General Subway/RT Discussion

[GTAmissions1]

4 hours ago, MK78 said:

Listening on the TTC radio, and I've just heard dispatch advise operators on Line 2 to reduce speeds to 30km/h in the open cuts, and 40km/h on the Scarborough RT due "High Wind Protocol".

I have a hard time figuring out why. It's not like the winds are gonna tip the train over. What are they worried about?

In case of flying debris or something falls on the tracks in the open sections. 

[raptorjays]

Do you think there’s a chance that the service level on line 2 won’t be back to normal until at least fall?

I thought the subway service will be the first one to go back to normal and I was kinda expecting the service level won’t increase in January.. However, I didn’t expect it will still be kept reduced for March changes. 

and I am not sure it will come back to normal anytime soon because Line 2 always had a reduced service during the summer. 

I do commute from the west end, and the train is basically getting filled after passing Dundas West or Lansdowne.. The way back is way worse as it turns into Tokyo at St. George. 
I suspect eastern portion (East of Bloor/Yonge) will be even worse since I do see some people had to skip a train or two to get on. 
 

4-5 minute headway during the Am/Pm rush is getting ridiculous day by day as more people are heading back to the office. 

[Mike]

Will completion of ATC and signalling upgrades on Yonge line fix the issues with northbound trains getting into a traffic jam as they approach Finch station ( with the backup sometime later starting between York Mills and Sheppard)?

[Wayside Observer]

5 hours ago, Mike said:

Will completion of ATC and signalling upgrades on Yonge line fix the issues with northbound trains getting into a traffic jam as they approach Finch station ( with the backup sometime later starting between York Mills and Sheppard)?

Not really.  Trains can't move over the crossover and the switches can't throw faster than they do now plus it won't do anything to change loading and unloading passengers from trains or how fast one crew can get out and another get on.  If anything, given the list of stuff that it can't change, the ATC and moving block signalling could actually make the traffic jam worse because it'll be able to pack more trains in tighter below Finch station than the existing fixed block signalling can.

[smallspy]

12 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

Not really.  Trains can't move over the crossover and the switches can't throw faster than they do now plus it won't do anything to change loading and unloading passengers from trains or how fast one crew can get out and another get on.  If anything, given the list of stuff that it can't change, the ATC and moving block signalling could actually make the traffic jam worse because it'll be able to pack more trains in tighter below Finch station than the existing fixed block signalling can.

Sooooo......

 

While the switches can't physically throw any faster - or the trains travel any faster over them - one of the advantages of the new signal system is a reduction in the amount of time that the interlocking can be deemed "safe" after a train travels over it, as well as a reduction in the lockout time that the signal system enforces that prevents the switches from being thrown.

 

That said, yes, it may actually cause more of a log jam entering the station because of the reasons you noted. It does seem like the delays heading into VMC are not nearly as bad as they were heading into Downsview when it was a terminal though, so there does seem to be some improvement in throughput.

 

Dan

[Mike]

What about the following scenario (if all pieces were built):

A northbound train arrives at Finch unloads, proceeds north into a tail track, crosses to southbound direction and then loads at the south bound platform.

Would this solve or at least alleviate the problem?  If it does, perhaps the TTC should build this while they are building the subway extension so that at least for the duration of construction passenger’s commutes are improved.

 

[smallspy]

22 hours ago, Mike said:

What about the following scenario (if all pieces were built):

A northbound train arrives at Finch unloads, proceeds north into a tail track, crosses to southbound direction and then loads at the south bound platform.

Would this solve or at least alleviate the problem?  If it does, perhaps the TTC should build this while they are building the subway extension so that at least for the duration of construction passenger’s commutes are improved.

In the tail track's current configuration - no. The tail tracks beyond Finch are simply too short, and the trains would have to operate too slowly entering them.

 

But one of the ideas that the TTC had many years ago to shorten headways on the YUS was to lengthen the tailtracks beyond Finch almost to Cummer. This would allow for two things - one is lengthing the existing pocket track to allow trains to enter at higher speed. The other was to build a second pocket track beyond the first - this way trains would alternate between the pockets, and increase the flow of trains turning back - and thus decreasing headways.

 

Dan

[Xtrazsteve]

If the operator needs to relief themselves and they are held up in a queue, eventually they'll still need to hold up the line.

Unless they build a second platform with a shuffling crew bring trains to the other side while the operators take their mini break if necessary.

So they should have something like this ( X is crossover )

================================================================= TAIL TRACK 1
            X             [ FINCH PLATFORM ]            X           [ STAFF PLATFORM ]      X  ============= TAIL TRACK 2
================================================================= TAIL TRACK 3

So there is 5 additional train storage. Seems a bit overkill but I think TTC really needs it to make things work.

[Mike]

Perhaps this could be done when they begin work on the North Yonge extension.  Something has to be done for sure - it is not normal when the trip southbound from Finch to Queen takes 28 min (am rush), while the trip north in pm rush is at least 35 minutes and sometimes closer to 45 min. This is prepandemic, haven’t been on the subway since Mar 2020, but suspect it didn’t improve.

[81-717]

Is there any MDBF data for each type of subway car at various stages in their lifespan? I remember seeing a report from a couple years ago that the TR figure was around 500,000 km vs around 370,000 km for the T1. Considering that the T1s are in their twilight years, it's not that surprising that their current MDBF is lower than the TR, but from what I understand the T1s have been more reliable overall since they never had as many issues as the TRs when they were new. The H4s also never had any major problems, so were the H4s overall more reliable than the TRs (at least during their first 10 years of service)? Would be especially interesting to know the H6 MDBF data given their poor reliability record.

[smallspy]

For a while there, the TTC was publishing monthly MTBF data in the CEO's reports.

 

Other than that, historically, no, there's never been any data released - at least not that I have been able to dig up.

 

Dan

[Mar_AC_23]

5681-5686 has that weird door chime.

 

 

[Shaun]

Is there a slow order at Eglinton causing trains to be backed up to York Mills? (southbound).

Took me an hour to get from finch to Union yesterday around 10am

[8006]

Looks like they added a new third rail cut off button at Donlands Station. The original one at the very end of the platform had some kind of pad lock covering it and preventing access. 

[81-717]

What's the reason that subways almost never have diaphragms between cars, which is by far the most common design used on mainline passenger rail (i.e. GO transit)? The vast majority of subways around the world have either fully open gangways like the TRs, or nothing at all like the T1s, but a subway with diaphragms seems like a logical halfway point, as it combines the best of both worlds (cars can be easily coupled & uncoupled, while still allowing passengers to walk between cars).

Edited August 10, 2022 by 81-717

[Shaun]

48 minutes ago, 81-717 said:

What's the reason that subways almost never feature a semi-open gangway design that is by far the most common on mainline passenger rail (i.e. GO transit), where the cars are not permanently coupled together, and are separated by intercar doors, while still allowing passengers to walk between cars due to the space between the cars being protected by bellows? The vast majority of subways around the world are either fully non-articulated like the T1s (intercar doors & no bellows between cars) or fully articulated like the TRs (permanently coupled, bellows between cars & no intercar doors), but the semi-articulated design seems like a logical halfway point.

It likely has to do with maintenance and fleet flexibility.

Fixed trainsets are a problem if one car in the trainset develops an issue, the whole train needs to be taken out of service. Where as if you have a married car set, you can cut the bad cars out and couple them with other cars to fulfill service demands. 

Also fixed trainsets require dedicated maintenance facilities able to support a whole train instead of just married pairs. 

On the other hand there are much less components in a fixed trainsets since there are only two control cabs in a trainset as opposed to 6 in a married pair set. Not to mention the space that could be used to carry passengers. 

If the trainsets are reliable then you don't have that much of an issue, imagine 10% of the fleet being out of service even though only 2% are actually defective.  If they were married pairs you could re-arrange the cars and maybe only 4% will be out of service. 

 

 

[Bus_Medic]

13 minutes ago, Shaun said:

It likely has to do with maintenance and fleet flexibility.

Fixed trainsets are a problem if one car in the trainset develops an issue, the whole train needs to be taken out of service. Where as if you have a married car set, you can cut the bad cars out and couple them with other cars to fulfill service demands. 

Also fixed trainsets require dedicated maintenance facilities able to support a whole train instead of just married pairs. 

On the other hand there are much less components in a fixed trainsets since there are only two control cabs in a trainset as opposed to 6 in a married pair set. Not to mention the space that could be used to carry passengers. 

If the trainsets are reliable then you don't have that much of an issue, imagine 10% of the fleet being out of service even though only 2% are actually defective.  If they were married pairs you could re-arrange the cars and maybe only 4% will be out of service. 

 

 

What the hell does all that have to do with diaphragms? Cutting out a “married pair” with diaphragms adds literally zero time to the procedure.

It’s transit. At the time they were built the powers that be didn’t think movement between cars was necessary for local trips. They just didn’t want the additional maintenance or liability.

[smallspy]

14 hours ago, 81-717 said:

....or fully articulated like the TRs (permanently coupled, bellows between cars & no intercar doors), but the semi-articulated design seems like a logical halfway point.

The TRs are not articulated. Each car is fully capable of riding on the rails on its own without its neighbour.

 

On an articulated car or trainset, adjoining cars would have some sort of structural connection and are required to run in that configuration. Think of the ALRVs, where the two body sections rode on a common (Jacobs) bogie, or the LRVs were the doorway modules are suspended between the truck modules.

 

13 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

What the hell does all that have to do with diaphragms? Cutting out a “married pair” with diaphragms adds literally zero time to the procedure.

Precisely. Diaphragms in the mainline railway world are each a half of a pair, affixed to the car it rides on - and the meet in the middle.

 

13 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

It’s transit. At the time they were built the powers that be didn’t think movement between cars was necessary for local trips. They just didn’t want the additional maintenance or liability.

I think that's a very big part of it, although some properties did used to allow inter-car travel even without diaphragms.

 

I think that part of the reason is one of practicality, however. Diaphragms, although flexible, aren't flexible enough to deal with the tight curves frequently seen on a subway line. They definitely become a liability at that point.

 

All that said, the next generation of subway equipment in Toronto is being spec'd to easily be converted from 4- to 6- to 7- car configurations. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the diaphragms there.

 

Dan

[Ed T.]

2 hours ago, smallspy said:

Precisely. Diaphragms in the mainline railway world are each a half of a pair, affixed to the car it rides on - and the meet in the middle.

I think that's a very big part of it, although some properties did used to allow inter-car travel even without diaphragms.

I think that part of the reason is one of practicality, however. Diaphragms, although flexible, aren't flexible enough to deal with the

Yes, I was also going to say that the sharp curves used by subways would make that kind of coupling hard to maintain.

I'll point out that back in the good old unsafe days, G cars in hot weather would run with their end doors open for more ventilation. And the notice back then said something like "do not walk between cars when train is moving". So once or twice I went through when the train was stopped.

A few times, I was at the front of the lead car with the front door open. It was a pretty good view of the track and tunnel. Better than you get today, that's for sure.

[81-717]

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

The TRs are not articulated. Each car is fully capable of riding on the rails on its own without its neighbour.

On an articulated car or trainset, adjoining cars would have some sort of structural connection and are required to run in that configuration. Think of the ALRVs, where the two body sections rode on a common (Jacobs) bogie, or the LRVs were the doorway modules are suspended between the truck modules.

I meant "articulated" in the general sense, the way the general public considers the TRs to be articulated, but I definitely see your point about each car being able to ride the rails independently. Indeed, anything that doesn't meet that criterion is not technically a "car", but rather a "section". i.e. a Flexity doesn't consist of 5 cars permanently linked together, but rather a single car made up of 5 articulated sections. If the TRs had the trucks mounted directly under the open gangways, they would be more accurately described as a single long car made up of 6 sections, rather than a 6-car train. Same with intermodal freight cars consisting of 3–5 sections (even though it's possible to add/remove those sections as needed). The C20 in Stockholm has a particularly unusual configuration for a subway, since each set consists of 3 sections, with the middle section/car having 2 trucks like a normal car, and the cab sections having only 1 truck at the cab end, with the other end being supported by the middle car.

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

Precisely. Diaphragms in the mainline railway world are each a half of a pair, affixed to the car it rides on - and the meet in the middle.

Do the diaphragms used on GO trains need to be connected together beyond just coupling the cars together, since they're of a different design than the tubular diaphragms used on, for example, Long Island & Metro-North?

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

I think that part of the reason is one of practicality, however. Diaphragms, although flexible, aren't flexible enough to deal with the tight curves frequently seen on a subway line. They definitely become a liability at that point.

2 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Yes, I was also going to say that the sharp curves used by subways would make that kind of coupling hard to maintain.

Since it is doable with fully open gangways like on the TR, would it be possible to have half-a-pair of bellows at the end of each car, that would be connected in the middle when the cars are coupled together? Another factor besides curve radius is the wheelbase & overhang (the reason the 75' cars in NYC have locked intercar doors is due to their longer overhang than that of the 60' cars). According to TTC subway car specs, the minimum curve radius they're designed for is 116 m, which is not that much smaller than the 125/175 m minimum preferred radius on mainline rail, but the minimum radius found on the NYC subway is apparently as small as 29 m (probably for the smaller A-division cars only, since I would expect the 75' B-division cars to have a similar minimum curve radius to the Toronto subway cars, which are the same length & probably similar wheelbase).

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

All that said, the next generation of subway equipment in Toronto is being spec'd to easily be converted from 4- to 6- to 7- car configurations. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the diaphragms there.

Speaking of the next generation of subway cars, has the order been finalized at this time (or will be in the near future)? There isn't much information out there beyond that it has been moved back into this decade despite still being largely "unfunded", and the expected timeframe of delivery of a prototype & production fleet (of course, we can't expect those timeframes to be met if the project remains unfunded for the next few years).

If they want to be able to easily switch between 4- and 6-car trains, especially if it's easier to maintain 2-car sets at Greenwood, they could always switch back to the married-pair configuration, but with open gangways between each pair (similar to how the brand new M8/9s on MNRR/LIRR have retained the married-pair configuration). Now if they want to add a 7th car, that makes things more complicated, since it would require adding an extra single car, or having longer sets (2+2+3, 4+3 or a 7-car set). Is the plan to have 7 cars of equal length (slightly shorter than 75'), or 6 standard-length cars and a shorter 7th car?

[Turtle]

6 hours ago, smallspy said:

All that said, the next generation of subway equipment in Toronto is being spec'd to easily be converted from 4- to 6- to 7- car configurations. It will be interesting to see how they deal with the diaphragms there.

 

They should make sure all the line 2 stations are okay for 500' trains before they start dreaming up stuff like this. It would be a shame if they went through all the trouble of designing and building these things, only to find out there is an issue with platform gaps at a platform end or something else.

 

I know they would have issues with 500' trains at a few stations on line 1 because of platform gaps. St Clair (direction I forget, probably NB), Dundas NB, and Museum SB are some I know of for bad gaps at one end. I think Osgoode NB may also be a problem too. You would also get trouble fitting longer trains on line 1 in a few stations because of where they installed the ATC signals.

[TTC103]

On 6/16/2022 at 9:50 PM, Turtle said:

 

They should make sure all the line 2 stations are okay for 500' trains before they start dreaming up stuff like this. It would be a shame if they went through all the trouble of designing and building these things, only to find out there is an issue with platform gaps at a platform end or something else.

 

I know they would have issues with 500' trains at a few stations on line 1 because of platform gaps. St Clair (direction I forget, probably NB), Dundas NB, and Museum SB are some I know of for bad gaps at one end. I think Osgoode NB may also be a problem too. You would also get trouble fitting longer trains on line 1 in a few stations because of where they installed the ATC signals.

The gaps aren’t a problem: the TTC can procure trains with gap fillers (like the Type V in Vienna, or any modern suburban train).
 

Line 1 is/will be entirely cab signaled, so drivers of revenue trains don’t have to look at the wayside signals in any situation. The only vehicles that need to see them are non-communicating work trains.

Edit: I just realized that TTC rulebook requires driving on sight when not communicating in a CBTC area.

[Turtle]

17 minutes ago, TTC103 said:

The gaps aren’t a problem: the TTC can procure trains with gap fillers (like the Type V in Vienna, or any modern suburban train).

Great, more equipment to malfunction and an added delay while the doors remain closed while those gap fillers move out.

17 minutes ago, TTC103 said:

Line 1 is/will be entirely cab signaled, so drivers of revenue trains don’t have to look at the wayside signals in any situation. The only vehicles that need to see them are non-communicating work trains.

Oh yes they do, that's what the ATC signals are for. If the ATC signal is red for some reason, the train will not be able to pass it in an ATC mode, so with the ATC signals being installed inside the stations in some cases (St. Clair West, St George, ...) it causes issues with spotting the train.  You'll see this on the current trains stopping in different positions than they are supposed to occasionally. Usually when the train takes forever to stop, or makes two or three weird brake applications when coming to a stop is when you'll notice this.

 

Line 1 isn't cab signaled, they rely on wayside signals much like Line 5 is going to use. A lot less of them, but any interlockings have wayside signals still, and there are a few random signals to control movement otherwise. Grade timing is replaced by the ATC system, but wayside signals still exist.

 

A 500' train will not fit on a platform when the ATC signal is red in those stations where the ATC signal is installed before the leaving end of the platform. Easy fix right? Just make sure the signal is favorable before the train enters the station right? Nope, they get whiny if they have to fleet the signals for a deadheading train on the legacy signal system.

[TTC103]

19 minutes ago, Turtle said:

Great, more equipment to malfunction and an added delay while the doors remain closed while those gap fillers move out.

The gap fillers on the type V are fast enough to not extend dwell time. They extend out while the door opens.

If you want to reduce dwell time, you could Attach a light curtain to the back side of the entrance doors, for faster and fail-safe trap protection. Eliminates the need for the driver to check for trapped objects before moving the vehicles, so you can move as soon as you get interlock. Also significantly less likely to suffer a dangerous failure than a human.

Again, the wayside signals are not safety critical unless your train cannot receive a movement authority from the signaling system. The TTC could rip them out tomorrow with no safety impacts to regular service. They also decrease driver awareness as to which system (CBTC or Auto Train Stop) is working, which resulted in a near-miss two years ago.

[Turtle]

I should edit my cab signalling comment on line 1...yes they use a form of cab signalling, but they also have to obey the ATC wayside signals. Flashing green means good to go, solid red means stop. So with a red ATC signal in the station, the train can't stop in the proper position. Not too much of an issue with ~452' trains except for passenger comfort and stopping efficiency, but definitely an issue with ~500' trains, since much of the trailing car would be outside of the station on a red ATC signal in some stations, usually those with switches at the leaving end.