TTC: Streetcar Network

[reaperexpress]

↑ Maybe there is a benefit to adding batteries to the existing fleet. Even just a smaller battery that charges while the pantograph is connected, that can skip short sections of unpowered wiring and even diminish or eliminate the need for complex intersection wiring.

Modern trolleybuses also include small batteries for this reason. They can go off route or move around the yard without the need for wires everywhere. And since their usual routes (or at least most of the route) has wires, the batteries can be quite small, cheap and light

 

[Admiral Beez]

All these people who dream of eliminating the overhead electrification we already have clearly havent thought through the amount of energy losses involved with charging and discharging batteries (much higher energy loss than just running the train directly off the grid),

Can we go to ground level power, something like the below, but WITHOUT onboard batteries? Surely someone can sort out how to make it work in winter's salt, ice and muck?

CBD and South East Light Rail - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ground-level power supply - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[APTA-2048]

Can we go to ground level power, something like the below, but WITHOUT onboard batteries? Surely someone can sort out how to make it work in winter's salt, ice and muck?

CBD and South East Light Rail - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Ground-level power supply - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Again, what's the benefit here? Not having to see a couple of wires? That doesn't seem worth ripping out what we have that's perfectly functional and then putting in something completely new.

 

[nfitz]

Again, what's the benefit here? Not having to see a couple of wires? That doesn't seem worth ripping out what we have that's perfectly functional and then putting in something completely new.

No reason to not start thinking about what's could be included in the next generation of streetcars ... for the 2050s and beyond.

 

[Amare]

No reason to not start thinking about what's could be included in the next generation of streetcars ... for the 2050s and beyond.

We have a critical backlog of major infrastructure repairs that the TTC needs to address, and until those are addressed it makes absolutely no sense to be thinking about nice to haves (ie: removing streetcar overhead wires because they dont look good).

I'll put it this way, would people rather the TTC use their finite resources to address and finally upgrade/modernize the switch network which has the potential to dramatically upgrade the reliability of switches. Or would people rather the TTC get rid of overhead wires because "they dont look good".

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

 

[lastcommodore]

We have a critical backlog of major infrastructure repairs that the TTC needs to address, and until those are addressed it makes absolutely no sense to be thinking about nice to haves (ie: removing streetcar overhead wires because they dont look good).

I'll put it this way, would people rather the TTC use their finite resources to address and finally upgrade/modernize the switch network which has the potential to dramatically upgrade the reliability of switches. Or would people rather the TTC get rid of overhead wires because "they dont look good".

I think the answer is pretty obvious.

While i am mostly partial to "How about we fix what actually matters before nice to haves", I think something ground-level power is something we should consider *before* we upgrade our network, not after... It is this same thinking that leads to the TTC ""upgrading"" streetcar intersections by ripping them up at the end of their lifespan... and re-installing single point switches. Guaranteeing that we will have to do so again in the near future. Pennywise and poundfoolish.

The TTC should seriously consider: Do we want to eventually progress our network to some ground-level power solution? And if so, when we rebuild our tracks, we should have that capability built in place now, so when we actually do so, we do not need to rebuild track.

As an example, GO Transit has a thousand issues and a half, but they still design their new stations well so that in the future they can raise it to 24" for level boarding without an issue.

 

[JSF-1]

I think something getting left out of this discussion about ground level power is the effect of snow and ice build up on the road. It's less of an issue with overhead catenary but we have seen what heavy snowfall can do to this city and I have to wonder how much damage even the light snowfall we usually see would do to service. Just look at the outdoor sections of the subway, if snow covers the third rail its game over, and remember the third rail is elevated off of the ground, a ground rail for the streetcars isn't, so it will be obstructed by any amount of snow and not just once in a decade levels like the subway. Basically I don't think transitioning to ground level power is a good idea considering the ground is covered in snow for at least 4 months out of the year. Remember the SRT had a similar issue where snow and ice building up on the reaction rail could knock out the line I don't think we should be repeating this with the streetcars. Catenary is far more resilient to winter weather.

 

[APTA-2048]

While i am mostly partial to "How about we fix what actually matters before nice to haves", I think something ground-level power is something we should consider *before* we upgrade our network, not after... It is this same thinking that leads to the TTC ""upgrading"" streetcar intersections by ripping them up at the end of their lifespan... and re-installing single point switches. Guaranteeing that we will have to do so again in the near future. Pennywise and poundfoolish.

The TTC should seriously consider: Do we want to eventually progress our network to some ground-level power solution? And if so, when we rebuild our tracks, we should have that capability built in place now, so when we actually do so, we do not need to rebuild track.

As an example, GO Transit has a thousand issues and a half, but they still design their new stations well so that in the future they can raise it to 24" for level boarding without an issue.

There must be a reason why the vast majority of tram systems still use overhead catenary. What problem are we solving with ground level system in Toronto. Seems like it would actually introduce more problems.

 

[lastcommodore]

There must be a reason why the vast majority of tram systems still use overhead catenary. What problem are we solving with ground level system in Toronto. Seems like it would actually introduce more problems.

The benefits are almost entirely aesthetic. There are some benefits that you can't break GLP as easily, but you can also sever connection with GLP much easier with snow/ice, as mentioned by JSF.

I don't know the reliability of these during wintertime. Probably not enough, right now. I don't believe they've ever been installed in harsher weather like here.

It is relatively new technology, so I dont expect much systems to even have had the chance to adopt it, rather than a rejection of the technology.

I was not really commenting on whether or not it should be done (i find catenary ugly but i dont mind all that much) but rather the mentality.

 

[drum118]

Modern trolleybuses also include small batteries for this reason. They can go off route or move around the yard without the need for wires everywhere. And since their usual routes (or at least most of the route) has wires, the batteries can be quite small, cheap and light

Not true.
For a trolleybuses to cross that type of intersection requires the bus to stop to lower the poles and proceed across the intersection and stop where there is an overhead bracket to allow the poles to be raise and place on the wires before moving. This adds extra travel time to a trip for each intersections it must cross.

Most intersections are built for trolleybus to pass through them or make a turn with the poles up.

Otherwise, buses can lower their poles anywhere and go off route. To get back on route, there must be a bracket to allow the poles to be raise and place on the wires or the driver will have to get out of the bus and place the poles on the wires.

I cannot recall every seen an intersection like the photo form trams and trolleybus

Only have to go to Dayton or Boston to see trolleybuses operating with poles down and on wires let alone Europe, Milan, Zurich, Geneva have trolleybuses crossing tram lines along with a number systems. Roma has scale back the overhead for the train station and run on battery to/from it now.

This what is require to do auto attachment of poles to wires

 

[T3G]

I cannot recall every seen an intersection like the photo form trams and trolleybus

Sorry, what kind of intersection are you talking about here? One where tram wires and trolley wires cross?

 

[drum118]

Sorry, what kind of intersection are you talking about here? One where tram wires and trolley wires cross?

One like TTC that was posted. it would take some digging to find a tram and trolleybus crossing but don't have the time.

 

[T3G]

One like TTC that was posted. it would take some digging to find a tram and trolleybus crossing but don't have the time.

All that we see in that picture is an intersection where some wires go straight and some turn.

I'm confused, why would you think this couldn't exist for trams and trolleybuses together?

 

[reaperexpress]

Not true.
For a trolleybuses to cross that type of intersection requires the bus to stop to lower the poles and proceed across the intersection and stop where there is an overhead bracket to allow the poles to be raise and place on the wires before moving. This adds extra travel time to a trip for each intersections it must cross.

What do you mean "not true"? My statement was that there are newer trolleybuses that include batteries that enable to travel off-route or move around the yard without wires. How on earth is that not true? I was responding to the comment that if streetcars had batteries they may have been able to keep operating despite the power failure on Spadina. Nothing about crossing some particular type of intersection.

Here is some footage of trolleybus line 352 from Wageningen to Arnhem, which only has overhead lines for a part of the route. At 2:00 in the video you can watch the bus rejoin the wire.

 

[drum118]

What do you mean "not true"? My statement was that there are newer trolleybuses that include batteries that enable to travel off-route or move around the yard without wires. How on earth is that not true? I was responding to the comment that if streetcars had batteries they may have been able to keep operating despite the power failure on Spadina. Nothing about crossing some particular type of intersection.

Here is some footage of trolleybus line 352 from Wageningen to Arnhem, which only has overhead lines for a part of the route. At 2:00 in the video you can watch the bus rejoin the wire.

I was referring to the photo intersection.

As I noted, its easy for buses to go off route and connect to the route somewhere else with two options of putting the poles back on the wires. I have seen this in the US as well in Europe as well being on them..