Jump to content

Turtle

Member
  • Posts

    440
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Turtle

  1. By the way, the reason they had to use that section of Queen for high speed panto testing, instead of The Queensway near High Park like I suggested they should have, is because The Queensway was strictly pole only back then (and still is to this day). IMO (in my opinion for those who don't understand the following is my opinion), those videos appeared to show the lflrv doing 60km/h on Queen, not 80km/h like some people implied. This is an educated estimate based on the stopping distance shown in the video for a normal full service brake application. My opinion.
  2. Are you still mad at me for correcting you about the horns on a 6-car TR?
  3. Did you have your nose pressed up against the tinted window on the saloon door? By the way, it's a center track just south of York Mills, not a pocket. From Lawrence NB, the operator can see the off marker on the catwalk side. Really easy to see when it starts flashing. The routing should never be a surprise on the legacy system. You wouldn't be allowed to have passengers onboard the train under normal circumstances in a move through a center track. You would never bring anybody in a pocket. They will always know, if the routing is unexpected they have to stop immediately and call control
  4. No big to-do being made over on my end about anything. I'm allowed to give my opinion, since it's pretty clear in this case it is my opinion
  5. ...the call from control about alternate routing is needed to give permission for the train crew to accept unscheduled alternate route. Routing on the X16 at the ends is considered mainline routing no matter if the train gets platform 1 or 2 They will not call the train ahead of time in scheduled alternate routes, since that is part of the schedule. St Clair West turnbacks, or scheduled subway closures are examples where no call is needed
  6. ...every center track is slightly different, but to someone qualified and paying attention, the legacy system gave ample warning of alternate route. Transit control has to contact the crew ahead of time because passengers have to be kicked off for such a move, unless the train is driving through a center track for some reason (controller training, rail defects, ...), But in a through move they still advise ahead of time
  7. You never know what other people choose to do, just take a look at all those people who get hit by streetcars on Spadina or St Clair. Especially those who are under the influence of substances
  8. Of course they do, but they might not know while servicing Lawrence Station unless the route is already set up. They'll definitely know they are getting routed in to the center track well in advance though. You've never seen a train entering the York Mills center track? It's almost like you don't read what I write, I explained it in a previous post. The grade timing changes going down the hill approaching York Mills center track when routing into the centre track is given. Typically a train will get stopped at a signal at the top of the hill (probably X2, could be X4, can't remember) if the route hasn't been selected. When the route comes up, the illuminated off markers (wayside illuminated signs) start to flash, and there is probably an illuminated GT wayside sign in there that does something too, to indicate a reduction in speed down that hill approaching the switch for the center track, which is enforced by the slower grade timings on the 2 or 3 blocks approaching the center track. You get the last wayside signal on the mainline indicating alternate route (after it times down) and then get switched into the center track but have one signal entering to let clear (dead slow at this point). Then you typically get placed in the south end of the center track even though there is room for another train past the center signal protecting the north end of the center track. So as soon as the operator of a train sees the change in grade timing approaching York Mills center, they would know they are getting routed in to the center track, there is no other reason why the grade timing would change there. If the operator ignores the GT change warnings and proceeds through there at "regular speed", the train will run a red signal and be stopped. So nothing changes, that's why it's not relevant to the discussion.
  9. Of course, I was thinking more along the lines of random jay walkers or the vehicle derailing during a test or something. I would have thought the Queensway around High Park would have been an easier area to secure, and still close enough to a yard in case something went wrong
  10. I don't understand this, this isn't relevant since all the operator of the train has to do is stop and stay at the signal with wrong routing until it is corrected. The only spot where you don't get advanced warning of alternate routing is southbound from Eglinton to Davisville buildup, but the train gets held just south of Eglinton until the route is set up. There is no surprise anywhere in the legacy signal system about routing, since either the grade timing changes with warning (York Mills center track), or the train is held while the route is set up (davisville sb, wilson nb), or the routing is already displayed on the wayside signals.
  11. seems reckless for them to be doing high speed tests of the lflrv on city streets. Imagine if something had gone wrong, how much damage they could have done.
  12. Both directions? Like North and South? Or East and West?
  13. Huh? wtf are you talking about now? It's pretty straight forward with the legacy signal system. The only time you would be routed on an alternate route is at the ends at the x16 (either platform 1 or 2) or in a scheduled turnback (line 1 St. Clair West for example). Otherwise you are going straight through mainline routing no diversions other than when TCC calls you to tell you to offload and turn back through whatever center track. I'm not familiar with line 2 turnback locations, but that is irrelevant here. The only time you would have to be notified about alternate routes on a ttc subway train as operating crew would be an unscheduled move, which under normal operating the train operating crew would have to be notified ahead of time before the unscheduled move Wow, beer, sorry. But you get my point probably
  14. It's interesting that they say 80 km/h is the maximum design speed of the Flexity Freedom, when the maximum design speed of the lflrv is 70km/h. I'm curious what the ride will be like on line 5, when they are super paranoid about tail whip on routes like St. Clair (for example)
  15. Because that's how they designed it. That's the safest position the switch could be in, given the physical restrictions that exist in that section
  16. No, it's time for you to stfu about this, since you have no clue except for parroting technical documentation and lawyer speak.
  17. yes Yes, but where it deviated was the use of MAN mode to make the move northbound out of the pocket. ATC mode worked properly leaving the pocket, so you could either have the train drive itself out of the pocket and spot itself on the platform, or operate it "manually" in CABS (a full ATC mode, what line 5 is going to use outdoors, and what Waterloo ION uses basically even though they may use a different acronym) yes yes negative sir, no such information is displayed on the screen in MAN mode, all you got at the time is a speedometer, and a series of indicators that mirror what is shown in the cab on the indicator panel. Unless you consider a speedometer to be cab signalling equipment that is, then you'd be happy to know that the GM Fishbowls had cab signalling equipment too. So the union is claiming that they were rear cabbing it out of the pocket. Pretty bold, since the TR wouldn't allow that for that great a distance, and the horns would be blaring during the entire move. So now, hopefully they have implemented "flank protection". Doesn't stop this from happening in the future if somebody decides to violate the rules again. Okay, fine, it would be different since the northbound service train would have stopped in the clearance of the train moving out of Osgoode pocket. These things don't stop instantly. Again with the rear cabbing claim, that is not possible for that distance. You misunderstood the explanation, which is the north end operator was driving the train out of the pocket with the forward facing controls active in the lead car (north end) while speaking on the phone with the guard (the south end operator who didn't spot the train properly in the first place) about if it was safe to move north into Osgoode. That's not operating the train from the rear, it's operating the train from the front while receiving coaching from the rear. Both operators were fully authorized to operate that train in the pocket at that time. There is nothing in the rules to say that the south end operator couldn't walk to the front of the train and swap duties with the north end operator who would then walk to the south end. It is fairly common thing that a guard or operator would swap positions for various reasons, none of them being against the rules since both are equally qualified. Because the crew tried to cover their ass, which is what most people would do when faced with a situation that could cost them their jobs. Maybe not to the extent that they attempted to do the ass covering, but most people would lie when put in a position to be out on the street. Well, the union's marketing propaganda campaign they had was a jaw dropper. Most of those video clips illustrated incidents where one or both crew members weren't performing their jobs properly. The fact remains that the proper move out of the pocket at that time was in an ATC mode (CABS or automatic). That would have prevented the train from moving from the pocket at all. Yes, ATC was functional leaving the pocket.
  18. ... to further add, that Osgoode pocket crew had a "get out of jail free" card due to miscommunication or misunderstanding of a radio call from control. They basically followed what was communicated to them from wayside. They should have been fired for what happened, the only thing they should have been operating after that happened is a collector booth. They should have definitely been fired for trying to move the train back in to the pocket after it happened.
  19. No, the north end operator of the train drove the train out of the pocket with the ATC system disabled is what caused the near miss. That the northbound (ATC equipped) service train was not stopped is irrelevant to it being human error. The legacy system equivalent would be driving a train with the trip switch disabled. In fact when the legacy system was in place there, this exact situation could be set up without the northbound service train being stopped if the timing of movements was right. So, lucky for the north end operator there was a northbound train there for the south end operator to see, and lucky they were chatting on the phone at the time and the south end operator could communicate to stop immediately. I guess the south end operator could have "redballed" the train, which would have been the correct action instead of yelling "stop! stop!! stop there is a train coming!!!!". If that northbound service train wasn't coming and the operator from the pocket managed to drive it on the platform, the platform switch would have been trailed and the train probably would have derailed. ...to add, the proper procedure at the time to operate in and out of Osgoode pocket would be to operate the train into the pocket manually in "MAN" mode, position it correctly. North end operator would have it in ATC mode and let the train drive itself on to the platform when the system authorizes it, instead he saw the switch move when the train cleared the switch, saw the trip arm down and drove it out in "MAN" mode (i.e. system onboard train disabled) before the route was set up. Since then they relabeled stuff and changed procedures.
  20. Just to illustrate, with the legacy system, with alternate routing into the yard or a center track, typically you would have: -a flashing grade timing wayside sign or multiple flashing grade timing signs or illuminated flashing off markers in the case of York Mills Center track, or an illuminated grade timing sign showing lower grade timing, inconsistent throughout the system -a reduction in speed enforced by "slower" grade timing in that section -warnings on the speed control cab signalling equipment to indicate the reduction in speed and sometimes a warning about alternate routing -an indication on the last wayside signal before the switch that it is giving alternate routing With ATC you get: -a reduction in the authorized speed, displayed on the display in the cab -a flashing green on the ATC wayside signal closest to the switch with alternate routing ***this also occurs for a train being driven manually by the operator in fully equipped ATC mode. This is regular operating practice, and does not need to be authorized by anybody. This is the mode the line 5 lrt trains will use in the outdoor sections, or when there is some irregularity in the track ahead like an active work zone
  21. I skimmed it, agree with some of it, had nothing to add since all I'm doing is repeating the same thought. I've made my point, that the routing information on the "cab signalling" displays would be a nice to have thing for the operator who cares about preventing stupid delays. In the past with the legacy system, if an operator took a train full of people on an alternate route that isn't part of regular service or otherwise authorized in advance, say into a center/pocket track or in the yard with people onboard for example, that would result in serious discipline for the operator. Probably a drug test too. But now, no consequences since the operator is simply there to respond after the fact when something happens. With the legacy system, the operator knows well in advance where the train is going to go, and has plenty of time to react to it. With ATC, like I said previously before you wrote the paragraph that I hadn't responded to in that previous post, you stated there is enough information on the operator display in the cab for an operator to make a pretty reliable guess at where the train is going to go. But this system would be capable of running the trains completely operatorless, so this discussion is pointless
  22. I hate to ask, but did she know the person who did this to her?
×
×
  • Create New...