Toronto Queens Quay & Water's Edge Revitalization | ?m | ?s | Waterfront Toronto

4408 was out of service heading from the CNE to go into service on Spadina (overheard operator talking to supervisor); at Spadina, instead of using the loop entrance to head north, the driver triggered the automatic switch to go from eastbound Queen's Quay directly onto northbound Spadina. The switch worked and he began his turn, derailing soon after. The 4 wheels in the 1st module of the car all derailed, but the wheels in modules 3 and 5 remained on the tracks. As the car was out of service, only the driver and a Presto rep were onboard, nonetheless it did not seem like the derailment was violent and they both seemed uninjured.

Eastbound 509s were, naturally, blocked--there were at least two present that became trapped for the duration of the incident. Additionally, 4408's derailed/turning front end blocked straight-through westbound 509 cars from proceeding, however fortunately it did not block southbound to eastbound turning cars nor southbound to westbound. Consequently, 509s coming westbound were able to simply enter Spadina Loop, exit the loop southbound back towards Queen's Quay, and turn westbound to continue to the CNE, a very brief and easy diversion. Eastbound cars were able to detour Bathurst-King-Spadina, and turn eastbound onto Queen's Quay and continue towards Union. One westbound 509 had just passed the loop entrance and eventually reversed far enough to enter it; another 509 had actually entered the switch set to go straight at Spadina, that one just reversed a few feet and turned north directly onto Spadina. Eventually the influx of TTC supervisory/maintenance vehicles was blocking streetcars from making most turns, ironic as the derailed vehicle itself was not. Shuttle buses were eventually ordered, which I think was fairly unnecessary as Queen's Quay-Spadina Loop-Spadina-Queen's Quay (westbound) and Fleet-Bathurst-King-Spadina-Queen's Quay (eastbound) are not horrible diversions to endure, but they ran buses anyways.

Eventually they decided the best solution would be to have 4408 simply reverse--as all wheels in modules 3 and 5 were still on the rails, 2/3rds of the wheels, they figured it would be easy enough to get the wheels in module 1 to come back into line, which was my reasoning as well (an hour or so earlier). As they were reversing the trolley pole came under a section insulator, so they lowered it and raised the pantograph instead for the remainder of the reversing. Eventually the wheels did fall back into the rails correctly and the car reversed fully out of the intersection, it then switched back to the trolley pole. I had to leave at that point, but the alert was cleared shortly thereafter, so presumably they sent it back to Roncesvalles.

As for the cause, there was a large quantity of debris/dirt/mud in the eastbound-to-northbound turning track at Queen's Quay and Spadina; it was plainly obvious, and supervisors were groaning upon seeing the track once 4408 had reversed, that this had caused the derailment--when making the turn it came to a patch of debris clogging the rails and hopped up onto the debris, and off the rails onto the concrete surface of the ROW. This is a very rarely used piece of track--it is not used for any regular service, nor even as any detour that is used with any regularity (the southbound to westbound track off Spadina, and the westbound Queen's Quay northbound into Spadina Loop track, on the other hand, are used for detours much more regularly, e.g. the multiple collisions along Queen's Quay recently). I think it has been widely used as a detour only once since Queen's Quay reopened, when some work had to be done at Bremner and Spadina and the 510 detoured King-Bathurst-Queen's Quay, so the rails were not getting cleaned out by streetcar wheels. They should have had somebody come by and give them a vigorous pressure-washing on June 19th when Queen's Quay reopened, or at least once the automatic switches came up and their use became more likely, but evidently that had not happened. There was really a colossal amount of gunk sitting there after they scraped and swept the track grooves. Not the driver's fault, not a problem with the LFLRVs, and completely avoidable with a bit of cleaning.

Pictures from scene--first off, the derailment itself, LFLRV 4408:

IMG_0838.JPG


IMG_0841.JPG


CLRV 4149, a westbound 509 heading to exhibition, can be seen here with its reverse light on to back out of the intersection (once it reversed past the switch it went north onto Spadina).
IMG_0843.JPG


4408 having lowered its trolley pole and raised its pantograph to reverse:

IMG_0845.JPG


4408 having lowered its trolley pole and raised its pantograph to reverse, and with the front wheel covers opened to aid visibility during the attempt to get back on the rails by reversing:

IMG_0846.JPG


Dirt visible caking the rails immediately after 4408 finished reversing. It is clear, in the centre-left of the image, about 3ft in front of the police officer's right foot, where the derailment occurred. Notice the white scratches on the concrete running from there to the centre-right of the image (they extended a bit past there) where the streetcar's wheels had been on the concrete:

IMG_0848.JPG


One of the CNE-Union 509 shuttle buses was an artic--guess there must have been one stationed on standby at Dufferin Loop, or maybe they even pulled one off 29:

IMG_0851.JPG
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0851.JPG
    IMG_0851.JPG
    255 KB · Views: 849
  • IMG_0843.JPG
    IMG_0843.JPG
    239.4 KB · Views: 835
  • IMG_0841.JPG
    IMG_0841.JPG
    253.5 KB · Views: 823
  • IMG_0845.JPG
    IMG_0845.JPG
    243.6 KB · Views: 1,487
  • IMG_0838.JPG
    IMG_0838.JPG
    274 KB · Views: 861
  • IMG_0846.JPG
    IMG_0846.JPG
    267.5 KB · Views: 900
  • IMG_0848.JPG
    IMG_0848.JPG
    296.3 KB · Views: 800
I just saw two bike cops riding on QQ. They did not dismount in the section by Dan Leckie that indicates you should. I guess they agree that it's silly :)
 
I just saw two bike cops riding on QQ. They did not dismount in the section by Dan Leckie that indicates you should. I guess they agree that it's silly :)

Technically speaking, the signs at each end of that section simply consist of a green circle surrounding a pictogram of a person walking a bicycle. Legally, all that sign can be considered to be saying, beyond any doubt, is that walking your bicycle is permitted. In other areas these signs have written text below them saying 'cyclists must dismount and walk' and/or have a 'no cycling' sign (with the red circle and line through a picture of a person on a bicycle). I'm pretty sure that, legally, if a police officer gave you a ticket it would be trivial to have the ticket dismissed in court as technically there is no sign prohibiting cycling there--there's the law against cycling on a sidewalk but the argument can easily be made that it appears to be a portion of the MGT seeing as the disruption lasts for <100m.

Logically, of course, it's obvious that you're supposed to dismount and walk, but with the signage as it currently exists--and with the signs being outrageously small, certainly 1/4 of the size I would expect them to be based on other dismount and walk signs in the city--it is likely unenforceable.
 
I just saw two bike cops riding on QQ. They did not dismount in the section by Dan Leckie that indicates you should. I guess they agree that it's silly :)
Wait where in the world are you supposed to dismount? This must be a new sign or something I've been totally oblivious to when I road a couple weeks ago.

On a side note, I consider Toronto's signage to be quite obnoxious telling me to dismount on a bike. When there was construction on Strachan and the bike lane ended, it told me to get off and walk on the sidewalk. No way, I'm doing that! I was more than happy to take the full lane of traffic instead. I've never seen a sign that told someone in a car to get out and push it!
 
I believe the dismount "suggestion" was included in the walk around. You will notice at that location that the bike lane markings disappear. It's an awkward spot but no does (or should) dismount.

As for the construction dismount signs, those are unenforceable... And ridiculous.
 
I saw today that 'they' have FINALLY started to paint the blue line and blue boxes on the Martin Goodman bike trail going west from Parliament. The section from there to Yonge is now almost finished and they actually appear to be finishing off the small section at Merchants Wharf (just east of Sherbourne Common). Perhaps they will repave the pathway at Parliament and remove the on-road markings on Queens Quay and the bike lights nobody obeys too?
 
I believe the dismount "suggestion" was included in the walk around. You will notice at that location that the bike lane markings disappear. It's an awkward spot but no does (or should) dismount.

As for the construction dismount signs, those are unenforceable... And ridiculous.

I think that cyclists are asked to "dismount" in places they shouldn't. And since the whole cycling path is a "multi-use path" despite wide pedestrian-only areas along the waterfront, I don't think that pinch-point should be different. But cyclists need to slow down here since it is a pinch-point, and signs should say "slow down or dismount" like they do in Burlington Beach, where the Waterfront Trail crosses a busy beach area.
 
Time to red paint Spadina Intersection ROW.

If it wasn't for the the crew working on Traffic Light east of Spadina today, 3 cars would be traveling east on the ROW. The crew force the drivers off the ROW

No TTC switch thrower and must mean the switches are now live.
 
I don't know, that's got to carry a hefty fine -- surely it's worth more than just parking in a bike lane? And social media for sure. Mr. Hakim or Mr. Jones, I don't care who you are, you shouldn't get away with this crap.
 

Back
Top