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

[Amare]

The multiple repeated claims about TTC speed restrictions at signalized intersections (without special trackwork - which is most signalized intersections) appears to be false.

It's not.

The difference between Line 5/6 is that the speed restrictions for signalized intersections is programmed into the software. For the streetcar network it is not, therefore ops who havent had all the TTC's idiotic SOPs drilled into their heads sometimes go above the speed restrictions.

 

[81-717]

That's 100% normal. And I've seen movement start AFTER the light has gone yellow (which might be a bit too far).

So hbout normalizing L5 not stopping to wait for green to turn yellow, as well as not giving it less green time using the excuse that it's "too long to clear the intersection in time".

 

[nfitz]

It's not.

The difference between Line 5/6 is that the speed restrictions for signalized intersections is programmed into the software. For the streetcar network it is not, therefore ops who havent had all the TTC's idiotic SOPs drilled into their heads sometimes go above the speed restrictions.

Sometimes?

I really have a hard time that there's a blanket restriction on all signalized intersections for streetcars. Perhaps it's only some - though invariably these are intersections where they seldom don't have to stop any how.

 

[smallspy]

The difference between Line 5/6 is that the speed restrictions for signalized intersections is programmed into the software. For the streetcar network it is not, therefore ops who havent had all the TTC's idiotic SOPs drilled into their heads sometimes go above the speed restrictions.

While that seems to be the case on Line 6.....

I'm not sure it is on Line 5. Or maybe they've since increased the limits or removed them - at least in some locations.

There have been a number of operators who I've had who have passed accelerated through intersections to beyond what any speed limit would have limited them to, or have passed through the one at Credit Union at track speed.

Dan

 

[Amare]

While that seems to be the case on Line 6.....

I'm not sure it is on Line 5. Or maybe they've since increased the limits or removed them - at least in some locations.

There have been a number of operators who I've had who have passed accelerated through intersections to beyond what any speed limit would have limited them to, or have passed through the one at Credit Union at track speed.

Dan

Last word I had on the situation about a month ago was that there were speed restrictions for signalized intersections on Eglinton. Mind you that was right around the opening of the line.

I have doubts that they have been lifted, but it's entire plausible that they have increased the limits since then.

 

[ssiguy2]

To be fair, the line's been open for nearly a whole month. One collision per month is par for the course. See Waterloo ION collisions per year.

True but ION didn't cost $12 billion. The TTC is going to have to begin planning the eventual day when they split this line in 2 and that day is coming much earlier than we think.

 

[Westey]

Well... that didnt take too long... we have our first LRT - Auto collision on Line 5.

View attachment 719775

I don't know how a car managed to jump up and hit the elevated tracks, or get down into the tunnel.
Oh yah, they put it in-median.
So, this was part of the design that many people wanted - mainly those who said they don't want transit out of the way from cars.

 

[81-717]

I don't have a problem with grade crossings whatsoever. I do have a problem with tramlike vehicles (at least when trying to pass them off as subways), and even more so with this:

Toronto is moving toward a system where every rail line is a little different and incompatible with other lines re. track gauge, height from track to floor, style of vehicle, signal system, etc.

It makes the whole network feel somewhat piecemeal.

^this right here is exactly why it's better to not build any transit than the wrong transit (which is what the above is).

 

[ctf5650]

I don't have a problem with grade crossings whatsoever. I do have a problem with tramlike vehicles (at least when trying to pass them off as subways), and even more so with this:


^this right here is exactly why it's better to not build any transit than the wrong transit (which is what the above is).

Have you actually ridden the line yet? I have and nobody around me seemed to think it was "piecemeal". The general public doesn't care what kind of train it is, they just take it where they need to go. To them most of it is a subway with minute differences to Line 1 or 2. Asking anyone on the line if they would have preferred to be riding the 34 bus with "no" transit built on Eglinton would have given the obvious answer: "of course not". I do however, worry about capacity in the future.

 

[urbanclient]

Have you actually ridden the line yet? I have and nobody around me seemed to think it was "piecemeal". The general public doesn't care what kind of train it is, they just take it where they need to go. To them most of it is a subway with minute differences to Line 1 or 2. Asking anyone on the line if they would have preferred to be riding the 34 bus with "no" transit built on Eglinton would have given the obvious answer: "of course not". I do however, worry about capacity in the future.

I don't have a problem with grade crossings whatsoever. I do have a problem with tramlike vehicles (at least when trying to pass them off as subways), and even more so with this:

^this right here is exactly why it's better to not build any transit than the wrong transit (which is what the above is).

Both sides of this are highly subjective at the end of the day.

I'll jump in and say, for what Line 5 Eglinton is, a mixed grade, partially elevated, tunnelled, and at-grade rail line running low-floor tram rolling stock, it's easily a 4/5. Much better than Line 6 Finch West in virtually every way.

The only glaring weaknesses Eglinton has are the weak TSP and low speed limits on the surface sections. The underground western section has already ran faster than scheduled in my experience; this is also evidenced by cab view youtube videos (as predicted). When the underground speed limits are upped to 80 or 88 km/h, it'll further save a handful of seconds between each station.

Its inherent weaknesses are another story, but we're close to 15 years too late to fix those. I'll take what we got, a highly imperfect transit line in a highly imperfect world. Learning from mistakes and figuring out what was suboptimal is still important though. Let's not pretend another mixed grade LRT would be optimal for Toronto's future transit needs.

 

[T3G]

he TTC is going to have to begin planning the eventual day when they split this line in 2 and that day is coming much earlier than we think.

So, let me get this straight.

For DECADES, the TTC has done SFA about poor line management causing vehicles to depart termini in packs, and hasn't spent day and night bothering city hall about getting transit only lanes to cover as much of their routes as they can, and hasn't done anything about implementing PSAs despite their absence causing many more delays than the occasional contact of tram and car... but we're supposed to think that they are going to start planning to split the line in 2 "much earlier than we think" to avoid the occasional collision?

Not a chance. If they haven't done anything about these much more pressing issues, there is zero basis on which to assume any action is going to be taken on this complete nothingburger.

 

[81-717]

Have you actually ridden the line yet? I have and nobody around me seemed to think it was "piecemeal".

Yes I have, and it's as piecemeal as I expected, definitely not part of the 1/2/4 family no matter how much it tries to pretend to be. I hate the idea of 1/2/4 ultimately becoming the minority among a plethora of more isolated LRT lines (L7, L10, WLRT, JLRT, etc).

(WLRT = Waterfront, JLRT = Jane)

Even New York did a spectacular job of integrating its BMT, IND & IRT networks. Yes the A & B division trains have different dimensions, but at least they all run on the same tracks (A division cars can drive on B division territory, and the only thing stopping B division cars from driving into A division territory is the width of tunnels/platforms, not the absence of track connections). Imagine if Toronto had the same system where L/1/2/3/4 were connected but L1/2 had B division trains while L3/4 had smaller A division trains (even though L3 should have B division like L1/2 in that scenario). Same with L5.

 

[urbanclient]

Yes I have, and it's as piecemeal as I expected, definitely not part of the 1/2/4 family no matter how much it tries to pretend to be. I hate the idea of 1/2/4 ultimately becoming the minority among a plethora of more isolated LRT lines (L7, L10, WLRT, JLRT, etc).

(WLRT = Waterfront, JLRT = Jane)

Count your lucky stars that Line 7 and Jane LRT are DOA. The latter of which I explained why a while back.

 

[Voltz]

Yes I have, and it's as piecemeal as I expected, definitely not part of the 1/2/4 family no matter how much it tries to pretend to be. I hate the idea of 1/2/4 ultimately becoming the minority among a plethora of more isolated LRT lines (L7, L10, WLRT, JLRT, etc).

Piecemeal as in no forced linear transfer between the two sections? The type of transfer the subway nuts bemoaned for years?

And we can’t offend the subway gods by having the subway lines be outnumbered can we?

 

[Bojaxs]

Have you actually ridden the line yet? I have and nobody around me seemed to think it was "piecemeal".

It's not that Line 5 is piecemeal. It's that Toronto's entire rapid transit network feels somewhat piecemeal.

Once the Ontario line is complete, Toronto will have 3 very different types of rolling stock running underground.

Line 5: Bombardier Flexities
Line 1,2,4: Toronto gauge subways
Line 3: Standard gauge, Hitachi automated trains

I wish we could standardise our rolling stock. It would make the whole network feel more cohesive.