Jump to content

MT0603

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

    4,017
  • Joined

  • Last visited

2 Followers

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Mississauga, ON
  • Interests
    Politics, Transit and Travel.

Recent Profile Visitors

15,964 profile views
  1. Do you have any reference material regarding headway management for TFL or Washington Metro? The TFL has in-depth bus schedules (known as Working Timetables "WTTs") which shows the working of all buses and crews available right from their website. See here for an example: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/bus.data.tfl.gov.uk/schedules/Schedule_25-MT.pdf I'm not quite sure that at TFL the bus schedules are in fact just some nominal document. Looking at some tracking data right now for TFL route 25 and it looks awfully bunched up to me. (see attached picture) To m
  2. Prior to the September board period Malton had 3 base blocks on the 39, 1 base block on the 61, 3 AM/PM rush hour blocks on the 104 and 2 base blocks on the 107. Since service cancellations have mostly affected Central routes most of the above mentioned blocks have been transferred to Central to balance out the amount of spareboard crews between the two divisions. Of the above mentioned routes Malton now only has 5 base blocks on the 107 and Central has gained 2 AM/PM rush hour blocks on the 5. However, Central's two blocks on the 5 are both 40' blocks and the LFSAs that occas
  3. It would appear the June 29th board period (BP) was moved up to make official the service reductions that have already occurred. As for why the board period was moved up I have a theory. Operators had already selected crews for the April 27th BP by the time significant cuts started trickling down and the way cuts to service was done meant that operators who have cancelled blocks as part of their crews have instead become spareboard operators. Essentially some operators have benefited by these cuts regardless of seniority, which is a big deal in a unionized transit environment. By moving u
  4. I have the 2015 (first edition), April 2016 update, October 2016 update, July 2017 update, February 2020 update and the most recent update saved. I'm pretty sure I have all the annual service plan PIC presentations saved as well. I've been meaning to get all my MiWay Five material up into a Google Drive folder to share. With the new website up unfortunately the old Transitway page is gone along with all the links to the various EA project files. Fortunately enough Google has the pages cached and I saved all the files. Will have to put those up into a Google Drive folder to share as well.
  5. Schedules are finalized quite some time before they are released publicly. All the changes outlined by Silly Tilley in a post from March 28 found on the previous page of this thread are going forward. Yesterday MiWay released the GTFS file for the next board period and that's why the new routes are now showing up on Google. Expect public outreach from MiWay this coming week. Although not included in Silly Tilley's post, the 39 is seeing midday service increase to 24 minutes (from 28) on weekdays with the addition of a base block.
  6. I can only assume that trips were cancelled because of no operator available to fill the work. Yesterday around 6PM there were 16 blocks with no bus tracking on them. Granted some may have not been tracking for other reasons, but I wouldn't doubt that a good deal of them were missing for the reason listed above. As it stands there are currently 9 blocks not tracking. Likewise on Fridays there have been quite a few Fridays since September where there have been a great deal of buses not tracking.
  7. The route 57 is the only route with this problem. I'm not quite sure how it happened, but the GTFS-Real Time trip IDs that route 57 buses are putting out do not match the trip IDs for the 57 in the static GTFS file for this board period. Transit55 and TransSee reference the static GTFS file, whereas your typical prediction apps simply rely on the GTFS Real Time output. The 57s are putting out trip IDs through Real Time beginning in 190xxxxx, whereas every other route is putting out trip IDs beginning with 187xxxxx. Indeed in the GTFS static file for this BP all weekday service trip IDs b
  8. It's easy to think that this is just a roadway reconstruction, indeed the TTC notice makes it seem so, but in many cases bus terminal roadways are supported by the station structure. I would be willing to bet that this bus roadway reconstruction also includes structural slab work. In the GTA and Ontario many sectors of the construction industry are absolutely saturated with work and that is particularly true for the structural segment. Simply put there's not enough resources (companies, project managers, skilled trades, etc) to get these projects moving any faster at a reasonable cost.
  9. Apart from summer school service wrapping up there are no service changes in August. When the overnight service launched there was no mention of any pilot period. Given that it is both favourable from a crewing perspective and an overnight storage perspective, I'd be surprised to see it withdrawn anytime soon.
  10. This really is a matter of semantics, but in any case the statement, and as I too quoted, was "any major overhaul". Forget words for now and let's look at this from a numbers perspective. Mississauga has 500 buses and for the next 10 years has an average annual transit bus overhaul/rebuild/replacement capital budget of $7 million and climbing. Annually that works out to $14 thousand per bus and means on average over a 15-year life of a bus in Mississauga $210 thousand are budgeted on said capital costs. A York Region report regarding electric buses from 10 January 2019 noted the Re
  11. I'd caution against saying that MiWay doesn't do any major overhaul of the vehicles. While Mississauga certainly doesn't have a scheduled top-to-bottom vehicle overhaul program, vehicle components are overhauled on an as needed basis. MiWay's 10-year budget has an average of $7 million annually going towards various overhauls for the bus fleet. For example you'll find that most of the 03s that are still in service have had large sections of flooring ripped up and replaced, particularly around the rear door and raised rear section, something that would normally occur under a top-to-b
  12. I was looking at things on Transit55 and DE60LFR #610 caught my eye. It reentered service on 8 June, prior to that it had last been in service on 28 February. It's surprising to see it back after a 100 day absence given how close it is to the end of its service life.
  13. While 0311 was changed off yesterday on the 45, it is in service this morning.
  14. Outside of Mississauga they generally only have signs at major stops and locations where there is no corresponding agency stop.
  15. Interesting, I know the joints have hydraulic dampers to help with that which also monitor vehicle speed, but I wasn't aware of torque limiting except near the max angle of the joint. The New Flyer artics equipped with ATG joints really whip around corners compared to the Novas. Maybe that's why ATG joints tend to become distorted and resulting in drooping trailer sections, usually more severe on the curbside. Refer to these two pictures to see what I mean by drooping trailer sections, neither are mine: https://www.flickr.com/photos/71639059@N00/8432391873/in/photostream/ http://www.hi
×
×
  • Create New...