|
|
|
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Except that with Line 1 uses the Toronto Rocket with articulated cars, people can move into cars to benefit their exit.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Not everyone is smart enough to do that. There will be a learning process in order for that to happen
.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
At peak, it is not possible, train is packed. Can't move.
Has to dwell longer to empty everyone with more obstructions.
Packed train, packed platform, people can't exit as quickly due people in the way in cramped areas.
This is the benefit for the public good in slightly shortening Union dwells if properly optimized due to Union's special status. It is an ATC efficiency optimization.
Faster emptying, shorter dwell, faster peak subway service for WHOLE system.
Who wants Union Station to continue to prevent ATC headway efficiencies?
Has to dwell longer to empty everyone with more obstructions.
Packed train, packed platform, people can't exit as quickly due people in the way in cramped areas.
This is the benefit for the public good in slightly shortening Union dwells if properly optimized due to Union's special status. It is an ATC efficiency optimization.
Faster emptying, shorter dwell, faster peak subway service for WHOLE system.
Who wants Union Station to continue to prevent ATC headway efficiencies?
Last edited:
Johnny Au
Senior Member
Another problem: current TTC train cars have four doors on each side.
mdrejhon
Senior Member
That diagram is only a generic illustration.
It is still fully applicable.
The exact door I exit is randomly wide open versus in front of a wall. The train position is different every time. This is the seventh door (third door on second coach from east) from east on the westwards-direction train, the one I ride from Yonge-Bloor to Union, I consistently stand at this very same door, every day.
Sometimes my door open to wide space.
And sometimes the doors open to a wall.
The berthing position is sometimes random.
The berth shifts by up to a few meters sometimes already today!
One commute. It is a meter to the left, the next evening commute, it is a meter to the right, and the third evening it is spot on. It is sometimes random.
Go to Union TTC platform and watch several consecutive arriving TTC trains. They stop in slightly different positions every time. And some doors are near ends of walls. Which means different numbers of doors are constricted every time with platform crowd + door crowd. And clearout-speed noticeably varies based on berth alignment. (This affects Coach #2 from east, for westwards-direction trains at least)
The Union platforms are long enough to give plenty of berth mispositioning error. It is built into all platform designs to have jiggle room. My proposal simply takes advantage of this existing jiggle room.
This means the same door(s) are randomly blocked by a narrow passageway, and sometimes not. With the precision of ATC, the train can stop at a precise berth with more optimal.
Currently, I commute everyday TTC+GO. On train, I stand in front of exaxf same door on train. My exact same door at exact same time, 5:10pm sometimes empties 3x slower because of a berth positioning.
As commuter, sir, Every day, I have personally witnessed this over 200 times in my routine that it co-relates to berth positioning. It has lots of crowd-cascade effects that interferes several doors adjacent left and right.
(I also noticed some other doors have the same issue too)
Someone at TTC needs to visit Union and measure the walls, do some math calculations on alignments and/or test alignme ts and define a more precise stopping position. Simple Geometry 101. Applicable whether vehicles have twonor three or four or five doors.
The name of the geometry 101 game is to find the exact berth positioning that has fewest doors opening into a tight area.
One could then discover that an ideal berth positioning could potentiall clear Union TTC platforms 5 seconds faster. For free! Homer simpson no brainer to have TTC at least doublecheck new optimal target berth positioning in this jiggleroom. Not insignificant at peak at tightest headways in ATC-tightened era.
This could be done by anybody as a guerilla study, maybe visit Union TTC after midnight with a measuring tape, and do it for TTC, or write an article. Ideally, TTC should be doing this, to doublecheck for a freebie optimization opportunity. But fun math/geometry exercise. Takers?
Last edited:
M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Also with the 2027 train stock the 6 carriages could be slightly longer instead of having half a carriage to fill the entire platform and have end doors not opening if need be.
And order enough of them to fully take advantage of Line 1 signalling.
And order enough of them to fully take advantage of Line 1 signalling.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Does anyone know whether or not the legacy signalling system will stay after ATC is fully implemented on all lines? It would have to if the moving of old trains is required I think.
Megaton327
Senior Member
I believe it will be decommissioned, at a minimum shut off if not physically removed. I recall the TTC mentioning that they have plans to make work cars function with ATC. The only non-line-1 trains that need to be moved on Line 1 are the Sheppard trains, which were converted to TRs for that exact reason. As I understand it, there is no real need for T1s to be moved onto Line 1 anymore, so presumably that will become impossible once ATC is in effect.
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
Nope as they have even converted all of the work cars to use ATC
At this point, we don't know whether the new fleet will be put on Libe 2 or Line 1. The TR's were put on Line because they were desiged with ATC being put on Line 1 first. Don't forget every fleet of vechels since the H series has been used on both lines. I thik the G series cras were used only on line 1 and the M series cars wer used only on line 2.
smallspy
Senior Member
The only way that the cars themselves could be longer and still fit within the clearance diagrams is to make them narrower as well - which would limit capacity and therefore defeat the purpose of having a train that fills the entire platform.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
So a 7th carriage would be needed to extend capacity, correct?
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
With the DRL coming just a few years later, I don’t believe capacity concerns will be a motivating factor for the TTC to purchase longer trains. This is especially true if the DRL North is funded by then.
However, longer trains could result in lowering operating costs (can use fewer trains to move the same number of people)
44 North
Senior Member
Not directly related, but I'm of the opinion that with two trains of the same internal square footage - one being shorter and wider the other longer and narrower - that the longer/narrower one could actually carry more. With the width of the T1/TR there seems to be a bit of slightly excess space around the centre that doesn't provide good standing room. Very little to hold onto, and we no longer use centre stanchions, so people naturally gravitate toward the sides. If we shaved off ~25cm for any future line's rolling stock I doubt much capacity would be lost 1:1 with the TR.
Leo_Chan
Senior Member
Is this because of accessibility issues?