Jump to content

General Subway/RT Discussion


FlyerD901
 Share

Recommended Posts

So does anyone know the answer to my original question, i.e. what is the point in continuing to shuttle T1's back and forth between Greenwood and Davisville for the time being?

If "maintenance" is the reason, what kind of maintenance must only be done at Davisville and is urgent enough that cannot be postponed and performed at Greenwood instead?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone else noticed that the track between Eglinton and St Clair through Davisville is very rough at high speeds? (Southbound) 

 

On 19/04/2017 at 7:41 PM, Flalex72 said:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Shaun said:

Has anyone else noticed that the track between Eglinton and St Clair through Davisville is very rough at high speeds? (Southbound) 

 

That whole area has been rough for years due to shifting trackbed. The TTC needs to do a full multi-week shutdown to rebuild it from scratch, but to do so needs dedicated lanes both ways on Yonge St for shuttle buses, which the city will not grant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/08/2017 at 8:51 AM, smallspy said:

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.

Wow ... how many vehicles is that? There's still H1s in service aren't there, or are they all H6s now? Funny to think of H1s (or H6s) with ATC but no T1s. That must be costing a pretty penny.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, ttc rider said:

So does anyone know the answer to my original question, i.e. what is the point in continuing to shuttle T1's back and forth between Greenwood and Davisville for the time being?

If "maintenance" is the reason, what kind of maintenance must only be done at Davisville and is urgent enough that cannot be postponed and performed at Greenwood instead?

I suspect that if anyone knew, that they would have answered already.

 

10 hours ago, nfitz said:

Wow ... how many vehicles is that? There's still H1s in service aren't there, or are they all H6s now? Funny to think of H1s (or H6s) with ATC but no T1s. That must be costing a pretty penny.

It's not an insignificant number of vehicles, that's for sure.

 

As for cost - I've never seen a line-by-line costing of the whole signalling project, so it would be hard to judge what the cost is of fitting that equipment to just the work cars.

 

Mind you, it may be that just fitting ATC is a very small fraction of the cost of fitting the whole ATC/ATO suite of equipment to each car. I honestly don't know.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/11/2017 at 2:31 AM, 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.

It's doable - the words you are looking for are "line of sight" driving.  It's used here in Vancouver whenever ATO goes down and they have to drive the trains manually.  A clearance is given by control for a certain section of track that is confirmed clear, and then no trains except those authorized by control enter.  So multiple trains may be permitted, and told to go a max of 25 kph (that's the speed they use here, it could be different in different places?) driving "line of sight".  Control always makes it clear to the driver not to hit the train in front of them, lol.

Similar for work cars -- they are given "work zones" that span specified lengths, and can have power down (or not, depending on the work) in those zones.  Then any vehicle permitted by control (or by the person to whom control gave the work zone) can enter that zone and other trains will bypass on the single track going in the wrong direction (which is possible without "signals" but I believe it does require control's intervention to prevent trains from getting trapped).

This could also technically be used for T1s -- they could make various work zones (or one big ones, if it's during an emergency situation), and allow the train into the area -- essentially like a big fixed block.  Then "limp" (a term our control room in Vancouver uses) the train to whatever pocket or yard it's going to.  We do this for "disabled" trains if they time out of the computer system.

On 8/15/2017 at 5:46 AM, smallspy said:

Mind you, it may be that just fitting ATC is a very small fraction of the cost of fitting the whole ATC/ATO suite of equipment to each car. I honestly don't know.

 

Dan

Maybe it's different there, but I highly doubt they'd completely fit "ATO" into the work cars.  They'd likely only be providing a way in as I described above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Opal said:

Maybe it's different there, but I highly doubt they'd completely fit "ATO" into the work cars.  They'd likely only be providing a way in as I described above.

They're not fitting ATO into the cars. Only the ATC component of the system.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, smallspy said:

They're not fitting ATO into the cars. Only the ATC component of the system.

 

Dan

I think the ATC equipment should also go in the T1s, just so they can fill in for TRs in case there is any need for them when the old signals are decommissioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Transit geek said:

I think the ATC equipment should also go in the T1s, just so they can fill in for TRs in case there is any need for them when the old signals are decommissioned.

Then you're talking about 370 sets of equipment - and its install - versus about 40 or 45 sets for the work equipment. There's a pretty big difference in scale.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smallspy said:

Then you're talking about 370 sets of equipment - and its install - versus about 40 or 45 sets for the work equipment. There's a pretty big difference in scale.

 

Dan

I know we are beating a dead horse here, but just for the sake of discussion: even if they had decided to retrofit the T1's, would it really have been necessary to install it on all of them?

You only need it in the two driving cabs of the lead cars, not in all of the cars of a 6-car train. So, assuming all T1's are to be run in 6-car consists within ATO territory, about 370/3 = ~ 124 cars (after rounding up) would need to be retrofitted. 1/3 of the fleet would be permanently used as intermediate pairs of a consist. They could still disassemble a set into 2-car pairs for maintenance and exchange cars as needed, but only 1/3 of the fleet would be useable as lead cars on the mainline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ttc rider said:

I know we are beating a dead horse here, but just for the sake of discussion: even if they had decided to retrofit the T1's, would it really have been necessary to install it on all of them?

You only need it in the two driving cabs of the lead cars, not in all of the cars of a 6-car train. So, assuming all T1's are to be run in 6-car consists within ATO territory, about 370/3 = ~ 124 cars (after rounding up) would need to be retrofitted. 1/3 of the fleet would be permanently used as intermediate pairs of a consist. They could still disassemble a set into 2-car pairs for maintenance and exchange cars as needed, but only 1/3 of the fleet would be useable as lead cars on the mainline.

But then  you are making a lot more work for yourself, as you then had to ensure that only the appropriate cabs were in the appropriate locations to operate on the YUS. What do you do if there are trains in service on the B-D and you need to move a couple over to the YUS? Bring them in to Greenwood to re-position them before sending them back out?

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, smallspy said:

But then  you are making a lot more work for yourself, as you then had to ensure that only the appropriate cabs were in the appropriate locations to operate on the YUS. What do you do if there are trains in service on the B-D and you need to move a couple over to the YUS? Bring them in to Greenwood to re-position them before sending them back out?

 

Dan

To continue beating the dead horse: I was suggesting retrofitting 1/3 of T1's with ATO and subsequently operating the T1 sets at all times with ATO-enabled cars as lead cars.

Exchanging cars within particular consists would only be done for maintenance purposes at Greenwood, not specifically for operating within ATO territory.

This would continue even after introduction of ATO on BD, so it would be a matter of comparing the capital cost of overhauling the entire T1 fleet to extend its useful life past the mid-2020s and retrofitting 1/3 of it with ATO vs. the capital cost of replacing all T1's with a whole new ATO-enabled fleet with its attending costs (such as yard modifications at Greenwood and possibly the cost of a new storage yard).

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This idea is similar to what was done when the H5 cars where not allowed to be used as lead cars due to a safety issue. 

They eventually fixed it, but for a while a lot of them had stickers on them saying not to use them as a lead car.  

So it's possible but what you are talking about is totally different. You would need to build consists so that lead cars are fitted with ATO.  This would mean you would need to change the current equipment cycle schedule to match that requirement. 

This also would mean that the cars with ATO would see more service than the middle cars since they would be in demand more often. 

And what would you do if there were not enough of those cars available for service?  You would have cars lying around in the yard that could be used for service. 

So it's not going to happen. It would be a logistical nightmare. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ttc rider said:

To continue beating the dead horse: I was suggesting retrofitting 1/3 of T1's with ATO and subsequently operating the T1 sets at all times with ATO-enabled cars as lead cars.

Exchanging cars within particular consists would only be done for maintenance purposes at Greenwood, not specifically for operating within ATO territory.

This would continue even after introduction of ATO on BD, so it would be a matter of comparing the capital cost of overhauling the entire T1 fleet to extend its useful life past the mid-2020s and retrofitting 1/3 of it with ATO vs. the capital cost of replacing all T1's with a whole new ATO-enabled fleet with its attending costs (such as yard modifications at Greenwood and possibly the cost of a new storage yard).

 

Actually, there needs to be more work than just 1/3 of the cars. There needs to be a main and back up computer for each train. Do we modify the front and back cab with computers and modify the 4 other cars to link the computers? Or do we modify 2/3 of the T1's so the is a set of computers on 2/3's of the married pair. The 1/3 remaining in the middle don't need links. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At one point the TTC was running pretty much permanent four-car sections of Goucester cars, with the non-driving-control cars sandwiched between a separated pair of driving cars. Clearly Davisville had no issues handling married four-car sets.

But that also worked OK because G cars wound up running in eight-car trains, so that's two four-car sets. Won't work for H or T cars which need six cars.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, ttc rider said:

To continue beating the dead horse: I was suggesting retrofitting 1/3 of T1's with ATO and subsequently operating the T1 sets at all times with ATO-enabled cars as lead cars.

Exchanging cars within particular consists would only be done for maintenance purposes at Greenwood, not specifically for operating within ATO territory.

This would continue even after introduction of ATO on BD, so it would be a matter of comparing the capital cost of overhauling the entire T1 fleet to extend its useful life past the mid-2020s and retrofitting 1/3 of it with ATO vs. the capital cost of replacing all T1's with a whole new ATO-enabled fleet with its attending costs (such as yard modifications at Greenwood and possibly the cost of a new storage yard).

We weren't talking about the ATO equipment, we were talking about the ATC equipment. The ATO equipment requires another level of complexity that just may not be possible to implement with the T1s.

 

And what possible benefit would there be to configure the T1s into semi-permanent 6-car sets, which is what you are suggesting. It's non-sensical. With the exception of requiring less equipment to be installed for ATC - which would only be there for emergency purposes, let's remind ourselves - there is absolutely nothing to be gained by doing so.

 

At this point, this has ceased to be a logic/thought experiment, and more of a "let's see how much shit we can get to stick" experiment.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/18/2017 at 7:31 PM, Xtrazsteve said:

Actually, there needs to be more work than just 1/3 of the cars. There needs to be a main and back up computer for each train. Do we modify the front and back cab with computers and modify the 4 other cars to link the computers? Or do we modify 2/3 of the T1's so the is a set of computers on 2/3's of the married pair. The 1/3 remaining in the middle don't need links. 

All vehicles connected would need to have a computer -- how else would the system know which doors to open or what systems to monitor?  If they do it the way it's done now, then you'll have a separate door controlling system with the central computer having no idea which doors are closed and which are not.  It's critical to the ATO central computer that every aspect of every train is tracked in some way.  Now not all of the computers on board need to be "active" per se, but connections need to exist through the coupling systems.  I was recently on a train here in Vancouver where the train "lost integrity" (that was the radio command the control centre used) and is considered uncoupled (even though it physically wasn't).  They then needed to physically uncouple them and re-enter them to the ATO system as three separate trains before they could move.  If they "towed" a set (which they did in this case) which caused a lot of problems with the ATO system.

I suppose they could rig up a system whereby a bunch of sets are permanently linked, even if there are just two physical computers.  But I would think the most efficient way for them to move trains between lines (if they ever need to, after this) would be to run using the clearance system, or line-of-sight with all trains operating 25 kph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Opal said:

All vehicles connected would need to have a computer -- how else would the system know which doors to open or what systems to monitor?  If they do it the way it's done now, then you'll have a separate door controlling system with the central computer having no idea which doors are closed and which are not.  It's critical to the ATO central computer that every aspect of every train is tracked in some way.  Now not all of the computers on board need to be "active" per se, but connections need to exist through the coupling systems.  I was recently on a train here in Vancouver where the train "lost integrity" (that was the radio command the control centre used) and is considered uncoupled (even though it physically wasn't).  They then needed to physically uncouple them and re-enter them to the ATO system as three separate trains before they could move.  If they "towed" a set (which they did in this case) which caused a lot of problems with the ATO system.

I suppose they could rig up a system whereby a bunch of sets are permanently linked, even if there are just two physical computers.  But I would think the most efficient way for them to move trains between lines (if they ever need to, after this) would be to run using the clearance system, or line-of-sight with all trains operating 25 kph.

Remember ATO doesn't mean driverless. The doors will still be operated manually as it is today. Even if it was to be completely driverless, the signal to simulate the push for the buttons would still come from the lead car via the current control lines. The only new part would be sensors to detect people blocking the doorway. That's the OPTO requirements that is in the TRs on the Sheppard Line.

The middle cars won't know if it's operated manually or by a computer. It doesn't matter. It will just receive a signal and do as commanded. Accelerating, breaking and door operations would be the same as before. The commander is going to be replaced by a computer. The TRs only have two computers (one in each cab). The Mark I's have one in each car as they were designed to run as two car consists. The Skytrain needed more safety protocols as it's fully automatic. With someone on board, they just need to make sure the trains can move with an ATO system. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Remember ATO doesn't mean driverless. The doors will still be operated manually as it is today. Even if it was to be completely driverless, the signal to simulate the push for the buttons would still come from the lead car via the current control lines. The only new part would be sensors to detect people blocking the doorway. That's the OPTO requirements that is in the TRs on the Sheppard Line.

The middle cars won't know if it's operated manually or by a computer. It doesn't matter. It will just receive a signal and do as commanded. Accelerating, breaking and door operations would be the same as before. The commander is going to be replaced by a computer. The TRs only have two computers (one in each cab). The Mark I's have one in each car as they were designed to run as two car consists. The Skytrain needed more safety protocols as it's fully automatic. With someone on board, they just need to make sure the trains can move with an ATO system. 

I see.  I thought the doors were going to be automated too.  I thought the driver was just becoming an "observer" for emergency situations (trespassers, troubleshooting, etc.) that would hold a dead-man's switch in the proper orientation while the train did all the work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Opal said:

I see.  I thought the doors were going to be automated too.  I thought the driver was just becoming an "observer" for emergency situations (trespassers, troubleshooting, etc.) that would hold a dead-man's switch in the proper orientation while the train did all the work.

That would be too much modification for something that's not even worth pursuing. Even installing ATO equipment to the T1's is complicated enough and is for discussion only. TTC wants to buy a few test trains withing 5 years and have them delivered around 2023. A full fleet replacement is only a decade away. The Scarborough subway will likely be ATO only meaning it won't even open till TTC has the trains. Bloor Danforth won't even get ATO till mid 2020s when the T1's are due for renewal. If they had to modify all cars, the only solution is replacement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did they do a study on what modifications needs to be done to make fixed 6 car trainsets be compatible with greenwood maintenance facility? Or are they going to build another yard? I guess they have about ten years to figure it out and build it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shaun said:

Did they do a study on what modifications needs to be done to make fixed 6 car trainsets be compatible with greenwood maintenance facility? Or are they going to build another yard? I guess they have about ten years to figure it out and build it. 

They are already looking for another yard. Greenwood isn't designed for permanent 6 car trains. Eventually they could rebuilt Greenwood for the DRL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

They are already looking for another yard. Greenwood isn't designed for permanent 6 car trains. Eventually they could rebuilt Greenwood for the DRL.

Again Steve? Do I need to correct you on this again?

 

There's nothing wrong with using Greenwood for 6-car trains, just like there was nothing wrong with using Wilson for 6-car trains. A couple of buildings will need to be reconfigured, and maybe an addition or two built, but there's nothing wrong with using what's there as a building block.

 

Dan

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...