Jump to content
buschic

TTC in the news

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

I believe they either pick 70% or fully low floor. Considering how tight those aisles are between the 4 seaters, mobility devices are stuck in the ramp section of the car. It wouldn't have matter too much if the 3 trucks had steps but people won't want to be standing on those steps in crush load.

Either way, even if they could change all seats to face forward, there won't be much leg room so it wouldn't work. Probably better if they did two seats facing each other and create more standing space or perimeter seating.

 

Because of this I really hope Dougie's Ontario Line uses HF models. It'll be a disaster if they picked the Confederation Line technology to be used.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Cityflyer said:

https://stevemunro.ca/2020/01/14/toronto-budget-2020-more-transit-money-but-how-will-it-be-used/#more-25974

Am I the only one glad they are thinking of reversing the decision to rebuild the T1 fleet?

No one wants to see them in operation until the mid 2030s.

I don't see anything wrong with them running until then, if the cars perform well and are able to deliver the service required of them. Every subway class besides the H2 and H6 lasted to their mid 30s.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Shaun said:

Plus there is no mention of capital expenditures to procure new rolling stock. 

That's okay. Remember the proposal to replace the Queens Quay-Union tunnel with a motorized walkway? My Sooper Sekrit Sources say that they have found a much bigger, better use for the proposal materials! The Roads Must Roll!

B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

I don't see anything wrong with them running until then, if the cars perform well and are able to deliver the service required of them. Every subway class besides the H2 and H6 lasted to their mid 30s.

Except that the problem may be bigger than just that.

 

If you think back to the whole issue with the TRs and the additional orders of them, the crux of the whole argument about getting more TRs was that the T1s couldn't (easily) be retrofitted for the incoming ATC/ATO system that was going to be used on the TYSSE, and eventually the whole of the YUS. And because of this, there are now a lot more T1s than is strictly necessary to operate the B-D.

 

With now another impending signal modernization project - perhaps tied in to the extension of the B-D, but perhaps not - this whole idea of rebuilding the T1s yet again to get 40+ years of life out of them screamed of either a sleight-of-hand trick ("look, the capital budget isn't actually that bad!") at best, and a really large, problematic, and possibly systemic departmental communication issue within the TTC at worst. They couldn't be upgraded on the YUS, so how can we expect them to be done for the B-D?

 

Dan

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smallspy said:

Except that the problem may be bigger than just that.

 

If you think back to the whole issue with the TRs and the additional orders of them, the crux of the whole argument about getting more TRs was that the T1s couldn't (easily) be retrofitted for the incoming ATC/ATO system that was going to be used on the TYSSE, and eventually the whole of the YUS. And because of this, there are now a lot more T1s than is strictly necessary to operate the B-D.

 

With now another impending signal modernization project - perhaps tied in to the extension of the B-D, but perhaps not - this whole idea of rebuilding the T1s yet again to get 40+ years of life out of them screamed of either a sleight-of-hand trick ("look, the capital budget isn't actually that bad!") at best, and a really large, problematic, and possibly systemic departmental communication issue within the TTC at worst. They couldn't be upgraded on the YUS, so how can we expect them to be done for the B-D?

 

Dan

It sounded more like the finance department can't balance the budget and just put something together for last year to get by. 

Maybe it did help raise awareness around city hall about the major issues. It's like "We have no money John Tory. We know this won't work but we have no choice unless we get new trains." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

It sounded more like the finance department can't balance the budget and just put something together for last year to get by. 

Maybe it did help raise awareness around city hall about the major issues. It's like "We have no money John Tory. We know this won't work but we have no choice unless we get new trains." 

I guess that even replacing the computer that controls the trains was considered? The trains of the past where mostly mechanical. The T1's have a lot of electronics and computers that control it's operations, and I guess that's why they cannot be in service for as long as the previous cars where. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, smallspy said:

Except that the problem may be bigger than just that.

 

If you think back to the whole issue with the TRs and the additional orders of them, the crux of the whole argument about getting more TRs was that the T1s couldn't (easily) be retrofitted for the incoming ATC/ATO system that was going to be used on the TYSSE, and eventually the whole of the YUS. And because of this, there are now a lot more T1s than is strictly necessary to operate the B-D.

 

With now another impending signal modernization project - perhaps tied in to the extension of the B-D, but perhaps not - this whole idea of rebuilding the T1s yet again to get 40+ years of life out of them screamed of either a sleight-of-hand trick ("look, the capital budget isn't actually that bad!") at best, and a really large, problematic, and possibly systemic departmental communication issue within the TTC at worst. They couldn't be upgraded on the YUS, so how can we expect them to be done for the B-D?

 

Dan

That's fair enough, though I suppose their inability to work with the upgraded signal system would be a case of them not being "able to deliver the service required of them". I was more speaking on the general notion of no one wanting to see the T1s operate until the mid 2030s... they may be a bit long in the tooth, but there's very little in the way of the passenger experience that they lack that couldn't be remedied with some interior upgrades (like the tactile strips on the floor).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

That's fair enough, though I suppose their inability to work with the upgraded signal system would be a case of them not being "able to deliver the service required of them". I was more speaking on the general notion of no one wanting to see the T1s operate until the mid 2030s... they may be a bit long in the tooth, but there's very little in the way of the passenger experience that they lack that couldn't be remedied with some interior upgrades (like the tactile strips on the floor).

I would think it would be possible to strip them to the frame and then install all new train control equipment with the latest technology. 

But at that point it might be easier to build new cars from scratch, plus with the open gangway design you have less cabs, which require less maintenance and can carry more passengers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Having newer trains on Line 2 is also a way to improve capacity since the TRs (and the T1 replacements) will carry 10% more passengers than the T1s. Since we know ATC won't be live for Line 2 by the time of the original planned T1 replacement at the end of this decade, having newer TR type trains is a short term capacity enhancement before ATC is live on Line 2 which will provide another capacity increase.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

That's fair enough, though I suppose their inability to work with the upgraded signal system would be a case of them not being "able to deliver the service required of them". I was more speaking on the general notion of no one wanting to see the T1s operate until the mid 2030s... they may be a bit long in the tooth, but there's very little in the way of the passenger experience that they lack that couldn't be remedied with some interior upgrades (like the tactile strips on the floor).

There's no doubt that the T1s are capable of operating for that long, especially considering the current levels of service required of them and the spares ratio.

 

But if the signal system gets upgraded on the B-D - as it will need to - than it's not going to matter what the T1s are or aren't capable of, if they aren't capable of being upgraded to make use of it.

 

Dan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/14/2020 at 7:10 PM, Shaun said:

I would think it would be possible to strip them to the frame and then install all new train control equipment with the latest technology.

Slightly off-topic, but that's exactly what was done in Budapest with the old 81-717s rebuilt into the 81-717.2K (not literally in Budapest itself - they were shipped back to Russia for the rebuild, then back to Budapest). Several other subway systems had their 81-717s rebuilt to the same extent.

On 1/14/2020 at 7:10 PM, Shaun said:

But at that point it might be easier to build new cars from scratch, plus with the open gangway design you have less cabs, which require less maintenance and can carry more passengers.

Actually, the fact that the T1s are married pairs and non-articulated should make them easier to maintain, since they can be easily coupled and uncoupled, unlike the TRs. One of the main reasons the T1 life extension was proposed to begin with is specifically because Greenwood can only maintain pairs of cars, not permanent 6-car sets like the TR - they'd need the new Obico yard for that, and in case Obico couldn't be built before the end of the decade for budget reasons, what choice does it leave other than keeping the T1s until it does get built and the replacement trains can only then be deployed.

Edited by 81-717

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, 81-717 said:

Actually, the fact that the T1s are married pairs and non-articulated should make them easier to maintain, since they can be easily coupled and uncoupled, unlike the TRs. One of the main reasons the T1 life extension was proposed to begin with is specifically because Greenwood can only maintain pairs of cars, not permanent 6-car sets like the TR - they'd need the new Obico yard for that, and in case Obico couldn't be built before the end of the decade for budget reasons, what choice does it leave other than keeping the T1s until it does get built and new trains are delivered.

if that is the issue then they should upgrade Greenwood just like Wilson. I'm pretty sure Wilson wasn't built to handle TRs back in the 70s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Cityflyer said:

if that is the issue then they should upgrade Greenwood just like Wilson. I'm pretty sure Wilson wasn't built to handle TRs back in the 70s.

From what I've heard it's not possible to upgrade Greenwood due to lack of available space - apparently it'd be easier to just build a new yard in the west end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cityflyer said:

if that is the issue then they should upgrade Greenwood just like Wilson. I'm pretty sure Wilson wasn't built to handle TRs back in the 70s.

Wilson has plenty of space at the north end. Greenwood is locked in by residents. I believe the shops don't support TR length trains either so they'll have to build a new one then rip this one apart for reconfiguration if it was to be used for the Relief Line.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Wilson has plenty of space at the north end. Greenwood is locked in by residents. I believe the shops don't support TR length trains either so they'll have to build a new one then rip this one apart for reconfiguration if it was to be used for the Relief Line.

You mean Greenwood doesnt support the whole length of TR train in their service bays? I guess they cannot be split for service?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Wilson has plenty of space at the north end. Greenwood is locked in by residents. I believe the shops don't support TR length trains either so they'll have to build a new one then rip this one apart for reconfiguration if it was to be used for the Relief Line.

Which honestly brings into question why QP is fucking around with the Relief line plans. Theoretically, Greenwood would be a great main yard for the Relief Line and a good secondary yard for Line 2, somewhat similar to how Davisville is the main yard for Line 4 and a secondary yard for Line 1 (since Wilson is larger, I believe more trains at Davisville are stored for Line 1) (assuming the number of trains required would be greater than what an Obico yard would be able to handle). This just complicates the whole yard rotation issue. If the SSE and signal modernization occurred, Obico could be built within 5-6 years, being complete in about 2026. The Relief line wouldn't be open till 2031 at least, so that gives them 5 years to reconfigure Greenwood. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Streety McCarface said:

Which honestly brings into question why QP is fucking around with the Relief line plans. Theoretically, Greenwood would be a great main yard for the Relief Line and a good secondary yard for Line 2, somewhat similar to how Davisville is the main yard for Line 4 and a secondary yard for Line 1 (since Wilson is larger, I believe more trains at Davisville are stored for Line 1) (assuming the number of trains required would be greater than what an Obico yard would be able to handle). This just complicates the whole yard rotation issue. If the SSE and signal modernization occurred, Obico could be built within 5-6 years, being complete in about 2026. The Relief line wouldn't be open till 2031 at least, so that gives them 5 years to reconfigure Greenwood. 

The relief line would totally work in TTC's favour but QP gets much less fame for paying more. With their plan, they get their way to reach more community and possible relief from the GO network.

33 minutes ago, MK78 said:

You mean Greenwood doesnt support the whole length of TR train in their service bays? I guess they cannot be split for service?

That would be unnecessary work if that doesn't have to be done. Can it be done vs. time-wise and financially feasible is two different things.

I could be wrong about the length of the shops. It has been a decade since I visited that place.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Xtrazsteve said:

The relief line would totally work in TTC's favour but QP gets much less fame for paying more. With their plan, they get their way to reach more community and possible relief from the GO network.

That would be unnecessary work if that doesn't have to be done. Can it be done vs. time-wise and financially feasible is two different things.

I could be wrong about the length of the shops. It has been a decade since I visited that place.

Idk about you, but if I was living north of Eglinton and expecting Relief Line North to be built, I'd be more pissed that it's not being built now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Streety McCarface said:

Idk about you, but if I was living north of Eglinton and expecting Relief Line North to be built, I'd be more pissed that it's not being built now. 

You know that's not going to happen in a foreseeable period of time. They have hard enough trouble getting funds for the Relief Line south. In fact that was never funded as Ford went directly with the Ontario Line and how can we expect Relief Line North will get fund in the next decade? By the time Sheppard subway every gets built into Scarborough, many who supported it instead of the LRT in the late 00s would be living near the end of their lives.

Even if Relief Line South goes through and they decides on the next phase, it will more likely be Danforth to Eglinton, not Sheppard. By the time that's done, the question would be Eglinton to Sheppard first or Relief Line westwards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, 81-717 said:

From what I've heard it's not possible to upgrade Greenwood due to lack of available space - apparently it'd be easier to just build a new yard in the west end.

The issue with Greenwood is that there isn't enough space for the fleet that is already there. This is why they reactivated Vincent Yard, and why there has been so much pressure to build another yard. It would be no problem to rebuild Greenwood to handle 6-car fixed consists - just like they did with Wilson - but first they would need a place to store a decent amount of the fleet while the work was done. (Which also, incidentally, was a problem with Wilson during the first couple of phases of construction there, too.)

 

Now, that could change should they decide to move the heavy rebuild facility from there, but there doesn't seem to be much of an appetite to do that at this time.

 

12 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Which honestly brings into question why QP is fucking around with the Relief line plans.

 

It should be patently obvious why things have progressed as they have. Metrolinx has to show that they are better and smarter than everyone else, and the Ontario Line concept is just that. And they've managed to sell Queens Park on it, just as they've managed to sell them on so many other things over the years. (Ask yourself why buses with 20+ year design lives are getting replaced at 10 and 12 years, for instance.)


You won't want to take a look at the backlash from the residents along the line, though....


Dan

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...