Jump to content

General Subway/RT Discussion


FlyerD901
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

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. 

D59CBD06-4A19-43E1-BB8D-52B95D82B143.jpeg

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Turtle said:

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.

But you admit that the wayside is not safety-critical (though it can have safety implications), so a simple rule book change would resolve the issue with a 500ft train.

 

the only issue I could see is with position of the trackside train detection at reverse points (which are used to determine train length), which could affect blocking times leaving terminals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, TTC103 said:

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.

Sure they could rip out the ATC wayside signals if they wanted to without any impact to regular properly functioning service in an ATC mode. It changes procedures for non equipped operation, or disabled ATC equipment they are trying to move out of the way of regular properly functioning revenue equipment. There are no train stops (trip arms) in the ATC system, the north end operator mistakenly thought they saw the trip arm go down, when it was tied down. They thought they had a favorable signal to leave the pocket, they didn't. They were looking at the platform entering light instead of the signal in the pocket (which was red) because the operator couldn't see the signal; it was in their blind spot since the other operator didn't stop in the pocket in the proper position.

 

Now if the ATC system in the pocket had been fully or properly implemented in there at that time, they wouldn't have been allowed to be in an emergency mode, and the train wouldn't have been able to move.

7 minutes ago, TTC103 said:

But you admit that the wayside is not safety-critical (though it can have safety implications), so a simple rule book change would resolve the issue with a 500ft train.

You would have to modify the system to allow a 500' train to be spotted on the platform properly. There are a few situations where this will never be the case in the current version of the system, but not as big a deal as the platform gap issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do agree that the TTC relies too much on degraded mode working in regular operations. I understand why RM was needed for the SB move, but there was no reason for the train to be in RM on the NB move.

 

In a system without wayside signals, that move would have had to be done under the direction of the signaler. The fact that the NB driver had to look for a wayside signal opened up the possibility that Auto Train Stop was active, so the decision to use wayside signals did cause the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, TTC103 said:

I do agree that the TTC relies too much on degraded mode working in regular operations. I understand why RM was needed for the SB move, but there was no reason for the train to be in RM on the NB move.

 

In a system without wayside signals, that move would have had to be done under the direction of the signaler. The fact that the NB driver had to look for a wayside signal opened up the possibility that Auto Train Stop was active, which caused the incident.

The train wasn't in RM mode, they don't use RM mode for anything. It had a purpose that some engineer thought would be useful but in practice it never gets used. It's a different emergency mode they used, but you're correct in saying that an emergency mode shouldn't have been necessary to move a train out of the pocket, but back then it was common practice for other center tracks and pockets to use an emergency mode to drive the train out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Turtle said:

You would have to modify the system to allow a 500' train to be spotted on the platform properly. There are a few situations where this will never be the case in the current version of the system, but not as big a deal as the platform gap issue.

Are you referring to the portion of the CBTC system that verifies that the train is properly berthed?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, TTC103 said:

Are you referring to the portion of the CBTC system that verifies that the train is properly berthed?

Don't really know what system I am referring to, all I know is a train cannot position itself properly in a station if there is a red wayside signal in the far end of the station, you'll see this if you are a passenger on a train coming to an unusual stop, usually slow down, accelerate a little slow down some more, accelerate a little, slow down to an absolute crawl, accelerate a little ... eventually stop far short of being properly spotted. Northbound St George comes to mind, but there is one in the new section of the line too, can't recall where now. Really frustrating as a passenger when you are in a hurry to get off.

 

Why the signal is red is irrelevant, it should be favorable to allow the train to spot properly. Most likely the train is going to be held for headway adjustment or something like that, so it isn't a safety issue with the switch ahead or distance from another train.

 

Another thought came to mind with 500' trains (Osgoode pocket specifically) is fitting them in pockets or center tracks. That's another issue they should verify before going through the expense of buying extra (shorter) cars to make a 500' train.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just continuing on about my "line 1 ATC trains don't use cab signalling" comment to explain my thinking a little better:

 

The information on the operator display in the train is limited, and forces the operator to make educated guesses about switch position. The wayside ATC signals in equipped atc modes also give limited information, only proceed or stop. No directional information. They are nice to have, but as TTC103 insists are not needed in normal circumstances.

 

The old legacy system gave a ton of information on wayside signs and signals. Speed, direction, ability to pass, what is up ahead at the next wayside signal, and so on. The ATC "cab signals"? Only basically how fast you can go, or if you can go at all from a stop, and error messages. Lots of in service trains have ended up in Wilson Yard with passengers onboard because the system (or the person running the system) mistook the train for a run in train. Back with the legacy system, that was a huge deal for the operator to take wrong routing, but now when the system does it, not a big deal just wait a second while we get you routing out. A driver with experience and who is paying attention can pick up on this before it happens from the clues the train gives, but there is nothing that tells the driver that the train is going to take an alternate route in an ATC mode other than the bug speed dropping to 30km/h in a section that is usually above 50km/h with the yard nearby.

 

That is where my "they don't use cab signalling on line 1" argument came from. If you want to insist they do use cab signalling. I will then point out that line 2 uses a form of cab signalling also when the speed control system is properly working.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Turtle said:

Just continuing on about my "line 1 ATC trains don't use cab signalling" comment to explain my thinking a little better:

 

The information on the operator display in the train is limited, and forces the operator to make educated guesses about switch position. The wayside ATC signals in equipped atc modes also give limited information, only proceed or stop. No directional information. They are nice to have, but as TTC103 insists are not needed in normal circumstances.

 

The old legacy system gave a ton of information on wayside signs and signals. Speed, direction, ability to pass, what is up ahead at the next wayside signal, and so on. The ATC "cab signals"? Only basically how fast you can go, or if you can go at all from a stop, and error messages. Lots of in service trains have ended up in Wilson Yard with passengers onboard because the system (or the person running the system) mistook the train for a run in train. Back with the legacy system, that was a huge deal for the operator to take wrong routing, but now when the system does it, not a big deal just wait a second while we get you routing out. A driver with experience and who is paying attention can pick up on this before it happens from the clues the train gives, but there is nothing that tells the driver that the train is going to take an alternate route in an ATC mode other than the bug speed dropping to 30km/h in a section that is usually above 50km/h with the yard nearby.

 

That is where my "they don't use cab signalling on line 1" argument came from. If you want to insist they do use cab signalling. I will then point out that line 2 uses a form of cab signalling also when the speed control system is properly working.

The CBTC system does communicate the route to the vehicle: the 'communications' consist of route info (civil speed limits, grades, and any temporary speed restrictions) and the vehicle's End of Authority). This info is used by the train to compute a brake curve, which is the ATP system supervises, intervening if there is a violation. The train in turn communicates the position of its front end, speed and integrity information to the system, which is used to detect the train (for the purpose of generating movement authorities and setting/cancelling routes at interlockings)

It's honestly shocking how poorly the TTC trains its staff on safety. The trains speed dropping to 30km/h is not a 'bug', but happens because the route information (which includes speed limits) is communicated to the train, and is used to calculate the braking curve. Your comment about 'an experienced operator who is paying attention' suggests that management does not teach it's staff how the safety-critical protection system works, and staff are instead learning while in revenue service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, 81-717 said:

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.

There is no "general sense" - articulated means a pretty well-defined thing in vehicles.

 

You can continue to call the TRs articulated, but you will still be wrong.

 

18 hours ago, 81-717 said:

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?

 

No.

 

All railroad diaphragms are designed to work and interface with each other in the same manner, regardless of their design and manufacture. There are no physical interlocks. Excepting things like couplers, a GO car could couple up to an LIRR car and you would be able to walk through them safely.

 

As they are longer than the distance between the end of the car and the pulling face of the coupler, once coupled together the spring mechanism becomes preloaded and prevents gaps from forming between the two.

 

18 hours ago, 81-717 said:

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).

 

This, I am less sure about.

 

The way that the covered gangways work in most subway cars and LRVs is that it covers the full distance between the carbodies. It then gets bolted to both sides once the cars are assembled into a unit.

 

This way, there is no join in the middle that can slide apart from each other and become mis-aligned or pull apart on really tight curves. The downside is - as the TTC has discovered - that there is now a new wear item that needs to be replaced every X miles.

 

By the way, the minimum radius in Toronto is something like 60m, not 116m. 116m is the new minimum mainline curve radius is, just like the minimum mainline gradient is 3% even though there are locations of 5% and more on the current system.

 

18 hours ago, 81-717 said:

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).

 

Manufacturers have been canvassed, and information sent to them. Beyond that, I don't know.

 

18 hours ago, 81-717 said:

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?

 

The info sent out to manufacturers called for just that - the trainsets being configured as 2-car married pairs of two configurations (an A+B pair, where the A car has a cab and a gangway at one end and a B+C pair, where both cars have gangways at both ends but the C car having hostler controls), with the systems being smart enough to configure everything based on what pairings were coupled. As well, it also called for a single car that could be added to the trainset, and like the others be integrated into the trainset automatically.

 

18 hours ago, Turtle said:

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.

The wayside signals are solely to guard the interlockings from any non-equipped equipment. They may change as the equipment comes through, as they are also detecting each train as it goes through, but they are not operated on in regular operation.

 

Dan

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TTC103 said:

The CBTC system does communicate the route to the vehicle: 

Sure it does, but the vehicle doesn't communicate routing to the operator, the person who is onboard supervising the vehicle to make sure everything is okay. The only way an operator will know for sure if the train is taking alternate routing is when the switch is visible (way too late) or when the train diverges (bad if not supposed to). 

2 hours ago, TTC103 said:

It's honestly shocking how poorly the TTC trains its staff on safety. The trains speed dropping to 30km/h is not a 'bug'

I used the term "bug speed" to indicate the speed at which the train is permitted to go, as shown on the operator display.

 

That display also shows distance to stop (allowed distance to travel, not necessarily to station), and modes. No information is displayed about route, so it is an educated guess to why the train is slowing down. It could either be for a slow order on the tracks ahead, or a divergent route, or a divergent route in a slow order. It's a guess, and it shouldn't be. 

1 hour ago, smallspy said:

 

The wayside signals are solely to guard the interlockings from any non-equipped equipment. They may change as the equipment comes through, as they are also detecting each train as it goes through, but they are not operated on in regular operation.

 

Dan

They are a display for the operators of any train in the system equipped or not to give them information on what is permitted there. Same function as the legacy signals, except enforcement is by electronic systems instead of physical valves and switches. Legacy has the trip arm, ATC has the computers. Unequipped passing a red In an ATC section will not be stopped by anything except the operator (i.e. just like in Osgoode pocket). That's the biggest problem with the system 

Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...