A 6264
Active Member
Edit: I have been corrected; the collision occurred on Thursday, 5 days ago.
Last edited:
|
|
|
Edit: I have been corrected; the collision occurred on Thursday, 5 days ago.
T3G
Senior Member
I'm not sure what you are reading, but the Star article says the accident happened on Thursday. Which jives with the previous report from Smallspy, who says that the testing has been stopped since that day.
Railrunner
Active Member
Just build a real, heavy rail SUBWAY under Eglinton Avenue in Toronto. Forget this tram train trouble it is not worth it and will never work as originally imagined.
Amare
Senior Member
A 6264
Active Member
Obsidian
Active Member
We tried but the province cancelled it and buried the work that had been started.
So it was either LRT or nothing
Bojaxs
Senior Member
That doesn't even begin to make sense. If we could tunnel for an LRT under Eglinton we could have tunneled for a proper subway.
We could have restarted construction on the Eglinton subway had David Miller not been peddling his "Transit City" garbage.
And yes, Mike Harris was wrong to cancel the Eglinton West line.
Steve X
Senior Member
This is not a "LRT" problem but a "subway" problem. This issue has something to do with the CBTC signaling problem which is used on many subways lines around the world.
This crap is bought to us by Metrolinx. I'm pretty sure TTC and what Miller endorse wasn't this crap but a simpler system built based on the downtown streetcars and subway network. The tunnel was suppose to be 30% of the line which made sense for using LRT. It is ML and Ford who wants grade separation and turned it into 70% of the line which they should use subway trains instead.
Under the limited funding Miller could possibly acquire, transit city wasn't a bad plan. There was no why they could afford a full relief line and an Eglinton subway. Miller aimed for equality. He didn't want to just build a small portion of an Eglinton that only a small portion of the city could use. If half of y'all want that, I think you guys are selfish. If that Eglinton subway got built, it'll likely end up building small extensions for the next 30-50 years. So he went for 3 LRT lines: Eglinton, Finch West and Sheppard East, which covers half the suburbs.
How ML handled the project (by taking over all the planning and construction), how Toronto Transportation prioritized cars over transit and possibly TTC operation by invoking slow orders made LRT look bad.
Here we are, over 17 years since Miller reveal Transit City, none of those lines on the map are in operation. Sheppard should have been running LRT trains years ago if that plan gone ahead. Instead they are on buses with no subway construction in sight. We should go ask those subway supports are they satisfied that after 15 years of ripping that plan apart, they still have nothing better than the bus with the SRT shut down. I'm sure some of those supports are in their afterlife now.
Voltz
Senior Member
An Eglinton subway would never have made it past Don Mills, even in this round of transit building, and most likely not past Yonge. There was also no movement for anything on Eglinton until Transit City.
drum118
Superstar
it wasn't Mike Harris that Kill Eglinton, it was the city that did It.
Mike said you have $1 Billion to build one of the 2 subways under contruction which were Eglinton West and Shepper. It was Mel Lastman who was the Mayor of North York who pushed for the Sheppard Line and got it. When Mike merge all the existing Cities and Bourgh's into the New Toronto against the wishes of most people, Mel was elected mayor of the new Toronto. Mel then did arm twisting of councilors to scrap the Eglinton subway and built the white elephant Sheppard Subway.
The Sheppard Subway. was supposed have been built to Victoria Park but the money ran out at Don Mills with Mike say no to extra funds to build the last section
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I'm surprised that in 2025 they haven't commoditized ATO software and the various parts that interact with it. Shouldn't it be a bunch of standard components (actuators, sensors, control circuits) you plug into a standard system and then define system speed and timing limits for? Two trains on tracks (no ability to steer, two dimensional plane, limited intersections and switches) can't be kept from colliding? I don't get it.
Steve X
Senior Member
From what smallspy describes the problem, it doesn't sound like a hardware issue. Through simple train detection (axels shorting the rails) you can easily detect a train is there without any fancy sensor. A train would not start moving on its own unless it has proper communication with the master control computer. Trains would not collide if it knows another train is already there AND blocks are properly mapped.
I write this as a generalization and might be be exactly how the system on the line works. ATO works with every piece of track in the system mapped into blocks. A train can occupied block(s) depending on the length of each block. A bubble (safety zone) would be defined around each train. When a train approach another slower or stopped train, they would get the command to slow down and/or stop so the "bubbles" don't overlap. A train without ATO or failed system would still be detected as something on the track and thus any approaching train would be told to stop. This is how "ghost" trains appear in the winter when debris or ice buildup shorts the rails.
Since trains have collided, that usually means the blocks are not mapped correctly. Maybe the master control thought the train was further away or on a different track cause SOMEONE programmed it incorrectly. What he was saying sound like they need to manually check that each block is actually mapped to the trackage it describes. If they need to do this for every foot of the 19 km line, it will take some time.
Admiral Beez
Superstar
If the collision was in the yard, wouldn't those trains be under local control, with the operator having to manually drive their vehicle into another one? Perhaps the operator hadn't noticed a track switch setting?
I wonder what happened in France earlier this year. One of the trams was apparently going backwards.
In Oz a tram operator seemingly smashed their tram into the one in front.
And then we have a Norwegian tram running a turn at high speed and driving into a shop. The report suggests a technical fault rather than operator error.
Nevertheless, all three systems above are still operating. Would the TTC shut down the Crosstown if something similar occurred?
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
Ah, the joys of software....one misplaced comma in the code, and everything stops dead.
It does beg the question of whether the signalling system is vanilla CBTC, or some hybrid that ML has complicated by design spec or change orders. Or is it simply a typo in a database? It is reasonable to expect that the industry has working technology that ought to be deployable without incident right out of the box.
I don't know what the tipping point is to force a Royal Commission on this whole project. If we aren't already there, we ought to be.
- Paul
It does beg the question of whether the signalling system is vanilla CBTC, or some hybrid that ML has complicated by design spec or change orders. Or is it simply a typo in a database? It is reasonable to expect that the industry has working technology that ought to be deployable without incident right out of the box.
I don't know what the tipping point is to force a Royal Commission on this whole project. If we aren't already there, we ought to be.
- Paul
T3G
Senior Member
No, there are sections of the yard where trains drive themselves.
It baffles me as to what value this adds. This driverless crap is getting real stupid. Your scientists were so preoccupied with how, they never stopped to ask themselves why.