Urban Toronto - Powered by vBulletin
Project Essentials / dataBase detailed project information, floor plans, renderings
Projects & Construction Thread
Highway 407 Station
7241 Jane St, Vaughan
Developer: Toronto Transit Commission
Page 164 of 260 FirstFirst ... 64114154162163164165166174214 ... LastLast
Results 2,446 to 2,460 of 3894

Thread: Spadina Subway Extension (TTC, U/C)

  1. #2446

    Default

    I really don't know if it's necessary to mention Black Creek in this station name--it's not the biggest destination. That said, it's not uncommon for other cities to have much longer subway station names. Mt. Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center and Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan in Washington; Bedford Pk Blvd/Lehman College, Sutphin Blvd/Archer Av/JFK Airport, Jamaica Center Parsons/Archer in New York; Villejuif/Paul Vaillant-Couturier in Paris.


  2. #2447
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Near where the boundaries of North York, York, and Toronto meet
    Posts
    2,071

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by unimaginative2 View Post
    I really don't know if it's necessary to mention Black Creek in this station name--it's not the biggest destination. That said, it's not uncommon for other cities to have much longer subway station names. Mt. Vernon Sq/7th St-Convention Center and Woodley Park-Zoo/Adams Morgan in Washington; Bedford Pk Blvd/Lehman College, Sutphin Blvd/Archer Av/JFK Airport, Jamaica Center Parsons/Archer in New York; Villejuif/Paul Vaillant-Couturier in Paris.
    There is a subway station in Atlanta that has a mouthful name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dome_/_GWCC_/_Philips_Arena_/_CNN_Center_(MARTA_station)

  3. #2448
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON, CAN, Terra, Sol, Milky Way
    Posts
    6,575

    Default

    I guess the Platform Screen Doors report from 2010 is now filled under "G" or just disappeared as a cost savings? No screen doors for the extension?
    W. K. Lis

  4. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by W. K. Lis View Post
    No screen doors for the extension?
    No, and it cost millions in engineering to move the roof supports away from the platform edges as a result of their elimination.

  5. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    No, and it cost millions in engineering to move the roof supports away from the platform edges as a result of their elimination.
    Why couldn't they have just kept the supports so that in the future they could install it?

    It looks to me that adding platform doors will costs millions more to add roof supports.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standard View Post
    Why couldn't they have just kept the supports so that in the future they could install it?
    You can't. Without ATO the train could have parked with the doors immediately next to a support pillar. Not to mention the risk that someone leaning on a pillar could be sliced into 2 by a train arriving at a station.

    Without a wall guaranting separation of train and passengers, the roof supports had to move.

    I'm not certain why it was decided ATO could not be depended on. Perhaps because of the complete failure of ATC on Sheppard?

  7. #2452
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Yonge & Mt.Pleasant
    Posts
    3,802

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Standard View Post
    Why couldn't they have just kept the supports so that in the future they could install it?
    Because without the platform screen doors there is a danger created by having supports close to the platform edge that people will walk around, and if ATO isn't there on day 1 then it really causes problems when trains stop and open doors at the location where the support sits.

  8. #2453

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    You can't. Without ATO the train could have parked with the doors immediately next to a support pillar. Not to mention the risk that someone leaning on a pillar could be sliced into 2 by a train arriving at a station.

    Without a wall guaranting separation of train and passengers, the roof supports had to move.

    I'm not certain why it was decided ATO could not be depended on. Perhaps because of the complete failure of ATC on Sheppard?
    The Jubilee line in London operated with platform edge doors and without ATO for 10 years. Not optimal, but certainly doable.

    What are you referring to when you mention "the complete failure of ATC on Sheppard". Sheppard has never had ATC installed.

  9. #2454

    Default

    They've been testing speed control, which is a component of ATC, on Sheppard for years now... I guess they still haven't finished it?

  10. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CDL.TO View Post
    The Jubilee line in London operated with platform edge doors and without ATO for 10 years. Not optimal, but certainly doable.
    It requires an increase in dwell time (it took them a long time to line-up to the doors). This would reduce train frequencies throughout the system including downtown which decreases capacity of the system.

    Yes, it could be done, but it would make a lot of riders very unhappy.

    What are you referring to when you mention "the complete failure of ATC on Sheppard". Sheppard has never had ATC installed.
    Sure it does, kinda. Sheppard's signal system is a kind of hybrid between ATC and wayside signalling allowing holds, reverse-running, etc. It's not moving block but most of the other useful capabilities are in the software kit.

    Of course, we never installed the train component, not even in the form of a speed control system, and continue to use the wayside signals. Originally the intention was expand the system to the Yonge line after installing train kits and various other bits.

    Moving block is a nice feature but I'm not certain the convoluted set of systems being installed on Yonge for ATO will include that.
    Last edited by rbt; 2012-Mar-13 at 16:59.

  11. #2456

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    It requires an increase in dwell time (it took them a long time to line-up to the doors). This would reduce train frequencies throughout the system including downtown which decreases capacity of the system.

    Yes, it could be done, but it would make a lot of riders very unhappy.
    If you continued to have peak hour short turn at St. Clair West, Glencairn, or Downsview there would be no effect on frequency.

    Oh, it's not optimal for sure and I'm not saying they should do it. But if the concern is that ATO is a few years off then it's wrong to say that it would be impossible for them to make do for the time being.

    Personally, I think the half-height platform edge doors which don't require extra ventilation and can be more easily added later are a better option.

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    Sure it does, kinda. Sheppard's signal system is a kind of hybrid between ATC and wayside signalling allowing holds, reverse-running, etc. It's not moving block but most of the other useful capabilities are in the software kit.

    Of course, we never installed the train component, not even in the form of a speed control system, and continue to use the wayside signals. Originally the intention was expand the system to the Yonge line after installing train kits and various other bits.

    Moving block is a nice feature but I'm not certain the convoluted set of systems being installed on Yonge for ATO will include that.
    If it doesn't include in-cab signalling or speed control, can we even call it ATC? Reverse running isn't a feature that requires ATC. Just sounds like a regular wayside signal system to me. Perhaps a bit more advanced than on Yonge, but still just wayside signals.

    I thought the whole point of the Yonge upgrades is to install moving block? If they're sticking with fixed block then where are the capacity improvements coming from?

  12. #2457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Swarley View Post
    They've been testing speed control, which is a component of ATC, on Sheppard for years now... I guess they still haven't finished it?
    SCS has nothing to do with ATC. It is simply an overlay of the existing wayside signal system that enforces speeds and signal indications, rather than just the permissiveness of the signal. And yes, it is active on the Sheppard Line.

    Dan
    Toronto, Ont.

  13. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CDL.TO View Post
    If it doesn't include in-cab signalling or speed control, can we even call it ATC?
    That's why I called it a failure. For whatever reason we are abandoning the kit that was installed on Sheppard and was expandable to full ATC and are starting again.

    I thought the whole point of the Yonge upgrades is to install moving block? If they're sticking with fixed block then where are the capacity improvements coming from?
    It appears they intend to install both moving-block ATC and a tradational fixed block system. Somehow we are going to overlay one on top of the other so both work at the same time allowing work cars and disabled trains to be intermixed with ATC traffic.

    I've never seen that before and have serious doubts it can be made to work system wide.

    What I expect will actually happen in 2016 is we will have moving block in a few choke points like the approach to Bloor, King, and Union and the remainder will remain as it is today with a "call control" notice for trains not ATC equipped to pass those points. Pure speculation, but my confidence in the plan details as advertised is pretty low.

  14. #2459

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    That's why I called it a failure. For whatever reason we are abandoning the kit that was installed on Sheppard and was expandable to full ATC and are starting again.
    Again, SCS has nothing to do with the future ATC/ATO system. It was designed and developed long before the City agreed to fund the ATC/ATO implementation.

    Quote Originally Posted by rbt View Post
    It appears they intend to install both moving-block ATC and a tradational fixed block system. Somehow we are going to overlay one on top of the other so both work at the same time allowing work cars and disabled trains to be intermixed with ATC traffic.

    I've never seen that before and have serious doubts it can be made to work system wide.

    What I expect will actually happen in 2016 is we will have moving block in a few choke points like the approach to Bloor, King, and Union and the remainder will remain as it is today with a "call control" notice for trains not ATC equipped to pass those points. Pure speculation, but my confidence in the plan details as advertised is pretty low.
    I'm not certain as yet that the secondary signal system will be a full wayside system in the same design as the current one. I certainly haven't seen any hard details of the system, and would love to see what has already been planned out. For all we know it may be as simple as fixed signals at interlockings with moving block/cab signals in between - a system currently in use on a number of different systems (such as Chicago).

    Dan
    Toronto, Ont.

  15. #2460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smallspy View Post
    Again, SCS has nothing to do with the future ATC/ATO system. It was designed and developed long before the City agreed to fund the ATC/ATO implementation.


    I'm not certain as yet that the secondary signal system will be a full wayside system in the same design as the current one. I certainly haven't seen any hard details of the system, and would love to see what has already been planned out. For all we know it may be as simple as fixed signals at interlockings with moving block/cab signals in between - a system currently in use on a number of different systems (such as Chicago).
    Thanks for clearing that up, Dan.

    However, I'm extremely surprised that the CTA utilizes moving block. I'd love to read about their implementation. I did a Google search and didn't find any articles about it. Do you have a source?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •