1233 Queen East | ?m | 8s

[RapidTransit]

Out of curiosity , how similar are the TTC TR/T1 cars vs a NYC R179 or any NYC trains. Would you be able to run a NYC train in Toronto tunnels and vice versa, a TR/T1 in NYC tunnels?

Would TTC be able to hop on a NYC train order and replace the T1s on BD? Or are the two models too far off in dimensions? Id be curious to know. I would think the NYC trains are more narrow for Toronto, creating large gaps between the train and platforms

 

[Johnny Au]

While we're back here, the last posts from February 2018 mentioned the screens beside the ad cards. They are still telling us after 8 1/2 years about the government funding, that the TTC cheers for the home team. I think there's maybe one screen that's newer than five years old.

Not just that, but the screens are now mentioning the TTCHelps Twitter account (and Twitter is almost a decade-and-a-half old and has numerous problems of its own).

 

[dowlingm]

Out of curiosity , how similar are the TTC TR/T1 cars vs a NYC R179 or any NYC trains. Would you be able to run a NYC train in Toronto tunnels and vice versa, a TR/T1 in NYC tunnels?

Would TTC be able to hop on a NYC train order and replace the T1s on BD? Or are the two models too far off in dimensions? Id be curious to know. I would think the NYC trains are more narrow for Toronto, creating large gaps between the train and platforms

Considering the R179s just got entirely yanked from service because of door safety, this is an interestingly timed post. Bombardier won’t be seeing business from NYCT for a while, if not MTA as a whole

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Out of curiosity , how similar are the TTC TR/T1 cars vs a NYC R179 or any NYC trains. Would you be able to run a NYC train in Toronto tunnels and vice versa, a TR/T1 in NYC tunnels?

Would TTC be able to hop on a NYC train order and replace the T1s on BD? Or are the two models too far off in dimensions? Id be curious to know. I would think the NYC trains are more narrow for Toronto, creating large gaps between the train and platforms

Highly unlikely. The width is too different, also it's unlikely the TTC would want a non open gangway model. The TRs are part of Bombardier's movia family so use a design that's shared by lots of other Metros (despite looking cosmetically different), The R179s on the other hand are based on a platform caled NTT that was developed specifically for the New York Subway. I think that's the case with many of the century old subways, they need designs specific to them, whereas more recent ones use more off the shelf designs, especially those built after the 80s.

 

[smallspy]

Out of curiosity , how similar are the TTC TR/T1 cars vs a NYC R179 or any NYC trains. Would you be able to run a NYC train in Toronto tunnels and vice versa, a TR/T1 in NYC tunnels?

I don't have the specifications for the NYC third rail, but assuming that it was in the same ballpark in terms of fitment and location to Toronto's - you could probably quite easily run any NYC subway in Toronto's subway, keeping in mind that the gauge is 2+ inches wider here in Toronto, and thus you'd want the trains to run slowly to ensure that you don't drop into the gauge.

There is no way to run a Toronto subway in New York, however. For one, there is the issue with track gauge. Then there is the problem that every piece of Toronto equipment is 10' 4" wide. The closest to this are the R44, R46 and R68 cars, which are 10 feet even - but they are not able to operate everywhere on the B Division (former IND and BMT lines) because of their length (74' 8"). (For the record, the standard B Division car is dimensions are 60' 2.5" in length and 9' 9.25" wide.) MTA's A Division car specifications are for a car 51' 4" long and 8'9" wide - smaller even than the G-cars that used to run in Toronto.

Would TTC be able to hop on a NYC train order and replace the T1s on BD? Or are the two models too far off in dimensions? Id be curious to know. I would think the NYC trains are more narrow for Toronto, creating large gaps between the train and platforms

No, they could not. The structural gauging issues aside, the biggest problem would likely be weight - T1s are about 72,000lbs per car, and the TRs slightly heavier. New York's cars are built to a much, much heavier standard, with an R68 clocking in at 93,000lbs empty - and this is for a car built in 1986 to 1988. This may cause structural loading issues with structures such as the Bloor Viaduct and Keele Station when running fully loaded trains. Toronto has long designed its system to be lighter weight, with the resulting savings in wear-and-tear on track, structure and rotating items on the equipment.

Dan

 

[RapidTransit]

Thanks for the responses.

It seems as though the biggest worry for NYC trains in Toronto would be the 2 inch extra wide gauges. I thought I read somewhere, that the gauge wasn't much of a big deal and could be adjusted if really needed. When the CLRVs were new and went to Boston for trial use, were they not set up for standard gauge?

The weight difference is definitely news to me. Is there a reason why MTA hasn't looked into lighter trains, like Toronto, especially with the pointers you mentioned?

Highly unlikely. The width is too different, also it's unlikely the TTC would want a non open gangway model. The TRs are part of Bombardier's movia family so use a design that's shared by lots of other Metros (despite looking cosmetically different), The R179s on the other hand are based on a platform caled NTT that was developed specifically for the New York Subway. I think that's the case with many of the century old subways, they need designs specific to them, whereas more recent ones use more off the shelf designs, especially those built after the 80s.

TTC doesn't currently have a facility to replace the T1s with open gangway trains. And with funding not guaranteed for such facility, they might not have a choice but to get a T1-like train.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Thanks for the responses.

It seems as though the biggest worry for NYC trains in Toronto would be the 2 inch extra wide gauges. I thought I read somewhere, that the gauge wasn't much of a big deal and could be adjusted if really needed. When the CLRVs were new and went to Boston for trial use, were they not set up for standard gauge?

The weight difference is definitely news to me. Is there a reason why MTA hasn't looked into lighter trains, like Toronto, especially with the pointers you mentioned?


TTC doesn't currently have a facility to replace the T1s with open gangway trains. And with funding not guaranteed for such facility, they might not have a choice but to get a T1-like train.

Track gauges for most rail vehicles is of little consequence. Many rapid transit lines around the world use different gauges, and they easily adjust them when they buy used trains.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

Track gauges for most rail vehicles is of little consequence. Many rapid transit lines around the world use different gauges, and they easily adjust them when they buy used trains.

It's the loading gauge (width) and vehicle height that's the determines compatibility more than track guage.

 

[smallspy]

The weight difference is definitely news to me. Is there a reason why MTA hasn't looked into lighter trains, like Toronto, especially with the pointers you mentioned?

Moreso than Toronto, the MTA is an organization that is very set in its ways. While they had tested some more modern components and techniques over the years, it wasn't until the R110s were designed and built that they finally started to "get with the programme" in terms of modern subway design. It was only about 20 years ago that they finally started to order trains with ECP braking, which is the defacto braking standard for any subway train around the world - they where still using a propietary standard called SMEE which allows for some minor electronic control of the braking but is basically straight air control - just like mainline trains. They used the same truck and gearbox design for about 60 years worth of subway orders. Their trains aren't designed to be any stronger than the trains anywhere else, but they do design them for a somewhat longer lifespan than most other properties, and thus there is less incentive to try and reduce weight on the components.

TTC doesn't currently have a facility to replace the T1s with open gangway trains. And with funding not guaranteed for such facility, they might not have a choice but to get a T1-like train.

They didn't have a facility prior to ordering the TRs, either. The fact that Greenwood is not configured to efficiently repair that kind of equipment isn't a deal-breaker - they can just convert the facility just like they did with Wilson.

Dan

 

[KevinT]

Track gauges for most rail vehicles is of little consequence. Many rapid transit lines around the world use different gauges, and they easily adjust them when they buy used trains.

Yes and no. If the braking and motor equipment is inboard of the wheels there may not be room to make the gauge any narrower, conversely if this equipment is outboard there may not be room to make the track gauge any wider without affecting the loading gauge. While most rail equipment can be and sometimes is re-gauged, the situation is unique for each combination of equipment and application, requiring careful evaluation in advance.

 

[TossYourJacket]

They didn't have a facility prior to ordering the TRs, either. The fact that Greenwood is not configured to efficiently repair that kind of equipment isn't a deal-breaker - they can just convert the facility just like they did with Wilson.

Doesn't the TTC also have some land near Kipling they intended to become the new Line 2 yard when Greenwood was planned to become the DRL yard? If so, they could even put a new yard out there if converting Greenwood is somehow insanely expensive (which I doubt it would be compared to a new yard, but who knows). Or a second smaller yard to service the new trains while Greenwood is upgraded (which allows for future capacity expansion on Line 2 as well).

 

[Northern Light]

Doesn't the TTC also have some land near Kipling they intended to become the new Line 2 yard when Greenwood was planned to become the DRL yard? If so, they could even put a new yard out there if converting Greenwood is somehow insanely expensive (which I doubt it would be compared to a new yard, but who knows). Or a second smaller yard to service the new trains while Greenwood is upgraded (which allows for future capacity expansion on Line 2 as well).

You are correct.

The plan was to commission the new Obico/Kipling Yard to handle new rollingstock (TRs) for Line 2; while the Greenwood yard was to be the new yard for the Relief Line.

Since then, of course, the Ontario Line has come onto the scene........and discussions there seemed to suggest a yard in Leaside.

That said, I fully expect whatever comes of the RL/OL plans, the yard will end up being Greenwood; but nothing is certain.

 

[smallspy]

Doesn't the TTC also have some land near Kipling they intended to become the new Line 2 yard when Greenwood was planned to become the DRL yard?

Yes, and somewhat.

The new facility at Obico is going to be a huge multi-purpose facility, with a subway yard and a large bus (both regular, and Wheel-trans) facility for storage and running maintenance. There is also some thought being given to moving the current bus heavy maintenance facility at Hillcrest - the Duncan Shops - to the same plot of land as well, to allow for the beginning of the redevelopment of Hillcrest.

If so, they could even put a new yard out there if converting Greenwood is somehow insanely expensive (which I doubt it would be compared to a new yard, but who knows).

That would depend on how big a facility they wanted to build. Greenwood is quite constrained, and is already over capacity. While the spares ratio for the subway cars on the B-D is abnormally high, when the time comes to extend the line and expand the fleet, Greenwood alone won't be able to handle it.

Or a second smaller yard to service the new trains while Greenwood is upgraded (which allows for future capacity expansion on Line 2 as well).

This could also be the case.

Dan

 

[W. K. Lis]

Yes, and somewhat.

The new facility at Obico is going to be a huge multi-purpose facility, with a subway yard and a large bus (both regular, and Wheel-trans) facility for storage and running maintenance. There is also some thought being given to moving the current bus heavy maintenance facility at Hillcrest - the Duncan Shops - to the same plot of land as well, to allow for the beginning of the redevelopment of Hillcrest.



That would depend on how big a facility they wanted to build. Greenwood is quite constrained, and is already over capacity. While the spares ratio for the subway cars on the B-D is abnormally high, when the time comes to extend the line and expand the fleet, Greenwood alone won't be able to handle it.



This could also be the case.

Dan

What? No streetcar or light rail, just in case? They already have a light rail platform at Kipling Station.

From link.

 

[Amare]

What? No streetcar or light rail, just in case? They already have a light rail platform at Kipling Station.

From link.

Why would they plan for something that's not even in the plans?