Eglinton Crosstown line

[drum118]

Eglinton Crosstown LRT to cost more and take longer, after builder scores legal victory

[Cityflyer]

1 hour ago, drum118 said:

Eglinton Crosstown LRT to cost more and take longer, after builder scores legal victory

Anyone thinks Line 6 will open at the same time as Line 5? Or maybe even faster than Line 5. LOL

[Andythagiant]

Car 6252 car is the first car to be delivered to the east end for testing. It’s sporting a wrap advertising the testing of the line.

[J. Hollingsworth]

https://blog.metrolinx.com/2021/05/25/eglinton-crosstown-lrt-vehicles-make-their-way-to-the-east-end-for-the-first-time/?fbclid=IwAR1O24h4KEE8K4QlmZ_sRG3LdNSuZx8Pe864DPFF2FU6qv9-eXD_AGTN51s
 

metrolinx news article with a video of 6252

[TTCNLFBT]

6252 was seen being delivered to Rosemount.

 

[TTCNLFBT]

Delete.

[bus_7246]

The third car made its way from the Eglinton MSF at around 9:30am. Car 6250 or 6256 I think (it was hard to tell as the bus I was on passed as the car was being driven towards Industry St)

[TTCNLFBT]

1 hour ago, bus_7246 said:

The third car made its way from the Eglinton MSF at around 9:30am. Car 6250 or 6256 I think (it was hard to tell as the bus I was on passed as the car was being driven towards Industry St)

6256.

[Wayside Observer]

Justin Trudeau government’s support for underground Eglinton West LRT undermines climate change fight, say critics  (alternate link)

The thrust of this article is about where the carbon breakeven point of the Eglinton West LRT sits.

The idea there is that a public transportation project like Eglinton West is going to replace fuel burning buses with electric vehicles, get some people driving cars off the road and onto public transportation etc. and generally lower carbon emission, all well and good.  However, building it is going to incur some carbon emission in terms of exhaust from fuel powered construction equipment but the big one's going to be the carbon footprint of the construction materials used and the article singles out the two big ones which are the concrete and steel, and to some degree operating will have some carbon footprint too since we aren't in a zero-carbon electricity jurisdiction.

The breakeven point occurs sometime in the future when the carbon emission saved by the project meets and then exceeds the carbon emitted to build it and going underground vs. at grade shifts the carbon breakeven point significantly due to the quantity of materials used.  Obviously staying on the surface moves the breakeven point up much sooner with far less footprint due to the much lower quanitity of materials used.  Steve Munro's also long pushed for surface based on shorter construction time and lower financial cost.  It's also fairly easy to stay on the surface for the most part due to the land available from the scrapped Richview expressway.  I agree, it's faster, cheaper, more environmentally friendly and opens sooner to stay on the surface so win, win, win, win on all sides there except "Subways! Subways! Subways!".  We build them where we don't need them.  We don't build them where we do.  That's if we build them at all.  Yeah.  Toronto.  The city that works.  Jeez.  That slogan got thrown out for good reason.

As for Trudeau's enviro cred on the public transportation file?  Maybe he takes phone calls from Greta or radio hosts that can do a good Greta impression but he sure moved fast to scratch the public transportation tax credit three months into the 2017 budget year.  So yeah.  Probably about the same as his pro-feminist cred given the sex abuse scandals in the military he keeps trying to squash parliamentary investigation of.

Anyhow, thinking more about the construction materials, one of the things we saw starting when the Scarborough RT was built was a move away from rock ballast and wooden sleepers in exchange for concrete slab roadbed in open areas except for maybe the subway extension up to Downsview before it went into tunnel north of Wilson Yard.  The TTC always did concrete roadbeds in subway tunnels.  The streetcar track on Queen's Quay, The Queensway, same deal a couple of years ago, same deal on the LRT lines.  The crushed rock ballast won't have nearly the carbon footprint of concrete and the wood ties themselves are actually a renewable resource so maybe we should reconsider using that method of track construction if getting carbon footprint down has moved that high in importance.

I'll let you guys debate the political correctness trap I laid for myself in the previous paragraph.  Wooden sleepers?  How British.  That's colonialism.  Wood ties?  That's American.  Either way, I'm getting in trouble.  Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and someone's probably already started a campaign to rename QQ and The Queensway...

[Bus_Medic]

Ask the Hawaiians, Panamanians, Puerto Ricans and Filipinos wether the terms “American” and “colonial” are mutually exclusive.

[Wayside Observer]

2 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

Ask the Hawaiians, Panamanians, Puerto Ricans and Filipinos wether the terms “American” and “colonial” are mutually exclusive.

Bikini Atoll.  Colonialism meets the nuclear option.  The results were and are truly devastating.

So why split it where I did?  It's actually a bit of foam there.  I was talking with someone about a railroad crossing sign which traditionally has always been a railway crossing here due to the influence of British English in the Commonwealth countries and there's a couple of interesting places where you can where the language started to split.  Americans call it a railroad but UK and Commonwealth countries have always called it a railway.  Everyone says "right of way" whether or not it's a railway or railroad right of way that's being discussed but it never got split to the point of anybody in the United States calling it a "right of road" to make it consistent with railroad.  Anyways, those thoughts having been in mind I split it across the differing UK and US nomenclature for track construction and made the rest of it fit.  It's actually a lot more than sleepers vs. ties, there's different nomenclature for a lot of the parts and the physical construction used to differ quite a bit.

On the subject of UK imports especially as pertaining to Eglinton Crosstown.  Flexities?  No.  Just no.  That is not what comes to mind when I hear the phrase, "Blackpool tram".

[smallspy]

16 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

Anyhow, thinking more about the construction materials, one of the things we saw starting when the Scarborough RT was built was a move away from rock ballast and wooden sleepers in exchange for concrete slab roadbed in open areas except for maybe the subway extension up to Downsview before it went into tunnel north of Wilson Yard.  The TTC always did concrete roadbeds in subway tunnels.  The streetcar track on Queen's Quay, The Queensway, same deal a couple of years ago, same deal on the LRT lines.  The crushed rock ballast won't have nearly the carbon footprint of concrete and the wood ties themselves are actually a renewable resource so maybe we should reconsider using that method of track construction if getting carbon footprint down has moved that high in importance.

How about the maintenance impacts of using ties-in-ballast versus slab-track? Once needs periodic maintenance to maintain alignment, clean fines, etc. The other doesn't. And that maintenance is provided with diesel-powered equipment, so it's not like it's zero-sum.

 

Dan

[Wayside Observer]

2 hours ago, smallspy said:

How about the maintenance impacts of using ties-in-ballast versus slab-track? Once needs periodic maintenance to maintain alignment, clean fines, etc. The other doesn't. And that maintenance is provided with diesel-powered equipment, so it's not like it's zero-sum.

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.

 

[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