the offshore-made trains in say China were cheaper.

Do you know what the TTC actually wanted?

Yes, I am aware of what they wanted, I have seen the specs. That doesn't mean ordering the effectively* heaviest rolling stock Line 1 has ever seen was a good idea: thinking of rail and trackbed maintenance costs alone. The climate control units looking like an afterthought jutting through the ceiling...

They're not outdated by design.

I mostly agree, only because I don't expect competitors to copy bogie tech very quickly. But Flexity 2 uses the exact same Flexx Urban 3000 bogie, and was released in 2009, entered service in 2012. So really, 14 year old tech on Eglinton at least. 7 to 10 years old when Eglinton first received them in 2019. Skoda 15Ts started construction in 2009, and are widely known to have better turning characteristics:

"The beauty of the Skoda 15T is that, unlike most other 100% low-floor models, it has (almost) fully rotating trucks with off-centre bearings under the first and last segment and a standard, Jacobs truck under each articulation point. To put things in perspective, pivoting on the Skoda 15T bogie is limited to about 25 degrees compared to almost about 40 degrees on our conventional CLRV/ALRV fleet (but still a hell of a lot better than about 3-4 degrees which is the most our Flexities are capable of). No matter how Bombardier sugar-coats it, not having (freely) rotating bogies is a major compromise. Instead of the bogie rotating, the entire vehicle module must be turned. Damping systems are needed to straighten the vehicle body and absorb shocks from these movements. This inevitably changes running characteristics for the worse." https://stevemunro.ca/2014/09/05/flexities-debut-on-spadina/comment-page-3/

So can we say that the Freedoms with worse turning characteristics than the Outlooks were 10 years behind the cutting-edge by 2019? It's subjective. I'm not going to say they were outdated when originally ordered ~2010, but the lead time was insanely long, which was Bombardier's fault.

I am not writing off the Canadian industry, a large part of the problem is due to an incompetent customer giving terrible specifications. I don't entirely blame BBD or Alstom for making a turd, if that's what the customer asked for, but both parties bear some responsibility for the end product. The turd not being polished is the manufacturer's fault.

However, buying off-the-shelf from offshore manufacturers would mostly solve the problems we're talking about: heavy, expensive subway trains with A/C units jutting down from the ceiling; outdated trams that somehow turn worse than contemporaries, much less newer trams (albeit offshoring would likely be politically infeasible).

 

[81-717]

I would be outraged if any movement whatsoever was made to replace the BiLevels

I wouldn't, I never liked that elongated octagon design, like what even is this. LIRR & MNRR EMUs have the right idea, too bad we can't have the same thing.

 

[urbanclient]

But I need to see some actual analysis that Canadian rolling stock is demonstrably inferior across the board

That's too absolutist of a take to prove. It's inferior in the examples I have given, not always, and certainly never wholly due to the manufacturer. Toronto Rocket's, inside and out are noticeably outdated compared to rolling stock of the same era from China. I touched on A/C, LCD screens, but also the max design / operating speeds, and lighting. If you've never been on similar sized metro trains from the same era, except New York or Chicago, of course the TRs don't seem outdated then or now (to be clear, not saying this is you @APTA-2048 ). And again, I don't blame the TR's low design speeds on Bombardier, but it's still part of the pay-more-get-less argument.

Here is an example, although I am sure I can find older examples as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_2_(Wuhan_Metro)#Rolling_stock
Notice how the ceiling doesn't protrude lower to accommodate climate control like an afterthought.

The GO Bilevels being outdated is pretty obvious, do I really have to further expand on this? That's not really an indictment of the manufacturer though.

Besides TRs, Citadis, Flexities, and GO Bilevels, what other rolling stock is front of mind in Toronto? They are outdated and/or have quality issues, while also being more expensive. Last I checked, France didn't have cheaper labour than Canada, so what explains the 30% cost difference for Citadis? Alstom+France=Home court advantage?