Jump to content

Miscellaneous TTC Discussion & Questions


Orion V

Recommended Posts

I noticed why the Line 3 Bus Replacement routes that heading westbound on Ellesmere turning left directly to Midland instead of looping around East Service Road before going back to Ellesmere and turning right onto Midland as it was originally planned? I don't know what happened but seemed to be temporary.

On 12/4/2023 at 3:40 AM, Young said:

Here are my opinions on bus division changes when/if the Eglinton Crosstown opens in this lifetime

19 Caledonia- Wilson

27 Jane South-Queensway Division

29 Dufferin and 929- Mt Dennis 

32- Eglinton West-Queensway Division 

34 Eglinton-Mt Dennis or Eglinton ( Most likely Mount Dennis cause of deadheading if most runs start and end at Mount Dennis Stn) or Eglinton if runs start at Kennedy 

35 Jane- Mt Dennis

41 Keele- Mt Dennis

47 Lansdowne- Wilson 

71 Runnymede-Mt Dennis

73 Royal York- Queensway

63 Ossington- Wilson

89 Weston- Wilson or Arrow or Mt Dennis

109 Ranee-Wilson 

161 Rogers rd- Mt Dennis

164 Castlefeild- Wilson

168 Symington- Mt Dennis

171 Mount Dennis- Pretty obvious lol

901 AirPort-Eglinton Express- this one is kind of a toss up between 4 divisions Mt Dennis,Wilson,Arrow or Queensway

989 Weston Express- Wilson or Arrow or Mt Dennis 

*Keep in mind this is only a thought of which routes could go where in the West end I’ll make a list of the rest of the line 5 East of Cedervale later in the week

Feel free to add opinions 

The 34 EGLINTON bus can add another branch in a form of the 34B to Kingston Rd running from Science Centre Station for the operators deadheading from Eglinton (this was the branch before the 116B in 2014, cancelled in 2021). The main branch can be the 34A. Or yet, have the TTC institute two branches to make it easier for operators:

- 34A Mount Dennis-Science Centre (Mount Dennis)
- 34B Cedarvale-Kennedy (Eglinton/Comstock)

On 12/4/2023 at 5:09 PM, MorningsideExpress said:

I'd be more inclined to send more routes to Birchmount. They seem to be the only garage that has a fleet under it's garage capacity.

Most garages have a capacity of 250 buses, Birchmount only has 222 buses, based on current CPTDB wiki data.

Now that number might fluctuate if more Flyers are sent there. Going forward as well, beyond the Eglinton line,

I think Scarborough is going to need more buses with the RT closure. So I'd like to see the 4 west divisions perhaps covering routes further east,

up to and possibly including the 24 in order for Birchmount to focus its efforts on some of the routes that now service Kennedy Station,

and sharing those duties with the other eastern divisions. 

Routes like 11 Bayview and 74 Mt Pleasant for example, seems like it's a bit of a stretch for Eglinton to cover, keeping in mind that increase in demand for bus service in Scarborough. So if Wilson is able to make that work, I think it would go a long way to improving efficiency over the next 5-7 years. 

21 hours ago, Novabus photographer said:

Remember that most of routes birchmount runs do not require a large amount of buses, which is why they don’t have as many. Also with mcnicoll opening they don’t need as many as they once did.

however I see your point and could definitely see the following routes going to birchmount

26 Dupont

127 Davenport

28 bayview (especially if it starts from brick works)

88 south leaside

 67 pharmacy 

I didn’t include too many Eglinton routes since they are also under capacity, but not by nearly as much. It’s mainly the west end divisions and malvern that are over capacity. Also keep in mind that while mount Dennis is over capacity now, it won’t be in a few months when all the OG hybrids are gone and all the flyers have entered service

17 hours ago, Someguy3071 said:

Dupont and Davenport operating out of Birchmount makes no sense. 

127 DAVENPORT ran out of New Eglinton until 2008.

17 hours ago, TransitFan88 said:

If Arrow can operate the 78 and 115 and Malvern the 122, anything is possible 🤷🏻‍♂️

Before that, the 10 VAN HORNE and 169 HUNTINGWOOD ran out of Wilson. Not even everyone's weirdest secret was the 192 AIRPORT ROCKET even operated first out of Eglinton (Duplex) then New Eglinton in Scarborough until 2004.

16 hours ago, Keee said:

Sorry if this is a stupid question...why some day routes can't have joint operation to avoid long dead heading? For example 68 Warden with McNicoll and Birchmount...

They used to have that until November 2008 when Mount Dennis opened. Most recently, the 95 YORK MILLS was jointly operated by Malvern (95/A-Kingston, 95B-UTSC & 95E-UTSC Express) and Wilson (95A-Victoria Park; later 95C-Ellesmere Stn & some 95E-UTSC Express runs) garages while the 35 JANE had 6 runs in the PM rush operated out of Mount Dennis while Arrow Rd provided service on the bulk of the route.

To answer your question @Keee, Eglinton division is much closer to the 68 while Birchmount division is closer to the 17.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/1/2023 at 5:47 AM, MCIBUS said:

Former Inter-City Coach Terminal

 

Has anthing been done with the former inter-city coach on Bay Street? Has the property been sold? Is there any plans for it?

 

One suggestion might be a temory  homeless shelter till they decide to do with the property.

 

I can't comment on the homeless issues in the GTA, but if it's anything like here in Ottawa where here's no room, the could retrofit the bus bays (close off the entrances and install over head heaters and use thar along with prevous waiting area with beds at lest for the winter.

long term plans are for a new paramedic station and mixed use housing with affordable housing as part of it in the form of towers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Kumiko Oumae said:

I noticed why the Line 3 Bus Replacement routes that heading westbound on Ellesmere turning left directly to Midland instead of looping around East Service Road before going back to Ellesmere and turning right onto Midland as it was originally planned? I don't know what happened but seemed to be temporary.

It's saves no time to loop around. Might as well save some fuel and not do unnecessary work. Some operators did it and probably realized they should have just waited.

5 hours ago, Kumiko Oumae said:

The 34 EGLINTON bus can add another branch in a form of the 34B to Kingston Rd running from Science Centre Station for the operators deadheading from Eglinton (this was the branch before the 116B in 2014, cancelled in 2021). The main branch can be the 34A. Or yet, have the TTC institute two branches to make it easier for operators:

- 34A Mount Dennis-Science Centre (Mount Dennis)
- 34B Cedarvale-Kennedy (Eglinton/Comstock)

The 34 will run pretty infrequent and would not justified branches. I bet they'll just cancel part of the service after a couple years when they realize no one is riding it.

5 hours ago, Kumiko Oumae said:

127 DAVENPORT ran out of New Eglinton until 2008.

Before that, the 10 VAN HORNE and 169 HUNTINGWOOD ran out of Wilson. Not even everyone's weirdest secret was the 192 AIRPORT ROCKET even operated first out of Eglinton (Duplex) then New Eglinton in Scarborough until 2004.

You realize they only did it cause of the lack of resource availability, which was fixed with McNicoll opening and Mt Dennis opening for the 127 example.

The 89/989 Weston wouldn't be running out of Wilson if they had resource availability at MtD. They don't want a division with tons of available operators while another is short of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/5/2023 at 6:05 PM, Kumiko Oumae said:

I noticed why the Line 3 Bus Replacement routes that heading westbound on Ellesmere turning left directly to Midland instead of looping around East Service Road before going back to Ellesmere and turning right onto Midland as it was originally planned? I don't know what happened but seemed to be temporary.

Using the service road is the peak period routing to avoid waiting for the left turn. Most operators seem to be using it based on how long the turning queue is. The time savings is hit or miss. Regardless, the time allotted to do the routing between STC and Kennedy is padded enough that losing time waiting to turn left is a non-issue as they'll recover easily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, TTC Guy said:

Anyone able to point me in the direction, or find the thread of conversation related to all the routes the LFSA's have made an appearance on? I've been scavenging the board and no cigar.

The last time we had this discussion this summer, this is the list we came up with

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
29 minutes ago, H4 5600 said:

What is the difference between the 38 and 38A? I saw both of these buses beside each other today but it seems like they are the same route?

PXL_20231226_225339604.jpg

That’s a very old sign! The current 38A was the 38 before 2014, when the branches were renamed systemwide. Other than that they’re the same route.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, H4 5600 said:

What is the difference between the 38 and 38A? I saw both of these buses beside each other today but it seems like they are the same route?

PXL_20231226_225339604.jpg

At the start of the November board when 38 was extended to Kennedy, signs for 38A and 38B were programmed without a branch letter. They fixed it with an update a few weeks into the board period but there are a few buses that I've seen that didn't get updated. The update also has branch letters showing on the westbound trip even though the A and B go the same way.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The historic streetcar fleet is kind of in an embarrassing state right now. They said they would give them panto's back when they retired several years ago, and it never happened. There's some of them inside Russell Carhouse which the shop workers said were never moved ever since they retired.

 

What happened to making them "rail grinders" or "work cars", or giving them panto's or anything? There's little point to having streetcars that can only circle around hillcrest and if need to go anywhere at all they must be towed when thousands were spent SPECIFICALLY to make their engines rebuilt, etc and to be fully functional

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, CJ. said:

The historic streetcar fleet is kind of in an embarrassing state right now. They said they would give them panto's back when they retired several years ago, and it never happened. There's some of them inside Russell Carhouse which the shop workers said were never moved ever since they retired.

 

What happened to making them "rail grinders" or "work cars", or giving them panto's or anything? There's little point to having streetcars that can only circle around hillcrest and if need to go anywhere at all they must be towed when thousands were spent SPECIFICALLY to make their engines rebuilt, etc and to be fully functional

One simple answer $$$$ plain and simple. Just like OC Transpo's Historical Bus fleet are in poor condition, simple put no $$$ to fix them and with OC in finical debt(I'm assuming the TTC is the same boat), I don't see(could be mistaken here) I don't see them being worked on to bring them up to either good to excellent conditio?

HEY at least you kept them at put them in storage unlike OC which got rid of at least 3 OC bus 8501(Orion-Ikarus), 870?(a NF D??? not sure of the model) & a Orion I (8390 I think) and a few others.(not OC buses)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't wish particularly to defend the TTC's practices as regards the historic fleet, but I think that asking what the point is of having cars that can't go anywhere misses the forest for the trees.

The cars may not be able to run anywhere now, but the fact that they still exist means they can, in the future (this would likely require a change of TTC management). As long as they still exist, the possibilities exist. Scrapping them would mean all was lost.

I find money to be a cheap excuse. If that was all that was stopping them, they could have a fundraiser, and ask the public for help with it. European properties have been able to save historic vehicles in this way, and even in our neck of the woods, the facility tours that support United Way seem to get quite a good public turn out. "Taxpayers" would be happy that their precious monies would not go to the preservation of our heritage and that there would be more of it in the pool to pay for sunny vacations for politicians, railfans would get to see old streetcars running, everyone wins.

As for the rail grinders, visitors to Hillcrest last September (2022) were told that they had not made any firm decisions on their future, but that conversion to work cars was not off the table. I assume there's no hurry, 4089 is parked on the same track it's been on since the end of 2019 and I assume, seeing as it hasn't been moved anywhere else, it's not getting in anyone's way. I am curious though as to what will happen if they try powering it up after so long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/3/2024 at 8:17 PM, T3G said:

I don't wish particularly to defend the TTC's practices as regards the historic fleet, but I think that asking what the point is of having cars that can't go anywhere misses the forest for the trees.

The cars may not be able to run anywhere now, but the fact that they still exist means they can, in the future (this would likely require a change of TTC management). As long as they still exist, the possibilities exist. Scrapping them would mean all was lost.

I find money to be a cheap excuse. If that was all that was stopping them, they could have a fundraiser, and ask the public for help with it. European properties have been able to save historic vehicles in this way, and even in our neck of the woods, the facility tours that support United Way seem to get quite a good public turn out. "Taxpayers" would be happy that their precious monies would not go to the preservation of our heritage and that there would be more of it in the pool to pay for sunny vacations for politicians, railfans would get to see old streetcars running, everyone wins.

As for the rail grinders, visitors to Hillcrest last September (2022) were told that they had not made any firm decisions on their future, but that conversion to work cars was not off the table. I assume there's no hurry, 4089 is parked on the same track it's been on since the end of 2019 and I assume, seeing as it hasn't been moved anywhere else, it's not getting in anyone's way. I am curious though as to what will happen if they try powering it up after so long.

But the Scarborough RT cars use a proprietary system to run. Are you going to build a test track just so people can ride them? 

You would be better off giving to the Alstom Facility in Kingston.  

Or on static display at Greenwood. 

  • Haha 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one was talking about the SRT.

If any cars from that will be saved, it will obviously be only as a static display.

Greenwood would be stupid, it's already been discussed at length on the forum how the upper level of Kennedy station would be much more suitable for what they are trying to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Shaun said:

But the Scarborough RT cars use a proprietary system to run. Are you going to build a test track just so people can ride them? 

You would be better off giving to the Alstom Facility in Kingston.  

Or on static display at Greenwood. 

It has been debunked many, many times that the LIM technology developed by UTDC and Bombardier is not proprietary. Multiple manufacturers build trains using LIM and can adapt the train cars to the system it is intended to run on.

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/skytrain-technologies-engineering-not-proprietary-translink-report

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bombardier-skytrain-technology-proprietary

https://darylvsworld.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/skytrain-technology-is-not-outdated-and-not-proprietary/

skytrain not proprietary.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, anyfong said:

It has been debunked many, many times that the LIM technology developed by UTDC and Bombardier is not proprietary. Multiple manufacturers build trains using LIM and can adapt the train cars to the system it is intended to run on.

  1. It's proprietary in that the various dimensions are unique. Unlike say regular streetcar systems where different vehicles can conceptually be put on the tracks and run.
  2. Hint, the reaction rail is part of the propulsion motor. I don't think you would grab the stators from Westinghouse and expect it to work properly in a GE motor, would you?
  3. You have never bothered to explain why LIM is a better propulsion system than a conventional electric motor.
  4. On the other hand, I can explain why LIM is inferior, starting with energy usage and having to have a reaction rail which is actually part of the motor and also 100% pooched the SRT (slightly) before its time.
  5. Toronto has tried LIM and has now said "no thanks". Beating a dead horse will not revive it.
  6. Who cares?

Choose all that apply.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s just say there is no way you can get the train to run without the help of Alstom. LIM itself isn’t proprietary doesn’t mean all the other stuff isn’t. 
 

It just means you can build your own LIM train without being sued. 

Link to comment
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...