IRT_BMT_IND Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 question (stupid though it may be?): subway measurement, specifically horizontal alignment..... Referring to subway markers, you know the ones you see easily in open area like Warden (803,804 etc and in stations 755 +100) Every item, door, etc etc is mapped out to the inch so there can never be any misunderstanding of the exact placement and so on... It used to mean 645(hundreds of feet) + 100feet and so on. A station would be 630+100, 630+200 etc to 630+500 for a 500 ft platform Is this still in marked off in feet???? Dunno about Kipling but Bloor is around 500 and Kennedy is around 936 or so. OR did they at some point painstakingly go in and redo every single tunnel marker in metric???? (There used to be a huge map-type book in Urban Affairs showing exact horizontal and vertical alignments of all subways along with foot and mile markers but this has long gone I guess with the increased security thing...) I think the Sheppard line markers are metric, and everything else is imperial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom1122 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 What exactly goes on to decommision a set of subway cars (like the H-5s as new TR trains enter service)? I do remember when the H-1s were retired, seeing some TTC employees using a set of decommisioned H-1s to switch another H-1 so the cars could still move under their own power. Also, if someone were to take a retired train of H-5s onto the main line, would it still show on Transit Control? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. DeLarge Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 What exactly goes on to decommision a set of subway cars (like the H-5s as new TR trains enter service)? I do remember when the H-1s were retired, seeing some TTC employees using a set of decommisioned H-1s to switch another H-1 so the cars could still move under their own power. Also, if someone were to take a retired train of H-5s onto the main line, would it still show on Transit Control? At minimal, probably not too much aside from removing reusable items such as seats and radios. However, in past tenders the TTC has stipulated a laundry list of components that would be removed prior to releasing a car for scrap (eg traction resistors, reservoir components, valves, couplers, control components, couplers, etc were all listed on the H4 tenders). And, that upon scrapping it may want back certain parts as well (the truck assemblies come to mind). Removal of those components would likely render any cars unable to move under their own power, and/or unsafe to operate. It is possible the set you saw had been retired from revenue service, but had not yet been stripped of components. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted February 17, 2013 Report Share Posted February 17, 2013 This reminds me of something. Why did the TTC stockpile a bunch of H1 parts stored in Lansdowne division before they tore it down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 This reminds me of something. Why did the TTC stockpile a bunch of H1 parts stored in Lansdowne division before they tore it down. Probably because they were used on other pieces of equipment, and likely because the TTC didn't really have space at the usual locations - Wilson, Hillcrest, Greenwood, Davisville - to store excess stock that wasn't commonly used like that. Since then, the TTC has taken to renting warehouses and buildings rather than owning them. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Downsview 108 Posted February 18, 2013 Report Share Posted February 18, 2013 Thanks. I remember there was a bunch of seats there. Some number plates too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senzation#3 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I have a question to ask. According from the Downtown Rapid Transit Study and Metrolinx's Union Station 2031 Capacity study, If the DRL started from Pape and terminate at Exhibition Station via Queen St, including a proposed Bathurst North Yard Station (Option 4B). By 3-5 years, will the DRL will be at overcapacity due to fact that commuters who are taking the GO train can transfer to the DRL including the fact that the CNE opens at late summer or other events located in the CNE? That would be a choking point for that subway line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I have a question to ask. According from the Downtown Rapid Transit Study and Metrolinx's Union Station 2031 Capacity study, If the DRL started from Pape and terminate at Exhibition Station via Queen St, including a proposed Bathurst North Yard Station (Option 4B). By 3-5 years, will the DRL will be at overcapacity due to fact that commuters who are taking the GO train can transfer to the DRL including the fact that the CNE opens at late summer or other events located in the CNE? That would be a choking point for that subway line. As with Union right now, commuters would help provide traffic in the opposite direction (from the GO station into Downtown). Crowds from pecial events like Caribana, the Indy or games at Ricoh/BMO Field are to be expected and are probably factored into the design of the project. As for the CNE, it's only a few weeks in what is usually a quiet summer usage-wise (summer vaction for students and their parents). Given that it's the end of the line (at least initially), hopefully they'll design the station to maximize the through flow of passengers. The continued growth in Liberty Village should sustain off-peak non-event traffic along that segment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senzation#3 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Because, with that huge volume of passengers needed for DRL, it needs to have about 8 -10 subway cars minimum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Because, with that huge volume of passengers needed for DRL, it needs to have about 8 -10 subway cars minimum Says who, exactly? Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gil Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Because, with that huge volume of passengers needed for DRL, it needs to have about 8 -10 subway cars minimum The DRL isn't meant to divert ALL traffic from Bloor-Yonge, but enough to make traffic more manageable again. There's also the matter of getting cars into service on the line. A connection at Danforth would probably be less problematic than one at Yonge or University unless they plan on constructing a whole new yard for the new line somewhere say in the Port Lands or near the Leslie Barns. Could they conceivably (if money wasn't a constraint) build the subway yard beneath the streetcar yard as a single facility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfitz Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 I have a question to ask. According from the Downtown Rapid Transit Study and Metrolinx's Union Station 2031 Capacity study, If the DRL started from Pape and terminate at Exhibition Station via Queen St, including a proposed Bathurst North Yard Station (Option 4B). By 3-5 years, will the DRL will be at overcapacity due to fact that commuters who are taking the GO train can transfer to the DRL including the fact that the CNE opens at late summer or other events located in the CNE? That would be a choking point for that subway line.Which is probably one of the reasons that Metrolinx is unlikely to actually build a new terminal in the Bathurst North Yard (which is a misleading name given the passengers at the east of the GO Trains would be a short walk to Spadina). I'd expect that one of the other options, such a deeper tunnel into Union would be the end result, and that this wouldn't really be a DRL issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senzation#3 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Which is probably one of the reasons that Metrolinx is unlikely to actually build a new terminal in the Bathurst North Yard (which is a misleading name given the passengers at the east of the GO Trains would be a short walk to Spadina). I'd expect that one of the other options, such a deeper tunnel into Union would be the end result, and that this wouldn't really be a DRL issue. The other options won't work, because a) It won't make a difference in terms of providing relief to the station, the station will still be at overcapacity It doesn't benefit for 416, only for the 905 and beyond c) It dosen't solve the problem at Bloor-Yonge station Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfitz Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 The other options won't work, because a) It won't make a difference in terms of providing relief to the station, the station will still be at overcapacity It doesn't benefit for 416, only for the 905 and beyond c) It dosen't solve the problem at Bloor-Yonge station a)Which station? Union Station? Bloor-Yonge Station? Spadina/Front station? The other option looked as though there was a huge benefit to 416. Deep-level GO platforms at Union would allow for more peak services into Union. A lot of people use 416 stations such as Rouge Hill, Scarborough, Guildwood, Mimico, Long Branch, etc. c) The GO plans have nothing to do with Bloor-Yonge station. That's the TTC DRL project that fixes that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senzation#3 Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Is it possible to have a proposed DRL and GO express rail under the same tunnel on king/queen st Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted February 19, 2013 Report Share Posted February 19, 2013 Is it possible to have a proposed DRL and GO express rail under the same tunnel on king/queen st Probably not. They are two completely different services likely to use completely different - and incompatible - types of equipment. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
senzation#3 Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 In your opinion, do you think that TTC Fare system needs to have a major overhaul? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivablue5215 Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 In your opinion, do you think that TTC Fare system needs to have a major overhaul? I'm on the fence. How would one divide the zones? Using the old system before the whole suburbia > city population issue? Or do it like Translink in Vancouver? Create a free zone downtown? The concept I'd support (distance fares), but the implementation is a completely different story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. DeLarge Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Bidirectional 2-hour transfers would be nice like other neighbouring agencies, but we all know that will never happen... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nfitz Posted February 20, 2013 Report Share Posted February 20, 2013 Bidirectional 2-hour transfers would be nice like other neighbouring agencies, but we all know that will never happen...Don't be so sure!They've been piloting time-based transfers on the 512 for years - www.ttc.ca/Fares_and_passes/Fare_information/Transfers/Time_based_transfers.jsp And they are releasing a report later this year on how Presto is going to work with TTC fares. I wouldn't be surprised if the switch to Presto comes with a switch to time-based transfers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T3G Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Does anyone have any photos of the 'wall of buses' that existed at Future Enterprises before it closed down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerD901 Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 Does anyone have any photos of the 'wall of buses' that existed at Future Enterprises before it closed down? D40-87 in Hamilton? or is this another scrap yard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheAverageJoe Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 D40-87 in Hamilton? or is this another scrap yard? Yes in Hamilton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. DeLarge Posted February 21, 2013 Report Share Posted February 21, 2013 D40-87 in Hamilton? or is this another scrap yard? How many scrapyards have both a wall of buses and are named Future Enterprises? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyerD901 Posted February 22, 2013 Report Share Posted February 22, 2013 How many scrapyards have both a wall of buses and are named Future Enterprises? Well, thats why I asked.... 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