nfitz Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 3 hours ago, smallspy said: There are a lot of other issues that are far more restrictive on the vehicle's design that rules out most off-the-shelf models. Which is why TTC went back to the market. Because anyone with half a brain knew that there was no one else who could meet the timeframe for full delivery - and likely couldn't beat the price either. It was just show for the commissioners with less than half a brain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 14 hours ago, drum118 said: If you talk to any car manufacturers, they will tell you track gauge play every little in manufacture of a car. The width of the car does to the point the same width car can fit various track gauge, but the clearance between tracks will change to keep the same clearance between the cars. Why did other US system using standard gauge for their PCC fleet were able to fit TTC gauge when TTC purchased them in the first place??? There is a caveat to this, as high floor cars greatly simplify these kinds of things. With a high floor car - like a PCC or CLRV - the trucks are able to rotate with great freedom underneath the car. Therefore, so long as you aren't actually changing the wheelbase of the trucks, there's virtually no reason why you can't change the track gauge. That's why cars from Kansas City (4' 8 1/2") could easily run in Toronto (4' 10 7/8") and Philadelphia (5' 2 1/4") with only a change to the wheel gauge and no major modifications otherwise. But on a low floor car, the trucks are enveloped by the carbody. Rotation is already limited, and broader track gauges can limit this amount even more. This isn't much of an issue with the Toronto cars, as their rotation is very limited as it is, but with some of the other designs that use freely rotating trucks (such as Skoda's ForCity, or some flavours of Alstom's Citadis), this can be problematic. Dan 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3G Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 While we are on the topic of truck rotation, is there any way to offset the poor ride quality of cars like the Flexitys, such as banked curves? Or does that not make a difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 4 hours ago, T3G said: While we are on the topic of truck rotation, is there any way to offset the poor ride quality of cars like the Flexitys, such as banked curves? Or does that not make a difference? Softer suspension can help, but it also has its drawbacks. Same goes with changing to super-resilient wheelsets, which the TTC has already done. Beyond those, change the track geometry. And in fairness, the TTC is already starting to do this. Dan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3G Posted January 24 Report Share Posted January 24 2 hours ago, smallspy said: Softer suspension can help, but it also has its drawbacks. Same goes with changing to super-resilient wheelsets, which the TTC has already done. Beyond those, change the track geometry. And in fairness, the TTC is already starting to do this. Dan Thanks. Though I should've phrased my question more specifically, what exactly I was wondering about are high speed curves like the ones on the Queensway just east of Humber. Assuming no SOP has been instituted to slow operations on this stretch, can a Flexity traverse the curves at anything resembling speed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WoodbineSecondExit Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 On 1/22/2023 at 9:25 AM, Turtle said: Yes, that's not the only on in the network. Another long one is on the ramps at St. Clair West station, Bathurst to Tweedsmuir. Normally, anywhere under troff is less than 15km/h, and in the station was less than 10km/h (switches, trackwork, curves), but once they were clear they could speed up. Usually this time of year they put in a speed restriction on the Spadina portal from Sussex, and the Bay street portal from the top of the ramp, but that last one isn't too bad since it isn't a long stretch and they have to go slow once they reach the curve into Ferry Docks station anyways. Right now with rail squeal season and residents complaining, you get a reduction to less than 5km/h in McCaul loop. Track issues down in Exhibition give you a stupid long speed restriction beside the GO tracks. That particular issue has been ongoing for more than 2 years. They repaired it, but the repair was crappy. It's something I'd love to see somebody like Steve Munro cover. He's usually very accurate and detailed with his articles. There is a page full of network speed restrictions for various reasons, from track defects (cracked rails, etc) and overhead issues to prevent panto drops or damage essentially. The troff restrictions I get. It's been like that for as long as I remember but it raises eyebrows now that those restrictions are beginning to extend far out from those locations. I'm trying to get a handle on how much of the Spadina route is under some kind of slow order or speed restriction (excluding the curves, turns, and stops obviously). The route is about 5.4 km one way and if the entire Queens Quay section is under speed restrictions then by my calculations, nearly 40% of the route has to operate at a restricted speed which is ludicrous any way you slice it. Does slowing speeds to 5 km/h through curves really reduce squealing? I've seen some cars go around curves at very low speed and all that accomplished was causing the squeal to last 2-3 times longer than it would have had the car gone through at a higher speed. I feel sorry for the people who live near Leslie. I was waiting for the Don Mills bus at Pape one night and the early morning cars leaving for St. Clair were making their way out and I could hear the squealing at the bus stop from over 800 metres away! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 57 minutes ago, WoodbineSecondExit said: The troff restrictions I get. It's been like that for as long as I remember but it raises eyebrows now that those restrictions are beginning to extend far out from those locations. I'm trying to get a handle on how much of the Spadina route is under some kind of slow order or speed restriction (excluding the curves, turns, and stops obviously). The route is about 5.4 km one way and if the entire Queens Quay section is under speed restrictions then by my calculations, nearly 40% of the route has to operate at a restricted speed which is ludicrous any way you slice it. Does slowing speeds to 5 km/h through curves really reduce squealing? I've seen some cars go around curves at very low speed and all that accomplished was causing the squeal to last 2-3 times longer than it would have had the car gone through at a higher speed. I feel sorry for the people who live near Leslie. I was waiting for the Don Mills bus at Pape one night and the early morning cars leaving for St. Clair were making their way out and I could hear the squealing at the bus stop from over 800 metres away! On curves near stations they have a greasing machine to reduce the noise. It's not like CLRV's were immune to this. It's a fact of life if you live near the street car tracks. Live with it or move to the suburbs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 11 hours ago, WoodbineSecondExit said: The troff restrictions I get. It's been like that for as long as I remember but it raises eyebrows now that those restrictions are beginning to extend far out from those locations. Those extensions only occur during the winter. They are shutting down St Clair Oct 2023 - Feb 2024 for work, some of that work is to fix that problem. They have closures nightly at St Clair West this week for engineers to walk around, measure stuff. The pantographs go too low while going down the ramps into the station, risking damage. They will probably modify the approach angle and lower the rails on the ramps. They have to do work in the station loop there too, as well as some work on Oakwood loop, but I don't know the scope of the remaining work. At the end, they might end up with a less steep ramp, making it easier for the buses to climb in the winter and using less sand on the streetcars for traction, but we will still have a 10km/h speed through the station. Maybe a little smoother track work for the first little while until it wears in. 11 hours ago, WoodbineSecondExit said: I'm trying to get a handle on how much of the Spadina route is under some kind of slow order or speed restriction (excluding the curves, turns, and stops obviously). The route is about 5.4 km one way and if the entire Queens Quay section is under speed restrictions then by my calculations, nearly 40% of the route has to operate at a restricted speed which is ludicrous any way you slice it. They get a lot of pantograph drops in the portal and on the approach in the tunnel to Spadina Station. The panto drops automatically when some condition is met on the controller circuitry. Loss of conductivity, snagging, etc. They have the streetcar pantographs set really sensitive, so they drop down when you look at them the wrong way. A few cars out there have panto cameras, used mainly for testing new overhead conversions, to film what the overhead and panto is doing. You can see the camera from the open side of the streetcar, somewhere on the roof near the rear of the first module. Even with it being sensitive, it does not always drop in time to prevent damage: A pantograph drop is considered an accident, even when no damage occurs. The panto is designed to drop down to prevent damage. When it does, the pantograph remains locked down until the car is brought back to the garage to have an inspection done. If they are lucky enough to have this happen on a hybrid section of overhead, after the on street accident investigation is complete and the overhead crews have inspected the overhead, they can drive that car back to the yard on pole. If that area is panto only overhead, they have to tow the car back. Sometimes they get creative and tow it back to a spot in the network that is hybrid, uncouple on the street and operate it back on pole from there. 11 hours ago, WoodbineSecondExit said: Does slowing speeds to 5 km/h through curves really reduce squealing? I've seen some cars go around curves at very low speed and all that accomplished was causing the squeal to last 2-3 times longer than it would have had the car gone through at a higher speed. I feel sorry for the people who live near Leslie. I was waiting for the Don Mills bus at Pape one night and the early morning cars leaving for St. Clair were making their way out and I could hear the squealing at the bus stop from over 800 metres away! No, but they think so. It makes it appear that they are trying to do something even though no amount of greasing will stop the squealing on some days. The official reasoning is that slower = less loud even though slower = longer, and slower makes the grease last longer. That's what they say. When you have a 100ft rail vehicle going through every 5 - 10 minutes while you are trying to sleep or concentrate on work, nothing helps. Some of the streetcars have onboard rail greasers that are activated by gps. They are on the center module, the one with the panto. When you hear a pump running on a curve, but it isn't the sand blowers, that is probably one of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 14 hours ago, T3G said: Thanks. Though I should've phrased my question more specifically, what exactly I was wondering about are high speed curves like the ones on the Queensway just east of Humber. Assuming no SOP has been instituted to slow operations on this stretch, can a Flexity traverse the curves at anything resembling speed? From an engineering standpoint, a Flexity can do anything - and at the same speed - that a CLRV can do. From a safety standpoint, however, the Flexity will not be as smooth through transitions as a CLRV, so it's possible that people may get thrown around more. That would be a reason to lower the speeds. Dan 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfitz Posted January 25 Report Share Posted January 25 2 hours ago, smallspy said: From a safety standpoint, however, the Flexity will not be as smooth through transitions as a CLRV, so it's possible that people may get thrown around more. That would be a reason to lower the speeds. Certainly on curves. I've seen passengers in the very back thrown across the aisle, on a 90-degree curve, that's just a shade too fast. Especially on 90-degree curves where there's no special trackwork. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 On 1/25/2023 at 9:02 AM, smallspy said: From an engineering standpoint, a Flexity can do anything - and at the same speed - that a CLRV can do. Except stay on the rails. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 On 1/25/2023 at 11:40 AM, nfitz said: Certainly on curves. I've seen passengers in the very back thrown across the aisle, on a 90-degree curve, that's just a shade too fast. Especially on 90-degree curves where there's no special trackwork. Yes, tail whip. Stupid design, they wanted 100% low floor, but they could have sneaked in high floor sections on the ends to install proper trucks kinda like the Skoda 15T does, and still have a mostly fully accessible lrv that actually provides a decent ride. I don't see people complaining that the lflrv isn't 100% fully accessible today, even though that was one of the excuses for going with the flexity family. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 If you want to get rid of stop check and go, and all of the other procedures that cause a stupid amount of delays on the streetcar network (i.e. 5 minutes end to end on the 510), you need to install double pointed heated switches, with detection, as well as: - some form of rudimentary signal protection system to prevent collisions -link that protection system with the general traffic signals to allow turns or diversions on to other lines, protected of course -a modern way of selecting route for each rail vehicle, it would be ideal if route wasn't centrally controlled ($$$ labour costs of running a control center, and delays when that control center runs into technical trouble), but the current system needs stop check and go for it to function safely even if double pointed heated switches were in place today....we need a more logical route selection process where the entire route (when two or more direction choices) would be set correctly in one step, instead of two. Or even more ideally ahead of time and signalled to the driver of the rail vehicle so there is no stopping at all, unless a condition exists that the driver has to intervene (ice or blockage in switch or something) to manually ensure safe routing. - some form of enforcement system to ensure safe following distance is adhered to -(very important) ensure intersecting (collision courses) are protected, some form of interlocking system at intersections where the proper streetcar is given the right of way according to the light cycle on the general traffic signals. I'm not suggesting that the current "down trip" system remains where only one streetcar can move through intersecting track at one time, I'm saying as long as route does not intersect, both can move, but if route does intersect then the right of way should go according to the hta and the current condition of the traffic signals, fully protected of course. Meanwhile, the easiest and cheapest way to improve public transit in Toronto, without doing anything too technically complex, would be to enable transit vehicle priority at intersections. It's time to tell those NIMBY politicians to go pound salt, since general private vehicle traffic will move better if public mass transit is given the priority Most streetcar drivers in Toronto are smart enough an responsible enough to be able to handle a system that would allow two of them to safely pass through a grand union at the same time, but we have to account for the lowest common denominator. People tend to be idiots, people have accidents, the ttc tries to limit liability and prevent accidents, ttc has only so much to work with since idiots are plentiful and solutions are minimal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 10 hours ago, Turtle said: Except stay on the rails. And how many derailments have occurred due to rail-climbover due to speed? Don't bother looking it up, I'll tell you - excactly zero. 1 hour ago, Turtle said: If you want to get rid of stop check and go, and all of the other procedures that cause a stupid amount of delays on the streetcar network (i.e. 5 minutes end to end on the 510), you need to install double pointed heated switches, with detection, as well as: Since you've brought it up...... There is absolutely, positively nothing wrong with the switches and trackwork in the system today. It is safe, and it operates fine. In the last 30+ years, there have been precisely zero accidents/derailments due to streetcars not going through switches properly. And that time period probably stretches for longer - I only know about the last 30. There is absolutely, positively a need to replace the N/A system to activate the switches. A new system can easily be installed on the existing infrastructure. The whole stop-and-stay rule exists solely because of how unreliable the system has become. 1 hour ago, Turtle said: - some form of rudimentary signal protection system to prevent collisions+ How do you envision this working? 1 hour ago, Turtle said: -link that protection system with the general traffic signals to allow turns or diversions on to other lines, protected of course This already exists. It's only at certain intersections, but where it exists it works well. 1 hour ago, Turtle said: -a modern way of selecting route for each rail vehicle, it would be ideal if route wasn't centrally controlled ($$$ labour costs of running a control center, and delays when that control center runs into technical trouble), but the current system needs stop check and go for it to function safely even if double pointed heated switches were in place today....we need a more logical route selection process where the entire route (when two or more direction choices) would be set correctly in one step, instead of two. Or even more ideally ahead of time and signalled to the driver of the rail vehicle so there is no stopping at all, unless a condition exists that the driver has to intervene (ice or blockage in switch or something) to manually ensure safe routing. Agreed. See my comments about the N/A system above. 1 hour ago, Turtle said: - some form of enforcement system to ensure safe following distance is adhered to How do you envision this working? 1 hour ago, Turtle said: -(very important) ensure intersecting (collision courses) are protected, some form of interlocking system at intersections where the proper streetcar is given the right of way according to the light cycle on the general traffic signals. I'm not suggesting that the current "down trip" system remains where only one streetcar can move through intersecting track at one time, I'm saying as long as route does not intersect, both can move, but if route does intersect then the right of way should go according to the hta and the current condition of the traffic signals, fully protected of course. You are asking for a subway or mainline railway signalling system to be applied to streetcars. I don't think this is practical. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 39 minutes ago, smallspy said: How do you envision this working? How does following distance and crossover protection work on the Waterloo ION? 39 minutes ago, smallspy said: This already exists. It's only at certain intersections, but where it exists it works well. Uh, no. There is no protection of moves anywhere on the streetcar network. If two cars want to turn into each other, they are free to do so at any time. 39 minutes ago, smallspy said: Agreed. See my comments about the N/A system above. The NAS system is one problem, the whole system needs to be modernised. 39 minutes ago, smallspy said: How do you envision this working? Just like I said. If two streetcars are waiting to pass through an intersection with potentially conflicting routing, but both are set to travel straight through on a no conflicting route, then logically they are safe to pass through the intersection. If one is waiting to turn left, it should wait to move until the other straight through car is clear of the intersection to move, preferably on a advance turn signal or a white transit priority turn bar or whatever. Easy to do and enforce with current tech. 39 minutes ago, smallspy said: You are asking for a subway or mainline railway signalling system to be applied to streetcars. I don't think this is practical. Exactly no, because it is not practical. The opposite, decentralised control where the vehicles choose where they want to go safely according to schedule, no central control involved whatsoever except for supervision of schedules. So basically the operator of the streetcar would be responsible for selecting the route as they currently are, but there would be a logical protection and detection system in place to eliminate stop check and go, yield to the down trip, or other procedures that appear to make delays on the streetcar network, when the real source of delays are non transit priority traffic signals, and private vehicle traffic blocking transit even on the rows (I'm looking at you all those people who blocked the rails in the last snowstorm) 39 minutes ago, smallspy said: Dan I was simply speaking of the hypothetical situation where the TTC could get rid of stop-check-and-go and all of the other procedures which make the current streetcar network appear to suck and be uncomfortable in certain situations. My argument is they cannot get rid of stop check and go without some form of signal protection/enforcement in place. Me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 5 hours ago, Turtle said: How does following distance and crossover protection work on the Waterloo ION? I don't know enough about the system in K-W to comment. 5 hours ago, Turtle said: Uh, no. There is no protection of moves anywhere on the streetcar network. If two cars want to turn into each other, they are free to do so at any time. That's not what you asked, though. There are absolutely intersections that are tied in to the N/A system, and which will give streetcars a protected signal to proceed without interference from other traffic. What you are asking for now is an interlocking system - like as used on the subway and full-sized railways. 5 hours ago, Turtle said: The NAS system is one problem, the whole system needs to be modernised. The N/A system is THE problem. Period, paragraph, end of sentence. 5 hours ago, Turtle said: Just like I said. If two streetcars are waiting to pass through an intersection with potentially conflicting routing, but both are set to travel straight through on a no conflicting route, then logically they are safe to pass through the intersection. If one is waiting to turn left, it should wait to move until the other straight through car is clear of the intersection to move, preferably on a advance turn signal or a white transit priority turn bar or whatever. Easy to do and enforce with current tech. That's what an interlocking system does - it interlocks all signals and switches, and ensures that there can be no dangerous moves that can be made. It can allow for multiple routes to be taken simultaneously where possible, or only one if that's all that can be made safely. And this is exactly why it would be difficult to do on the street. You need some sort of signaling system that will enforce that protection, and prevent a car from getting into an unsafe space. Otherwise, it's not an interlocking, and it can't do what you want it to do. 5 hours ago, Turtle said: Exactly no, because it is not practical. The opposite, decentralised control where the vehicles choose where they want to go safely according to schedule, no central control involved whatsoever except for supervision of schedules. An interlocking does not need to be centralized. Thousands, if not millions of them used to exist locally around the world. 5 hours ago, Turtle said: So basically the operator of the streetcar would be responsible for selecting the route as they currently are, but there would be a logical protection and detection system in place to eliminate stop check and go, yield to the down trip, or other procedures that appear to make delays on the streetcar network, when the real source of delays are non transit priority traffic signals, and private vehicle traffic blocking transit even on the rows (I'm looking at you all those people who blocked the rails in the last snowstorm) You've just described an interlocking. That the operator (or vehicle) is the one deciding (or asking for) the route doesn't really change that. But again, the issue becomes one of signalling. 5 hours ago, Turtle said: I was simply speaking of the hypothetical situation where the TTC could get rid of stop-check-and-go and all of the other procedures which make the current streetcar network appear to suck and be uncomfortable in certain situations. My argument is they cannot get rid of stop check and go without some form of signal protection/enforcement in place. I don't think that's specifically true, though. Whatever new system replaces the N/A system can (and should) have some sort of system to ensure that the appropriate route is chosen and made safe, and that information is accurately projected to the operator in order for them to operate the car as required. There's any number of different ways for that to happen, and they don't need to involve signalling. But again, putting in the amount of equipment that you are suggesting is a huge amount more work, and may not be possible. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 27 Report Share Posted January 27 2 hours ago, smallspy said: I don't know enough about the system in K-W to comment. They have a similar system to what is being used on line 5 and line 6. Speeds and following distances are enforced on the ION. 2 hours ago, smallspy said: That's not what you asked, though. I wrote: "If you want to get rid of stop check and go, and all of the other procedures that cause a stupid amount of delays on the streetcar network (i.e. 5 minutes end to end on the 510)" 2 hours ago, smallspy said: There are absolutely intersections that are tied in to the N/A system, and which will give streetcars a protected signal to proceed without interference from other traffic. What you are asking for now is an interlocking system - like as used on the subway and full-sized railways. I know, and that wasn't my point. It was a hypothetical what if or what way would the ttc allow stop check and go and other intersecting track procedures to be eliminated or sped up slightly. I know that there are a bunch of intersections that give a turn signal for the streetcars, this has nothing to do with my point, it was just something that was mentioned as a requirement. 2 hours ago, smallspy said: The N/A system is THE problem. Period, paragraph, end of sentence. That's what an interlocking system does - it interlocks all signals and switches, and ensures that there can be no dangerous moves that can be made. It can allow for multiple routes to be taken simultaneously where possible, or only one if that's all that can be made safely. Yes, I described an interlocking. 2 hours ago, smallspy said: And this is exactly why it would be difficult to do on the street. You need some sort of signaling system that will enforce that protection, and prevent a car from getting into an unsafe space. Otherwise, it's not an interlocking, and it can't do what you want it to do. I also wrote: "procedures that cause a stupid amount of delays on the streetcar network (i.e. 5 minutes end to end on the 510)" implying that all this work isn't worth the effort, money, and complexity that would go into such a system, let alone training requirements for drivers. 2 hours ago, smallspy said: An interlocking does not need to be centralized. Thousands, if not millions of them used to exist locally around the world. Where did I say it needed to be centrally controlled? I actually said: "it would be ideal if route wasn't centrally controlled ($$$ labour costs of running a control center, and delays when that control center runs into technical trouble)" 2 hours ago, smallspy said: I don't think that's specifically true, though. Whatever new system replaces the N/A system can (and should) have some sort of system to ensure that the appropriate route is chosen and made safe, and that information is accurately projected to the operator in order for them to operate the car as required. There's any number of different ways for that to happen, and they don't need to involve signalling. But again, putting in the amount of equipment that you are suggesting is a huge amount more work, and may not be possible. Dan You just described a signalling system Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 28 Report Share Posted January 28 15 hours ago, Turtle said: They have a similar system to what is being used on line 5 and line 6. Speeds and following distances are enforced on the ION. Similar is not the same, though. There are differences between the systems being used on The Crosstown and Finch West. 15 hours ago, Turtle said: I wrote: "If you want to get rid of stop check and go, and all of the other procedures that cause a stupid amount of delays on the streetcar network (i.e. 5 minutes end to end on the 510)"\ Then the TTC needs to replace the N/A system. Virtually all of the procedures that you've listed previously are all a direct result of how unreliable it's become. 15 hours ago, Turtle said: Where did I say it needed to be centrally controlled? I actually said: "it would be ideal if route wasn't centrally controlled ($$$ labour costs of running a control center, and delays when that control center runs into technical trouble)" And I'm pointing out that it doesn't need to be centrally controlled. And I agree with you - in the context of the streetcar system, it may not even be ideal to do so. 15 hours ago, Turtle said: You just described a signalling system I didn't, but thanks for playing. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STC125 Posted January 28 Report Share Posted January 28 (edited) On 1/27/2023 at 8:06 AM, Turtle said: If you want to get rid of stop check and go, and all of the other procedures that cause a stupid amount of delays on the streetcar network (i.e. 5 minutes end to end on the 510), you need to install double pointed heated switches, with detection, as well as: - some form of rudimentary signal protection system to prevent collisions Unfortunately there is no guarantee that this would result in the elimination of stop-check-go. Yarra Trams in Melbourne, Australia uses double point switches, with advance detection, and switch position signals but still requires stop-check-go. This can be seen in the YouTube video below of the Melbourne University terminal. This is not to say we can't change. There are certainly systems else where in the world that are able to function without stop-check-go. However as others have said, once a "Safety" rule is put in place, it is very difficult to change or remove. Video credit to tressteleg1 on YouTube. Edited January 28 by STC125 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 28 Report Share Posted January 28 On 1/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smallspy said: Similar is not the same, though. There are differences between the systems being used on The Crosstown and Finch West. Uh, sure, the "trains" on line 5 run under ATC in the underground section. Otherwise whatever Alstom has installed above ground is equivalent to "CABS" mode on line 1. Driven manually by an operator in a moving block system. So speeds and following distances (most likely) will be enforced, of course the interlockings will be fully protected. On line 1 this is a full "ATC" mode, but the driver is the one actually driving. On 1/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smallspy said: Then the TTC needs to replace the N/A system. Virtually all of the procedures that you've listed previously are all a direct result of how unreliable it's become. No, the NAS system is pretty reliable and efficient. When a switch doesn't move over for whatever reason, it takes the driver 10 seconds to flip it. In bad weather, the switches may need to be swept so it could take a couple minutes. That's irrelevant when most streetcars follow the same routing most of the time in most places. On 1/28/2023 at 10:06 AM, smallspy said: I didn't, but thanks for playing. Dan I accused Dan of describing a signalling system when he stated: "that information is accurately projected to the operator in order for them to operate the car as required. There's any number of different ways for that to happen, and they don't need to involve signalling." So, Dan, now you're saying that cab signalling isn't a form of signalling? On 1/28/2023 at 1:07 PM, STC125 said: Unfortunately there is no guarantee that this would result in the elimination of stop-check-go. Yarra Trams in Melbourne, Australia uses double point switches, with advance detection, and switch position signals but still requires stop-check-go. This can be seen in the YouTube video below of the Melbourne University terminal. Not all the trams in that video did stop-check-go btw. On 1/28/2023 at 1:07 PM, STC125 said: This is not to say we can't change. There are certainly systems else where in the world that are able to function without stop-check-go. However as others have said, once a "Safety" rule is put in place, it is very difficult to change or remove. Absolutely, 110% agree. Safety culture with everybody scared to CYA in all instances, it would take a pretty brave soul in the safety department to allow change on the Toronto streetcar network. In the meantime, we can pressure our braindead politicians to allow transit signal priority on the streetcar rows at the minimum, and improve the transit signal priority on the King street pilot area. Meanwhile we have to face the consequences of decades of streetcar drivers doing stupid things like this: Even with stop-check-go in place, they still manage this. Maybe I should give a more recent example: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed T. Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 On 1/25/2023 at 9:02 AM, smallspy said: From an engineering standpoint, a Flexity can do anything - and at the same speed - that a CLRV can do. From a safety standpoint, however, the Flexity will not be as smooth through transitions as a CLRV, so it's possible that people may get thrown around more. That would be a reason to lower the speeds. I just wanted to swing back to this. Steve Munro has specifically stated several times that the CLRVs were overdesigned for high-speed LRT service. This quote from A Short History of the CLRV – Steve Munro is particularly apropos: Quote However, the engineers working on this had only a vague grasp of transit basics, and they determined that the new cars had to travel at up to 70mph (roughly 110kph) for suburban operations. Never mind that any line we would build in what is now the GTA wouldn’t have stops far enough apart to warrant such speed, that’s what the car was designed for. In place of a lightweight updated PCC, we got the rumbling hulks of CLRVs. Whatever the top design speed of Flexities might by, I can't imagine it would be as high as 110 km/h. And the tail whip, as I think others call it, is particularly gruesome. My last ride on a Flexity, I was at the very back, and pretty much got tossed across the isle as we pulled out of Broadview station loop and hit the tangent track. There is no way a Flexity can take curves, or more specifically the transition to and from curves and tangents, at anything like a CLRV's speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3G Posted January 30 Report Share Posted January 30 2 hours ago, Ed T. said: Whatever the top design speed of Flexities might by, I can't imagine it would be as high as 110 km/h. If memory serves, the top speed of the Flexity is 70 km/h. At that speed, I'd want seat belts. Or any speed. They are very nice cars, probably the finest looking modern LRVs that I have ever seen, but the ride quality is enough to bring one to tears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turtle Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 16 hours ago, T3G said: If memory serves, the top speed of the Flexity is 70 km/h. At that speed, I'd want seat belts. Or any speed. They are very nice cars, probably the finest looking modern LRVs that I have ever seen, but the ride quality is enough to bring one to tears. TTC Streetcar Flexity model is limited to 70km/h. Other members of the flexity family have different top speeds, up to 100km/h depending on the model and configuration. The ones used on line 5 in Toronto and the Waterloo ION have an 80km/h top speed. I'm really curious to see what the ride on line 6 with the Citadis will be like compared to line 5 with the Flexity. Longer modules with different truck placement might help. 19 hours ago, Ed T. said: I just wanted to swing back to this. Steve Munro has specifically stated several times that the CLRVs were overdesigned for high-speed LRT service. It is really unfortunate that we never got to see what the real potential of the CLRV and ALRV was. Riding them on the Queensway with an aggressive driver was fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MCIBUS Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 Question? Not being from the GTA and have not seen the new streetcars(low floor) in person, is there a driver compartment at either end of the streetcar that you can control & drive it at either end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GTAmissions1 Posted January 31 Report Share Posted January 31 3 hours ago, MCIBUS said: Question? Not being from the GTA and have not seen the new streetcars(low floor) in person, is there a driver compartment at either end of the streetcar that you can control & drive it at either end? There is only the driver compartment at the front for streetcars. So if they need to turnaround, they would need to find a streetcar loop. They can backup the streetcar if needed, but it requires a signal person to communicate and ensure clearance because of the long vehicle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now