Streetcar News

[skyfirenet]

This is the key really. 204 new LRV's does nothing but increase capacity, it does not address the general lack of streetcars that the TTC has had for as long as I can remember. Hopefully the order does get expanded, even an additional 20 LRV's on top of the 204 will help matters dramatically.

The interesting question though is whether the TTC should go with a shorter version if they get the money for more Flexitys.

[soo8513]

There are a number of things that could improve service on streetcar lines in the downtown core:

+ better parking, standing enforcement - saw officers out on Dundas West this morning

+ a short-turn strategy - not all King and Dundas cars need to run the full route 7am - 7pm

+ construct an off-street loop west & east of the core --- ever see how long a Dundas Church car takes to reverse back westbound via Church, Queen, Victoria?

+ add 20 or 30 3-part (rather than 5-part) Flexitys to the new order

+ slow LRV retirements to increase the fleet size until the expanded Flexity order is complete (2018?)

[smallspy]

This is the key really. 204 new LRV's does nothing but increase capacity, it does not address the general lack of streetcars that the TTC has had for as long as I can remember. Hopefully the order does get expanded, even an additional 20 LRV's on top of the 204 will help matters dramatically.

Don't get me wrong, I too would like the order increased.

But how exactly does increasing capacity not address the "general lack of streetcars"? The number streetcars in service now is only a problem because they don't as a whole provide enough capacity for the service - if they were all ALRVs, than they would have enough capacity for what is needed on the streetcar routes today. When the new cars come online, we get a net increase in capacity because we are buying the equivalent of 400+ CLRVs, even though it is 204 cars in total.

Dan

[skyfirenet]

But how exactly does increasing capacity not address the "general lack of streetcars"?

I think lip is pointing towards the "more capacity less often" scheduling that the TTC has been hinting at with the Flexitys.

[Shaun]

Thats not such a problem provided they come on time. Currently even on Queen with 5 minute head ways you end up with 5 street cars coming at the same time after 20 minutes.

[lip]

Thats not such a problem provided they come on time. Currently even on Queen with 5 minute head ways you end up with 5 street cars coming at the same time after 20 minutes.

That's a big "IF". The TTC cant even adequately space out the streetcars that run on various lines right now. Do you really expect this problem to get any better once the LRV's arrive, and the CLRVs and ALRVs are fully retired? Try selling this to someone who sees 3-5 LRVs bunching up on Queen after waiting 20 mins for a streetcar.

But how exactly does increasing capacity not address the "general lack of streetcars"? The number streetcars in service now is only a problem because they don't as a whole provide enough capacity for the service - if they were all ALRVs, than they would have enough capacity for what is needed on the streetcar routes today. When the new cars come online, we get a net increase in capacity because we are buying the equivalent of 400+ CLRVs, even though it is 204 cars in total.

Dan

I'll have to disagree with you here. There was a point in time where the TTC operated a fleet of close to 400 streetcars on a network that is similar in size to what we have today (the only major additions have been the Spadina and Harbourfront Lines which require additional streetcars). Basically since that time, the streetcar fleet has not grown and they have basically stretched there resources so thin to the point that there is barely enough streetcars to operate a reliable service. The LRVs will no doubt increase capacity, but we are basically playing a catch up game to the capacity that the streetcar system used to have.

[Shaun]

That's a big "IF". The TTC cant even adequately space out the streetcars that run on various lines right now. Do you really expect this problem to get any better once the LRV's arrive, and the CLRVs and ALRVs are fully retired? Try selling this to someone who sees 3-5 LRVs bunching up on Queen after waiting 20 mins for a streetcar.

I'll have to disagree with you here. There was a point in time where the TTC operated a fleet of close to 400 streetcars on a network that is similar in size to what we have today (the only major additions have been the Spadina and Harbourfront Lines which require additional streetcars). Basically since that time, the streetcar fleet has not grown and they have basically stretched there resources so thin to the point that there is barely enough streetcars to operate a reliable service. The LRVs will no doubt increase capacity, but we are basically playing a catch up game to the capacity that the streetcar system used to have.

Better management of vehicle headways? It's that simple.

With the Eglinton Line being built, will they be able to short turn trains anywhere other than at the terminal stations?

40 minute wait for the 32 bus in the freezing cold today. I dont understand why they cant figure out that there are 8 buses going in one direction and 0 going in the other.

[smallspy]

I'll have to disagree with you here. There was a point in time where the TTC operated a fleet of close to 400 streetcars on a network that is similar in size to what we have today (the only major additions have been the Spadina and Harbourfront Lines which require additional streetcars). Basically since that time, the streetcar fleet has not grown and they have basically stretched there resources so thin to the point that there is barely enough streetcars to operate a reliable service. The LRVs will no doubt increase capacity, but we are basically playing a catch up game to the capacity that the streetcar system used to have.

The capacity of those 400 streetcars - on a smaller network to boot - was less than they have now, so I'm not entirely sure what you are getting at, exactly.

The TTC knows that they are (and have been) short of capacity on the lines. That's what the new cars are going to address.

Until they reach an impossibly low number (say, 1), the actual physical number of cars is irrelevant.

Dan

[skyfirenet]

Better management of vehicle headways? It's that simple.

Actually, it's not. For starters, where are the streetcars supposed to wait to reestablish the correct headways between them while not obstructing traffic?

[Shaun]

That's what loops are for. Plus there are lots of streets that have tracks but dont have regular traffic like church street.

[skyfirenet]

That's what loops are for. Plus there are lots of streets that have tracks but dont have regular traffic like church street.

Except that most are designed for short turns; not headway correcting. As a result, they need to be rebuilt. Also, the TTC needs more loops regardless.

As for using the secondary track, you don't solve the traffic problem because those streets still have on street parking. You also have the problem of how streetcars are supposed to get back onto their original route and continue in their original direction of travel.

[Ed T.]

With the new accessible streetcars come accessible platforms. The TTC has done that along Lake Shore Blvd.

What they don't have, and I'm not sure how to do it, is:

1. Accessible platform for boarding a streetcar turning back eastbound at Humber
   
2. Accessible platform for alighting (officail TTC term!) at Long Branch loop
   

In both cases, passengers are stuck walking along open track. There isn't even a place to put a platform at either loop unless you take away the second track.

Anyone have any ideas? I'd look forward to the TTC solving this, but sometimes their solutions are....not what you really want to see.

[smallspy]

It's been a while since I've been out at Humber, but isn't there at least one, and maybe two paved walkways across the tracks to the eb platform?

As for the ramps, they are designed to be lowered to the road level. Platform height, or lack thereof at Humber, is not an issue.

Dan

[lip]

With the new accessible streetcars come accessible platforms. The TTC has done that along Lake Shore Blvd.

What they don't have, and I'm not sure how to do it, is:

1. Accessible platform for boarding a streetcar turning back eastbound at Humber

    

2. Accessible platform for alighting (officail TTC term!) at Long Branch loop

    

This is actually a very important problem that you brought up and I never even thought about it. The Long Branch loop is an issue since although they reconstructed it, its only capable of holding the full length of one LRV and that would be where customers board the streetcars. If streetcars bunch up (which is guaranteed to happen) and if someone with a mobility device needs to exit, this would no doubt cause issues.

The only solutions I could come up with are:

A)Remove/Reconfigure the double track

B)Increase the platform height around the curve (however I imagine there would be significant engineering issues to overcome)

[Ed T.]

It's been a while since I've been out at Humber, but isn't there at least one, and maybe two paved walkways across the tracks to the eb platform?

Which eastbound platform? There's one for through cars coming from Long Branch, but anyone boarding a Humber car has to go to the far corner where the sharp and gradual curves rejoin the through eastbound track.

As for the ramps, they are designed to be lowered to the road level. Platform height, or lack thereof at Humber, is not an issue.

They are, but

1. Road level implies quite a width of pavement--a full lane--for the wheelchair to maneouvre off. There is no way the paved platform for E/B through cars is wide enough. For the loop exit "stops", I'm not sure there's anything there at all. The inside track gets used mostly; so the outside trick would have to be paved, and you're still dealing with embedded tracks.

    

2. I would expect the aim is to have raised platforms and minimum gaps/steps wherever possible. There may not be much desire to leave a few as "substandard"

    

This is actually a very important problem that you brought up and I never even thought about it.

I only started considering it when they removed my local stop at 39th St. I really hate getting out at Long Branch loop. You step right into snowy slush in winter or dirt in summer. I plod east along the tracks to the sidewalk on Lake Shore hoping that I don't get run over by a streetcar.

The Long Branch loop is an issue since although they reconstructed it, its only capable of holding the full length of one LRV and that would be where customers board the streetcars. If streetcars bunch up (which is guaranteed to happen) and if someone with a mobility device needs to exit, this would no doubt cause issues.

The platform can only hold one LRV, but the loop PRW can hold a lot more than that. You're darn right they will get bunched up. Two ALRVs sitting in the loop is very common; three is unusual but not infinitely improbable. Four, I haven't seen, though there's likely room.

The only solutions I could come up with are:

A)Remove/Reconfigure the double track

B)Increase the platform height around the curve (however I imagine there would be significant engineering issues to overcome)

At Long Branch, streetcars almost invariably lay over for a while before pulling up to the platform, loading, and departing. As long as this model is kept, you want to drop off passengers before the favourite layover spot, which is right at the curve close to the operators' washroom.

At Humber, when Queen and Long Branch were two separate routes, Queen cars would (as I recall) let people out at the far east end of the platform by the shelter/store, lay over as necessary, and load at the west end. I don't think there were a lot of times when passengers had to cross the tracks to catch them while exiting the loop. I have no idea what happened late at night when the Queen car ran through to/from Long Branch, though.

[smallspy]

Which eastbound platform? There's one for through cars coming from Long Branch, but anyone boarding a Humber car has to go to the far corner where the sharp and gradual curves rejoin the through eastbound track.

Right, forgot about the loop tracks. I was referring to the "mainline" platform immediately opposite the shelter.

They are, but

1. Road level implies quite a width of pavement--a full lane--for the wheelchair to maneouvre off. There is no way the paved platform for E/B through cars is wide enough.

Road level implies nothing. It looks like at full extension that the ramp is about 4 or 5 feet long. Definately well short of the full width of a lane, and it should fit on the paved platform.

For the loop exit "stops", I'm not sure there's anything there at all. The inside track gets used mostly; so the outside trick would have to be paved, and you're still dealing with embedded tracks.

This is a definate problem. The easiest and cheapest solution would be to put a rule into place that states that eastbound cars looping at Humber must wait for their time in front of the shelter, but this raises at least as many potential headaches as it solves.

In the not-so-long run, I would think that the TTC will get rid of the inner loop track and keep the "MU" track intact - and put a paved platform out there.

2. I would expect the aim is to have raised platforms and minimum gaps/steps wherever possible. There may not be much desire to leave a few as "substandard"

I don't think that is as much of a concern. The step from the road to the floor is only 12 or 14 inches, and the ramps are perfectly capable of dealing with road-level platforms.

Dan

[lip]

The platform can only hold one LRV, but the loop PRW can hold a lot more than that. You're darn right they will get bunched up. Two ALRVs sitting in the loop is very common; three is unusual but not infinitely improbable. Four, I haven't seen, though there's likely room.

Actually 3-4 streetcars bunching at Long Branch is pretty common during rush hours. Heck i've even seen 6 at one point in time (mix of CLRVs and ALRVs).

If transit control cant get it together when the new LRV's are delivered, things will certainly get really interesting.

[Ed T.]

Road level implies nothing. It looks like at full extension that the ramp is about 4 or 5 feet long. Definately well short of the full width of a lane, and it should fit on the paved platform.

But you need level paved space beyond the end of the ramp so that any wheelchair getting off has someplace to go at the end of the ramp.

[nfitz]

But you need level paved space beyond the end of the ramp so that any wheelchair getting off has someplace to go at the end of the ramp.

I wonder how long it will take, before a car drives over the extended ramp. How far do they protrude past the vehicle?

[skyfirenet]

At least the TTC can sometimes take advantage of an opportunity.

[lip]

At least the TTC can sometimes take advantage of an opportunity.

Beat me to the punch skyfire! I had no idea that any of the LRVs had returned from Bombardier.

[smallspy]

Beat me to the punch skyfire! I had no idea that any of the LRVs had returned from Bombardier.

Returned? 2 of them had never gone.

Dan

[lip]

Returned? 2 of them had never gone.

Dan

Guess im getting confused over this. I thought they were all sent back for modifications after the LRV from Ottawa completed its weather testing...my mistake.

[Oc4526]

On the topic of 4400, Anyone know when its expected to arrive back in Toronto?.

[Gil]

Has anyone noticed more drivers are using the red signs on their streetcars reading either Short Turn or Not in Service? Is this a recent directive from management or something else. I'm sure the driver gets all sorts of questions when displaying Short Turn as to how far he's going. Perhaps he doesn't know?!