TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Electrify]

Apparently there has been a minor setback for bike racks:

On October 16, the Ontario Ministry of Labour ordered Toronto Transit Commission bike racks not be used on two of its bus types – the Nova Articulated and Orion VII buses – effective immediately due to concerns around sight lines when the bike racks are in use. These buses make up the majority of the TTC’s bus fleet.

The TTC is working with the Ministry of Labour to resolve this matter. As a first step, the TTC will be locking out all bike racks from the Nova Articulated bus fleet. Customers with bicycles will be invited to board these buses with their bikes, provided there is room on the vehicle to do so at the time.

The Orion VII bus issue revolves around bicycles that have large accessories that, when positioned on the rack, could impede sight lines for an operator.

The TTC will seek an engineered solution for both fleet types to ensure continued and safe use of bicycle racks on its buses.

http://ttc.ca/News/2014/October/2010_News_Release_Bike_Racks.jsp

A couple of questions:

1. What about the few New Flyer DL40s still running? Can the bike racks still be used on them, and if so, why?

2. What about other transit agencies? York Region uses very similar Nova buses on their Viva routes with bike racks installed, why is the province saying that Toronto's bike racks are unsafe but others are okay? (I just briefly checked the YRT website, and saw no mention about bike racks being suspended).

 

[Johnny Au]

Apparently there has been a minor setback for bike racks:



http://ttc.ca/News/2014/October/2010_News_Release_Bike_Racks.jsp

A couple of questions:

1. What about the few New Flyer DL40s still running? Can the bike racks still be used on them, and if so, why?

2. What about other transit agencies? York Region uses very similar Nova buses on their Viva routes with bike racks installed, why is the province saying that Toronto's bike racks are unsafe but others are okay? (I just briefly checked the YRT website, and saw no mention about bike racks being suspended).

In the meantime, the TTC is allowing cyclists to bring their bicycles inside the articulated buses outside of rush hour.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Take a look at this video of the SkyTrain in vancouver running at less than 45 second frequencies:

[video=youtube;QGSEGQN4sGA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QGSEGQN4sGA[/video]

When ATO comes online in a few years, it will apparently be a challenge for the TTC to get even 90 second frequencies reliably. Can anyone explain why? By best guess would be that large number of passengers boarding/alighting, increasing dwell times significantly.

 

[drum118]

Take a look at this video of the SkyTrain in vancouver running at less than 45 second frequencies:



When ATO comes online in a few years, it will apparently be a challenge for the TTC to get even 90 second frequencies reliably. Can anyone explain why? By best guess would be that large number of passengers boarding/alighting, increasing dwell times significantly.

No fast crossovers at each end of the system as well moving crew. If a step back of crews took place, you can shave a few seconds off for turn around. Off loading will be more an issue than loading depending on the time of the day.

If TTC move the BD crews to the current position of the YUS, that will speed up turn around faster than today. This is supposed to be happen in the next few years.

Also, the signaling system needs replacing to ATO so you can run train closer together and have better performance. You should be able to get down to 90 seconds, but ridership will have an impact on it at various locations.

The different between TTC and SkyTrain is ridership, with TTC blowing SkyTrain off the map.

 

[ehlow]

Take a look at this video of the SkyTrain in vancouver running at less than 45 second frequencies:

When ATO comes online in a few years, it will apparently be a challenge for the TTC to get even 90 second frequencies reliably. Can anyone explain why? By best guess would be that large number of passengers boarding/alighting, increasing dwell times significantly.

Yup, the thing you mentioned, dwell time, plus I believe I've read that getting the trains to switch directions/tracks at the end of the lines might be a bottleneck.

Anyways, you can see in the video that the trains are controlled very precisely by computer with very smooth braking & acceleration. I noticed the same thing in Montreal, which also uses ATO (but they still have one staff member on the train as we will, even though it's driven by computer). I immediately noticed the lack of ATO on the short subway line that goes to the island in Montreal.

It's one of the reasons I'm looking forward to ATO on the Yonge subway, and I'm glad Eglinton will be ATO in the tunnel section.

 

[innsertnamehere]

My understanding is that you need a crossover behind a terminal station to get below 105 seconds, and finch's crossover is in front (South), limiting it. Vaughan centre will have one behind it, and if the yonge extension is ever built, Richmond Hill Centre will have one behind it, but until then, 90 seconds isn't possible.

 

[ehlow]

My understanding is that you need a crossover behind a terminal station to get below 105 seconds, and finch's crossover is in front (South), limiting it. Vaughan centre will have one behind it, and if the yonge extension is ever built, Richmond Hill Centre will have one behind it, but until then, 90 seconds isn't possible.

Can we build a Finch crossover north of the station without building the extension?

 

[TheTigerMaster]

Can we build a Finch crossover north of the station without building the extension?

As an architect friend of mine says, "anything is possible with enough money".

 

[nfitz]

Can we build a Finch crossover north of the station without building the extension?

Absolutely - and shouldn't be too expensive as that first stretch is to be cut-and-cover. There has been some talk of TTC prebuilding the first stretch north towards Cummer for additional train storage.

 

[smallspy]

I find it very strange that TTC has issues with the bike rack on the NovaBus when other systems don't.

Saw no issue with VIVA 1394 or others, saw none in Quebec this summer as well NYC.

What makes you think they don't?

I know for a fact that the VIVA drivers union brought it up, and they were told to sod off.

My understanding is that you need a crossover behind a terminal station to get below 105 seconds, and finch's crossover is in front (South), limiting it. Vaughan centre will have one behind it, and if the yonge extension is ever built, Richmond Hill Centre will have one behind it, but until then, 90 seconds isn't possible.

Improved frequencies can be done today. Maybe not 60 seconds, but damn close to it.

The trick, however, would be that less than half of the service would go to the termini. The other half would have to be turned back elsewhere - Glencairn and St. Clair West on the west side of the YUS, and Lawrence/York Mills and Eglinton on the east side.

The issue is with the signal system and the safety margins built into it. With a crossover, the train needs to occupy both tracks, and can only do so at a lower rate of speed than if it was straight track. On top of that, there is a timeout period of 15 seconds once the block is cleared before the switches can be moved. All being equal, the minimum headway out of either Downsview or Finch Stations is about 130 seconds - they're running a scheduled headway of 141 now.

If multiple termini/branches are used, your minimum headway drops considerably - trains are only occupying 2 blocks at any given time, and never blocks in the other direction that then have to be cleared. The minimum headway now becomes a function of how quickly the trains clear blocks and the 15 second timeout for the switch - now only one trailing switch - to reset. In theory, they could run trains every 70 seconds or so with the existing signalling - but of course, this assumes that trains are stopping for no more than a couple of seconds at each stop. Busy stations like Bloor don't help this.

And this is how the Skytrain offers silly frequencies. Only about one of every three trains from downtown makes it to King George - some branch off onto the Millenium line, and others short turn elsewhere on the system.

If you want to get into really short headways, the best way to do it is to use return loops at either end. This way the line operates simply as a line - there are no switches to clear, and the headways are limited solely to whatever the signal system is capable of.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ehlow]

My personal opinion is that once frequencies go under 3 minutes, it matters for capacity reasons, but for customer experience it's not as important.

What I mean is, if you go from 10 min to 5 min frequencies, it obviously makes a huge positive difference in rider experience. However, when you go from 3 min to 2 min or something, it's not as big of a deal.

Having said that I do realize it is an improvement for Yonge since the subway needs the extra capacity.

 

[Markster]

Take a look at this video of the SkyTrain in vancouver running at less than 45 second frequencies

Just to things on the same page, that video isn't "45 second frequencies". It's "45 seconds apart". As in, 45 seconds between the closing of the doors to the next train opening its doors. The trains in that video are running at about 77 second frequencies. The first pair exit the station 79 seconds apart, the second pair exit 76 seconds apart.

 

[smably]

The trains in that video are running at about 77 second frequencies. The first pair exit the station 79 seconds apart, the second pair exit 76 seconds apart.

Indeed, the minimum headway of Vancouver's signalling system is 75 seconds.

Skytrain has an advantage over the TTC's subway trains in that their trains are much shorter ( ~76m vs ~140m), meaning they can be run closer together. And given that the vehicles are smaller and lighter and can use the linear induction motor for braking, I suspect that the Skytrain's stopping distance is much smaller. So 90 seconds seems like a reasonable ballpark for the TTC; besides, I've never heard of a heavy rail system running on tighter headways, not even Moscow, contrary to legend.

 

[smallspy]

Indeed, the minimum headway of Vancouver's signalling system is 75 seconds.

Skytrain has an advantage over the TTC's subway trains in that their trains are much shorter ( ~76m vs ~140m), meaning they can be run closer together. And given that the vehicles are smaller and lighter and can use the linear induction motor for braking, I suspect that the Skytrain's stopping distance is much smaller. So 90 seconds seems like a reasonable ballpark for the TTC; besides, I've never heard of a heavy rail system running on tighter headways, not even Moscow, contrary to legend.

There are videos online of the Paris Line 1, which shows trains arriving at consistent headways of 90 seconds or less.

The main reason why the Skytrain is able to run such short headways is because of their moving-block signalling system. The TTC uses a fixed-block system, which means that there is almost always more space than is absolutely required for safety. The size of the train helps, but is major reason why.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[salsa]

There are videos online of the Paris Line 1, which shows trains arriving at consistent headways of 90 seconds or less.

The main reason why the Skytrain is able to run such short headways is because of their moving-block signalling system. The TTC uses a fixed-block system, which means that there is almost always more space than is absolutely required for safety. The size of the train helps, but is major reason why.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Isn't the TTC gonna have the moving-block signalling system in a few years?