daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Subways and Urban Transport

Subways and Urban Transport Metros, subways, light rail, trams, buses and other local transport systems



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old April 28th, 2008, 04:38 PM   #161
weiaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 363
Likes (Received): 152

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yardmaster View Post
I'm not saying these things shouldn't be done ... I'm just suggesting that it's obvious why they cost a lot of megabucks.

Singapore & Tokyo are vastly denser than my city: and just possibly don't feel so strongly about their urban heritage as well. That doesn't mean that it can't be done; just that it costs a lot more money.

Paris's system sounds- from what I read elsewhere here- almost like toy trains: they are rather small, and we wouldn't contemplate building on that scale here today. Apart from that, the "environmental" issues hardly registered a century or so ago: no-one here would countenance NYC's elevated railways being thrown up along their main street today: or even Singapore's modern version of the same.
I think you are confused. We're talking about underground systems here not elevated ones. Singapore and Tokyo have underground systems thus PRESERVING any heritage above ground. Same with New York. I was there a few weeks ago and Manhattan has a mostly underground train system which only pops up in the outer boroughs like Queens. I don't see any elevated railways in main street. And what do you mean Singapore is building an elevated rail? Outside of downtown they do but in their downtown it is all underground.

And what do you mean Paris has toy trains? I have also been to Paris and trust me, their train system is among the best in the world. Have you seen their RER? I have been to Melbourne too so I can compare. Paris metro is like 10X better than Melbourne's.
weiaze no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old April 28th, 2008, 04:45 PM   #162
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by weiaze View Post
And what do you mean Paris has toy trains? I have also been to Paris and trust me, their train system is among the best in the world. Have you seen their RER? I have been to Melbourne too so I can compare. Paris metro is like 10X better than Melbourne's.
Paris's trains are less than 2.4m wide. Toronto's, by comparison, are over 3.1m wide. That's around to 750mm difference. It adds up along the length of a train. Toronto's streetcars are actually wider than Paris Metro's trains. Thus, "toys" is not that far from the truth as far as their size is concerned.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 04:53 PM   #163
weiaze
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 363
Likes (Received): 152

Umm.. if you want to see toy trains you should look at Kuala Lumpur's monorail and LRT. Not only are they narrow but short as well, often in two car configurations!! Paris trains may be narrow but they are also long. And their system is awesome - extensive coverage with many stations and interchanges, cross tunnels, express trains etc. Can't comment on Toronto metro as I have never been there myself. One Canadian forummer told me it's in disrepair though.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Paris's trains are less than 2.4m wide. Toronto's, by comparison, are over 3.1m wide. That's around to 750mm difference. It adds up along the length of a train. Toronto's streetcars are actually wider than Paris Metro's trains. Thus, "toys" is not that far from the truth as far as their size is concerned.
weiaze no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 05:17 PM   #164
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by weiaze View Post
Umm.. if you want to see toy trains you should look at Kuala Lumpur's monorail and LRT. Not only are they narrow but short as well, often in two car configurations!! Paris trains may be narrow but they are also long. And their system is awesome - extensive coverage with many stations and interchanges, cross tunnels, express trains etc. Can't comment on Toronto metro as I have never been there myself. One Canadian forummer told me it's in disrepair though.
Some parts WERE in disrepair, the city has been playing catch up on some parts of the network, the streetcar network in particular, this year is the last year of track replacement, a program that has been going on for years already, but after this year the whole network will be good as new, and they will also finally have removed the parts of track that are no longer ever used by the system as well. Certain parts of the subway network have been going through the same, although it depends on which part of the system (both how it was built, and when it was built), some parts had no problems, others were apparently dangerous. These have since been fixed, only a few small problems remain and are in progress for being fixed, and other upgrades also in progress are intended to improve service, not safety, more of a retrofit than a state of good repair issue.

Paris's trains are not that long, only 3-6 cars. If you want long trains, try Tokyo, 10 cars long in the subway is pretty common, and the commuter trains can be 15 cars long. Toronto's commuter trains also see long trains, some are 12 cars long, and double decker too, the longest commuter trains in North America and surely the highest capacity, too. Toronto's commuter trains are massive high capacity, carrying 5,000 people PER TRAIN.

Toronto's subway, similar to Paris, is 4 to 6 cars long depending on the line, but the vehicles are much bigger and have a higher capacity.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 05:25 PM   #165
Electrify
Registered User
 
Electrify's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Markham (Thornhill), Ontario
Posts: 1,684
Likes (Received): 5

10 car subways!!!

That is probably longer than the distances between stations on the Bloor-Danforth line in Toronto! I'm a proponent of monorail and all, but even I cannot see a station supporting more than 6 cars. I think if you need more than 6 cars, it is time to build another line imo.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by OEincorparated View Post
You are genius too Electrify, never would have thought of this if not for your thread.
Electrify no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 05:25 PM   #166
Yardmaster
Registered Melbourne
 
Yardmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,152
Likes (Received): 198

I don't want to get into an unneccesary argument here: I stand by what I say, to the effect that boring tunnels for trains the size of those in the Paris Metro wouldn't be contemplated today: especially here, where the expectation is that trains from the outer suburbs will run through the tunnels ...

My comments about overhead railways in Singapore and NYC? Certainly, not relevant to the cost of tunneling, but most of Singapore's MRT is above ground (I took the trouble to travel it to find out). The point I was making- in regard to "how come Singapore, Tokyo, etc. can do it" is that you'd get an enormous political firestorm here if you tried to do the same thing: even though the Singapore MRT seemingly runs very quietly.

As you say, it's irrelevant to the cost of tunneling: but population density is not.

Edit: 2000th post!

Last edited by Yardmaster; April 28th, 2008 at 05:33 PM.
Yardmaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 05:33 PM   #167
flierfy
Registered User
 
flierfy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,886
Likes (Received): 296

Quote:
Originally Posted by weiaze View Post
Can someone enlighten why or how cities like Singapore, Tokyo, Paris, Barcelona can build extensive underground systems? It is unlikely that city officials there are stupid enough to build subways if they didn't think it was worth it. After all, maybe they are just far sighted and willing to pay for the long term benefits of an underground system?
This is the crucial point. Underground system will always be too expensive when traffic policy changes from day to day. Underground needs a long term plan that all city governments stick to.
__________________
Rippachtal.de
flierfy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 05:36 PM   #168
Yardmaster
Registered Melbourne
 
Yardmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,152
Likes (Received): 198

Quote:
Originally Posted by flierfy View Post
This is the crucial point. Underground system will always be too expensive when traffic policy changes from day to day. Underground needs a long term plan that all city governments stick to.
There are obviously political considerations there, some of which I have alluded to. It's not so much policy wavering from day to day, but the political consequences of spending a lot of public money when a lot of the public don't see a direct benefit arising out of it : for them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for it: but I try to be realistic.
Yardmaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 05:56 PM   #169
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrify View Post
10 car subways!!!

That is probably longer than the distances between stations on the Bloor-Danforth line in Toronto! I'm a proponent of monorail and all, but even I cannot see a station supporting more than 6 cars. I think if you need more than 6 cars, it is time to build another line imo.
Train cars in Tokyo are 20m (Toronto's are 23m and change), so a 10-car train is obviously 200m long, that's a little longer than the distance between stations along the south Yonge, between College and Union stations, there's only about 400-500m between them.

But yeah, the Chiyoda Line, the Yuurakuchou Line, the Touzai Line, the Hanzoumon Line, the Toei Shinjuku Line, and the Toei Asakusa Line all see 10 car trains (some of those lines run a mix of 8- and 10-car trains though).
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 06:00 PM   #170
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yardmaster View Post
There are obviously political considerations there, some of which I have alluded to. It's not so much policy wavering from day to day, but the political consequences of spending a lot of public money when a lot of the public don't see a direct benefit arising out of it : for them.

Don't get me wrong: I'm all for it: but I try to be realistic.
Realistic sometimes loses out to political crackpot schemes. I agree with you, being realistic is more important, combined with cost-benefit comparison, but at the same time, you have to twist a realistic proposal somewhat in order to get the political approval needed to plow it into the real world.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 06:43 PM   #171
Yardmaster
Registered Melbourne
 
Yardmaster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4,152
Likes (Received): 198

especially when it isn't the City that will fund this, but the Federal Government (ultimately) through the State Government, which is repsonsible for addressing these sort of issues, but has limited funds, and most people drive to work and, despite the rising price of petrol, would see this all as a waste ...

I don't drive, by the way, except for my tractor.
Yardmaster no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 28th, 2008, 07:16 PM   #172
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yardmaster View Post
especially when it isn't the City that will fund this, but the Federal Government (ultimately) through the State Government, which is repsonsible for addressing these sort of issues, but has limited funds, and most people drive to work and, despite the rising price of petrol, would see this all as a waste ...

I don't drive, by the way, except for my tractor.

__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 04:47 AM   #173
Msradell
Always looking up
 
Msradell's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Louisville, Kentucky
Posts: 1,773
Likes (Received): 209

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yardmaster View Post
I don't want to get into an unneccesary argument here: I stand by what I say, to the effect that boring tunnels for trains the size of those in the Paris Metro wouldn't be contemplated today: especially here, where the expectation is that trains from the outer suburbs will run through the tunnels ...
2000th post!
You're correct I'm sure if Paris had it to do over again they certainly would build wider but it's certainly not worth the cost to upgrade today. Their two tier system, subways and RER works very well for them with the subways operating mainly in the core area and the RER handling the longer runs. Most if not all RER trains are double decker and have a very large capacity while the subways have the narrowerer cars as you suggest but run very often during peak times.

I'm not sure of the total number of daily passengers but I'd speculate that the Paris system Carries more passengers than any other system in Europe.
__________________
"Written using Dragon Naturally Speaking"
I've learned that depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.
Msradell no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 29th, 2008, 10:05 PM   #174
metsfan
Photographer
 
metsfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Newtown, PA
Posts: 661
Likes (Received): 42

Quote:
Originally Posted by Msradell View Post
You're correct I'm sure if Paris had it to do over again they certainly would build wider but it's certainly not worth the cost to upgrade today. Their two tier system, subways and RER works very well for them with the subways operating mainly in the core area and the RER handling the longer runs. Most if not all RER trains are double decker and have a very large capacity while the subways have the narrowerer cars as you suggest but run very often during peak times.

I'm not sure of the total number of daily passengers but I'd speculate that the Paris system Carries more passengers than any other system in Europe.
Similar situation with the IRT in new york city. They would no longer build a whole new line with IRT dimensions, but instead with IND/BMT dimensions to fit more people per train.

- Andy
metsfan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2008, 12:13 PM   #175
clive3300
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: London/Durban
Posts: 508
Likes (Received): 32

Quote:
Originally Posted by TRZ View Post
Paris's trains are less than 2.4m wide. Toronto's, by comparison, are over 3.1m wide. That's around to 750mm difference. It adds up along the length of a train. Toronto's streetcars are actually wider than Paris Metro's trains. Thus, "toys" is not that far from the truth as far as their size is concerned.
London has similar problems - the central, bakerloo and jubilee lines are maxxed out with their small carriages which an average male cannot stand anywhere near the door. Bigger carriages (e.g. Metropolitan/EL line) and longer platforms would probably double capacity - not much they can do now though.

The central line was built ages ago so you cant really blame the original designers as London (and people) were much smaller. However the spec of the Jubilee line (from mid-70s) seems a pathetic lack of imagination and forward planning. Probably London back then was so strapped for cash they couldnt do it any better.
clive3300 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old April 30th, 2008, 01:48 PM   #176
iampuking
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,414
Likes (Received): 43

Quote:
Originally Posted by clive3300 View Post
London has similar problems - the central, bakerloo and jubilee lines are maxxed out with their small carriages which an average male cannot stand anywhere near the door. Bigger carriages (e.g. Metropolitan/EL line) and longer platforms would probably double capacity - not much they can do now though.

The central line was built ages ago so you cant really blame the original designers as London (and people) were much smaller. However the spec of the Jubilee line (from mid-70s) seems a pathetic lack of imagination and forward planning. Probably London back then was so strapped for cash they couldnt do it any better.
I have to be pedantic, the Central/Jubilee line platforms are just as long as the Metropolitan line platforms, at 125-130m, the only difference is tube profile cars. Anyway, the Metropolitan line has bad capacity at the moment because of the transverse seating layout designed for long journeys and the flat junctions on the Sub-Surface network.

IMO the Tube has more capacity than the Paris Metro, it has fewer tight curves and longer platforms, it's just we haven't yet taken advantage of it with high frequency like they have in Paris...

From an enthusiasts point of view, I think that unique trains is one of the things that makes visiting other countries interesting.
iampuking no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2008, 02:16 PM   #177
eddyb
Registered User
 
eddyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 766
Likes (Received): 35

Hi TRZ
Regarding the width of carriages if there are doors all along each side and there is no centre walkway in the carriage that also can increase capacity? http://www.parrahub.org.au/index_files/Page295.html
eddyb no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 17th, 2008, 06:03 PM   #178
Electrify
Registered User
 
Electrify's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Markham (Thornhill), Ontario
Posts: 1,684
Likes (Received): 5

I actually just started a thread on elevated metros, and it seems to have gained a much more positive response than I expected. Maybe simply elevating L/HRT and trying to make it look pretty would be a more realistic option than monorails.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by OEincorparated View Post
You are genius too Electrify, never would have thought of this if not for your thread.
Electrify no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2008, 12:07 PM   #179
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by eddyb View Post
Hi TRZ
Regarding the width of carriages if there are doors all along each side and there is no centre walkway in the carriage that also can increase capacity? http://www.parrahub.org.au/index_files/Page295.html
Doors all along each side? What, like the whole side is "one big door" that rolls up into the ceiling (or floor?)? That's extreme, the seating capacity in something like that would be terrible, but it would result in higher standing capacity and loading capacity. I looked at the link you posted and was rather confused (partly because the content is rotated at 90 degrees) and don't know exactly what you are suggestion, so I may be talking about something completely different here
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 18th, 2008, 12:11 PM   #180
TRZ
Welcome to the Rail World
 
TRZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Toronto
Posts: 4,671
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Electrify View Post
I actually just started a thread on elevated metros, and it seems to have gained a much more positive response than I expected. Maybe simply elevating L/HRT and trying to make it look pretty would be a more realistic option than monorails.
I think that elevating them is not going to go over well at all, for the exact same reason as monorails; stations are going to be unpopular even when dolled up because whatever you do, you're going to block sunlight to the streetlife below (unless you wanna provide upskirt shots for people on the sidewalk below, that'll be a great piece of PR strategy ).

The most realistic option for LRT is Transit City's approach.

As for HRT, I'd argue that open trench is probably the best bet, if you can find an alignment where this is reasonable to do so; those can be hard to come by, exproporiation would probably be excessive in places that justify HRT.
__________________
Pssst... your balls are showing...

EXTREEEEEEEEEEEME transit geek
TRZ no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium