TTC Fleet Procurement Strategy - 2022

[Bordercollie]

This is a really good point. There are 76 stations in a round trip on Line 1, so if we can save 2 seconds per stop, that's 152 seconds round trip, which is about the same as the headway, so it's enough to reduce the fleet requirement by one train.

I'm definitely not an expert in vehicle operations, but some methods that have been used in other places include automating the door opening procedure. For example on the Elizabeth Line (Crossrail) in London, the train determines on its own when the train is stopped in the correct position and immediately opens the doors when the train stops (unless the operator has specifically told the train not to). This eliminates the time that guard needs to confirm that the train is stopped in the correct position, point at the marker then press the button to open the doors.

It might also be possible to adjust the programming such that the doors are unlocked below 2 km/h or so, instead of 0 km/h. That would allow them to unlock slightly before the train comes to a stop, reducing that delay time. By the time the doors are open wide enough for a person to fit through, the train would already be stopped anyway. The TTC would probably have a knee-jerk reaction that this is unsafe, but 2 km/h is slower than an escalator so even in the extremely unlikely event that the door has time to open before the train is fully stopped, it's not a danger. The TTC and many other organizations usually overlook the safety consequences of implementing 'safety' procedures that slow down transit service. Any time transit becomes slower, more people are encouraged to use other modes, all of which are far more dangerous than transit - both for people inside and outside the vehicle.

My intuition is that the injuries and fatalities resulting from even a minuscule mode shift from transit to cars would easily outweigh the extremely remote chance of a minor injury while exiting a train that was moving at less than 2 km/h.

I don't think that would fly because if the train does not stop the doors could open while the train is in motion at 2kmph.

You can save those two seconds by using automated train control to close the gap between trains to make them run closer together. You won't loose 2 minutes per station, maybe 45 seconds which you can make up while the train is travelling down the line.

 

[dowlingm]

One thing I have been wondering about is whether TTC should order the first few of these new 2-car unit trains for Sheppard, and some drop in cars from Alstom to extend the present 4-car TRs for Line 1 expansion. Presumably the 2-car units would have little difficulty getting ATC fitted to traverse Line 1 to get to Line 2 and Greenwood, and all the better if Line 2 ended up with the same ATC system as Line 1 after the tender completes.

 

[T3G]

I don't think that would fly because if the train does not stop the doors could open while the train is in motion at 2kmph.

You can save those two seconds by using automated train control to close the gap between trains to make them run closer together. You won't loose 2 minutes per station, maybe 45 seconds which you can make up while the train is travelling down the line.

I would assume that if the speed threshold was set to 2 km/h, the doors would continue to be opened manually.

 

[Bordercollie]

I would assume that if the speed threshold was set to 2 km/h, the doors would continue to be opened manually.

So how would you know if the train would actually stop? What prevents the train from gliding at 2kmph?

 

[T3G]

So how would you know if the train would actually stop? What prevents the train from gliding at 2kmph?

I'm not certain as to what you are asking here. This is only a concern if you have automated door openings (and, BTW, it's a concern if the threshold to open them is 0 km/h, too - what if a train is deadheading to the yard and opens its doors at a red signal in the station?)

If we have manual door openings, it stands to reason that the person engaging in said manual door operation knows whether the train whose doors he is operating is in service or not.

 

[Bordercollie]

I'm not certain as to what you are asking here. This is only a concern if you have automated door openings (and, BTW, it's a concern if the threshold to open them is 0 km/h, too - what if a train is deadheading to the yard and opens its doors at a red signal in the station?)

If we have manual door openings, it stands to reason that the person engaging in said manual door operation knows whether the train whose doors he is operating is in service or not.

I'm sure that there is a way to ensure that doors only open in stations when it comes to a complete stop however having a human open it when it's safe is also not 100% fool proof.

My comment was directed towards opening the doors at 2kmph

 

[rbt]

One final note, since I'm here............. can I get a comment on why it takes the trains on Line 1 so long to open their doors after stopping, and is there anything to be done w/existing or new rolling stock to put a stop to that waste?

Door delays were an official complaint TTC made to Bombardier [so Byford told the press] when they had some but not yet all of the trains delivered Both the delay opening at the platform and a delay after they're closed before the train would move. I'm not sure if that complaint was fully resolved or if TTC continues to file it as a concern to be corrected in future orders.

 

[reaperexpress]

I'm not certain as to what you are asking here. This is only a concern if you have automated door openings (and, BTW, it's a concern if the threshold to open them is 0 km/h, too - what if a train is deadheading to the yard and opens its doors at a red signal in the station?)

The operator obviously still has control over whether the doors actually open on the Elizabeth line, they can choose not to open them.

The decision is made well before the train enters the station so with the theoretical 2km/h threshold the train would have already decided to open the doors so once the train is close enough to the right position and the speed is low enough it would start opening the doors.

 

[drum118]

TTC has talked for years about adding a 7th car to have train full length of the platform as well carry more riders, yet they have chose not to and a big mistake. Looking at the existing TR's tonight, as well think about the 500' train, why not make all 7 cars the same length? At the same time, the driver can beyond the platform like I have seen in some systems and watch a screen on the driver side to say when the doors were to close as well riders back from the train before departing the station.

If you remove the seats area 100% between the hinge area and the doors, you can shift the door to be next to the hinge area helping to remove about 15 feet from the current car length to make all 7 cars the same size. The driver car could be an issue. Doing so, while dealing with the squealing issues that has existed since the cars were length to what they are today for curves. The train is now 7 cars long with the same 4 doors per car and able to carry more riders.

As to the real number of riders the TR's can carry as well the new ones, I challenge anyone including the manufacturer of vehicles to proved with real people that X will hold Y riders as stated, I have yet to have any manufacturer take up my challenge that they do not want to be shown that the theoretical number cannot happen due to the fact people are not one size, do carrying things of all size and shape, have strollers on the vehicle in all type of sizes, grocery carts, wear mort bulky cloths, have accessibility riders on it along with walkers and the list goes on. Unless we want to be like Japan where station personal is pushing riders into X vehicle, never will see it happen here nor meet the numbers as claim by manufacturers of vehicles.

The vision how long platforms should when first built was short sighted and there no way stations can be extended to have 7-9 full length cars on a train. There are a few that can be be, but they have to be all the same sizes as the weakest one which is 500'.

 

[Bordercollie]

TTC has talked for years about adding a 7th car to have train full length of the platform as well carry more riders, yet they have chose not to and a big mistake. Looking at the existing TR's tonight, as well think about the 500' train, why not make all 7 cars the same length? At the same time, the driver can beyond the platform like I have seen in some systems and watch a screen on the driver side to say when the doors were to close as well riders back from the train before departing the station.

If you remove the seats area 100% between the hinge area and the doors, you can shift the door to be next to the hinge area helping to remove about 15 feet from the current car length to make all 7 cars the same size. The driver car could be an issue. Doing so, while dealing with the squealing issues that has existed since the cars were length to what they are today for curves. The train is now 7 cars long with the same 4 doors per car and able to carry more riders.

As to the real number of riders the TR's can carry as well the new ones, I challenge anyone including the manufacturer of vehicles to proved with real people that X will hold Y riders as stated, I have yet to have any manufacturer take up my challenge that they do not want to be shown that the theoretical number cannot happen due to the fact people are not one size, do carrying things of all size and shape, have strollers on the vehicle in all type of sizes, grocery carts, wear mort bulky cloths, have accessibility riders on it along with walkers and the list goes on. Unless we want to be like Japan where station personal is pushing riders into X vehicle, never will see it happen here nor meet the numbers as claim by manufacturers of vehicles.

The vision how long platforms should when first built was short sighted and there no way stations can be extended to have 7-9 full length cars on a train. There are a few that can be be, but they have to be all the same sizes as the weakest one which is 500'.

Original subway cars were 17m the TR's are 22/23M. The platforms and route were built to 17M specs. You can't blame the original designers to foree that a different spec would eventually be used.

Also to add a 7th car that is the full length of 22m you would need to redesign all turn backs and stub tracks since they may not be long enough to fit a full 7 car train. You would also need to extend all the platforms beyond what they are now.

Allowing more trains to fit on the line would be more practical. The cost to extend every platform would be enormous. And some cannot be extended due to cross overs or stairs being at the end of the platform, you would need to move those too.

 

[rbt]

Original subway cars were 17m the TR's are 22/23M. The platforms and route were built to 17M specs. You can't blame the original designers to foree that a different spec would eventually be used.

Also to add a 7th car that is the full length of 22m you would need to redesign all turn backs and stub tracks since they may not be long enough to fit a full 7 car train. You would also need to extend all the platforms beyond what they are now.

Allowing more trains to fit on the line would be more practical. The cost to extend every platform would be enormous. And some cannot be extended due to cross overs or stairs being at the end of the platform, you would need to move those too.

The proposed 7th car was not a full-sized car, roughly a 10% expected capacity increase. The first and last door of the train would be within the existing platform envelope with both cabs extending beyond the platform into the tunnel.

There was to be a report in 2009 or 2010 on what other structural changes might be required for turnbacks, crossovers, storage yards, maintenance facilities, etc. but I'm not sure that was ever published.

ATO also hasn't delivered the 105 second headways promised during the same time period, unsurprising to some here who had concerns about turn-backs (Spadina fixed, Yonge extension ought to fix Finch) and dwell issues at busy stations like Bloor and King.


Incidentally, scanning these old reports on service improvements is depressing. 2016 for an Eglinton Crosstown (Stage 1) opening, Sheppard East already under construction (Go/Sheppard grade separation), etc.

https://pw.ttc.ca/-/media/Project/TTC/DevProto/Documents/Home/Public-Meetings/Board/2009/January-21/Reports/Yonge_Subway_Extensi1.pdf

 

[crs1026]

It is certainly possible to imagine some change in equipment type that squeezes a few extra feet out of train length.

But.... Hypothetically, suppose that train length can be increased by ten feet. In one hour, at 30 trains per hour, that's 300 feet of capacity.
Add a single train so that it's 31 trains per hour, and you get more capacity in linear feet per hour than the longer trains would provide.

- Paul

 

[81-717]

If a 7th car were to be added we could probably kiss PEDs goodbye, since it would totally mess up the door placement, depending on how permanent the 7th car would be (can it be easily removed & inserted, i.e. for peak vs. off peak service), whether or not every single train would have it, and especially if it would be of unequal length compared to the other 6.

Hands down, by far the best case to have PEDs would be if/when the fleet consisted exclusively of T1s and Hawkers, since the really neat thing about them was how both the T1s and Hawkers had EXACTLY the same alignment of the doors (and windows), the doors were perfectly evenly & symmetrically spaced, and the total car length was also exactly the same, as can be seen on the diagram below (also, the trucks were centered exactly underneath the doorways). Of course, the inability to convert both the Hawkers and T1s to ATC would make this a nonstarter. If only subsequent generations of subway cars were designed with the same perfect alignments (which the VAST majority of subways in the world do NOT ).

 

[Bordercollie]

If a 7th car were to be added we could probably kiss PEDs goodbye, since it would totally mess up the door placement, depending on how permanent the 7th car would be (can it be easily removed & inserted, i.e. for peak vs. off peak service), whether or not every single train would have it, and especially if it would be of unequal length compared to the other 6.

Hands down, by far the best case to have PEDs would be if/when the fleet consisted exclusively of T1s and Hawkers, since the really neat thing about them was how both the T1s and Hawkers had EXACTLY the same alignment of the doors (and windows), the doors were perfectly evenly & symmetrically spaced, and the total car length was also exactly the same, as can be seen on the diagram below. Of course, the inability to convert both the Hawkers and T1s to ATC would make this a nonstarter. If only subsequent generations of subway cars were designed with the same perfect alignments (which the VAST majority of subways in the world do NOT ).
View attachment 622660

Also take into consideration that the cab cars of the TR's are also about 1" longer than the middle cars. 2" in a whole train set isn't much but adding the 7th car will require the train to fit the platform precisely. What about turn back spots and stub tracks? Are the stub tracks at Finch long enough for 7 car trains? They may stick out and block the cross over. Although this is a mute point since the line will be extended.

 

[smallspy]

One final note, since I'm here............. can I get a comment on why it takes the trains on Line 1 so long to open their doors after stopping, and is there anything to be done w/existing or new rolling stock to put a stop to that waste?

The trains need to detect that they are at a complete stop before they are able to open their doors.

With the the more modern older stock (H5s, H6s and T1s), operators could in fact press the door open button prior to the train coming to a complete stop, and the door safety logic would prevent the doors from opening until it measured the stop.

With the TRs, the operator needs to see that the stop has been detected - a light will illuminate on their panel - and then then can open the doors. If they press the button prior to the system acknowledging the stop, it will not activate the doors.

I'm not sure what the reasoning for changing this was, but certainly on the even older cars it was possible for the operators to open the doors before the train had come to a complete stop.

Dan