Toronto Crosstown LRT | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | Arcadis

[Rainforest]

Parallel bus on Eglinton, at least between Don Mills and the west end, is consistent with TTC standards.

Yonge and Sheppard lines: distances between the stations are up to 2 km, parallel bus service exists.

Bloor - Danforth line (between Kipling and Main Street): distances are 800 m or less, no parallel bus.

On Eglinton, distances will be up to 1.1 km (I don't even count Leslie to Don Mills, which is 2 km but with no users). Thus, a parallel bus is needed.

Now, one concern is how that bus will manage in mixed traffic. The city planners got so busy reducing the car lanes on Eglinton, they forgot that the bus needs to make it from one end to the other somehow.

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

ATP is a completely different beast from ATO, it's not comparable.

This is simply not true. ATP is a primary component of ATC & ATO systems. Automatic Train Protection is a type of Communications-Based Train Control system and if it's the only component installed operates at Grade-of-Automation Level 1. Line 1 and 5 use ATC or Automatic Train Control. Automatic Train Control on Lines 1 and 5 has, as it's base component, ATP, and operates at Grade-of-Automation Level 2. Line 3 Ontario will use ATO or Automatic Train Operation in Unattended Train Operation mode, which is Grade-of-Automation Level 4. ATO also has ATP as it's base component. The former Scarborough RT operated at Grade-of-Automation Level 3 and also had ATP as one of it's component systems.

 

[mburrrrr]

I keep opening this thread hoping for the UT inside perspective on an opening date. +/- a month.

Will I have a news pop up on phone first or will I find see it here first? 50/50 chance. Much better odds than guessing a date.

It is sounding closer and closer everyday……. and then further away.

 

[SaugeenJunction]

I keep opening this thread hoping for the UT inside perspective on an opening date. +/- a month.

Will I have a news pop up on phone first or will I find see it here first? 50/50 chance. Much better odds than guessing a date.

It is sounding closer and closer everyday……. and then further away.

Our best hint for an imminent announcement will be a Province of Ontario media advisory with the Premier, Minister of Transport, all PC local MPPs, Mayor Chow, numerous Councillors included.

 

[lead82]

ask someone with a walker who is a slow walker as well someone with a cane or a wheelchairs. If you have young children, try walking that distance with then a few time.

the 34 will have a bitch of a time traveling that single lane

I have young kids and we walk 400-1km distances all the time. It’s a weird North American thing to not walk and it’s why lots of folks on this continent have mobility issues - use it or loose it sadly. I see people who live 500m from a store drive and park on Yonge to get to the store. It’s mad.

My point about the parallel bus service is that Eglinton is similar to Danforth and line 2 has no parallel service and a similar stop spacing. So why does Danforth not have it but Eglinton will? What makes Eglinton special.

 

[drum118]

I have young kids and we walk 400-1km distances all the time. It’s a weird North American thing to not walk and it’s why lots of folks on this continent have mobility issues - use it or loose it sadly. I see people who live 500m from a store drive and park on Yonge to get to the store. It’s mad.

My point about the parallel bus service is that Eglinton is similar to Danforth and line 2 has no parallel service and a similar stop spacing. So why does Danforth not have it but Eglinton will? What makes Eglinton special.

Danforth was built in the 60's along with Bloor when TTC was making a profit and had no service standards like today. Danforth died after streetcars were removed compared to Bloor that thrive after the removal. If one walk from Broadview to Main today as well 10 years ago, let along in the 80's, Danforth is starting to get life on it today with Bloor booming.

I have seen ppl drive to the corner store than to walk it when walking is the right thing to do. You are the exception to walk long distance with small kids as i always have heard it too far to walk it. I have done long walks with my children and no big deal for me as I either had the back rack to put the daughter in or put her on my shoulders when she became tired with the son still able to walk since he was 3 years older than his sister.

Walking in NA is a lot different than other places because of the car or using transit.

 

[ARG1]

This is simply not true. ATP is a primary component of ATC & ATO systems. Automatic Train Protection is a type of Communications-Based Train Control system and if it's the only component installed operates at Grade-of-Automation Level 1. Line 1 and 5 use ATC or Automatic Train Control. Automatic Train Control on Lines 1 and 5 has, as it's base component, ATP, and operates at Grade-of-Automation Level 2. Line 3 Ontario will use ATO or Automatic Train Operation in Unattended Train Operation mode, which is Grade-of-Automation Level 4. ATO also has ATP as it's base component. The former Scarborough RT operated at Grade-of-Automation Level 3 and also had ATP as one of it's component systems.

ATO is the automatic operations of a train, where you have an operator that supervises the train, but the train drives itself. ATP is simply a security system that can communicate with other trains and signals, however the operation of the trains remains firmly in the operator's hands. There is a massive difference between transitioning between ATP an non-ATP at speed, vs transitioning from ATO to manual operations at speed, like its not comparable at all. This is regardless of if ATP is a "base component" of ATO (nevermind the fact that this isn't true, ATP is a completely separate system).

Like yes, the facts you have presented here are technically true, but they're irrelevant to the larger point. Just because you can transition a train from GoA-0 to GoA-1, doesn't mean you can just as easily transition from GoA-1 to GoA-2.

 

[fanoftoronto]

Is there a reason they can't convert from ATO to surface operation at Laird station prior to leaving the station?

There don't seem to be any positives for switching signalling methods while moving.

 

[ARG1]

Is there a reason they can't convert from ATO to surface operation at Laird station prior to leaving the station?

There don't seem to be any positives for switching signalling methods while moving.

My best guess (and this is the part where I admit I could be wrong) is that this way they could short turn trains in the pocket track using ATO. Granted I'm not sure this is the complete reasoning since I know ATO can run whilst other trains are in manual (and on many lines such as the NYC 7 train, operators are required to disable ATO and run trains manually for 1 run each day).

The alternate explanation is that Metrolinx wanted this system to shorten dwell times at Laird, so the system feels more like a subway.

 

[smallspy]

I don't think it's about whether or not it can be installed (although I think there is value in the idea that the flexities weren't designed with them in mind), but rather the complexities of transitioning to/from ATO whilst the vehicle is in motion, travelling through Brentcliffe Portal.

I'm not sure why you think this is a complex thing - it doesn't need to be.

Hell, the SRT was capable of transitioning from manual control back to ATO when it was launched in 1985. It happens all around the world. It's not rocket appliances.

Making an ATO system isn't difficult, making a hybrid system is.

Even this is not completely true. Especially in a situation like Eglinton, where the same vendor is responsible for all aspects of the signal system and the vehicles, which were designed to be fitted with such systems from the outset.

The alternate explanation is that Metrolinx wanted this system to shorten dwell times at Laird, so the system feels more like a subway.

This reason makes the most sense to me - coupled with the spare track east of the station, all underground operations could be handled by the ATC/ATO.

One other point that comes to mind - on the YUS, the operators are allowed to operate the train in ATO mode, or in CABS, which is manual operation under the supervision of the ATC system. Seeing as how the Eglinton line will be under the purview of Subway Operations, it stands to reason that operators will be given the same freedom to operate the trains themselves should they choose.

Dan

 

[ARG1]

I'm not sure why you think this is a complex thing - it doesn't need to be.

Hell, the SRT was capable of transitioning from manual control back to ATO when it was launched in 1985. It happens all around the world. It's not rocket appliances.

The SRT had a system where operators had to switch from manual operations to an ATO system whilst running in between stations? News to me.

The issue isn't that it's difficult to turn off ATO, it's difficult to enter an ATO zone and enable it whilst in motion. To my knowledge this isn't something that occurred on the SRT, let alone regularly.

Even this is not completely true. Especially in a situation like Eglinton, where the same vendor is responsible for all aspects of the signal system and the vehicles, which were designed to be fitted with such systems from the outset.

That in no way indicates that the process is smooth without any technical problems. Just because the signalling system was centrally designed to be able to swap mid run doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work, and not riddled with unforseen faults due to the complexity of such a changeover.

The issue I'm presenting here isn't without precedent, the full opening of the Elizabeth Line in London was delayed by 18 months over the exact same issue, needing to swap operating modes while entering the various ATO zones.


P.S. just to confirm what I'm saying, if you go back to older pressors done by Phil Verster, he more or less confirms what I'm saying here.

x.com

x.com

Specifically at Time Stamp 40:00, he states that the biggest hurdle in the critical is the software related to systems/signalling integration. This paired with the reddit post, plus a few other people I've talked to regarding Eglinton, the problem point very much seems to be the ATO to Manual transition between Laird and SBP.

 

[smallspy]

The SRT had a system where operators had to switch from manual operations to an ATO system whilst running in between stations? News to me.

Sorta.

If something happened and the train needed to be run in manual, it could be done so. If the system was able to, it could then regain control at the "reentry points", which were located by signs every several hundred feet along the tracks.

The issue isn't that it's difficult to turn off ATO, it's difficult to enter an ATO zone and enable it whilst in motion. To my knowledge this isn't something that occurred on the SRT, let alone regularly.

It's not, or at least it doesn't seem to be. I don't know about the Alstom system used on the Subway or the Bombardier system used on the Crosstown, but the Seltrac system on the SRT does - or at least did. And it seems that the Bombardier system can as well, at least at certain points.

That in no way indicates that the process is smooth without any technical problems. Just because the signalling system was centrally designed to be able to swap mid run doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work, and not riddled with unforseen faults due to the complexity of such a changeover.

You're strawmanning this hard. If the system was designed for it from day one - which it was in the case of the Crosstown - there will also be an expectation for it to work. It will be part of the testing and verification process.

Any faults unforeseen will be dealt with accordingly. Not different than any other signal system.

It sounds like you're trying to make a case for no signal system at all, as designing them would be "too hard" and potentially "riddled with faults".

The issue I'm presenting here isn't without precedent, the full opening of the Elizabeth Line in London was delayed by 18 months over the exact same issue, needing to swap operating modes while entering the various ATO zones.

The issues with the Elizabeth line are not compatible nor relevant here.

This is a new system, with a green field signal system installation, running with total independence from outside systems. The Elizabeth line involved integrating a new line into 4 previously existing lines, aligning a new signal system with two previously existing ones, and having to deal with existing services and equipment along with the dedicated fleet.

P.S. just to confirm what I'm saying, if you go back to older pressors done by Phil Verster, he more or less confirms what I'm saying here.

x.com

x.com

Specifically at Time Stamp 40:00, he states that the biggest hurdle in the critical is the software related to systems/signalling integration. This paired with the reddit post, plus a few other people I've talked to regarding Eglinton, the problem point very much seems to be the ATO to Manual transition between Laird and SBP.

I have no capability of watching that video, but there is WAY more to systems & signalling integration than just an ATO entry point.

Dan

 

[ARG1]

You're strawmanning this hard. If the system was designed for it from day one - which it was in the case of the Crosstown - there will also be an expectation for it to work. It will be part of the testing and verification process.

Any faults unforeseen will be dealt with accordingly. Not different than any other signal system.

It sounds like you're trying to make a case for no signal system at all, as designing them would be "too hard" and potentially "riddled with faults".

I feel like there's a fundamental misunderstanding between what I'm saying, and what you think I'm saying, because ultimately I think we're in agreement here.

I'm not advocating for anything, nor am I making any statement of feasibility (in terms of what is or isn't physically possible). My personal opinion on the matter is that this is an issue that will be sorted, and we will be seeing a fully operational Eglinton Crosstown that will be running more or less as initially intended.

This topic started as someone making a reference to someone on Reddit who claims to be training as an operator, and what the current issues regarding why its taking so long for this line to open. All I'm doing and all I did was corroborate his statements with what I've heard from several other sources. My argument is that there is an aspect of the line's signalling and systems requirements that have proven to be extremely difficult and complicated to get working that lead to the current delay, requirements that go back to the flawed idiation process behind this project. Whilst I did spitball the possibility to make a simplification to the signalling if the issue cannot be fixed, at no point did I mention or say that the issue was "too hard" or even impossible to fix. All I said was that there is an issue, and its complexity has led to a delay.

 

[ssiguy2]

If the underground section was transferred over to ATC then the line could be automated and run at far higher frequencies at lower labour costs.

The reality is that the TTC will not be allowed to run at the frequencies required as, despite Toronto espousing it's a "transit city", we know the city will not allow cars to be inconvinienced. Just look at Spadina for a reference. This mean the line is going to have to be divided in 2.

 

[ARG1]

If the underground section was transferred over to ATC then the line could be automated and run at far higher frequencies at lower labour costs.

The reality is that the TTC will not be allowed to run at the frequencies required as, despite Toronto espousing it's a "transit city", we know the city will not allow cars to be inconvinienced. Just look at Spadina for a reference. This mean the line is going to have to be divided in 2.

The underground section will use ATC...

That's like, literally what the discussion over the last few pages has been about.