General Subway/RT Discussion

[Bus_Medic]

5 minutes ago, HB_1024 said:

I'd think the safety risks of running a train through a crossover that's even partially occupied by unmovable equipment far outweigh the benefits. What if the derailment was caused by a misaligned switch and you derail a second train through the same crossover as a result?

 

[63 Ossington]

Interesting, single track operation during maintenance, instead of an early closure.

http://ttc.ca/Service_Advisories/Subway_closures/Apr_27-30_VMC-Pioneer_Village.jsp

Quote

Line 1: Vaughan Metropolitan Centre to Pioneer Village single-track operation April 27 to 30

Starting at 11:30 p.m. nightly from Monday, April 27 to Thursday, April 30, subways on Line 1 will operate on a single track between Vaughan Metropolitan Centre and Pioneer Village stations. Both northbound and southbound trains will operate but will alternate use of the southbound tracks to accommodate maintenance work on the northbound tracks.

Customers should expect longer than normal travel times in this area during the work. Regular service will resume each following morning at approximately 6 a.m.

TTC customer service employees will be available to provide assistance as required. All stations will remain open during this time.

 

[Ed T.]

Have I missed it before, or is the fencing along the Prince Edward Viaduct track new?

I guess it could be between the tracks, and not on the outside. Because I always try to have a nice look out whenever I'm in a train crossing the Don Valley.

Today I saw lots of fencing while driving along the DVP.

[meltingtomato]

4 hours ago, 63 Ossington said:

Interesting, single track operation during maintenance, instead of an early closure.

http://ttc.ca/Service_Advisories/Subway_closures/Apr_27-30_VMC-Pioneer_Village.jsp

 

I'm a bit confused by this. So will only the southbound track be available, or will the trains headed to Highway 7 use that, while trains terminating at Pioneer Village use the northbound track? The reason I ask if that, assuming the headway on the rest of the line isn't changing, would it only take 6-8 minutes to do the roundtrip from Pioneer Village to VMC, including terminal time?

[63 Ossington]

I was picturing that north of Pioneer Village, only one train will be moving at a time, and only on the SB track.. So one train dwells on the VMC platform, and once the next train pulls into the other platform the dwelling train will depart southbound. I don't travel that stretch so I don't know about the regular travel times. 

[Archer]

6 hours ago, 63 Ossington said:

I was picturing that north of Pioneer Village, only one train will be moving at a time, and only on the SB track.. So one train dwells on the VMC platform, and once the next train pulls into the other platform the dwelling train will depart southbound. I don't travel that stretch so I don't know about the regular travel times. 

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.

[Orion VI]

Hi all,

I was watching a video of the train of Many Colours in New York (for those who don't know, it's a 9-10 car train made up of old preserved subway cars, painted in various schemes, hence "all colours"), and i began to wonder, would the TTC ever do that, perhaps for the centennial next year? Possibly take 2 h4 work cars, preserve them in previous operating fashion, and get the Montreallers and the Gs from Halton, and create something like this? Can these cars be coupled together, and driven as one single train? 

 

maybe my foam is leaking again, who knows

 

thx

[Bus_Medic]

let’s hire back the laid off workforce before moving on to bread and circuses.

[Orion VI]

4 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

let’s hire back the laid off workforce before moving on to bread and circuses.

its a simple question into if these coaches can be coupled together, i'm not trying to start a revolution. A question like this certainly does not take away from people's jobs.

[Bus_Medic]

1 hour ago, Orion VI said:

its a simple question into if these coaches can be coupled together, i'm not trying to start a revolution. A question like this certainly does not take away from people's jobs.

Basic situational awareness should tell you this won’t happen.

[Orion VI]

45 minutes ago, Bus_Medic said:

Basic situational awareness should tell you this won’t happen.

once again, forget the centennial thing, all im asking if it's possible to couple these cars together and run them as 1 train. 

[Bus_Medic]

54 minutes ago, Orion VI said:

once again, forget the centennial thing, all im asking if it's possible to couple these cars together and run them as 1 train. 

As far as I know, the M1 and H4s would be able to communicate. The G car couplers are fundamentally different, even on a mechanical level. I’ll defer to smallspy for a fact check.

[Shaun]

1 hour ago, Bus_Medic said:

As far as I know, the M1 and H4s would be able to communicate. The G car couplers are fundamentally different, even on a mechanical level. I’ll defer to smallspy for a fact check.

Where there any situations where H5 and H6 cars ran together in service? 

I know that when H5's could not be used as cabs, they mixed H1's and H2's as lead cars with H5's in the middle. 

[smallspy]

13 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

As far as I know, the M1 and H4s would be able to communicate. The G car couplers are fundamentally different, even on a mechanical level. I’ll defer to smallspy for a fact check.

This is correct. The M- and H- cars could all operate together, and in any orientation. Not only did the G- cars use a different physical coupler design that prevented them being coupled to the other equipment, but it was handed for coupling between other G- cars - an even car could only couple to an odd car. I believe that there was a coupler adaptor that could be used in the event of an emergency, but it was for no more than that.

 

All that said - he's also right about the other points. As important a moment in not only the TTC's history, but also the City of Toronto's history is September of next year, let's try and get through what's left of this year first. There needs to be a TTC left if we're to celebrate it.

 

Dan

[Wayside Observer]

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

This is correct. The M- and H- cars could all operate together, and in any orientation. Not only did the G- cars use a different physical coupler design that prevented them being coupled to the other equipment, but it was handed for coupling between other G- cars - an even car could only couple to an odd car. I believe that there was a coupler adaptor that could be used in the event of an emergency, but it was for no more than that.

So.  Coupling G cars up to each other and other stuff.

That would be an extremely rare emergency since they kept the G trains in the same orientation at all times; they only rarely got looped around at Wilson or wyed at Davisville and faced the other way.  As far as I know, they never, ever let them out on the line to run in service backwards.  Anyways, one of the interesting thing about the Gloucesters is that the couplers extended past the anticlimber on only one of the pair.  I forget whether it was the A or B car and I don't have any pictures handy to check that had the longer coupler.  The other car had a short one that didn't reach out from under the anticlimber and the actual meeting of the couplers took place beneath the anticlimber on that car.  What that meant was that an accidental coupling between A-A or B-B was completely impossible for one of those pairs because the couplers on two cars that didn't extend past the anticlimbers would never be able to meet.

The opposite pair of like type cars where the couplers did go past the could be a problem though and I heard a horror story about that combination where the couplers extended past the anticlimbers on both cars happened and they got mashed together one day in the yard and the way the story went, they couldn't get them to separate and had to remove the couplers from the two cars to break them apart.  That's just a story from back in the day that I heard second hand so I don't know how true it is, but it is in theory possible if you get the wrong matchup out of the 50/50 chance there.

So, they took great pains to make sure to always couple an A Gloucester to a B Gloucester since the alternative was either impossible or a total mess.

Anyways, those Automatic Wedgelock couplers on the Gloucesters was a legacy of the London Underground pedigree.  Coupling a Gloucester to something else, the TTC must've had a compromise knuckle adapter to go between Wedgelock and Tomlinson on the M and H trains since they did run mixed fleet on Yonge/University/Spadina and if a train totally died and had to be pushed, there was no guarantee the next train behind would be the same type.  This would be an iron to iron coupling though.  An iron to iron coupling is just that, a strictly mechanical coupling so you can push or pull.  No air or electrical connections.

Getting a Gloucester to work with the pneumatic and electrical standards that started on the M1 and ran through H6 that were all compatible with each other would be a fun project.  You'd have to build a box that decodes the British Thompson-Houston propulsion package's trainline signals as well as the Westcode braking signals, the pneumatic train air and brake pipe as well as the trainline signals and air stuff on the M and H side and cross convert them, and vice versa.  Difficult?  Somewhat.  It's the sort of thing that requires a thorough understanding on how both sides of that equation work along with the input and output conditions and what's required to cross convert them.  Possible?  Yes.  You'd use a bunch of relays and rheostats and stuff like that to handle the electrical side and pressure switches and solenoid valves to deal with the air.  What would it look like?  Something like this.  Scroll down to the 1962 pilot trains that London Underground rigged up to be controllable from 1995 stock cabs and keep in mind that's a somewhat simplified build since their requirement was only a one way conversion to make the 62s drivable from the cab in the 1995 stock.  The 95 stock didn't have to be controllable from the cab at the 62 stock end of the trains during these movements*.  But that's a general idea of the sort of thing it would take to get Gloucesters to multiple with something else.  Did it ever happen here?  No.  The TTC never built anything like that.  Is it going to happen?  No.  Absolutely not.  Not unless HCRR kidnaps me and holds me at gunpoint until I get 5098-99 to multiple with 5300-01 and find a way to make CLRVs work by rubbing two sticks together.

Quote

All that said - he's also right about the other points. As important a moment in not only the TTC's history, but also the City of Toronto's history is September of next year, let's try and get through what's left of this year first. There needs to be a TTC left if we're to celebrate it.

We just passed the first full week of June so the steaming heap of crap that is 2020 is barely half over.  15 months to go.  There needs not only to be a TTC left and you need to be able to get more than five people together at once in order to have a party otherwise it'll be a low resolution slideshow on ttc.ca with half a dozen postage stamp images to celebrate the 100th anniversary virtually.

* Edit:  The 95s were being dragged around with the traction circuit off because it would interfere with the signalling systems on some lines that weren't hardened against the square wave harmonic garbage that variable frequency drives throw off which is why the 62 stock pilot units didn't have to control the traction side.  What I don't know is if the cross conversion box that London Underground built for this was completely one way though or if it fed back brake pipe so the air brakes on the 95s would be usable when driving from the 62 end or if the 95 stock was completely freewheeling and totally dependant on the 1962 pilot stock for all power and braking.  The writeup in the article in the link seems to suggest the air brakes on the 95s was usable at least from the control stand at the 95 stock end given the large air compressor and tank that were retrofitted to supply air to the whole train but it's not completely clear if it was made to work from the 1962 end as well.

[TechnicaProductions]

On 6/7/2020 at 8:48 PM, Shaun said:

Where there any situations where H5 and H6 cars ran together in service? 

I know that when H5's could not be used as cabs, they mixed H1's and H2's as lead cars with H5's in the middle. 

H5's couldn't be used as lead cars at one point? Why was that?

[T3G]

35 minutes ago, TechnicaProductions said:

H5's couldn't be used as lead cars at one point? Why was that?

Unless I am mistaken, this was right after Russell Hill, and this was a temporary thing until the trip valves were inspected or replaced.

[Wayside Observer]

31 minutes ago, TechnicaProductions said:

H5's couldn't be used as lead cars at one point? Why was that?

There was a period of time when a lot of H1s could not be used as lead cars because they had no trip valves installed on them so they could pass signals at danger but wouldn’t get tripped by automatic stop arms.  They had a banner over the cab windshield facing inward stating “DO NOT USE AS LEAD CAR”.

I honestly don’t remember if there were H5s we’re similarly affected.  At the time, my main focus was getting my rides and pictures in of the M and early H cars that were being decimated by the onslaught of T1s that were coming in so I wasn’t paying much attention to the 5s and 6s.

[Mike]

Why didn't the TTC use this coronovirus related drop in demand to shut down the Yonge line to work on the ATC full time all day long?  They could have probably finished the whole thing this year had they done that.

At 20% demand they wouldn't have needed to run that many shuttle buses to replace the subway.

[Bus_Medic]

2 hours ago, Mike said:

Why didn't the TTC use this coronovirus related drop in demand to shut down the Yonge line to work on the ATC full time all day long?  They could have probably finished the whole thing this year had they done that.

At 20% demand they wouldn't have needed to run that many shuttle buses to replace the subway.

Budgetary surpluses to pay the wages for all those extra operators to drive those shuttle buses is a luxury the TTC, nor the greater city of Toronto in general has when farebox and property tax revenue has basically evaporated overnight.

There’s also no guarantee that they could obtain the entire project’s worth of materials up font in one go. Especially at a time when the Global economy is suffering basic supply chain issues.

[Orion VI]

18 hours ago, Mike said:

Why didn't the TTC use this coronovirus related drop in demand to shut down the Yonge line to work on the ATC full time all day long?  They could have probably finished the whole thing this year had they done that.

At 20% demand they wouldn't have needed to run that many shuttle buses to replace the subway.

Plus, on addition to what BusMedic said, buses aren't nearly able to carry full capacity. Without the seats near the driver, and having to stay 6 feet away from others, i don't think buses can even carry more than 10 people (40ft). 

[smallspy]

19 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

Unless I am mistaken, this was right after Russell Hill, and this was a temporary thing until the trip valves were inspected or replaced.

 

19 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

There was a period of time when a lot of H1s could not be used as lead cars because they had no trip valves installed on them so they could pass signals at danger but wouldn’t get tripped by automatic stop arms.  They had a banner over the cab windshield facing inward stating “DO NOT USE AS LEAD CAR”.

I honestly don’t remember if there were H5s we’re similarly affected.  At the time, my main focus was getting my rides and pictures in of the M and early H cars that were being decimated by the onslaught of T1s that were coming in so I wasn’t paying much attention to the 5s and 6s.

I don't recall the trip valves being implicated at all for either of those. The TTC's own reports never mentioned them. And while it was after Russell Hill, I don't think it was quite RIGHT after Russell Hill, but maybe about a year or two later.

 

I seem to recall that the issues with the H5s were due to a lack of parts, be it main controllers or something within the control system. They ended up having to cannibalize almost half of the fleet, so what they would do is make sure that one end of the pair was in good nick, and then pull the other end apart for spares, or to keep another pair running. This lasted for about a year, and happened to coincide with the mid-life rebuild that they were going through at the time. Generally once a pair came out of rebuild, both ends were usable.

 

And from what I recall, the H1s were configured in basically the same way, with one cab usable and the other not. As for why, I just can't remember anymore.

 

Dan

[nfitz]

3 hours ago, Orion VI said:

Plus, on addition to what BusMedic said, buses aren't nearly able to carry full capacity. Without the seats near the driver, and having to stay 6 feet away from others, i don't think buses can even carry more than 10 people (40ft). 

15 according to TTC.

http://www.ttc.ca/About_the_TTC/Commission_reports_and_information/Commission_meetings/2020/June_17/Reports/4_COVID_19_Transitioning_from_Response_to_Restart_and_Recove.pdf

 

 

[FlyerD901]

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

 

I don't recall the trip valves being implicated at all for either of those. The TTC's own reports never mentioned them. And while it was after Russell Hill, I don't think it was quite RIGHT after Russell Hill, but maybe about a year or two later.

 

I seem to recall that the issues with the H5s were due to a lack of parts, be it main controllers or something within the control system. They ended up having to cannibalize almost half of the fleet, so what they would do is make sure that one end of the pair was in good nick, and then pull the other end apart for spares, or to keep another pair running. This lasted for about a year, and happened to coincide with the mid-life rebuild that they were going through at the time. Generally once a pair came out of rebuild, both ends were usable.

 

And from what I recall, the H1s were configured in basically the same way, with one cab usable and the other not. As for why, I just can't remember anymore.

 

Dan

I'm sure you know this already but I'm going to mention it anyways.

The T1s were grounded for a while due to trip switch issues. they were too brittle and would break after a contact if I remember correctly.  So maybe you guys could be confusing the two?

 

[TechnicaProductions]

3023 was spotted on a truck heading east on the 401 near the 400, anyone here able to confirm why?