Jump to content
FlyerD901

General Subway/RT Discussion

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, Orion VI said:

One reason is that McCowan is overfilled as it is right now, and adding to the fleet will only make things worse. Its operating at full capacity right now.

How is it overfilled? I believe there's room there to berth 8 trainsets outside, and they only ever owned 7. They could also berth trainsets in McCowan station overnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, nfitz said:

How is it overfilled? I believe there's room there to berth 8 trainsets outside, and they only ever owned 7. They could also berth trainsets in McCowan station overnight.

The yard can hold 2 more trainsets than currently operated, but with the storage of Work cars, the max. amount of cars to be acquired by the TTC would be 8 individual cars, then the yard would be 100% full. I've always heard stories of it being filled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

I'm not 100% sure about this, but I believe each married pair has a cab in our fleet. What if we split our fleet and couple in a Vancouver car, so there are 2 cabs per train, (one on each end), and 2 non-cab cars in the middle? (C-V+V-C, Similar to the Crosstown design (kind of). 

 

I don't know if there are compatibility issues or whatnot, just thinking out loud. 

 

While the cars are operated in pairs, there are no physical limitations preventing them from running as single cars (unlike the subway cars). So what you are suggesting is possible, yes.

 

The bigger issue, however, is that the Skytrain cars are not in any better condition than the cars used on the SRT (and in fact may be worse, as they have higher mileage), and that each car's VOBCs has been upgraded to a different spec than the TTC's.

 

And, of course, there's the issue with buying 30+-year-old used equipment....

 

Dan

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On September 21, 2019 at 11:01 PM, lip said:

There's nothing inherently wrong with ICTS per se. The only thing wrong here is that the SRT is on it's last legs and past its lifespan, with no realistic plan for the implementation of its replacement in the foreseeable future.

Well, the fact that it's been used hard since day one and kept going well past any reasonable service life has caused the Scarborough RT to turn into a clapped out piece of junk for sure but there are a number of questionable design decisions with the system.  The big one to my mind which is an inherent wrong I think is the linear induction motor.  Half the motor is literally left out exposed to the elements.  Rain, snow, freezing rain don't directly affect the reaction plate between the rails directly because it's a passive component, it just needs to be there in order for the system to work but it doesn't do anything by itself other than heat sink waste energy when there's no load on the line to absorb regenerative braking output, but precipitation accumulates on it and it's in very close proximity to the live part of the motors on the underside of the cars.  This along with the side running third and fourth rails for power collection are susceptible to problems from precipitation.  The power rails freezing up means loss of power but generally no huge damage.  But snow and freezing rain in particular have had a long history of damaging motors on the trains.  So, what to do?  Raising the motors on the trains and giving a larger air gap to provide more clearance is an idea except that knocks down how tightly coupled magnetically the motors are to that reaction strip which means more power consumption and heat generation.  In the early days, they had serious problems with motors overheating.  The solution to that was to lower them, make the air gap smaller, and get much better magnetic coupling to the reaction rail to reduce power consumption and heating but that makes the problems caused by accumulated precipitation much worse.  No matter which way you go on this, you lose badly.  To me, that's an inherent design problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cityflyer said:

Why doesn't this problem a Translink problem also? Is it the warmer climate?

Vancouver isn't prone to ice. If there was just one ice storm, the system would grind to a halt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forgive me if I sound a bit crazy...bear with me here. I’ll try and explain this as best I can. I know the TRs have a sort of hum or buzz to them at all times, but has anyone else noticed that some of the TR sets are, well, louder?

I’ve been commuting for work the past 3 months now, and I’ve noticed over the past few weeks that maybe, I dunno, 1/3 of the trains I ride have this sort of constant loud, high pitched sound. Kind of sounds like the higher-pitched hum the TRs have when they start to accelerate. But it’s at all times, whether stopped or moving

So does anyone know what I’m talking about or am I legit going crazy here, haha 🙄

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, yrt1000 said:

Forgive me if I sound a bit crazy...bear with me here. I’ll try and explain this as best I can. I know the TRs have a sort of hum or buzz to them at all times, but has anyone else noticed that some of the TR sets are, well, louder?

I’ve been commuting for work the past 3 months now, and I’ve noticed over the past few weeks that maybe, I dunno, 1/3 of the trains I ride have this sort of constant loud, high pitched sound. Kind of sounds like the higher-pitched hum the TRs have when they start to accelerate. But it’s at all times, whether stopped or moving

So does anyone know what I’m talking about or am I legit going crazy here, haha 🙄

 

Isn't that just the inverted DC current used to power the train's auxiliaries? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Isn't that just the inverted DC current used to power the train's auxiliaries? 

I’ll take your word for it, haha. Just was trying to explain that it seems like some of the TRs are louder recently. Maybe I’ll try and get a recording of what I’m talking about...that’d be easier than trying to use words to explain sounds 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/27/2019 at 3:47 PM, Streety McCarface said:

Vancouver isn't prone to ice. If there was just one ice storm, the system would grind to a halt. 

But in an enclosed system, that would not be an issue. 

But are there any advantages to this system over conventional third rail systems?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Shaun said:

But in an enclosed system, that would not be an issue. 

But are there any advantages to this system over conventional third rail systems?

It's great.  You get the carrying capacity of an LRT without the flexibility, but with the separation requirements and costs of a subway minus the capacity, along with a serious dose of single source supplier vendor lock-in on practically everything involved, and because it's all proprietary, it comes with a heavy cost premium.  In terms of obtaining a lose-lose-lose outcome, nothing else comes close.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anyone explain why this (pinkish roofs on H5s) happened? As a child, I was always told it was because of the top of the car hitting the roof of the tunnel, but I don't know if that's true?

Image result for davisville yard

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Orion VI said:

Can anyone explain why this (pinkish roofs on H5s) happened? As a child, I was always told it was because of the top of the car hitting the roof of the tunnel, but I don't know if that's true?

Image result for davisville yard

If I recall the explanation given here before correctly, it's the primer under the roof paint. Definitely not from tunnel contact.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Would anyone here happen to have information on the heritage of subway work cars RT-6, and RT-34/35? According to our wiki, the first RT-6 was retired back in 2009, but there is a new (?) car running around with the same number that was displayed at Greenwood yard a few weekends ago.

48845278257_72aa5b276d_z.jpgToronto Transit Commission RT-6 - 01 by Andrew P., on Flickr

RT-34/35 are what I assume to be recent H4 conversions, since no information is given on what cars they used to be. They were parked in Davisville yard this evening along with H1/H4 pair RT-14 and 15.

Thanks in advance!

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

Would anyone here happen to have information on the heritage of subway work cars RT-6, and RT-34/35? According to our wiki, the first RT-6 was retired back in 2009, but there is a new (?) car running around with the same number that was displayed at Greenwood yard a few weekends ago.

48845278257_72aa5b276d_z.jpgToronto Transit Commission RT-6 - 01 by Andrew P., on Flickr

RT-34/35 are what I assume to be recent H4 conversions, since no information is given on what cars they used to be. They were parked in Davisville yard this evening along with H1/H4 pair RT-14 and 15.

Thanks in advance!

All H1s were scrapped last year, the H1/H4 pairs are no longer H1/H4 pairs. Now it is all H4/H4 pairs.

  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, 7749 said:

All H1s were scrapped last year, the H1/H4 pairs are no longer H1/H4 pairs. Now it is all H4/H4 pairs.

Thanks for the info. Do you know which H4 replaced the H1 RT-14?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

Thanks for the info. Do you know which H4 replaced the H1 RT-14?

Not only that specific H1, TTC removed all H1 workcars in 2017 or 2018. I don't remember which year but yea all of the H1s are gone

Also, im not sure which H4 replaced it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I notice that there work cars are coupled to H4 train sets. Will they be compatible with T1's? Or will they just be dead in tow? 

I guess we also have a track geometry train? There is a T1 trainset that has red lasers.

But by using T1's as work cars, does that make it hard to keep up with daily service requirements and rebuilds?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/11/2019 at 10:00 PM, PCC Guy said:

Would anyone here happen to have information on the heritage of subway work cars RT-6, and RT-34/35? According to our wiki, the first RT-6 was retired back in 2009, but there is a new (?) car running around with the same number that was displayed at Greenwood yard a few weekends ago.

48845278257_72aa5b276d_z.jpgToronto Transit Commission RT-6 - 01 by Andrew P., on Flickr

 

https://arvaindustries.com/products/vacuum-workcar/

 

Dan

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With line 1 closed from Sheppard-Yonge to St Clair this weekend due to ATC signal upgrades I'm curious to know how many trains are operating between Finch and Sheppard-Yonge? It must be tedious for the drivers and door operators who are assigned to that portion of the route because they have to travel back and forth through the same 3 stations which is even shorter than the entirety of line 4 🤣.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...