Jump to content

General Subway/RT Discussion


FlyerD901
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 2017-05-20 at 10:17 PM, Shaun said:

If i'm not mistaken Obico yard was purchased by Metrolinx not the city of Toronto. 

Obico is a pretty big site. Would surprise me if some sort of share was impossible, especially if the technical challenges to getting a subway connection from Kipling to Obico were solvable. Depends on how much of Willowbrook Metrolinx is thinking of doing without during electrification refit works I suppose, and even that would seem like a temporary need with Whitby on line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Would it be better for Metrolinx to spread out their fleet than to have almost every rail car in southern Etobicoke. I guess land is hard to get now.

They do spread their fleet out - they store trains overnight at Hamilton GO Centre, Milton Yard, two yards in Kitchener, Georgetown Station, Allandale Yard, Bethesda Yard, Lincolnville Station, Henry St Yard, and Oshawa Station, in addition to Willowbrook.

 

They are currently building a new maintenance facility out in Oshawa to provide a second repair location besides Willowbrook, and also to store more trains in advance of the Lakeshore East extension to Bowmanville.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 2017-5-22 at 2:52 PM, dowlingm said:

Obico is a pretty big site. Would surprise me if some sort of share was impossible, especially if the technical challenges to getting a subway connection from Kipling to Obico were solvable. Depends on how much of Willowbrook Metrolinx is thinking of doing without during electrification refit works I suppose, and even that would seem like a temporary need with Whitby on line.

You know the track gauge is different right? And you can't mix heavy and light rail due to safety regulations.  The subway yard would be a different area all together, and the tracks cannot be shared even if it was electrified .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shaun said:

You know the track gauge is different right? And you can't mix heavy and light rail due to safety regulations.  The subway yard would be a different area all together, and the tracks cannot be shared even if it was electrified .

Obviously this would be a share of the SITE not a shared yard.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Shaun said:

You know the track gauge is different right? And you can't mix heavy and light rail due to safety regulations.  The subway yard would be a different area all together, and the tracks cannot be shared even if it was electrified .

That would be obviously stupid to share tracks as subway trains aren't up to Transport Canada standards for heavy railway even if they are the same gauge. Plus a possibility of a bitter blaming game between Metrolinx and the TTC when something goes wrong.

Obviously Metrolinx will have to sell TTC a portion of the site for a subway yard. The problem is will Metrolinx be greedy and want the entire yard for future use even if they might never occupy that much track space in the next 25 years.

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Keele yard is scheduled 4 trains starting next board. The other half of the yard will be reserved for work cars. TTC claims this will give them a longer maintenance period overnight as the last trains don't have to return to Greenwood. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Amsterdam, the GVB services its metro (subway) trains and trams (streetcars) in a shared facility, known as the Hoofdwerkplaats Rail. To the best of my knowledge, the infrastructure accommodates both types of vehicles, in part because the metro trains switch to overhead line operation while in the yard, eliminating any dangerous third rail installations. Not to mention that the overhead line is the same voltage for both systems (and obviously the same track gauge).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Transit geek said:

In Amsterdam, the GVB services its metro (subway) trains and trams (streetcars) in a shared facility, known as the Hoofdwerkplaats Rail. To the best of my knowledge, the infrastructure accommodates both types of vehicles, in part because the metro trains switch to overhead line operation while in the yard, eliminating any dangerous third rail installations. Not to mention that the overhead line is the same voltage for both systems (and obviously the same track gauge).

In theory, a future Line 2 fleet could use pantos in open cuts (like in the Warden cut) and be serviced in the same yard as streetcars but I don't see it actually happening because there isn't enough of a win to justify the added complexity

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Transit geek said:

In Amsterdam, the GVB services its metro (subway) trains and trams (streetcars) in a shared facility, known as the Hoofdwerkplaats Rail. To the best of my knowledge, the infrastructure accommodates both types of vehicles, in part because the metro trains switch to overhead line operation while in the yard, eliminating any dangerous third rail installations. Not to mention that the overhead line is the same voltage for both systems (and obviously the same track gauge).

I don't think it's a good idea. This means there is twice as many things that can go wrong and twice the amount of components to maintain to do the same job. It also cost more to procure the train. There is also a risk of the operator forgetting to put the pan down.

3 hours ago, dowlingm said:

In theory, a future Line 2 fleet could use pantos in open cuts (like in the Warden cut) and be serviced in the same yard as streetcars but I don't see it actually happening because there isn't enough of a win to justify the added complexity

But why do we want to share yards with streetcars and subway trains? A collision on the yard and that streetcar is done for. It's probably cheaper for the TTC to replace the cab car than half a streetcar especially if it was the cab. It's not like TTC will have ton of space there once Greenwood is used for the Relief Line. TTC will probably rebuild it to support permanent 6-car consist even through the Relief line might run with 4 car trains from the start.

A simple rule of thumb is if half the world is doing that and is expanding, it's probably the right way to go. If it's orphaned by one system, it's a no-no. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

But why do we want to share yards with streetcars and subway trains?

Isn't this a scheme to share Obico between subway cars and (presumably electrified) GO rolling stock?

Eliminating third rails would remove a lot of safety constraints.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Three T1 married pairs are still based at Davisville yard permanently. However, they are being rotated to and from Greenwood on a regular basis. Tonight, for instance, the 6-car set made of 5014-5015-5210-5211-5116-5117 was deadheading from Davisville to Greenwood.

Does anyone know what the point of these movements is?

It's certainly not due to lack of space at Greenwood, and I don't think it's being done in order to keep a few pairs as spares for the Sheppard line either, since I've never seen a T1 at all up there since January and in any case, they have had the full required complement of 4-car TR trains (6 sets) delivered and commissioned for service since February when set 618x entered service.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, ttc rider said:

Three T1 married pairs are still based at Davisville yard permanently. However, they are being rotated to and from Greenwood on a regular basis. Tonight, for instance, the 6-car set made of 5014-5015-5210-5211-5116-5117 was deadheading from Davisville to Greenwood.

Does anyone know what the point of these movements is?

It's certainly not due to lack of space at Greenwood, and I don't think it's being done in order to keep a few pairs as spares for the Sheppard line either, since I've never seen a T1 at all up there since January and in any case, they have had the full required complement of 4-car TR trains (6 sets) delivered and commissioned for service since February when set 618x entered service.

You forgot another factor, maintenance. Probably went up as Greenwood mechs were busy.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ttc rider said:

Three T1 married pairs are still based at Davisville yard permanently. However, they are being rotated to and from Greenwood on a regular basis. Tonight, for instance, the 6-car set made of 5014-5015-5210-5211-5116-5117 was deadheading from Davisville to Greenwood.

Does anyone know what the point of these movements is?

It's certainly not due to lack of space at Greenwood, and I don't think it's being done in order to keep a few pairs as spares for the Sheppard line either, since I've never seen a T1 at all up there since January and in any case, they have had the full required complement of 4-car TR trains (6 sets) delivered and commissioned for service since February when set 618x entered service.

This can't be a permanent arrangement because once the YUS goes 100% ATC, T1s will not be able to operate on it at all. This is the whole reason why they decided to put TRs on the Sheppard Line so soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TTCOpITM said:

This can't be a permanent arrangement because once the YUS goes 100% ATC, T1s will not be able to operate on it at all. This is the whole reason why they decided to put TRs on the Sheppard Line so soon.

I know. That's why I don't think "maintenance" is the reason for these movements at this point in time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TTCOpITM said:

This can't be a permanent arrangement because once the YUS goes 100% ATC, T1s will not be able to operate on it at all. This is the whole reason why they decided to put TRs on the Sheppard Line so soon.

The YUS will not be 100% ATC for a couple years if everything goes to schedule. Once the section that includes St. George to Davisville goe ATC, then it will be an issue. Probably sometime near the end of next year this will matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 29/07/2017 at 7:50 AM, TTCOpITM said:

This can't be a permanent arrangement because once the YUS goes 100% ATC, T1s will not be able to operate on it at all. This is the whole reason why they decided to put TRs on the Sheppard Line so soon.

Surely there must be ways to move equipment on Line 1, without ATC. I can't imagine that all the equipment you see running on the subway lines after 2 AM is going to be ATC.

 

Not sure if they still do it, but I've seen the Montreal Metro operating when ATC has failed, and there are no signals. It's a slow bumpy ride though. I can't remember what they call it ... I think it's based on an operating speed that slow enough, and stopping as soon as you see another vehicle in front of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nfitz said:

Surely there must be ways to move equipment on Line 1, without ATC. I can't imagine that all the equipment you see running on the subway lines after 2 AM is going to be ATC.

Work equipment is getting ATC equipment installed. I don't think that it's getting the full ATO hardware/software suite, but at the very least it's getting ATC.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nfitz said:

Surely there must be ways to move equipment on Line 1, without ATC. I can't imagine that all the equipment you see running on the subway lines after 2 AM is going to be ATC.

 

Not sure if they still do it, but I've seen the Montreal Metro operating when ATC has failed, and there are no signals. It's a slow bumpy ride though. I can't remember what they call it ... I think it's based on an operating speed that slow enough, and stopping as soon as you see another vehicle in front of you.

Hmmmm, good point. Just going off what I've heard. Sources from within TTC have made it seem like it would be impossible to safely run non-ATC equipment on Line 1 once it's fully converted. That begs the question then; why would they be in such a hurry to convert Line 4 to TR only operation when that wasn't their original plan.

Was typing my response before smallspy replied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, TTCOpITM said:

why would they be in such a hurry to convert Line 4 to TR only operation when that wasn't their original plan.

Because with the TTC deciding not to maintain any non-ATC signalling on the Yonge-University trackage, non-ATC-equipped stock will not be able to operate on it at all. This means you can't base Sheppard T-1s out of Davisville anymore, and you can't get them back and forth between the Sheppard tracks and the main rebuild facilities at Greenwood (or any other maintenance facilities, for that matter). The only choices are:

  1. Get Toronto Rockets for Sheppard.
  2. Extend Sheppard west to Sheppard West/Dufferin, build a non-ATC connection to Wilson Yard, and then tow T-1s to Greenwood any time they need heavy-rebuild work.
  3. Shut down the Sheppard Subway.

Option #1 is the most straightforward, and so that's what the TTC chose.

As for why they did it now, it's much cheaper to get more Toronto Rockets now as an extension to the mass order for Yonge-University than it would be to do a small top-up order later.

Edited by GORDOOM
forgot about the Downsview Station re-name
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

As for why they did it now, it's much cheaper to get more Toronto Rockets now as an extension to the mass order for Yonge-University than it would be to do a small top-up order later.

That could be another reason to justify why when it comes time to replace the T1s and expand the fleet for new lines and extensions, we could see another batch of TRs being procured, perhaps with technological upgrades.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2017 at 8:35 PM, Transit geek said:

That could be another reason to justify why when it comes time to replace the T1s and expand the fleet for new lines and extensions, we could see another batch of TRs being procured, perhaps with technological upgrades.

It would be a new model most likely.

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...