Toronto Eglinton Line 5 | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[PL1]

There will be fewer busses on Eglinton. A number of bus routes that currently go to Eglinton station will be rerouted. E.g. the 56 Leaside and 51 Leslie will be combined into a new 51 Leslie that goes to Donlands station

Edit: this was meant to be in reply to the discussion on busses on Eglinton after the Crosstown finally opens

 

[crs1026]

I don't know if it has been fully repaired, but the third pair of training classes have started going out and doing their runs on the line, so it seems to me that it has been fixed enough to be safe again.

To give this a historical comparison, the UCRS Newsletter of February 1966 reported that the final H1 cars for the Line 2 Bloor Danforth Subway, 5496-5499, were delivered to Greenwood Yard on Jan 3, 1966. Operator training began Jan 10/66.

The system opened successfully on Feb 26, 1966.

- Paul

 

[Metroscapes]

To give this a historical comparison, the UCRS Newsletter of February 1966 reported that the final H1 cars for the Line 2 Bloor Danforth Subway, 5496-5499, were delivered to Greenwood Yard on Jan 3, 1966. Operator training began Jan 10/66.

The system opened successfully on Feb 26, 1966.

- Paul

I think the block signaling of Line 2 was a bit less complex than the hardware and software for Line 5's system, so it strikes me as apples to oranges.

 

[cplchanb]

I think the block signaling of Line 2 was a bit less complex than the hardware and software for Line 5's system, so it strikes me as apples to oranges.

yea but with the amount of advances in technology to test and not to mention already in version 8 of their software you'd expect them to be able to get it right far earlier... theyve had 5 additional years to test this!

 

[crs1026]

I think the block signaling of Line 2 was a bit less complex than the hardware and software for Line 5's system, so it strikes me as apples to oranges.

No doubt... and the similarity to the Yonge/University signalling meant they were working with a proven product.

I wonder how many lines of Crosstown signalling code were even written and tested and validated as of the date that Crosstown ground was broken, and how many were written specifically for this line and within the last two years of the original committed tcd date. (Which put the burden of testing and validating and perfecting on this project)

We may be more technically advanced than in 1966, but we pay a huge price for wanting to be at a technological leading edge.

- Paul

 

[stevedean]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old - why do we need to come up with new software for what should be a pretty basic LRT system? Are there not other LRT systems that we could leverage the software from?
Is there anything really special with how Line 1 or Line 2 that made the training time so much less?
It seems like we're trying to reinvent the wheel on something that didn't need it.

 

[dowlingm]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old - why do we need to come up with new software for what should be a pretty basic LRT system? Are there not other LRT systems that we could leverage the software from?
Is there anything really special with how Line 1 or Line 2 that made the training time so much less?
It seems like we're trying to reinvent the wheel on something that didn't need it.

It's not just signalling in the underground section, it's also automated operation. So that increases the degree of difficulty substantially.

 

[duffo]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old - why do we need to come up with new software for what should be a pretty basic LRT system? Are there not other LRT systems that we could leverage the software from?
Is there anything really special with how Line 1 or Line 2 that made the training time so much less?
It seems like we're trying to reinvent the wheel on something that didn't need it.

The line runs automated in its grade-separated right-of-way underground/elevated (Automatic Train Operation or ATO), and once it emerges at Laird, it switches to manual control since it runs on street (Automatic Train Protection or ATP). Transitioning between the two systems on one line mid-service I believe is somewhat unconventional and is probably behind some of the headaches.

 

[crs1026]

It's not just signalling in the underground section, it's also automated operation. So that increases the degree of difficulty substantially.

Agree, but the same question..... did ML buy a proven product or was this custom designed during the project execution?

- Paul

 

[stevedean]

Agree, but the same question..... did ML buy a proven product or was this custom designed during the project execution?

- Paul

Exactly!
You're telling me, there is no LRT system like this in the world? Even in Canada, are there not above/below ground systems in Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa?
We really had to create a brand new system for the very special Eglinton...

 

[unrealestate]

The line runs automated in its grade-separated right-of-way underground/elevated (Automatic Train Operation or ATO), and once it emerges at Laird, it switches to manual control since it runs on street (Automatic Train Protection or ATP). Transitioning between the two systems on one line mid-service I believe is somewhat unconventional and is probably behind some of the headaches.

having a section above ground and not grade separated was such an idiotic decision

 

[DSCToronto]

This headline on CP24 really sums it all up! Certainly good new that it COULD open in 2025!

Eglinton Crosstown LRT could open in 2025, Metrolinx CEO teases

There may be light at the end of the tunnel for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT. Metrolinx CEO Phil Verster provided an update on the over-budget, long-delayed project on Thursday at a board meeting, saying the Crown corporation is pushing towards a 2025 opening date.

www.cp24.com

 

[Bojaxs]

having a section above ground and not grade separated was such an idiotic decision

Hear, hear!

EDIT: Hopefully sometime in the future we can consider converting the entire Eglinton line to the same standards as the Ontario line. Including grade separating the "Golden Mile" stretch.

 

[smallspy]

Can someone explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old - why do we need to come up with new software for what should be a pretty basic LRT system? Are there not other LRT systems that we could leverage the software from?
Is there anything really special with how Line 1 or Line 2 that made the training time so much less?
It seems like we're trying to reinvent the wheel on something that didn't need it.

It's not new.

This is an off-the-shelf product that then gets modified to suit the system that it is running on. It may also require specific changes to suit the particular hardware that it is running on or interfacing with (different signal vendors, axle counters, dealing with phase harmonics, etc.) but all-in-all it starts out as a standard suite of parts.

Now, that said, it is not the same system as used on the subway, or was used on the SRT. So the training is also a little different, although mainly because of a change in terminology.

For the record, the training time - 30 days per class - is the exact same amount of training as on the subway or SRT.

Dan

 

[smallspy]

Agree, but the same question..... did ML buy a proven product or was this custom designed during the project execution?

- Paul

Off-the-shelf proven product that needs to be modified to suit the local needs, standards and regulations.

This is the same idea as the Alstom system that has been installed on the subway, although that was trickier and more complex as it was installed over an existing system as it operated.

Dan