New York is operated as two separate divisions which do not have any interlining between them at all, as they were built to do different loading gauges. There is interlining within each of the divisions.
Despite that, they are planning on using that one signalling system with 3 vendors across their whole system.
Because of that I would argue that it is an excellent comparison case.
You're right, that's what they've done in Paris and London. Elsewhere too.
And because of that, it's greatly complicated equipment transfers between the lines in Paris. Equipment transfers now take weeks and months, rather than hours.
I'm curious - what potential signalling innovations do you know about that the TTC has not used that could increase capacity?
From the people that I've talked to in the signalling industry, many of the shortcomings with the current signal system are due to the track layout, not the capacity of the signal system itself.
That was my point - all three of those systems were purposely built differently than the existing network, and to different standards. One of them - Paris - is only peripherally attached to their existing metro system, so it would be argued that there wasn't a need to fully integrate it/build it to those existing standards. Sydney is built to allow metro service on a heavily-travelled commuter line. Montreal is built as a much lower capacity line than their current metro and instead increase its range.
The Ontario Line connects at several points with the existing subway network, and is planned to be just as heavily used as the current subway. It is exactly the wrong technology to use.
Dan
