Jump to content

Archer

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Posts

    982
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Archer

  1. For those interested in the signal side of things, ATC is live up to Eglinton Station as of yesterday. The crossover at St Clair is also now fully signalized and usable as part of the ATC expansion.
  2. You can see the vent shaft surfacing at the corner of Barrington and Coleman. That shaft is just east of the platform end gate.
  3. I think everyone needs to read this so we're all on the same page: https://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2021/June_16/Reports/15_Transit_Systems_Engineering_Osgoode_Interlocking_Incident.pdf. MAN mode is a fully manual mode, even on the TRs - think Emergency Mode on the SRT, as there needs to be a mode where you can override the system completely as an absolute fallback (ie. complete loss of the signal system with trains trapped in tunnels). When a train is in MAN mode, it reports it's position and speed to the system controller. That's it. There is a speed restriction imposed on the train as well, but I believe that is done by the controller on the train. The ATC system is not able to apply the brakes when a train is in MAN mode regardless of what that train does, which is why there are stringent procedures regarding moving of trains in MAN mode. There are no hard limits in MAN mode; a MAN mode train is capable of violating any limits that might exist (red signals, switches not set for route, occupancy, etc). A degraded mode (Restricted Mode, RM) does exist, but as far as I know it is not utilized in any capacity. I don't know why it isn't used. Osgoode pocket had some level of ATC as it could see the train when the incident occurred, but couldn't operate it in any of the ATC modes. It wasn't disabled, but it also wasn't fully operational. Because 123 Run was in MAN mode when it violated the interlocking, the system was unable to stop it with a brake application. My understanding is that the system did see 123 Run violate the interlocking with the crossing the axle counters. In theory, the system could have stopped 114 Run on the mainline as it was in an ATC mode; I don't know if it did try or not. I also don't know if, realistically, it could have stopped 114 Run in time to have avoided a collision, given the momentum these trains have.
  4. This was literally posted two posts above.
  5. 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.
  6. Would probably come down to risk analysis on the elevated section. Are the guideway walls strong enough to handle a bus hitting them in the event of loss of control?
  7. The only way such photos could be acquired would be to take it from the cab of the train going into the pocket track (policy violation - no electronic devices in the cab) or from track level while on an inspection (an even worse policy violation). In short, don't hold your breath.
  8. Also, given the position of some of the axle counters and signals in the ATC retrofit, especially in relation to the platforms, I guarantee that that any new trains will be the same length as the existing trains.
  9. It's roughly five minutes each way. I strongly suspect that half of the service trains will turn back, and half will continue single track to Pioneer Village, giving the single-tracked area roughly a double headway compared to the rest of the line.
  10. That was the original plan, but last I heard is that it'll return to service once Crosstown and ATC upgrades in the area are done.
  11. TTC Helps literally tweeted to multiple people yesterday that the 2 hour rule only entitles you to two hours of service, and after 2 hours you were expected to exit the vehicle and retap. The tweets have since been removed with the clarification. I can understand why everyone was suddenly up in arms. Found some screencaps/tweets that led to the confusion: https://twitter.com/MetroManTO/status/1233911063667605504/photo/2 https://twitter.com/TTChelps/status/1233916147105509376
  12. No it doesn't. Seniors, students, children, employees, etc. all make the same noise.
  13. IIRC, it was tested a few years back at Finch, when the backups started to become a daily problem. It didn't go well.
  14. That's one of numerous things that can trigger the blinking. All the blinking means is that one of the onboard systems is running in a degraded mode.
  15. Because the TTC is very good at being inconsistent. You already mentioned one (Eglinton Pocket Y/Y/L vs Osgoode Pocket R/R/C/L). Other ones are: - NB platform -> SB mainline Lawrence (Y/Y) vs NB platform ->SB mainline Eglinton (Y/G/L) - NB mainline -> SB platform Eglinton (Y/Y/L) vs SB mainline -> NB platform Bloor (R/R/C) You even get inconsistencies in what moves are available: NB mainline to SB platform at Eglinton is a valid move, but NB mainline to SB platform at Lawrence is not.
  16. It comes up as Y/Y/L as there's an automatic signal just after the trailing switch which is timed to ensure trains aren't coming in too fast since there's no runoff. As for the G/Y indication, I don't believe there are any currently in the system - the only ones I can think of were: - WB Royal York to Islington on the center track routing, which was removed when those signals were retimed to give call-ons in relation to the jump frogs - EB Spadina up the Spadina Ramps, which was removed when ATC was extended down to St Patrick In theory the X4 signal NB approaching Davisville can also support it, but I think it also throws a Y/Y for the build-up routing.
  17. I'm not opposed to pushing the line to Ontario Place - it just removes the option of combining the West Relief Line with it's eastern counterpart - not that I think splitting them into separate lines is a bad idea (so you don't end up with certain stations becoming hubs for all directions; perhaps the west line can terminate at King and go under King until Liberty Village, then follow the rail corridor northward from there. Just musing, though). It is stupid to not use existing subway technology though, which is also capable of fully automated operation if built that way from the start, as now they can't use Greenwood Yard for the storage of trains once the Bloor-Danforth shifts to Obico, unless you build a completely separate connection. And I have no idea where they might consider putting a yard otherwise. Downtown doesn't have the room (except for Fort York, which is a non-starter), and I can't think of anywhere around the Science Centre end that has the room, either, unless you buy the Celestica lands at a huge premium, cancel the development there, and use those lands as the yard. Or, you look at appropriating land from the Wicksteed business park, which is going to infuriate the residents of Thorncliffe Park due to the noise since it's in close proximity (that, and the fact that the plan as is doesn't call for a station in Thorncliffe Park - how can you put a subway line through the densest part of Toronto population-wise and not build a damn station?) The hydro corridors aren't large enough, and a lot of the open space is parkland belonging to the Don Valley system.
  18. Because custom built cars are not a long-term solution, since once they wear out the only option is custom built again. You also have to remember that while they may be the same technology, the control systems in Vancouver are much more modern than the ones on the RT (although still antique) - which is the other issue. The control system for the RT is old enough that parts are not easily accessible, and it can't be run on modern hardware, so reliability is suspect. At that point you're effectively looking at a full overhaul for a product that is niche in Toronto. If the conversion to LRT was in the same ballpark cost-wise as a full overhaul, then you might as well bite the bullet and do the LRT overhaul. Not that that's happening either...
  19. The existing tracks at Obico are set in concrete / asphalt, so no, not without ripping them out anyways.
  20. Not quite true; they simply do not run on the parts that are ATC equipped. Hence why all the T1's turn back at Wilson right now when they are used up on the YUS; expect that to change as more and more of the YUS is converted to ATC.
  21. It all depends on whether ATC between Sheppard West and Yorkdale is completed on schedule. The TTC won't turn on the already completed Dupont to Yorkdale section until that gap is filled to avoid having to constantly switch back and forth between ATC and the old system.
  22. Is that what they confirmed they would be for? I only saw a brief article on it. If they're gap trains only instead of scheduled trains, then I'm all for it. One of the worst things the TTC did (IMO) was converting the AM gap trains that existed up until a year ago into scheduled trains.
  23. They're adding two more trains in the AM rush only, which is doable if they move the scheduled short-turn from Glencairn further north. There's no room to add two more trains in the PM rush.
×
×
  • Create New...