General Subway/RT Discussion

[nfitz]

13 hours ago, MK78 said:

The wide doors really made a huge difference over the previous H trains.

Yes - now there's space for 2 or 3 people to ride and block the doors as everyone is trying to get in and out.

[Xtrazsteve]

3 hours ago, nfitz said:

Yes - now there's space for 2 or 3 people to ride and block the doors as everyone is trying to get in and out.

Better off with those Hong Kong trains with 5 doorsets per car but that also decreases the reliability by 25% as there is an extra doorset to break down. 

[81-717]

1 hour ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Better off with those Hong Kong trains with 5 doorsets per car but that also decreases the reliability by 25% as there is an extra doorset to break down. 

Always thought MTA could've done that when ordering 75' cars so there'd be the same number of doors throughout the train as with 60' cars.

[81-717]

A couple random subway-related questions:

1) On the T1s and Hawkers (and probably the M1s as well), I've always assumed that the trucks were positioned exactly underneath the doorways, however when looking more closely at the diagram of an H5 and T1, it appears that the alignment of the trucks is actually very slightly off-centered compared to the alignment of the doorways. The wheelbase for both the T1 and H5 is spec'd as 16459 mm (54'), is that slightly greater than the distance between the center points of the outermost doorways (or, equivalently, greater than 3x the distance between the center points of any 2 adjacent doorways)?

2) When line 2 was built, would it have been possible to build a track connection between line 2 and line 1 around Bloor/Yonge, for easier equipment transfer to/from the Yonge line (i.e. branching off line 2 between Yonge/Sherbourne or Yonge/Bay and connecting to line 1 between Bloor/Wellesley or Bloor/Rosedale)? Was it unfeasible due to cost or space constraints from other nearby infrastructure, or simply deemed unnecessary due to the proximity (in the case of line 2, but not line 1) of the existing track connections near Museum and Spadina stations?

[smallspy]

10 hours ago, 81-717 said:

A couple random subway-related questions:

1) On the T1s and Hawkers (and probably the M1s as well), I've always assumed that the trucks were positioned exactly underneath the doorways, however when looking more closely at the diagram of an H5 and T1, it appears that the alignment of the trucks is actually very slightly off-centered compared to the alignment of the doorways. The wheelbase for both the T1 and H5 is spec'd as 16459 mm (54'), is that slightly greater than the distance between the center points of the outermost doorways (or, equivalently, greater than 3x the distance between the center points of any 2 adjacent doorways)?

The body is slightly offset towards the rear of the car vis-a-vis the truck center distance. This was in part to leave room for the cab.

 

But it was also part of the larger effort to maximize the amount of floor area that was capable, as well as making it easy to manufacture. Moving the trucks outwards toward the ends would have required the car width to taper in at the middle (wasp waisted) in order to provide enough clearance on the inside of curves. Moving the trucks inwards would have required tapering the ends of the cars to get clearance on the outside of curves. Straight sides would be far easier to design and manufacture. And the overall length of the car maximized the amount of space occupied within the 460-ish foot length taken up by a G train.

 

10 hours ago, 81-717 said:

2) When line 2 was built, would it have been possible to build a track connection between line 2 and line 1 around Bloor/Yonge, for easier equipment transfer to/from the Yonge line (i.e. branching off line 2 between Yonge/Sherbourne or Yonge/Bay and connecting to line 1 between Bloor/Wellesley or Bloor/Rosedale)? Was it unfeasible due to cost or space constraints from other nearby infrastructure, or simply deemed unnecessary due to the proximity (in the case of line 2, but not line 1) of the existing track connections near Museum and Spadina stations?

The Bloor-Danforth line was always designed and built as integrated with the University subway, in terms of signalling and track connections. They may have looked at adding track connections in the Bloor/Yonge vicinity in the very preliminary designs, but it was likely realized very early into the process that it going to be a very difficult task due to all of the built-up property in the area (and perhaps the geography in the north-eastern corner), and so it was decided to build the connections at St. George/Bay instead.

 

Dan

[81-717]

On 7/9/2023 at 9:08 AM, smallspy said:

The body is slightly offset towards the rear of the car vis-a-vis the truck center distance. This was in part to leave room for the cab.

But it was also part of the larger effort to maximize the amount of floor area that was capable, as well as making it easy to manufacture. Moving the trucks outwards toward the ends would have required the car width to taper in at the middle (wasp waisted) in order to provide enough clearance on the inside of curves. Moving the trucks inwards would have required tapering the ends of the cars to get clearance on the outside of curves. Moving the trucks inwards would have required tapering the ends of the cars to get clearance on the outside of curves. Straight sides would be far easier to design and manufacture. And the overall length of the car maximized the amount of space occupied within the 460-ish foot length taken up by a G train.

Does the position of the trucks potentially interfere with the position of the cab, despite the trucks being entirely under the floor, and the cab being entirely above the floor (unless there's some undercar equipment that has to be directly under it)? Looking closely at the diagram (especially the H5 one), and having looked closer at the real thing, the front truck actually appears to be offset closer towards the cab, rather than away from it, and the rear truck also appears to be offset towards the rear end of the car, so it does seem like both trucks are offset slightly outwards compared to the doorways.

Tapering the width of subway cars anywhere along their length seems like a non-starter due to the resulting variations in the gap between the train and platform, if nothing else (it can be an issue even with straight-edge cars vs. curved platforms).

Edited July 15, 2023 by 81-717

[Turtle]

9 hours ago, 81-717 said:

Tapering the width of subway cars anywhere along their length seems like a non-starter due to the resulting variations in the gap between the train and platform, if nothing else (it can be an issue even with straight-edge cars vs. curved platforms).

I don't know why this would ever be considered. The issues with this are huge, just so some engineers can have a wank fest on how they managed to maximize carbody length and maintain clearance.

 

 

[smallspy]

10 hours ago, 81-717 said:

Does the position of the trucks potentially interfere with the position of the cab, despite the trucks being entirely under the floor, and the cab being entirely above the floor (unless there's some undercar equipment that has to be directly under it)? Looking closely at the diagram (especially the H5 one), and having looked closer at the real thing, the front truck actually appears to be offset closer towards the cab, rather than away from it, and the rear truck also appears to be offset towards the rear end of the car, so it does seem like both trucks are offset slightly outwards compared to the doorways.

Nope, no interference.

 

A lot of the plumbing and wiring is routed within the depth of the frame rather than underneath it, so they are well shielded from any potential damage.

 

10 hours ago, 81-717 said:

Tapering the width of subway cars anywhere along their length seems like a non-starter due to the resulting variations in the gap between the train and platform, if nothing else (it can be an issue even with straight-edge cars vs. curved platforms).

Depending on how it was done, it may not affect the location of the doorways at all.

 

And in any case, it wasn't deemed as necessary.

 

1 hour ago, Turtle said:

I don't know why this would ever be considered. The issues with this are huge, just so some engineers can have a wank fest on how they managed to maximize carbody length and maintain clearance.

It is done in a lot of places around the world. Sometimes, it is necessary to prioritize overall carbody length. They don't seem to have an issue with it.

 

Dan

[Turtle]

5 hours ago, smallspy said:

It is done in a lot of places around the world. Sometimes, it is necessary to prioritize overall carbody length. They don't seem to have an issue with it.

 

Dan

At the ends of the car I get, but in the center is a strange idea for me, because you couldn't have passenger doors in the part of the body which is tapered, without making boarding an issue.

 

I guess with a taper in the center you would just install doorways near the ends, so two sets of doors per side per car.

[Turtle]

Just to add: my point was about what is practical, not what is possible technically. Sure, almost any problem can be solved with some engineering, but ... is all that engineering actually logical? Sure, you can maximize car body length with truck positions and body tapers, but isn't there a better solution?

 

With the TRs and the open gangways - while we were waiting for those things to arrive, I was sitting in the cabs watching all the movement between cars, thinking open gangways could actually be a safety risk in some situations. It turns out I was just being a nervous nelly looking at the safety gates of the T1s and Hawkers bouncing and rubbing up against each other on otherwise straight track.

 

I was also thinking that the Jacobs Bogies on the ALRV were the ideal solution, there probably would be a way to minimize the number of trucks on a 450' (give or take) train, to minimize weight, to minimize complexity, and maximize ride quality with those. But it introduces maintenance issues, and the car lengths would actually be a little shorter than 75'.

 

This is just me dreaming and foaming about trains.

 

[MK78]

3 hours ago, Turtle said:

With the TRs and the open gangways - while we were waiting for those things to arrive, I was sitting in the cabs watching all the movement between cars, thinking open gangways could actually be a safety risk in some situations.

Yeah it's a safety risk when a nutjob is chasing you down the entire lenght of the train while stabbing you.

[Bus_Medic]

38 minutes ago, MK78 said:

Yeah it's a safety risk when a nutjob is chasing you down the entire lenght of the train while stabbing you.

In the good ol’ days it was only a 75’ sprint for Freddie.

Now at least he has to work for it.

[Turtle]

6 hours ago, MK78 said:

Yeah it's a safety risk when a nutjob is chasing you down the entire lenght of the train while stabbing you.

I think that if you punch and kick a guy first, you can't complain about what happens after

[T3G]

9 hours ago, MK78 said:

Yeah it's a safety risk when a nutjob is chasing you down the entire lenght of the train while stabbing you.

Ah yes, unlocked doors, famed for stopping nutjobs in their tracks

[--Mulliganaceous--]

Something I made probably for the last days of Line 3...
 

 

[GTAmissions1]

13 TTC stations will not be accessible by January 1, 2025. Instead some stations will not be made accessible until at least 2026 pending funding and construction timelines. 

Attached a photo for reference and a link to the document. Page 12 shows the chart. 

 

Link: https://ttc-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/Project/TTC/DevProto/Documents/Home/Public-Meetings/Board/2023/Sep-26/5_EA_Phase_III_Project_Status_Update_September_2023.pdf

 

Final comments:

Islington and Warden stations were planned to be the last stations to be accessible since the current platform setup would need to be demolished and rebuilt due to the separate platforms that were designed when they were first built. Moving away to a more centralized setup to minimize the amount of elevators needed between bus platform to concourse and subway platform level depending on the station design. 

Some stations were built several decades ago under different standards when accessibility doesn't come into mind. Whereas new lines and stations today are built with accessibility such as elevators today. Easier to implement when in the planning phase where as an existing station, it may be more difficult when an area like King Station is very built up, they need to carefully plan around to ensure that passengers who need an elevator know where to go.

[Turtle]

8 hours ago, GTAmissions1 said:

Islington and Warden stations were planned to be the last stations to be accessible since the current platform setup would need to be demolished and rebuilt due to the separate platforms that were designed when they were first built. Moving away to a more centralized setup to minimize the amount of elevators needed between bus platform to concourse and subway platform level depending on the station design. 

For a second I thought that you were talking about the subway platform.  The new bus terminal at Islington isn't finished yet?

[Articulated]

2 hours ago, Turtle said:

For a second I thought that you were talking about the subway platform.  The new bus terminal at Islington isn't finished yet?

No, the original terminal is still existing (but largely closed) with all buses using the former Platform 7 used by MiWay buses. The temporary terminal on the former parking lot/PPUDO north of the station has not even opened yet. Demolition and construction of a new permanent terminal cannot begin until the temporary terminal opens.

[Mark Walton]

19 hours ago, GTAmissions1 said:

Islington and Warden stations were planned to be the last stations to be accessible since the current platform setup would need to be demolished and rebuilt due to the separate platforms that were designed when they were first built. Moving away to a more centralized setup to minimize the amount of elevators needed between bus platform to concourse and subway platform level depending on the station design. 

Some stations were built several decades ago under different standards when accessibility doesn't come into mind. Whereas new lines and stations today are built with accessibility such as elevators today. Easier to implement when in the planning phase where as an existing station, it may be more difficult when an area like King Station is very built up, they need to carefully plan around to ensure that passengers who need an elevator know where to go.

By "platforms" do you mean bus platforms? Both stations have always had a single train platform. Last time I was through Islington it looked pathetic, Warden maybe less so.

[GTAmissions1]

4 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

By "platforms" do you mean bus platforms? Both stations have always had a single train platform. Last time I was through Islington it looked pathetic, Warden maybe less so.

That is correct, as in the platforms implying the bus platforms that are separating bus traffic. Having to read the platform sign to ensure you are boarding the correct one that services x route before walking up the stairs. Can be difficult for those with strollers or large items. 

Looking at the new design, there will be three elevators for Islington Station. One where the fare paid area for buses enter (5 bus platforms) in a more circular direction within the fare paid zone along with a separate elevator from Islington Avenue to the subway concourse. Then another elevator from the concourse to the train platform (centre) to provide connections. 

I remember visiting Islington years ago and I won't deny the logistical challenges with separated bus platforms. I remember when MiWay Transit Routes 1 Dundas and 101 Dundas were on separate platforms. One logical solution would be to service the same platform, but it was not possible without adjusting the timing of both routes since both run pretty frequently which if one is running behind, it would be stuck behind one that is laying up until scheduled departure. It was addressed eventually to better align. 

Most MiWay bus operations have been shifted to Kipling Bus Terminal except for Route 26 Burnhamthrope which still provides service to Islington on a more limited capacity.  

[Tunnelrat]

6 restricted speed zones from Kennedy to Bay. I wonder if it's close to a record amount of restrictions. I can't believe the work going into VP station is still not finished.

[Shaun]

On 9/26/2023 at 6:01 PM, Tunnelrat said:

6 restricted speed zones from Kennedy to Bay. I wonder if it's close to a record amount of restrictions. I can't believe the work going into VP station is still not finished.

Weren't they doing work on the weekend? I guess it wasn't finished. 

[Mark Walton]

On 9/21/2023 at 11:04 PM, GTAmissions1 said:

<big snip>

I remember visiting Islington years ago and I won't deny the logistical challenges with separated bus platforms. I remember when MiWay Transit Routes 1 Dundas and 101 Dundas were on separate platforms. One logical solution would be to service the same platform, but it was not possible without adjusting the timing of both routes since both run pretty frequently which if one is running behind, it would be stuck behind one that is laying up until scheduled departure. It was addressed eventually to better align. 

<snip>

I remember the separated bus platforms at Victoria Park before the 2010 renos there. Plus at that station you had to go down, then up again, whether you were transferring bus> subway or vice versa. That could make the difference between making or missing a connection - especially an infrequent bus.

[Turtle]

So people are saying that the T1s need to be replaced for a moving block/ATC signal system to be installed on line 2, but they managed to do this with what were essentially H series cars back in the 60's for expo 67 in Montreal:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_Express

 

Bring back David Gunn.

 

Doesn't the London Underground run single op 50 year old trains in such a system?

 

On 6/30/2023 at 10:02 AM, nfitz said:

Yes - now there's space for 2 or 3 people to ride and block the doors as everyone is trying to get in and out.

(benefits and results of the added width of doorways from the H series cars to the T series)

I just step on their feet or bump into their cellphone on my way out. It was more fun when it was suits holding up the daily paper blocking the doors, they would get super huffy when you ripped their newspaper on the way by them.

 

"Oh, sorry sir, didn't mean to do that, I was just trying to exit the train"

[GTAmissions1]

1 hour ago, Turtle said:

Doesn't the London Underground run single op 50 year old trains in such a system?

London Underground does with the Bakerloo and Piccadilly rolling stock coming up on 50 years. Going through refurbishment to extend the lifespan. 

New York City also runs R44 rolling stock on Staten Island Railway which is around 50 years old. R46 is from 1975 to 1978 operating on A, C, N, Q, W and S lines. New York City also has rolling stock that is in the 1980s too still operating today.