Jump to content

General Subway/RT Discussion


FlyerD901
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 8/23/2017 at 8:53 AM, smallspy said:

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

Yes they can fit 6 car trains but I don't think all tracks would fit 6 car trains effectively resulting in lower storage. Right now they can separate trains that need work which they can't do with a fix set. Greenwood couldn't be expanded easily. TTC staff could use the term that it can't handle new trains just to get a new yard on the budget that can pass though city council.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Yes they can fit 6 car trains but I don't think all tracks would fit 6 car trains effectively resulting in lower storage. Right now they can separate trains that need work which they can't do with a fix set. Greenwood couldn't be expanded easily. TTC staff could use the term that it can't handle new trains just to get a new yard on the budget that can pass though city council.

Virtually all of the storage tracks were designed to store a full 6-car train, or multiples of 6-cars. It would be non-nonsensical to have to build and take-apart trainsets every day just to store them.

 

There are tracks that do have room for 6+2 cars, or 12+2 cars - those ones are used to store dead or MOW equipment at the ends, which the remainder used for service trains. That wouldn't change with a fixed-length consist.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Virtually all of the storage tracks were designed to store a full 6-car train, or multiples of 6-cars. It would be non-nonsensical to have to build and take-apart trainsets every day just to store them.

Remember that when the Bloor-Danforth opened, six-car trains were only used in rush hour, and I guess midday (not sure), but they were cut back to four cars for evening service, and four-car trains were the rule for weekends. So I would figure that most trains entering the yard in the evening would have been four cars, with a bunch of pairs that had been split off earlier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Ed T. said:

Remember that when the Bloor-Danforth opened, six-car trains were only used in rush hour, and I guess midday (not sure), but they were cut back to four cars for evening service, and four-car trains were the rule for weekends. So I would figure that most trains entering the yard in the evening would have been four cars, with a bunch of pairs that had been split off earlier.

That's true, but that's not really in play at this point. The yard has been expanded and somewhat reconfigured since then, and takes into account 6-car trains.

 

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

They might have to reconfigure a few of the tracks like that they are doing at Davisville.

They are not "reconfiguring" any tracks. At Davisville, the carhouse building is being lengthened so that the existing track 3 & track 4 can each accommodate a fixed 6-car trainset fully inside the building.

However, nothing is being done to tracks 5 & 6 (each of which can barely accommodate 8 cars inside the building, so with two 6-car trains on each, they both end up partially outside the building proper) and tracks 7, 8, 9 & 10 (each of those has room for about 2.5 cars inside and 4 cars outside, except track 9 which has room for one full 6-car train outside, plus 2.5 cars inside; however, tracks 9 and 10 are normally fully reserved for work trains). In other words, they will continue to store some trainsets with the ends sticking out of the building, unless they permanently re-allocate some runs to Wilson.

All tracks will remain in the exact same position as today.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, smallspy said:

Virtually all of the storage tracks were designed to store a full 6-car train, or multiples of 6-cars. It would be non-nonsensical to have to build and take-apart trainsets every day just to store them.

 

There are tracks that do have room for 6+2 cars, or 12+2 cars - those ones are used to store dead or MOW equipment at the ends, which the remainder used for service trains. That wouldn't change with a fixed-length consist.

 

Dan

A quick breakdown on yard capacity according to official capacity standards (not including the inside of the carhouse or the repair shops):

- 7 tracks that will support a single 4 car train only

- 4 tracks that will support a single 6 car train only

- 5 tracks that will support a 6 car train and a 2 car train

- 5  tracks that will support a 6 car train and a 4 car train

- 12 tracks that will support two 6 car trains

 

So, looking at the capacity, it breaks down as follows:

- storage of 6 car T1 trains (assuming that they are breaking them down and recoupling them daily to maximize storage): 47.667 6 car trains

- storage of 6 car TR trains: 38 trains

 

Now you can go back to arguing, with the facts.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey! I just came up with an idea that hopefully hasn't been brought up yet: how would 3-car TR sets coupled together fare on the TTC? I can see with its open gangways, it could deliver more capacity than 6-car T1 consists with 3 coupled married pairs, but more flexible train arrangements as the individual units are half the size of the current 6-car TRs. And if the DRL even comes to fruition, they can easily use individual 3-car sets in off-peak hours and couple them together for peak service - as they do in Stockholm (which has 3-car C20 sets that can form trains of 6 or 9 cars, as the image shows - note their smaller size).

21830183265_45c6ecdd73_b.jpg

That being said, computing from Archer's stats above, there would be storage space for 88 three-car sets, equivalent to 44 six-car sets. Nice compromise - except for wasted storage space equivalent to 22 single cars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Transit geek said:

Hey! I just came up with an idea that hopefully hasn't been brought up yet: how would 3-car TR sets coupled together fare on the TTC? I can see with its open gangways, it could deliver more capacity than 6-car T1 consists with 3 coupled married pairs, but more flexible train arrangements as the individual units are half the size of the current 6-car TRs. And if the DRL even comes to fruition, they can easily use individual 3-car sets in off-peak hours and couple them together for peak service - as they do in Stockholm (which has 3-car C20 sets that can form trains of 6 or 9 cars, as the image shows - note their smaller size).

21830183265_45c6ecdd73_b.jpg

That being said, computing from Archer's stats above, there would be storage space for 88 three-car sets, equivalent to 44 six-car sets. Nice compromise - except for wasted storage space equivalent to 22 single cars.

Remember cab cars cost more than the middle cars. TTC had to pay more to upgrade 4x6 cars into 6x4 cars. If those middle cabs don't get used, it's kinda a waste.

Using the above numbers, 88 3-car sets or 44 trains can fit in the yard. BD needs a capacity closer to 60 with growth and Scarborough subway. Assuming they can stuff 5 trains at Kipling, 6 at Vincent (2 train space reserved for work cars) and 4 at Scarborough Centre. That will bring us to 59. They might able to get away with not building another yard.

 

Do they couple trains regularly in Greenwood? Having 4 trains at Vincent this summer probably brought some relief.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There has been talk in the past that Greenwood would become a trainyard for relief line (primarily) with secondary storage for BD. How the hell to get a clear path from Greenwood yard to Pape is another matter, as there is no continuous cross street. The most immediately appealing is Boultbee to Jones and then squeeze along the railway line, but the French Catholic DSB just acquired the elementary school in that path and likely wouldn't be happy to move or suffer significant impacts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, dowlingm said:

There has been talk in the past that Greenwood would become a trainyard for relief line (primarily) with secondary storage for BD. How the hell to get a clear path from Greenwood yard to Pape is another matter, as there is no continuous cross street. The most immediately appealing is Boultbee to Jones and then squeeze along the railway line, but the French Catholic DSB just acquired the elementary school in that path and likely wouldn't be happy to move or suffer significant impacts.

Couldn't you simply build a track connection between the Queen Subway and the B-D and run trains in and out of service that way? You'd have to plan the schedule out a bit more, and you'll want fairly generous storage tracks on the line, but it could work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, 63 Ossington said:

TR set 596X is the one that displays "Vaughan" when heading toward Sheppard West.

That would probably be because it was the primary test train for ATC so it is programmed for the extension already,

when departing Sheppard west for Wilson it also says the announcement for Downsview park

theb gets confused and says wilson

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/3/2017 at 11:54 PM, 63 Ossington said:

TR set 596X is the one that displays "Vaughan" when heading toward Sheppard West.

There's a lot more than just that one set that display Vaughan. If you see any train that shows Sheppard West instead of Downsview on it, then it has the Vaughan update for the signs and announcements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

20170914_BoardMtg_RTP_Report_EN.pdf Metrolinx in their new plans seems to be supporting the Yonge Subway Extension and Relief Line by 2031, and Don Mills Subway and Sheppard West Subway by 2041, potentially even earlier. Thoughts on whether interlining between Sheppard Subway and Don Mills subway should occur or whether or not those two subways are even worth consideration?

Side note, they also want to do overcrowding work on the Bloor-Danforth subway, does this just mean new trains and signals or would this imply platform extensions? If platform extensions, why have those not occurred on the Yonge subway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

20170914_BoardMtg_RTP_Report_EN.pdf Metrolinx in their new plans seems to be supporting the Yonge Subway Extension and Relief Line by 2031, and Don Mills Subway and Sheppard West Subway by 2041, potentially even earlier. Thoughts on whether interlining between Sheppard Subway and Don Mills subway should occur or whether or not those two subways are even worth consideration?

Side note, they also want to do overcrowding work on the Bloor-Danforth subway, does this just mean new trains and signals or would this imply platform extensions? If platform extensions, why have those not occurred on the Yonge subway?

I have not found any specific news about the TTC awarding resignalling contracts for Line 2. This is completely understandable considering they want to see how Line 1 improves after CBTC goes into operation there. If successful, the TTC could save a big deal by extending the resignalling contracts to encompass the remaining lines and possibly even future lines like the downtown relief line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Thoughts on whether interlining between Sheppard Subway and Don Mills subway should occur or whether or not those two subways are even worth consideration?

Honestly, there is more value in questioning whether the Sheppard Subway should be converted into an extension of the Sheppard West LRT and even that discussion has very little value due to the extreme cost and difficulty in pulling that off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, skyfirenet said:

Honestly, there is more value in questioning whether the Sheppard Subway should be converted into an extension of the Sheppard West LRT and even that discussion has very little value due to the extreme cost and difficulty in pulling that off.

Aren't the tunnels too small to even consider pantograph usage and the platforms too high for LFLRV usage? That would be a few billion dollars to retrofit. The DRL and the SS would almost certainly have connections to allow train movements, so what's the matter with interlining? If that happens, people from Vaughan can easily and efficiently get to and from East Downtown without an excessive number of transfers, which is what I hope the TTC is trying to do. It would make more sense for the Sheppard East LRT to terminate at Don mills as most commuters would be heading downtown.

Also, based on my usage of the Sheppard Subway, LRV usage is not really a good idea, especially with the increase in density along the corridor. 4 car trains are standing room only during rush hour and I would think crowding 2-3 car LRTs would be a huge turn-off for many commuters up North. They are by no means crowded now but they would be if valuable space was taken away. I would argue that we should work with what we have now and try and make it into something more useful than a spur of the Yonge Subway line for commuters. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Streety McCarface said:

4 car trains are standing room only during rush hour and I would think crowding 2-3 car LRTs would be a huge turn-off for many commuters up North.

Ever try riding it outside of rush hour? Also, the Sheppard line is currently not running at its maximum train capacity at rush hour.

1 hour ago, Streety McCarface said:

Aren't the tunnels too small to even consider pantograph usage and the platforms too high for LFLRV usage? That would be a few billion dollars to retrofit.

In theory, you can install an overhead in the existing tunnels and dropping the platform height isn't exactly a parting the red sea level of difficulty assuming you couldn't modify the SELRT fleet to handle third rail operations. The problem is the crossover boxes which don't have the clearance and can't be modified without excavating them first. However, that level of work is on par with what's required to create the interlining junction between Don Mills and Leslie station. Also, there's no guarantee that the stations on the Sheppard line will have been upgraded to six car operations by then which will require all of that work to be done.

 

1 hour ago, Streety McCarface said:

The DRL and the SS would almost certainly have connections to allow train movements, so what's the matter with interlining?

Because the trains will have to maintain a minimum track speed (which means broader curves and shallower grades than a service track connection) and the interlining tunnel can't bypass Don Mills station. Also, you probably need a third platform so that trains terminating there won't interfere with interlining operations. Add to that the deep foundations to the North-West of Don Mills station, the only viable quadrant to put the interlining tunnel in, that you have to get by and you end up with an interlining tunnel that may be just as long as a one stop extension of the DRL to Finch; which would be a more useful for TTC riders.

2 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

If that happens, people from Vaughan can easily and efficiently get to and from East Downtown without an excessive number of transfers, which is what I hope the TTC is trying to do.

To be perfectly blunt, why would the TTC care to do that for such a small minority of riders? The Vaughan extension is already expected to be a financial black hole for the TTC's operations budget so why would they want to make things worse by combining it with the one known as the Sheppard subway?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, skyfirenet said:

Ever try riding it outside of rush hour? Also, the Sheppard line is currently not running at its maximum train capacity at rush hour.

In theory, you can install an overhead in the existing tunnels and dropping the platform height isn't exactly a parting the red sea level of difficulty assuming you couldn't modify the SELRT fleet to handle third rail operations. The problem is the crossover boxes which don't have the clearance and can't be modified without excavating them first. However, that level of work is on par with what's required to create the interlining junction between Don Mills and Leslie station. Also, there's no guarantee that the stations on the Sheppard line will have been upgraded to six car operations by then which will require all of that work to be done.

 

Because the trains will have to maintain a minimum track speed (which means broader curves and shallower grades than a service track connection) and the interlining tunnel can't bypass Don Mills station. Also, you probably need a third platform so that trains terminating there won't interfere with interlining operations. Add to that the deep foundations to the North-West of Don Mills station, the only viable quadrant to put the interlining tunnel in, that you have to get by and you end up with an interlining tunnel that may be just as long as a one stop extension of the DRL to Finch; which would be a more useful for TTC riders.

To be perfectly blunt, why would the TTC care to do that for such a small minority of riders? The Vaughan extension is already expected to be a financial black hole for the TTC's operations budget so why would they want to make things worse by combining it with the one known as the Sheppard subway?

I see your arguments, however, I don't know of any subway line that runs with standing room only outside of rush hours (unless you include times in which delays are present). It should also be noted that people on those lines usually take longer trips and therefore more people are on the trains for longer periods of time. If Sheppard was longer or at least had some direct connections, there would be a far greater incentive to use it, and for seats to be filled a lot. If people from the Spadina Subway and the Yonge Subway from Wilson northward wanted to get to the east side directly, they would use Sheppard/DRL. That makes far more sense than going down line one and take a bus or line 2 eastbound, especially considering the capacity constraints on all of those. With regards to train capacity, yes, it is true that they are only running trains about every 5 minutes instead of 2:30. However, considering that SELRT is supposed to travel on street, there would be outrage if they were given full priority, blocking traffic every minute (Assuming 2-minute headways each direction). Sheppard East beyond Don Mills won't even need that capacity; it makes no sense to downgrade something that can accommodate future traffic if expanded properly. 

The Eglinton Crosstown tunnels have a wider diameter for pantograph usage. I'm surprised that tunneling was less expensive than subway tunneling to be quite honest. Platforms are a huge issue because stairs have to be redone, supports rebuilt, and new escalators installed. That's far more expensive than anything keeping it as a subway. It would also be a huge hazard if the Third Rail was so close to the platform. Idiots might walk the tracks if no precautions are made. I would also think that LRVs with third rail power collectors would require the vehicle to be high floor, though I could be incorrect on that. It should also be noted that the DRL isn't supposed to even use 6 car trains when opened; I believe this was in the city report a few months ago. Also, expanding the platforms was set up in advance so it shouldn't be more than tiling and a bit of resigning. With regards to DRL expansions north, I don't believe the density up there makes sense to allow for subway service, however, if service up there ever gets demanding enough, the interline could be removed and the DRL extended north. However, if this is considered, service on Sheppard would likely require subway service at this point as well, so the loss of the interline would make sense then (but that's 40+ years away). I would argue it's not a minority, and even if it is, we must consider the future. Even within the realm of 10 years, the Portlands will be developed, and they will require heavy downtown-like subway service with the density that will follow development. People from North York, Sheppard and Don Mills will commute to that part of Downtown as they do currently with the already developed downtown area. Sheppard itself might be seen as a failure now; to which I can partly agree, however, ridership along the corridor is more than twice as high as it was before the subway was built. There's a lot of development along the corridor, and if people have connections to the west side of the city (via Eglinton and Finch West) people will want to take public transit, and people will take public transit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

If Sheppard was longer or at least had some direct connections, there would be a far greater incentive to use it, and for seats to be filled a lot.

And that is the mating call of the white elephant. "It would be a success if we just spend more money!" is a sure sign that something is failing and just spending more money is the last thing you should do.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

If people from the Spadina Subway and the Yonge Subway from Wilson northward wanted to get to the east side directly, they would use Sheppard/DRL.

But that doesn't mean that there is any value in spending a fortune on interlining the two lines. A well designed and managed transfer can be as attractive as "a subway stop in every basement and a subway that goes to every basement!" logic to riders and cost a lot less.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

it makes no sense to downgrade something that can accommodate future traffic if expanded properly. 

Unless the cost of downgrading and later restoring a line would be covered by the saving in the operating budget. That's why the "in (x) years" scam being promoted by subway promoters in Scarborough is so funny because they completely ignore the costs for the (x-1) years leading up to that point.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

I'm surprised that tunneling was less expensive than subway tunneling to be quite honest.

Because station construction was separated from tunnelling.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Platforms are a huge issue because stairs have to be redone, supports rebuilt, and new escalators installed.

Or they just leave everything as is and create ramps out of the excavated platform to access the existing stairs, escalators & elevators.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

It would also be a huge hazard if the Third Rail was so close to the platform. Idiots might walk the tracks if no precautions are made.

Idiots are currently walking on the tracks at subway stations and the TTC has been dragging its heals on platform barriers for years.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

It should also be noted that the DRL isn't supposed to even use 6 car trains when opened; I believe this was in the city report a few months ago.

You do realize that the Eglinton- Sheppard portion of the DRL is phase 3 or 4; not phase one.

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

With regards to DRL expansions north, I don't believe the density up there makes sense to allow for subway service,

Google "Seneca Newnham campus."

13 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

There's a lot of development along the corridor, and if people have connections to the west side of the city (via Eglinton and Finch West) people will want to take public transit, and people will take public transit. 

And once again, someone somehow ignore the existence of the 401 when pushing for subways to everywhere on Sheppard.

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...