TheTigerMaster
Superstar
New information (I think):
|
|
|
nfitz
Superstar
Good grief.
"The T1 trains presently operating on Line 4 will require replacement with TR trains that are Automatic Train Control (ATC) equipped prior to implementation of ATC on Line 1 YUS in 2020 because access to Line 4 is from Line 1."
So not only is the ATC conversion now on hold until 2020 (meaning that they don't need more than about 67-68 trainsets for YUS, and the 10 new trainsets were bought 5 years early). Now they need 4 TR trainset for Sheppard (plus 1 or 2 spares presumably, given they run all day).
Well, I suppose the good news is that they found their extra trainsets to run on the BD line after the extension. But why didn't they just delay the 10-train purchse for 5 years, and also buy 6 4-car trainsets at the same time?
There was nothing about this in the fleet plans in the budget a few weeks ago.
More heads should be rolling ...
TTC must thing it's "Taking out the Trash" day after they drop the Spadina announcement.
Last edited:
cplchanb
Senior Member
IM curious in knowing how the rest of the world metros with 1 man operation handles this.
Surely when they bought the TRs they had ATC and 1 man operation in mind. Why didn't they build that into the
trains from the factory? just another tens of millions of dollars into the 34m already spent on amendments
Surely when they bought the TRs they had ATC and 1 man operation in mind. Why didn't they build that into the
trains from the factory? just another tens of millions of dollars into the 34m already spent on amendments
Voltz
Senior Member
I don't buy their claim that Sheppard will need to switch to ATC capable trains, I was sure that the TTC was also installing a new conventional signal system on YUS for backup use and for the maintenance trains that do not have ATC equipment.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
I hope they hold off on buying unique to the Sheppard line trainsets until Eglinton LRT is open and the Bloor subway extension approved so we can have sensible discussions on the Sheppard LRT. At that point knowing there is already a subway in Scarborough and how the Eglinton LRT is operating (is it experiencing any capacity issues, is the surface section getting good light timings and working well, are there many surface conflicts, etc) a less biased and more factual discussion can be had on Sheppard subway to LRT conversion or Sheppard subway extension.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Subway trains have a life expectancy. Like all transit vehicles, they will need to be replaced. The current replacement models are the Toronto Rocket, which have Automatic Train Control. The current oldest subway cars were built around 1995. So they have roughly 10 more useful years, without being refurbished, when they have to start to do something (either replace or refurbish). See link.
smallspy
Senior Member
Knowing how the design process for the trains went, I suspect that the TTC tried to sneak something in and the Union vetoed it.
Read the report on the revamping of the ATC system. We're not getting the system we originally tendered for - this one is going to be an "all-in-one" system with no wayside underlay. The system will not be capable of dealing with non-ATC equipment - even the work cars will have to get ATC.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
nfitz
Superstar
Apparently they are not longer installing a new conventional system for backup use, but a much more limited system that would be able to handle a few maintenance trains.
Platform 27
Active Member
Was there ever any consideration back in the late 90s of building the Sheppard line with ATC from the start? It was certainly a mature enough technology then.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
This is North America. ATC has been around since the 1960's, but outside of North America. ATC is only a relative newcomer in North America.
Same with high speed or bullet trains, still waiting for that. Can't have high speed trains when there are level crossings. We have too many level crossings in North America.
Platform 27
Active Member
Er, not sure how level crossings and bullet trains are remotely relevant.
Anyway, I looked it up and since 1960, there have been 8 new-build grade-separated metro systems in North America: Montreal (1966), SF BART (1972), Washington (1976), Atlanta (1979), Baltimore (1983), Miami (1984), Vancouver (1985) and LA (1993). All 8 have had some flavour of communications-based train control system from the start --- different degrees of automation and human operation, absolutely, but somewhere on the spectrum beyond 100% human beings looking at coloured lights. I don't know why certain posters feel the need to simply make their own facts up other than it giving them a chance to make a flippant remark.
Obviously, when building extensions onto an existing, older, metro system, there are good reasons you're less likely to see ATC pop up that probably apply everywhere in the world -- both technical reasons (commonality of fleet and signal systems and staff training) and political reasons (less likely to get automation in place when there's an existing train operators union).
But in any event, what I'm saying is that in 1995 ATC was a mature technology, well-known to transit professionals in Toronto, and was certainly a viable option for Sheppard.
Can anyone who was following the transit debates of the day recall whether there was any thought given to ATC or was it just taken as a given that slightly newer versions of the 1950s glowing lights would be installed in the tunnels?
nfitz
Superstar
With the recent additional order of 10 trainsets (60 cars) to bring the order to 80 trainsets, I wonder if it's too late to modify the order so that the last 4 trainsets (24 cars) come with 12 cab-cars and 12 centre-cars to make 6 four-car trainsets rather than 8 cab-cars and 16 centre-cars.
Last edited:
AlbertHWagstaff
Senior Member
In fact the TTC tested ATC in and around 1995-96. At least four cars were outfitted for the test, marked with big red Xs on the doorways: 5410-11 and 5736-37, and possibly 5408-09 as well. The test area was on the University line, but I don't recall what came of it, may have been scratched with all the Mike Harris transit downloading in that time.
dowlingm
Senior Member
If Sheppard gets short TRs, then BD's T1 surplus increases further. Supposed to be soaked up by Scarb Extn but I imagine the mushy middle at Council must be nervous about how Spadina Extn costs and timeframes have ballooned in the last few months.
Certainly the notion that 4 six car sets be built as 6 four cars makes sense, but would likely be a substantial change order as presumably the cab ends are the most expensive bits.
Certainly the notion that 4 six car sets be built as 6 four cars makes sense, but would likely be a substantial change order as presumably the cab ends are the most expensive bits.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Regarding the implementation of One Person Train Operation on our TRs:
Why is OPTO necessary? TTC says they need it for door operations. But I'm sure there are plenty of automated mass transit systems with automated door operations. And even if the TTC insists that doors are controlled by a human (you know, in case our TRs become sentient and try to kill passengers), couldn't the doors be controlled by a human operator from a remote facility, using a live video feed from platform level? This remote operator should be able to handle the operation of significantly more doors than an on site operator would (an on site operator has nothing to do between stations, while the remote operator would have a continuous stream of doors to operate around the system).
Why is OPTO necessary? TTC says they need it for door operations. But I'm sure there are plenty of automated mass transit systems with automated door operations. And even if the TTC insists that doors are controlled by a human (you know, in case our TRs become sentient and try to kill passengers), couldn't the doors be controlled by a human operator from a remote facility, using a live video feed from platform level? This remote operator should be able to handle the operation of significantly more doors than an on site operator would (an on site operator has nothing to do between stations, while the remote operator would have a continuous stream of doors to operate around the system).