Jump to content

Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions


Recommended Posts

With the new Kipling Terminal set to open in late 2020 which will see MiWay vacating Islington, as well as the recent realignment of Bloor-Dundas-Kipling, will it be possible for the TTC to reroute the 49 BLOOR WEST and/or the 927 HIGHWAY 27 EXPRESS to Islington Stn.? Bays 1 and 2 are no longer used but 5 & 6 will soon be vacant and put into good use.

On 10/17/2020 at 10:45 PM, Ultimate said:

Well this didn't take long... image0.thumb.jpg.bb1819c9a174837d0b26865930587232.jpg

There is a petition online in regards to the stop removals but I don’t think that will work. The last petition called for the TTC to keep 12 CLRVs for tourist purposes is a modest pathetic joke.

https://www.change.org/p/toronto-transit-commission-ttc-keep-payzac-and-overture-bus-stops-on-86-route?utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=custom_url&recruited_by_id=20d3a890-064e-11eb-83a6-858dddce76a2

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good morning CPTDB.

I was talking with a friend over coffee a while ago and it turns out we were both thinking the same thing was coming up and we did a bit of research:

30 years ago this morning was the last run of the Gloucesters.  The last train left Davisville and ran in the morning rush hour and then returned to the yard after the morning rush finished.  My friend had gone looking for it in the afternoon rush but it never went into service.  The eight car train of Gloucesters was sitting on the third platform at Davisville seemingly ready to go but the TTC didn't send it out because one of the cars developed a low voltage electrical problem.  Later, it was found out that they didn't repair it and retired the train instead so it turns out that the morning rush hour of October 26, 1990 became the inadvertent Gloucester last run, unknown to everyone at the time it happened.

I went out in early November to make a deliberate point of taking a last ride not knowing this and not seeing any Gloucesters in either rush hour, finally asked someone if they were still running and that's when I found out the last train had been pulled about two weeks earlier.  I caught the next train and went home because after that news, there wasn't any point lingering and letting trains go by anymore to see what was coming next once I knew that there was no chance - zero, none - that it was going to be a Gloucester ever again.  I can't believe it's been three decades now.

Looking back with the benefit of hindsight, the last set of Gloucesters getting pulled marked the beginning of the end of the TTC being a unique and interesting system even though we didn't realize it at the time.  The Gloucester retirement at first seemed to be an unfortunate consequence of the ageing of the original subway build and inevitable eventual turnover of the fleet it opened with.  Unfortunately decisions were being made and trolleybus procurement was being reconsidered and those went on the chopping block next starting just over a year later right at the end of 1991 when the three lines out of Eglinton were switched off.  The Lansdowne trolleybuses lasted longer, with Bay and Annette hanging on to the end halfway through 1993.  By the end of 1995, the last of the PCC cars had been retired and that was the end for all the interesting vehicles from the old days; from 1996 on was round after round of brutal service cuts and escalating fare increases as the TTC and Toronto tried to navigate the Mike Harris era of funding cuts and politicking surrounding amalgamation.  But the wind down that spanned the first half of the 1990s started 30 years ago this morning when that last train of Gloucesteres returned to the third platform at Davisville after the morning rush hour and the control stands in the cab were shut down for the last time.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are some bus routes that pass right by Wilson Station not run by Wilson Yard? I can kind of understand why it's done for the 96 and 165, but for the 118 and 119, especially considering that there was a Wilson division bus on the 119 recently, I was thinking that allocating those routes to Wilson would be able to reduce deadhead time.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blue.bird.fan said:

Why are some bus routes that pass right by Wilson Station not run by Wilson Yard? I can kind of understand why it's done for the 96 and 165, but for the 118 and 119, especially considering that there was a Wilson division bus on the 119 recently, I was thinking that allocating those routes to Wilson would be able to reduce deadhead time.

The 118 and 119 might be moving to Wilson when McNicoll opens

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, blue.bird.fan said:

Why are some bus routes that pass right by Wilson Station not run by Wilson Yard? I can kind of understand why it's done for the 96 and 165, but for the 118 and 119, especially considering that there was a Wilson division bus on the 119 recently, I was thinking that allocating those routes to Wilson would be able to reduce deadhead time.

There are a lot of factors that come into play when it comes time to assigning a route to a particular garage. How the route is built - where do the majority of the runs start and end - has a lot to do with it. And while this can be adjusted to a degree with careful schedule design, at the same time it makes no sense to put buses into service earlier than they need to be simply to reduce deadheading just as it doesn't make sense to have routes deadheading longer than they might otherwise need to.

 

 But one thing that a lot of people overlook is whether the garage simply has the capacity to handle the route. The 118 and 119 are not big routes (requiring 2 and 3 buses at rush hour, respectively, as per the June service summary), but allocating them to Wilson may have required the reallocation of another route or two that would on the whole require more deadheading.

 

It's a careful balancing act.

 

Dan

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, bus_7246 said:

I was thinking: will the TTC ever utilise the battery-electric drive option on the LFS hybrids that were recently acquired?

The report presented to the TTC board last week regarding the fleet procurement strategy had a section indicating that TTC would be using the electric-only (EV) mode on the LFS HEVs in the near future. 

My understanding is the EV mode can be up to 1.5km depending on parameters such as battery charge being met, otherwise the bus will just switch back into normal mode if the parameters aren't met. It appears that the EV mode doesn't result in any fuel savings as the engine then has to work harder to replenish the battery. However it is silent when in operation and would be useful at a lot of the TTC subway stations for example, or even routes that have on street loops in residential areas. 

MiWay implemented the EV mode on their LFS hybrids a few weeks back, however it is only set to operate within the City Centre Terminal and the garage. MiWay also chose to add additional parameters such as limiting the speed to 10km/h when at the terminal and 15km/h when at the garage, which are the posted speed limits. 

Screenshot_20201031_175045.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, MiExpress said:

The report presented to the TTC board last week regarding the fleet procurement strategy had a section indicating that TTC would be using the electric-only (EV) mode on the LFS HEVs in the near future. 

My understanding is the EV mode can be up to 1.5km depending on parameters such as battery charge being met, otherwise the bus will just switch back into normal mode if the parameters aren't met. It appears that the EV mode doesn't result in any fuel savings as the engine then has to work harder to replenish the battery. However it is silent when in operation and would be useful at a lot of the TTC subway stations for example, or even routes that have on street loops in residential areas. 

MiWay implemented the EV mode on their LFS hybrids a few weeks back, however it is only set to operate within the City Centre Terminal and the garage. MiWay also chose to add additional parameters such as limiting the speed to 10km/h when at the terminal and 15km/h when at the garage, which are the posted speed limits. 

Screenshot_20201031_175045.jpg

As it stands currently, the ttc’s EV mode is only up to 20 km/h (coincidentally the yard speed limit)

At the ttc, most maintenance personnel take advantage of it moving indoors.

There’s a momentary toggle switch above the operator’s head that will activate it, and long as all the aforementioned parameters are met. I’d imagine Mississauga’s are in a similar spot.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been listening to the Transit Control radio stream for the past couple weeks or so, and I notice a lot of "Red Alarm" responses by the dispatcher, for what are 99% false alarms on the employees radio, "pressed in error" as they referr to it. Are these new Tetra radios that poorly designed that the emergency buttons are so easily pressed?

I dont remember hearing so many when i used to listen on the analog scanner years ago.

Has anyone here seen one of these radios first hand?

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jason_W said:

I've been listening to the Transit Control radio stream for the past couple weeks or so, and I notice a lot of "Red Alarm" responses by the dispatcher, for what are 99% false alarms on the employees radio, "pressed in error" as they referr to it. Are these new Tetra radios that poorly designed that the emergency buttons are so easily pressed?

I dont remember hearing so many when i used to listen on the analog scanner years ago.

Has anyone here seen one of these radios first hand?

Emergency button is on top of the handheld between channel selector and antenna, and on the mitre below the PTT. Pretty much standard positioning across the radio manufacturers and working as designed with little to no resistance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/5/2020 at 8:28 PM, Jason_W said:

I dont remember hearing so many when i used to listen on the analog scanner years ago.

I also monitor the TETRA network, and yes, there are a LOT of these Red Alarm false alarms, and I agree that before on the analog system there were not very many at all.

I suspect that just not a lot of field personnel had the old analog radios. There were only a handful of channels as you may recall on your scanner. Now there are so many different talkgroups (channels) on TETRA, I think myself I must have logged over 100 different ones by now. They can also call each other point to point because each radio has a unique ID.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MK78 said:

I also monitor the TETRA network, and yes, there are a LOT of these Red Alarm false alarms, and I agree that before on the analog system there were not very many at all.

I suspect that just not a lot of field personnel had the old analog radios. There were only a handful of channels as you may recall on your scanner. Now there are so many different talkgroups (channels) on TETRA, I think myself I must have logged over 100 different ones by now. They can also call each other point to point because each radio has a unique ID.

 

Keep in mind the old system, red alarms would only be broadcast on the current channel the user was on, unlike on TETRA where no matter what talkgroup your on, it would simulcast onto the master dispatch console, which is Surface 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, TTC1700 said:

Keep in mind the old system, red alarms would only be broadcast on the current channel the user was on, unlike on TETRA where no matter what talkgroup your on, it would simulcast onto the master dispatch console, which is Surface 1.

Right now it appears that the Red Alarms first trigger a dispatch response on a dedicated channel, TG 60002, and if nobody responds then they try on surface 1.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

I've rode the 905 the other day and I noticed that going Westbound towards Kennedy after McCowan it announces Midland as the next stop, is Brimley no longer a stop? Transsee states Danforth is a stop but it does not announce that. Going eastbound it announces, Midland, Brimley, McCowan. But I rode it again the following day and the driver announced after McCowan going WB that the next stop was Danforth. Very confusing

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

Anyone know if there’s a maximum designated lifespan for the bus fleets for the TTC

I am wondering how long 2006-2007 Orion Vll fleet will last. I know few of 79xx are retired but I wanna know when will they last until?

The 2006-2007 Orion VIIs will most likely last until 2022-2023 when the new hybrids are delivered. I would assume that more of the NG HEVs will retire around that time as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, raptorjays said:

Anyone know if there’s a maximum designated lifespan for the bus fleets for the TTC

I am wondering how long 2006-2007 Orion Vll fleet will last. I know few of 79xx are retired but I wanna know when will they last until?

TTC has slowly been moving away from a 18-year planned lifespan to something that is closer to what is used in the US - and to what is reasonably expected from things like hybrid and battery-powered buses.

 

All that said.....their current plan is to replace buses not specifically due to age, but rather due to condition of the components and their reliability.

 

The Orion VII Next Gens are currently on the hit list, and following them will likely be the last of the "Old Gen" Orion VIIs in both diesel and hybrid flavours.

 

Dan

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Ultimate said:

Riding the 43 home this morning, I noticed that Kennedy / Progress going SB displays "Kennedy Road?" on the next stop screen. Has this always been a thing or is it new with the new 43C branch? 

It’s been like that for a month or two. Before, the 43B would announce just “Progress Ave” for that stop, which didn’t make sense as the bus was already along Progress approaching Kennedy. They change it to announce “Kennedy & Progress Ave” but the displays look like what you saw.

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...