TTC Subway Track Replacement

[xtndsbw]

Basically, demonstrate how it is at all "very beneficial".

@ Asterix, you overestimated this word. When I said very beneficial, I clearly meant advantages. Now, if the term "very beneficial" is overkill for the meaning of advantages, my bad. Before I continue on, in the BD line, section from Kipling to Bathurst, a distance of 10.9 kilometers and 13 stations, is done in 20 minutes. Honestly, I can only say, explain so much via typing in a forum. This is best discussed up close. However, I will try to explain as much I can through this.

 

[adma]

Okay. First, an obsessive-compulsive monorail nutter; now, an obsessive-compulsive slab track nutter. UT is really a magnet for fringe-cases...

 

[xtndsbw]

I only wanted to share an idea and discuss it. That's all. If my posts are worthless or bothering/offending, then please ignore them. Thanks.

 

[Asterix]

@ Asterix, you overestimated this word. When I said very beneficial, I clearly meant advantages. Now, if the term "very beneficial" is overkill for the meaning of advantages, my bad. Before I continue on, in the BD line, section from Kipling to Bathurst, a distance of 10.9 kilometers and 13 stations, is done in 20 minutes. Honestly, I can only say, explain so much via typing in a forum. This is best discussed up close. However, I will try to explain as much I can through this.

I'm confused. "Very beneficial" does not really mean "very beneficial", but rather 'might have marginal benefits, not accounting for costs'?

Your timing for the Bloor line looks reasonably accurate as the subway generally runs with an average speed of just over 30 km/h. Note that this 'average' speed accounts for time spent slowing down and while stationary in stations. But I still fail to see how you are even attempting to explain anything. Here you are simply reporting current conditions which are already well known.

Can you at all provide a speed profile of current operation along that section and how you think it would look with your new track?

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to show what 'advantages' or 'very beneficial' benefits you are referring to.

 

[catcher_of_cats]

The travel speed on BD west of St George, outside of the Christie/Ossington crossover, speeds typically reach 60km/h on tracks that are not on wood. I see this fantasy as a tremendous waste of resources. New construction is one thing, but untold millions for 10 secs saved is NOTHING.

 

[xtndsbw]

I'm confused. "Very beneficial" does not really mean "very beneficial", but rather 'might have marginal benefits, not accounting for costs'?

Your timing for the Bloor line looks reasonably accurate as the subway generally runs with an average speed of just over 30 km/h. Note that this 'average' speed accounts for time spent slowing down and while stationary in stations. But I still fail to see how you are even attempting to explain anything. Here you are simply reporting current conditions which are already well known.

Can you at all provide a speed profile of current operation along that section and how you think it would look with your new track?

If you want anyone to take you seriously, you need to show what 'advantages' or 'very beneficial' benefits you are referring to.

Very well. Let's just stick with the "advantages" only. "Very beneficial" is just too much, so I'll drop that term. Yes, my timing of the BD line that I mentioned above includes the stops, passengers boarding/disembarking the train, etc. When you say "speed profile", you mean average speed if I understood correctly? With the new line, a benefit of speed would be in the turns/curves (not only in the light ones). Anyhow, to be intact, I was comparing the current conditions of the TTC subway I stated with the subway I've riden outside of Canada multiple times. If you want, I'd be glad to share my experience and provide further details and comparison of the subway and city I meant.

 

[Asterix]

Very well. Let's just stick with the "advantages" only. "Very beneficial" is just too much, so I'll drop that term. Yes, my timing of the BD line that I mentioned above includes the stops, passengers boarding/disembarking the train, etc. When you say "speed profile", you mean average speed if I understood correctly? With the new line, a benefit of speed would be in the turns/curves (not only in the light ones). Anyhow, to be intact, I was comparing the current conditions of the TTC subway I stated with the subway I've riden outside of Canada multiple times. If you want, I'd be glad to share my experience and provide further details and comparison of the subway and city I meant.

So what are the "advantages"?

By 'speed profile' I'm not talking about just average speed (although that would be an outcome). Show you understand the subway operation by outlining how long (both time and distance) it would take to get up to the top operating speed between stations, how long (both time and distance) it would run at this top speed and how long (both time and distance) it would take to decelerate coming up to the next station.

Show the numbers both for the current tracks and for your proposed tracks. That would quantify the "advantages". So far all that we can apparently gain is less than a minute for the entire YUS run and very little, if anything, for the closer stop spacing along the Bloor-Danforth line, unless you can actually provide evidence to the contrary.

As lafard posted previously, you might also want to be aware of other track issues (turns, hills, cross-over tracks, switches, etc) that could limit operating speeds even when absolute distance might still suggest an advantage to faster running.

If you are unable to come close to that, then one must ask how you expect anyone to remotely consider spending millions on such a gravy train track.

 

[xtndsbw]

So what are the "advantages"?

By 'speed profile' I'm not talking about just average speed (although that would be an outcome). Show you understand the subway operation by outlining how long (both time and distance) it would take to get up to the top operating speed between stations, how long (both time and distance) it would run at this top speed and how long (both time and distance) it would take to decelerate coming up to the next station.

Ok, in this part, acceleration and deccelation of the trains and distances between the stations have a lot to do with this. The faster it accelerates and deccelerates, the shorter time it will need to reach its' top operating speed, thus it will longer travel with its' top operating speed. Anyhow, these are more technical details that I really don't know how to explain well. I will provide other things below. Afterall, I'm no mechanic/engineer or some type of expert.

Show the numbers both for the current tracks and for your proposed tracks. That would quantify the "advantages". unless you can actually provide evidence to the contrary.

Very well. The numbers of the current tracks (at least from the section Kipling to Bathurtst) are the ones mentioned. The evidence I'll provide is from the subway in Athens, the Athens Metro, which consists of the slab track. First of all, let me clarify that I'm not advertising or anything like that. The whole Line 2 of the Athens Metro, Aghios Antonios (St. Anthony) - Aghios Dimitrios (St. James) currently is 10.9 kilometrs long and consists 14 stations. Coincidentally, it's the same length and stations number from Kipling to Bathurst! Can you believe it? As funny as this may sound, it's true! Seriousely, it is. Check here: http://www.amel.gr/index.php?id=22&L=1

And here's the map of it: http://www.amel.gr/index.php?id=54&no_cache=1&L=1#print

It's the red line. Anyway, to make a long story short, from the beginning of the line until the end, it takes 18 minutes flat. I know, it's not a big difference from the 20 minutes and something from the current track here. But, keep in mind though that the majority of the line is curves and turns, and a lot of stations, particularly those close to the downtown core are spaced pretty close to each other. There's no telling how fast it would reach the the terminal station if the majority of the line was straightline. And all that for a 10.9 kilometer distance. For a bigger distance, even more time will be shaved off. So, based on all the above, speed is one advantage, the smooth feel is another. Regarding the smooth feel, I don't know how to explain it well, but I'll try.

As lafard posted previously, you might also want to be aware of other track issues (turns, hills, cross-over tracks, switches, etc) that could limit operating speeds even when absolute distance might still suggest an advantage to faster running.

Yes I'm aware of those issues mentioned and therefore don't expect speed gain here.

 

[xtndsbw]

I'll post more in a bit.

 

[rbt]

Ok, in this part, acceleration and deccelation of the trains and distances between the stations have a lot to do with this. The faster it accelerates and deccelerates, the shorter time it will need to reach its' top operating speed, thus it will longer travel with its' top operating speed. Anyhow, these are more technical details that I really don't know how to explain well. I will provide other things below. Afterall, I'm no mechanic/engineer or some type of expert.

A large number of things limit acceleration. Track, train weight, motor size/quantiy/location, tunnel diameter (air resistance really impacts trains in London's tight tunnels), and whether there is a train infront or not.

One of Toronto's biggest problems during rushhour is that there is nearly always a train infront of the current one. Both Yonge and Bloor/Danforth speeds are limited nearly entirely by signalling due to congestion.

Spending money on acceleration will make rushhour trains run at exactly the same speed because the bottleneck is still congestion.

ATO can have a real benefit during rush though it will not be of any benefit outside of rush.

Even if beneficial outside of rushhour, there are a large number of other priorities that need to come first. FYI, an Electrified LakeShore with 10-minute all-day service would still be significantly faster and potentially cheaper too install (excavating the tunnel bottom to install floating slab would not be cheap or easy).

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Even station platform doors would be an improvement providing a far higher degree of benefits.

AoD

 

[xtndsbw]

Of course, to relieve congestion, a Downtown relief line would be a nice addition to the subway network. But I won't discuss this here because it's off-topic.

 

[xtndsbw]

A large number of things limit acceleration. Track, train weight, motor size/quantiy/location, tunnel diameter (air resistance really impacts trains in London's tight tunnels), and whether there is a train infront or not.

Yes, all the above have a lot to do with this. TTC tunnels are too tight?

Spending money on acceleration will make rushhour trains run at exactly the same speed because the bottleneck is still congestion.

You mean by the overcrowded stations during rush hour?

ATO can have a real benefit during rush though it will not be of any benefit outside of rush.

Yes, this is necessary and will be very helpful.

Even if beneficial outside of rushhour, there are a large number of other priorities that need to come first. FYI, an Electrified LakeShore with 10-minute all-day service would still be significantly faster and potentially cheaper too install (excavating the tunnel bottom to install floating slab would not be cheap or easy).

I didn't quite understand. Excavating which tunnel bottom?

 

[rbt]

I didn't quite understand. Excavating which tunnel bottom?

Installing a floating track system will add some thinkness (1 to 2 feet) to the requried base. Sheppards TBM was quite a bit larger than those before it, and Spadina's are even bigger.

To add 2 feet to the floor thinkness you either need to reduce the train height by the same or drop the floor down which will be pretty darn tricky since much of Toronto's subway system is below the watertable (see muck floods during Sheppard construction for just how difficult).

 

[SlickFranky]

So...marginal benefits, low priority, very expensive...have we come to a satisfying conclusion yet?