Eglinton Crosstown line

[lip]

9 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

I know.  It's wishful thinking, but it would be nice if it was zero sum because it'd make the mathematical evaluation a lot easier if you could pin it down to either a zero sum or another fixed numerical value in the end instead of multiple variables that move around.  And that's why I said we should consider it.  I think it merits further investigation.  More frequent maintenance with diesel powered equipment vs. less frequent maintenance but heavier work also with diesel powered equipment plus a lot of concrete that ends up being broken up and replaced with a lot of concrete, and making the clinker that's a key ingredient to concrete is a very, very carbon heavy process.  Is concrete manufacture plus the diesel maintenance equipment emissions associated with that type of construction more heavy or less heavy than diesel powered maintenance equipment use with ballasted track over the same period of time?  It's a good question and I don't have the answer.

Additionally, and this is going to further complicate analysis of what's really a multiple input multiple output system, that answer's probably going to change over time especially over the period that's the time scale for LRT infrastructure lifecycle maintenance because everything's decarbonizing but at different rates.  Power equipment probably will shift away from being run on diesel in many cases over the next decade or so and the concrete industry is currently working on the clinker problem.  They know that as carbon gets priced, that hits their input costs which increases customer pricing and at some point there's going to be a risk of substitution happening where it's possible if customer pricing becomes uncompetitive and that means lost sales which they do not want.  So it isn't just an issue of which is least carbon intensive at build time today and at maintenance time today, but depending on who gets their carbon footprint down more or less and is it sooner or later could make that answer flip around at different points in time going forward.

All of which goes back to the point I raised in the original post - where does the carbon breakeven point lie?

Having read through the chunks of the 2021 federal budget that were of interest to me, carbon emission is being taken very seriously at the federal government level, at least for now, to the point that it almost bumps price in place as being an overriding consideration in places.  Given that degree of importance being placed on it, is it worth coming in a bit behind on maintenance cost and inconvenience and changing construction method to come out ahead on carbon output from an environmental perspective when we design transit projects?  Maybe.  I don't know.  From a financial perspective in terms of being able to secure federal funding for it?  Maybe.  I don't know.  At least that one would probably be easier to answer since you'd be able to compare any given project example against any given funding program's eligibility requirements.

 

I dont know where the carbon breakeven point lies but from a political perspective, the Feds are just looking to peddle themselves as being environmentally friendly at every corner they can. However true it is or not.

I mean just look at the announcement they made for the 60 streetcars the TTC wants to order. The Feds "are supporting the procurement of 60 zero-emission streetcars". I mean im sorry, are there streetcars that produce emissions that we're not aware of? They are just looking to pump themselves as doing more for the environment then they actually are. One could always argue that yes, they are "zero-emission" is the source of the electricity they are zero-emission but that's not what the Feds are alluding to. They are more so referring to the fact the streetcars dont emit emissions, something that every human with common sense has known for decades and it's nothing special.

[smallspy]

On 5/28/2021 at 12:15 PM, Wayside Observer said:

I know.  It's wishful thinking, but it would be nice if it was zero sum because it'd make the mathematical evaluation a lot easier if you could pin it down to either a zero sum or another fixed numerical value in the end instead of multiple variables that move around.  And that's why I said we should consider it.  I think it merits further investigation.  More frequent maintenance with diesel powered equipment vs. less frequent maintenance but heavier work also with diesel powered equipment plus a lot of concrete that ends up being broken up and replaced with a lot of concrete, and making the clinker that's a key ingredient to concrete is a very, very carbon heavy process.  Is concrete manufacture plus the diesel maintenance equipment emissions associated with that type of construction more heavy or less heavy than diesel powered maintenance equipment use with ballasted track over the same period of time?  It's a good question and I don't have the answer.

Some more food for thought - not that we don't need to muddy the waters any more....

 

(Any more mixed metaphors that I can throw in there? "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't burn down the bridge that carries him across troubled waters?")

 

Concrete is to a degree recyclable. Old concrete can be broken down and used as aggregate in new concrete (provided the mix/use is conducive to it).

 

And by that token, ballast is reusable as well, although the cleaning process does require the use of energy and sometimes water.

 

Frankly, even if we knew all of the costs of the variables involved, I'm still not sure that the answer is so clear. If you're willing to extend the maintenance intervals for ties-in-ballast, you can get away with lowered costs - but at the cost of lower transit speeds, which has its own costs in terms of staffing and equipment requirements. Is it worth it? I honestly have no idea from a financial standpoint, although my own preferences are leaning towards the minimizing of operational costs.

 

Dan

[Mike]

How many of the LRV's have been delivered so far?  CPTDB Wiki only lists 10 as delivered which is out of date.

[Xtrazsteve]

6 hours ago, Mike said:

How many of the LRV's have been delivered so far?  CPTDB Wiki only lists 10 as delivered which is out of date.

Most if not all of them are suppose to be here by now. The target opening day was in 3 months.

[Ed T.]

Regarding ballast vs concrete, one question and one point:

• At one time, the crossover tracks approaching St. George on University were ballasted, or anyway sure looked to be ballasted. I always wondered about that.
• Stormwater runoff is a problem, and is likely to get worse due to climate change. (Predictions for southern Ontario are "wetter".) Ballasted track will absorb a lot of rainfall; concrete will send it off to drains (you hope). For this reason, I am not a fan of the Queensway concreting.

[Someguy3071]

On 5/30/2021 at 1:06 AM, Xtrazsteve said:

Most if not all of them are suppose to be here by now. The target opening day was in 3 months.

Does anyone even know the reason why not all vehicles have been delivered or is this just speculation? For all we know Bombardier was told to slow down the deliveries since completion of the line has been pushed back. 

[smallspy]

On 5/29/2021 at 6:43 PM, Mike said:

How many of the LRV's have been delivered so far?  CPTDB Wiki only lists 10 as delivered which is out of date.

I don't have an exact number, but it's around 60.

 

21 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Regarding ballast vs concrete, one question and one point:

• Stormwater runoff is a problem, and is likely to get worse due to climate change. (Predictions for southern Ontario are "wetter".) Ballasted track will absorb a lot of rainfall; concrete will send it off to drains (you hope). For this reason, I am not a fan of the Queensway concreting.

Ballasted track can not absorb rain - if it did so, it would lead to a situation called "pumping" where the end result would be that track would be less stable.

 

Properly designed, the ballast allows rain water to flow through it. On the full-sized railroads (and on the subway system) were the shoulders are open, the water flows into the ditches and swales. The ground underneath the tracks is compacted in layers, and is not capable of absorbing water. On the Queensway, drains had to be built to allow that water to flow from the tracks to the storm sewer system. And guess what....this is just another thing to have to maintain.

 

9 hours ago, Someguy3071 said:

Does anyone even know the reason why not all vehicles have been delivered or is this just speculation? For all we know Bombardier was told to slow down the deliveries since completion of the line has been pushed back. 

The final schedule that I was aware of called for the last handful of cars to be delivered after the original scheduled opening of the line, the idea being that they didn't need every single car for Day 1 of revenue service.

 

It seems that this timeline is still holding true.

 

Dan

[TTCNLFBT]

Spotted 6255 on Victoria Park little after 10 am.

[Archer]

On 5/30/2021 at 11:52 AM, Ed T. said:

Regarding ballast vs concrete, one question and one point:

• At one time, the crossover tracks approaching St. George on University were ballasted, or anyway sure looked to be ballasted. I always wondered about that.

To the best of my knowledge, TYSSE was the first time that TTC did not go with tie on ballast for any of their interlockings. Anything prior to that is still tie on ballast.

[TTCNLFBT]

6244 is the today's car being transported to Rosemount.

[TTCNLFBT]

6246 is on it's way to Rosemount.  This is the last car to be transported.

[bus_7246]

My sister just sent me a video of a 3-car train on the crosstown. 6256-6255-6244 heading westbound on the eastbound rail

[drum118]

[ttc rider]

To sum up the vehicle deliveries to the east end for testing:

6252 delivered on May 25

6254 delivered on May 26

6256 delivered on May 27

6255 delivered on May 31

6244 delivered on June 1

6246 delivered on June 2

Cars 6252, 6256 & 6244 were delivered with the A end facing west and the B end facing east.

Cars 6254, 6255 & 6246 were delivered with the opposite orientation - meaning that these three latter cars were driven "backwards" from the offloading area at Rosemount to the storage area at Laird.

All six cars are currently stored in the underground area west of Leslie Street.

[TTC7447]

Why do all the at grade level stops have MBTA-like logos on them instead of TTC logos?  The MBTA logo (pictured here) is a black T in a white circle outlined in black, whereas what’s on the stops here in Toronto is the reverse - a white T in a black circle.

[bus_7246]

4 minutes ago, TTC7447 said:

Why do all the at grade level stops have MBTA-like logos on them instead of TTC logos?  The MBTA logo (pictured here) is a black T in a white circle outlined in black, whereas what’s on the stops here in Toronto is the reverse - a white T in a black circle.

I’m assuming that is the case because TTC is not the service provider. TTC will provide operators to the line, but ultimately Metrolinx is providing the service

[TTC7447]

1 hour ago, 110B West Pickering said:

It’s metrolinx’ Universal symbol of Transit for any metrolinx built project going forward.

I find it hilarious that they basically copied the MTBA logo and switched the black and white around.  Lazy and irresponsible on their part if you ask me.

And confusing from the perspective of a passenger who doesn’t know that this is a Metrolinx owned & operated line.

[Bus_Medic]

11 hours ago, TTC7447 said:

And confusing from the perspective of a passenger who doesn’t know that this is a Metrolinx owned & operated line.

Is it laziness and plagiarism? Sure.

But how is it confusing?

-Stand at stop.

-train comes. 
 

-get on train.

-tap card, card goes beep.

Nobody cares what logo is over the doorway.

[smallspy]

15 hours ago, bus_7246 said:

TTC will provide operators to the line, but ultimately Metrolinx is providing the service

This is not quite completely correct.

 

Metrolinx will own the line, and be in charge of all facilities maintenance for the first 30 years of operation - which they have handed over to the Crosslinx consortium.

 

But EVERYTHING to do with operation - day-to-day upkeep, service levels, supervision, not to mention operators - will be handled by the TTC. For all intents and purposes, this is a TTC line - just not owned by them.

 

Dan

[nfitz]

2 hours ago, 110B West Pickering said:

the Goal is that the T logo will eventually be on every piece of Transit infrastructure in the GTHA.

Which means that individual line signage will be even more important, to separate a grade-separated rapid transit line from a bus shelter or a jitney.

[Wayside Observer]

On 6/18/2021 at 7:32 PM, 110B West Pickering said:

It’s metrolinx’ Universal symbol of Transit for any metrolinx built project going forward.

it’s meant to be the roundle of the GTHA.

Metrolinx is also working with municipal transit agencies to implement their wayfinding practices, pilots that incorporated local agencies include Finch GO terminal, Pickering Parkway Terminal, and Hamilton GO Centre

Given all that, it’s a shame they settled for something so mediocre.

I guess Hollywood isn’t the only place an original idea would die of loneliness.

[Gil]

The TTC is seeking the public's input for their 2022 Service Plan which includes the route restructurings as a result of the opening of the 5 EGLINTON Line.  Here's the map of the Eglinton corridor with the affected routes:

You can visit the survey site for more details and to submit feedback on the individual route changes.

[drum118]

Look......................there is grass in the ROW

[bus_7246]

I noticed car 6262 inside the Eglinton MSF as I was taking my bus down Industry St this afternoon

[Orion V]

With the 60 Flexity Outlook models just ordered, does it mean the Flexity Freedom line is secured even with Alstom taking over Bombardier?

Do future orders of Line 5 for 2030 and ION plus Valley line still needs to use this model due to their MSF built to this model's specs. Or can they order the Citadis Spirit with the 30m length configuration?