Steve X
Senior Member
Cause someone here saw that Edmonton is getting longer trains and thought we should have that too.Why are we talking about changing the length of the Crosstown's trains?
Cause someone here saw that Edmonton is getting longer trains and thought we should have that too.Why are we talking about changing the length of the Crosstown's trains?
I thought plan was 3-car trains most of the time. Alternatively two 45-metre units might have made more sense than 30-metre units.Isn't the intent to run the Crosstown trains as 2x5 Module units?
The original plan was to run 2-trains at the start with stations built to fit 3-car trains. They'll probably run one car LRVs on Finch West from the start.I thought plan was 3-car trains most of the time. Alternatively two 45-metre units might have made more sense than 30-metre units.
Where has there been any indication that the ATO operation would allow for driverless vehicles?With ATO, they really have the option to decouple the LRVs at Mt Dennis and have one car head back to the carhouse driverless.
ATC/ATO means the computer controls the trains. It's totally possible but aren't done so for safety reasons. Transit control should able to control the computer to drive it safely back to the carhouse just a block east without the needs of a worker on the train. The SRT/skytrain doesn't need someone to close the door and that was 1985. Why is it not possible now?Where has there been any indication that the ATO operation would allow for driverless vehicles?
It's not possible now, because as far as I know, Metrolinx hasn't ordered the necessary equipment to run unstaffed trains.ATC/ATO means the computer controls the trains. It's totally possible but aren't done so for safety reasons. Transit control should able to control the computer to drive it safely back to the carhouse just a block east without the needs of a worker on the train. The SRT/skytrain doesn't need someone to close the door and that was 1985. Why is it not possible now?
That was just my suggestion to save operation cost. If they needed a crew to move LRVs back and forth, then it's not worth it to decouple them.It's not possible now, because as far as I know, Metrolinx hasn't ordered the necessary equipment to run unstaffed trains.
I'm not challenging whether it is possible or not. Of course it's possible - the use of this technology for decades elsewhere makes that clear.
The question I'm asking, is simply where is the indication that the Eglinton vehicles would be capable of this - because I haven't seen anything official.
What is your source?
I don't really see the point of doing this on a line that has at-grade intersections with city streets. I can't imagine that anyone will let an unstaffed train do this anytime soon. Is that being done anywhere in the world?I don't think it's that difficult. It's more software than hardware to upgrade the trains to be fully driverless. It just needs to be able to communicate through an antenna and override the manual controls. The real cost would be the communication receivers in the tunnel.
But they obviously aren't going to drop that much money just for that kind of folly. It would have to be part of a bigger plan.Keep in mind, the initial suggestion was that LRVs decouple and return to the maintenance yard from Mt Dennis. i.e. the station right next to the yard access. No one is talking about running driverless vehicles through at-grade intersections.