TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[W. K. Lis]

I'd give them more time than TRs being moved to Line 2, we should be expecting new trains in less than a decade given the SSE and the perceived age of the T1s.
It'll be sad not being able to sit at the front of the train anymore, but times must change.

Depends on how they design the new trains. Why do we need a full cab if the train and route will be fully automatic?

From link.

Unless they plan on a full washroom and bed in the cab.

 

[Streety McCarface]

Depends on how they design the new trains. Why do we need a full cab if the train and route will be fully automatic?

From link.

Unless they plan on a full washroom and bed in the cab.

Let's be honest, the Union will not allow full automation. I don't have a problem with that, but it means we're stuck with full cabs.

 

[steveintoronto]

Let's be honest, the Union will not allow full automation. I don't have a problem with that, but it means we're stuck with full cabs.

I beg to differ. Once it's down to one-person operation, the Union only cares that OPO is one person on the train, not necessarily operating it. SRT has been virtually automatic since day one.

 

[smallspy]

I beg to differ. Once it's down to one-person operation, the Union only cares that OPO is one person on the train, not necessarily operating it. SRT has been virtually automatic since day one.

Except that the operating person needs some place to operate the doors from. And for a variety of different reasons, the most logical place to do that is from the front of the train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Except that the operating person needs some place to operate the doors from. And for a variety of different reasons, the most logical place to do that is from the front of the train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

And in any automatically operated train I've been in, (admittedly in Europe) that's in the front, without an enclosed cab, and with a view through the front windscreen. Although the Central Line stock would be an exception to that.

Here's what I responded to:

Let's be honest, the Union will not allow full automation. I don't have a problem with that, but it means we're stuck with full cabs.

I replied:

I beg to differ. Once it's down to one-person operation, the Union only cares that OPO is one person on the train, not necessarily operating it. SRT has been virtually automatic since day one.

Docklands Light Railway:

Here's a vid:

Many times I've witnessed the on-train operator take over manual control by unlocking the controls at the front. There is no cab per-se.

Further to that:

'Driverless' tube trains: a guide to the guff
Dave Hill
@DaveHill
Wed 29 Feb 2012 22.54 GMTFirst published on Wed 29 Feb 2012 22.54 GMT
[...]
London Underground already has trains that are "driverless" in the sense that the term "train driver" is traditionally meant. The Victoria, Central and Jubilee lines are operated by Automatic Train Operation (ATO) systems - the Victoria partially so since 1968 - which mean they aren't manually controlled by people sitting in cabs at the front end except in an emergency. The main responsibility of those individuals is to safely operate the carriage doors. Also, they are members of trade unions.

Trains on the Docklands Light Railway (DLR) don't have drivers even in the ATO kind of way. Instead, they have "train attendants" or "captains" who travel on the train but move around inside it rather than sitting at the front. These people do, however, look after the doors just like their ATO Tube counterparts. They too are expected to operate the train manually if something goes wrong with the system. And they too are members of trade unions. Indeed, Crow's RMT lays claim to nearly all of them.

So if staff on the truly "driverless" DLR are every bit as unionised as those on the Tube – and prepared to withdraw their labour too - how does Boris think making the Tube progressively more driverless will weaken the Tube unions?
[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/davehillblog/2012/feb/29/boris-johnson-driverless-underground-trains

 

[44 North]

Except that the operating person needs some place to operate the doors from. And for a variety of different reasons, the most logical place to do that is from the front of the train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I can assume the variety of logical reasons (largely relating to the prexisting design for having a conductor at the front). But if just operating the doors the optimal location, in my eyes at least, seems like it would be in the middle of the train. Door operator looks 75m up-track and 75m down-track, as opposed to 150m up-track. Sure the operator has to rotate their head 180deg during this process, but 150m is a long view when securing a platform - at least compared with half the distance.

Am a supporting of keeping operators on trains, and they certainly will do more than just doors. But do they really need the whole front of the train? What's wrong with the corner cab in a similar setup to existing T1s and its predecessors?

 

[smallspy]

And in any automatically operated train I've been in, (admittedly in Europe) that's in the front, without an enclosed cab, and with a view through the front windscreen. Although the Central Line stock would be an exception to that.

There is a big, big difference between a system that has had ATC/ATO installed into it after having already been operating, versus one that was designed for it from the outset.

Systems like London's DRL, or Bombardier's ART, or Mitsubishi's Crystal Mover are designed to operate that from the outset. That also means that all of their various life safety systems are designed to be operated by people who don't need to be taught how to use them.

Any system that has had ATC/ATO installed after the fact almost always uses an operator. I can't honestly think of a single installation where the operator has been removed after system has gone live.

I can assume the variety of logical reasons (largely relating to the prexisting design for having a conductor at the front). But if just operating the doors the optimal location, in my eyes at least, seems like it would be in the middle of the train. Door operator looks 75m up-track and 75m down-track, as opposed to 150m up-track. Sure the operator has to rotate their head 180deg during this process, but 150m is a long view when securing a platform - at least compared with half the distance.

Where that part of the argument falls down is - how does the operator see both sides of the train? Do you put a full-width cab right in the middle, preventing people from passing from the front to the back half? How about if the ATO fails, and the operator needs to run the train manually?

Of course, none of it is deal-breaking, but it does make things way more complex putting a cabin in the middle. Better to leave it at the front/back and avoid them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Of course, none of it is deal-breaking, but it does make things way more complex putting a cabin in the middle. Better to leave it at the front/back and avoid them.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

That's not what the point was:
Streety McCarface said:

Let's be honest, the Union will not allow full automation. I don't have a problem with that, but it means we're stuck with full cabs.

I answered:
steveintoronto said:

I beg to differ. Once it's down to one-person operation, the Union only cares that OPO is one person on the train, not necessarily operating it. SRT has been virtually automatic since day one.

"Full cabs" (as in passengers not being able to see out the front) will not be mandated by the union's position. Whether the view is obstructed by a full cab or not is down to design choice, not union demands. Many metros and as clearly presented prior, the DLR have a completely unobstructed view out the front, even when an operator takes manual control.

Here's an example of a clear view out the front with a full width cab and fully manual operation:

It's all down to design, not mode of operation.

Note the clear glass separating the passengers from the cab, allowing full frontal view:

Streety McCarface said:

I'd give them more time than TRs being moved to Line 2, we should be expecting new trains in less than a decade given the SSE and the perceived age of the T1s.
It'll be sad not being able to sit at the front of the train anymore, but times must change.

Depends on how they design the new trains. Why do we need a full cab if the train and route will be fully automatic?

From link.

Unless they plan on a full washroom and bed in the cab.

 

[smallspy]

That's not what the point was:
Streety McCarface said:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/goto/post?id=1407114

I'm well aware of "Streety McCarface's point. You'll note that the passage that you quoted of mine was not directed to him, or his specific point.

I answered:
steveintoronto said:

"Full cabs" (as in passengers not being able to see out the front) will not be mandated by the union's position.

And my point is that I disagree with that conclusion. The on-board employee will still be required to take over operation of the train if need be, and has certain duties that require him/her to be in one place for a very healthy proportion of the time. Therefore, there will need to remain a cab at the front and back of the train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/goto/post?id=1407114

I'm well aware of "Streety McCarface's point. You'll note that the passage that you quoted of mine was not directed to him, or his specific point.



And my point is that I disagree with that conclusion. The on-board employee will still be required to take over operation of the train if need be, and has certain duties that require him/her to be in one place for a very healthy proportion of the time. Therefore, there will need to remain a cab at the front and back of the train.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

What has that to do with passengers being able to see out of the front of the train?
Here is what I wrote and you quoted:
steveintoronto said:

"Full cabs" (as in passengers not being able to see out the front) will not be mandated by the union's position.

Are you aware of the union mandating non-see through full width cabs for all future trains?

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

What has that to do with passengers being able to see out of the front of the train?

Why does it matter to people to be able to see out the front f train? Yes, it's nice for little kids and transit fans but does the average commuter really care if they can see out the front window of a train?

 

[Streety McCarface]

That's not what the point was:
Streety McCarface said:

I answered:
steveintoronto said:

"Full cabs" (as in passengers not being able to see out the front) will not be mandated by the union's position. Whether the view is obstructed by a full cab or not is down to design choice, not union demands. Many metros and as clearly presented prior, the DLR have a completely unobstructed view out the front, even when an operator takes manual control.

Here's an example of a clear view out the front with a full width cab and fully manual operation:

It's all down to design, not mode of operation.

Note the clear glass separating the passengers from the cab, allowing full frontal view:
View attachment 168706
Streety McCarface said:

I feel like the Unions would demand full cabs for guard duties, workers always seem annoyed when people are in the guard area when they have to do their job. I also don't know if there's enough room for all the monitors and equipment associated with OPTO and ATC in a half cab. It definitely would not be ergonomic for workers.

Why does it matter to people to be able to see out the front f train? Yes, it's nice for little kids and transit fans but does the average commuter really care if they can see out the front window of a train?

Exactly, I was just making a transit fan comment, I didn't think it would blow up in the way that it did.

 

[steveintoronto]

I feel like the Unions would demand full cabs for guard duties, workers always seem annoyed when people are in the guard area when they have to do their job. I also don't know if there's enough room for all the monitors and equipment associated with OPTO and ATC in a half cab. It definitely would not be ergonomic for workers.

But that's why other examples were posted, and in far more progressive and sophisticated systems than Toronto's. Yes it matters for some that you can see out of the front, albeit it's not a deal-breaker for all. In the case of the DLR, when the operator needs to take over manual operation, he sits at the front and unlocks the cover on the needed controls. There's absolutely no problem with it, even in terrorist affected London. And it's not the case with many metros, as @W. K. Lis example showed. In many fully automated trains w/retained operator for closing the doors, it's done at a more central position on the vehicle, for obvious reasons as per sightline, especially on curved platforms.

It definitely would not be ergonomic for workers.

More room is desirable, but to make the claim that cabs are not "ergonomic" as used my *many* operators even today just isn't the case. And if full width cabs are mandated, then do as the example posted above, like in the Flexities and elsewhere, use glass through which passengers can see forward through the windscreen.

Hijacking streetcars or trains hasn't been a 'thing' of late that I can recall...

does the average commuter really care if they can see out the front window of a train?

Do you mean to tell me that you've never worked your way up to the front of a bus or streetcar to see if your stop is up-coming? And gone upstairs on a double-decker only to find the front most seats are already taken? C'mon, you can admit it...

 

[W. K. Lis]

Why does it matter to people to be able to see out the front f train? Yes, it's nice for little kids and transit fans but does the average commuter really care if they can see out the front window of a train?

Maybe get rid of all the side windows while we're at it. Why do we need them if we have video signs and announcements about the next station?

(Actually want side, front, and back windows. Great invention, windows.)

 

[steveintoronto]

(Actually want side, front, and back windows. Great invention, windows.)

Only if you can see!

I find it perturbing on the newer buses not have a rear window. You pass something, wonder 'whaaa?' and can't take a gander out the back window coz there ain't one. At least they have provided them in the new streetcars, which for all their shortcomings in seating layout, allow a good view on the world.