Gauge Opinion

Posted on March 22, 2009 at 6:18 pm by Karl Junkin

Toronto has the only existing street railway/light rail gauge in Ontario.

Toronto has the only existing street railway/"light rail" gauge in Ontario.

Track gauge is a finer detail in the technology of rail-based transportation.  It is defined as the distance between the inside edges of the heads of the running rails.  It’s an important detail since this decides the distance between wheels on the trucks/bogies of rail cars, which can impact what systems on which said rail cars can and cannot run.

What makes this topic interesting in Toronto and the GTA is that the TTC has its own unique gauge: 1495mm.  This applies to both the streetcar and the subway networks of the TTC, but excludes the SRT (which is currently standard gauge. However, if the SRT is converted to LRT, as is widely expected, it would be changed to TTC gauge).  The TTC is expected to apply their unique gauge to Transit City as well, as it keeps the system flexible and has maintenance efficiencies.

Standard gauge, however, is 1435mm, and is used by the freight railways, which would include GO Transit’s rail fleet.  If one goes back in Toronto’s history, one will find two streetcar companies operating on Toronto’s streets, one at standard gauge and the other at the TTC’s, a result of meeting a legal requirement at the time.

There are now many communities in Ontario talking about LRT in their future networks.  These include not only Toronto, but also Hamilton, York Region, Region of Peel, Kitchener-Waterloo, Ottawa, and even London.

While GO Transit is expected to cover the long-haul trips in the region, there are shorter trips that could concievably be covered by LRT while crossing municipal boundaries.  For example, a trip on a future LRT network from Square One in Mississauga to Eglinton and Royal York in Toronto could be done without transfering vehicles if Mississauga and Toronto are using the same track gauge.  The Metrolinx RTP map suggests the possibility of future LRT on Dundas all the way to Burlington.  Trips to and from any points between Etobicoke and Burlington could be done if the gauge is common across the corridor. 

While it is too early in the transportation planning future of the region to speculate on rapid transit connections between Hamilton and other parts of the region that aren’t covered by GO Transit, there is the significant issue that the region is starting an LRT network from close to scratch;  The only LRT network in operation in Ontario currently is Toronto’s streetcar system.  While Hamilton and Burlington might not see interlined services, what if both of their fleets were to grow beyond the capacities of their original carhouses, and they could share the costs of a new carhouse, for example, in the Old York Rd. area, through a common track gauge?

What if the 407 bus services eventually become LRT?

Since Toronto is the only existing standard the Province has at this point in its history for non-grade-separated light rail, should TTC’s gauge be adopted as the provincial LRT standard, to maximize flexibility in system management and keep interlining options open across the region or even the province?

Photo credit: Photojunkie (Rannie Turingan)

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

27 Comments »

  1. We should instead progressively convert to 1435mm so that manufacturers can offer cars with minimal alteration and design changes.  Vancouver will have demo Flexity LRVs during the Olympics – why?  Because their streetcars run on 1435.  Our demo cars sat on flatbed trucks for a few days.

    Unfortunately the streetcar replacement has dragged on so long, opportunities to renew track as 1435mm have gone begging, such as on St. Clair which has no interoperating routes.

    GravatarComment by Mark Dowling — March 22, 2009 @ 6:30 pm

  2. Converting the existing system is a logistical nightmare and extremely expensive.  Imagine the headaches for the carhouses during the transitionary period, how would that work? 

    By contrast, building new networks at the TTC’s gauge doesn’t change any of the capital costs and doesn’t cause any conflicts since the system in question is new and therefore doesn’t have other network impacts beyond typical construction disruptions.  Adjusting the wheels on newly arrived vehicles is a one-time operation that doesn’t add any costs beyond regular maintenance staff wages.  In fact, they might not need adjustment at all if they’re made in Ontario anyway, as they’d be manufactured at the appropriate gauge on the assembly line.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — March 22, 2009 @ 6:41 pm

  3. Oh, and St.Clair does have interoperating routes.  St.Clair cars come from Roncesvalles (when Bathurst isn’t under construction)… that counts as interoperation, even if non-revenue.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — March 22, 2009 @ 6:43 pm

  4. From an engineering standpoint, the choice between gauge has no real bearing on the cost of the vehicle (or at least it shouldn’t). You can broaden the wheels of any off-the-shelf light rail vehicle model at the design phase without too much trouble.

    The real reason the demo cars weren’t running around the city is because  many of the curves at intersections are too sharp and the hills too steep. That’s why Bombardier was disqualified the first time around and that’s the problem that need to be solved – unless we want to have two separate networks (a downtown network and an uptown network).

    I don’t really see TTC gauge as being broken enough to cause problems, and this is one of the places where Metrolinx should be successful – making sure that there’s compatibility between networks. If I were in charge, all LRVs we buy (even the suburban ones) would be compatible with the downtown network. From a network perspective, it would be great to have the proposed Dundas LRT in Mississauga run into the downtown core. It would increase the quality of service on the 505 car and bring higher quality transit to The Junction.

    GravatarComment by Andrae Griffith — March 22, 2009 @ 7:55 pm

  5. All new lines should have the same gauge as heavy rail so that LRT vehicles can eventually run on long-distance lines – called “tram-trains” in Europe. Imagine LRT-like vehicles going to Stouffville. Of course antiquated FRA requirements would have to change first, but this could happen within our lifetimes. Please don’t further expand the non-standard gauge!!!

    GravatarComment by AB — March 22, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

  6. All LRT tracks in Ontario should be 1495mm. While 1435mm is considered standard, it is not used everywhere else in the world. SEPTA (Pennsylvania) and New Orleans uses 1588mm, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) uses 1676mm for example.
    See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_gauges

    GravatarComment by W. K. Lis — March 22, 2009 @ 8:32 pm

  7. I think North America is stuck with the FRA.  Since the requirement in question is crashworthiness, which is a safety issue, it is arguably political suicide to challenge it.  I doubt this will change, ever.  Frankly, I don’t disagree with it, having LRT vehicles on the same track as a GO Train is not a situation I would support. 

    Having them share the same corridor, where there a 4 tracks, 2 of each gauge, for example, is something that can be done without putting LRT on standard gauge.  That arrangement still requires some form of barrier between heavy rail and light rail according to the FRA though.  It could even be argued that the different gauges between the railways and the tramways acts as a good safety, and a reason to continue with the TTC gauge as a standard for LRT across the region.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — March 22, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

  8. I am a big fan of tram trains, but the Spanish have found a solution to the guage issue. This is used in mainline service:

    GravatarComment by Andrae Griffith — March 22, 2009 @ 8:44 pm

  9. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcnr4DHe6hE

    GravatarComment by Andrae Griffith — March 22, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

  10. Converting TTC gauge to standard gauge would be a nightmare, tearing the streets up, replacement….do we all not remember the Sheppard stubway?

    I haven’t made up my mind if the GTHA has it’s own standard gauge vs. “regional standards”.

    No matter what gauges we have, there will always be transfer stations.

    Islington station is a TTC-Mississauga Transit transfer
    Finch station is a TTC-YRT/VIVA transfer
    Humber College is sort of a transfer between TTC and Brampton Transit
    YYZ – I am sure there is at least one route from Mississauga and Brampton Transits that go there.
    Rouge Hill Go station – There is a DRT route that goes there.

    Some of those transfer stations are bus-bus, bus-subway, bus-rail.

    |
    |()|
    |

    Hopefully my diagram above works, where () is the station platform,
    Think how Union station is (Rail not TTC), you go up the stairs, to your left Track 1, to your right Track 2.

    So why can’t we have that? It would be no different than someone coming from Square One and transfering at Islington, someone from Richmond Hill transfering at Finch. In the diagram above you would arrive to the rail station (rail station = lrt/train/whatever it will become at the end) from Richmond Hill LRT, then I walk across and get on the Toronto LRT to continue.

    Having different gauges also has the advantage of the 501 Queen route NEVER EVER AGAIN BEING DUPLICATED in a regional scale. We all know how many times the 501 gets short turned, correct?

    There are pros and cons to “standard” gauge and non-standard gauge across the GTHA and before things are put into the ground we are going to have to think of one thing:

    Ripping the TTC tracks will be expensive, and cause such a mess, even if we go one route at the time. If a “standard” gauge for the GTHA actually occurs, most likely there will be a Toronto-905 “war” as we already have our tracks and it would be “easier” to stick to that. There has always been a “war” between Toronto and 905 (and Toronto, rest of Ontario/Canada).

    GravatarComment by Miroslav Glavic — March 22, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

  11. Karl, I’m confused.  Your article asks a question but your reply to my comment states an opinion.  If you wanted to advocate for 1495 as a standard, why include the question marks? 

    While the 1495mm system is extensive, Transit City and 905/519/613 LRTs will build several times more if built as currently considered.  If we kept TTC downtown as 1495 with 200+ LRVs, this would dwarf several cities fleets combined!  There is enough economy of scale, I believe, to keep the fleets separate and compete for an LRT in Montreal with off the shelf 1435mm technology.

    The opportunity with 512 was to make it Transit City Line 1, linked to Eglinton LRT’s carhouse rather than Hillcrest and Roncesvalles.

    While the Spanish Talgo system works as a heavy rail system, has it ever been applied to light rail?

    GravatarComment by Mark Dowling — March 22, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

  12. Mark, it was a question about how <i>new</i> lines are handled, but your comment suggested the extreme step of converting the existing network.  St.Clair can’t really be Transit City Line 1 because there are no new Transit City vehicles, there are no new carhouses to handle Transit City vehicles, loops are already part of the St. Clair route which Transit City vehicles wouldn’t use (they use double-ended vehicles and turn around via cross-overs), and turns in the route, by and large a result of the loops, are too sharp for Transit City vehicles, which can’t be avoided at the subway connections as we’re stuck with those layouts, especially St.Clair West station.  I wouldn’t consider this an opinion, but a reality of the existing network we’re stuck with.  I was never asking about changing the existing network’s gauge, and it was towards that topic you raised that I was responding.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — March 22, 2009 @ 10:16 pm

  13. There’s also the issue of the TTC’s provision of making the Eglinton LRT subway-compatible in the underground portion should demand rise beyond a certain point in the future.  This provision would require the existing 1495mm gauge in order to integrate with the existing subway network in said future.  Don Mills may also be applicable to the same issue regarding the DRL.

    GravatarComment by Karl Junkin — March 22, 2009 @ 10:22 pm

  14. TTC gauge must be standardized through the GTA. That way, on a certain future date, Mississauga has more vehicles than they need, but Toronto has too many in repair, the solution could be as easy as a 30 minute drive.

    GravatarComment by Triceratops — March 23, 2009 @ 3:14 am

  15. I think that in the long run it would be less expensive to use standard (railway) gauge of 4 ft 8 1/2 inches.  The cost of converting the TTC would be high but they already  use non-standard curve radii (tighter curves) than most other systems meaning that these should be rebuilt anyway.  The tight radius means the TTC needs non-standard cars with more swing room for the trucks – and I think they also have a tighter verticle curve standard as well.  This means it is harder and more expensive for the TTC  to design and build a low floor LRV or an articulated LRV.   In conclusion the cost of TTC guage and curve conversion has to be balanced against the higher vehicle cost (and flexability) as well as against the cost of interlining on main line railways.

    GravatarComment by Brian Coleman — March 23, 2009 @ 7:16 am

  16. What Brian Coleman says is spot on.  There is no point creating a TTC downtown streetcar that is significantly more expensive and/or has compromised specifications because of the need to deal with tight curve radii and imposing it on the new lines which don’t have those limitations.

    Look at the European cities buying trams in 10s, 20s, 30s – Toronto needs 200+ just for downtown and 300 for TC!  Scale is not going to be a problem.

    If we were to go down that road, it’s likely that we would end up locked into a single manufacturer, whereas if TC was 1435mm and with curve radii typical to current LRTs tendering would permit a mix of manufacturers co-existing as in Melbourne.

    GravatarComment by Mark Dowling — March 23, 2009 @ 9:06 am

  17. Mark, Brian:
    What is ideal a very diferrent kettle of fish than what is feasible; and Karl’s point is that converting TTC track to any sort of diferrent guage is a political non-starter. You cannot overlook the political implications of spending an enourmous sum on re-building tracks - most which already work well enough for the general population – to save some money on vehicle procurement costs. GTHA municipalities are struggling to fund the capital costs of improving transit, and Toronto in particular has a difficult time balancing its books. You cannot forget that transit funding is quite limited, coming from provincial, federal, and municipal budgets and programs, and oftentimes it means that that money cannot be spent elsewhere or - in the case of municipalities – passed onto the taxpayer. In particular, budgets are being more highly scrutinized in this economic downturn.

     This can only be feasible if the savings on vehicle procurement are large enough to offset the costs of construction *and* the non-monetary costs of traffic disruption. Furthermore, this must be compared against the potential GTHA-wide savings should the Toronto gauge be the standard for the region; which was Karl’s suggestion to begin with.

    GravatarComment by Peter Kucirek — March 23, 2009 @ 9:42 am

  18. I am with Karl on adopting the TTC Gauge as the provincial standard. While interlined services from different operators may be limited initially, eventually we will see a better fare integration system that will open up more of these possibilities. Another big issue, and one that will likely be a reality between Mississauga and the TTC, is that of a shared maintenance facility. This can be a significant savings to the transit agencies involved.

    My concerns regarding costs of a non-standard gauge has me a bit on the fence. With non-low floor vehicles that use traditional trucks, all that is needed is to change the trucks. Let us not forget that a few of our CLRVs were loaned, I believe to Philadelphia, for a trial period in their early days.  Don’t forget all the PPCs that we got second-hand as well as ones we later sold to other cities. Low floor designs have the potential to be even easier to change, or could be a major design change that would not be so trivial. That said, some of the design issues concerning the legacy track in Toronto might make the special design for TTC gauge a relatively insignificant issue.

    GravatarComment by Calvin Henry-Cotnam — March 23, 2009 @ 12:53 pm

  19. Definately TTC Gauge for the entire GTHA (and Guelph/Kitchener/Cambrigde/Brantford/St.Catherines/Niagara.)  One day they all should be linked by LRT)  Look at the Ruhr, where dozens of cities have transit systems that link seamlessly.

    GravatarComment by Laurie Gordon — March 23, 2009 @ 1:48 pm

  20. I agree with Brian.  Sticking to 1435mm enables vehicles to be built faster, and “off the shelf” People may have this dream of interoperability between all potential systems, but it is going to take more track gauge to have cars run on the Toronto system.
    I say stick with 1435.

    GravatarComment by Justin Bernard — March 31, 2009 @ 10:16 am

  21. People act like there is a huge warehouse full of streetcars, and that TTC will go there and take 200 off a shelf!  Specifying a 3-cm offset on the centre of each wheel will make absolutely no difference in the production cost or process of the LRTs – which are of course custom made for each system.

    TTC has routinely made this minor modification to equipment that they have bought/sold/traded with other systems over the years!

    The question of which gauge should be used is only an infrastructure question!

    GravatarComment by NF — April 2, 2009 @ 12:09 pm

  22. I think we should stick with 1495 mm.  It is way too disruptive politically and traffic-wise to regauge the existing lines.  

    Various posts have suggested that a changeover in the future (eg to run an LRT down a rail line, or upon buying surplus equipment from elsewhere) is minor.  The cost and changeover implications of the different gauges  would be an easy question for a LRT manufacturer to answer–my gut says it is not significant. 

    GravatarComment by Peter Miasek — April 2, 2009 @ 1:22 pm

  23. Running a LRV down a rail line cannot be done. The rails on a LRT is the negative electrical return, continuous without a break for the current. The overhead catenary lines  has to be a higher clearance. (Old photos of level rail crossing with streetcar or radial lines shows a higher than normal catenary at that crossing.) And if they ever do switch to electricity on the rail lines, it will be a much higher voltage.

    GravatarComment by W. K. Lis — April 2, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

  24. I disagree with Justin’s and Calvin’s comments that a 3 cm offset on each end of the axle is minor. The design of a low floor truck is different from the old high floor trucks that can be converted easily since they move entirely under the car body.  The low floor truck is inside parts of the body of the car which is  designed so that there is no wasted space in the truck area.  Putting an extra  6 cm on the gauge would require that the car body be redesigned to allow for this on a curve when the wheels swing  under the body (also reducing useable inside space). 

    My earlier comments on tight curves also affect this space factor since the wheels move further under the car on a tighter curve.  Summing up, the wider the gauge and the tighter the curve, the greater the space required for the truck under the car and the less space inside the car.

    Are there any engineer Metronauts that can comment on this – or who have a friend who can comment.

    GravatarComment by Brian Coleman — April 11, 2009 @ 6:49 am

  25. I agree to standard guage for simplicities sake – we don’t need anymore reasons for city coucillors to “debate” more items that would stymie good solutions and limiting options for transport applications in this city. I suggest dual gauge systems like those used in Netherlands and Switzerland  – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_gauge – those countries have an outstanding approach to national and urban transit. Why don’t we follow their example here!

    GravatarComment by Christian Chan — April 20, 2009 @ 1:42 pm

  26. As a proud (may be read as arrogant) Torontonian, and legendary TTC-nimbyist:

    It is ludicrous to suggest that LRTs from Mississauga or York in whatever form would continue inside the TTCs fare zone.  Boundary “stations” on the proposed Transit City lines (where they meet boundaries outside the city) would be appropriate, some form of carefully allocated double-loop where TTC gauge enters and returns, while (other party) standard-gauge enters and returns in the opposite direction.

    Currently Mississauga Transit buses are being moved towards Kipling (in a dual-mode make over) permitting people working in Mississauga to have (somewhat unnecessary, duplicated (via GO) service) access to the subway.

    Toronto’s transportation needs exceed those of many other municipalities, that fact alone should suggest that those municipalities who are considering LRT would be (encouraged) to use Standard Gauge to lessen the cost of what would be (initially) an orphan line or series of lines.

    It’s called TTC gauge because it’s for the TTC.

    GravatarComment by Drew — July 16, 2009 @ 2:31 am

  27. Public sector tender specialists – ways2win…

    5 tips on finding contract opportunities for FREE…

    GravatarTrackback by Public sector tender specialists - ways2win — January 30, 2010 @ 8:20 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

"));