News   Mar 13, 2026
News Roundup for March 13, 2026
 258     0 
News   Mar 13, 2026
Growth Spurt
 533     0 
News   Mar 12, 2026
Rental Tower Complex Advances as Next Six Points Redevelopment Phase
 1.4K     3 

TTC: Other Items (catch all)

(transferring this discussion over to the more appropriate thread)

T3G said:
In the last 2 years of operation the ALRVs spent more time out of service than in service.
Click to expand...
Quite unlike the H6s...

T3G said:
while no such thing exists with the far more reliable T1s?
Click to expand...
T3G said:
So far...
Click to expand...
The TTC did feel the need to push quite hard (hah!) over the past few years before someone finally heard them.

T3G said:
Those were the one-offs, but the point is that they didn't hesitate to retire any of them that early, when, for an H5 or T1 to be retired at that age, they would have had to sustain catastrophic accident damage.
Click to expand...
So what was the reason for their 2011/2012 retirement? I don't recall them having an accident or fire (like 5717 that same year). To rephrase the point of my question, what was the lifespan of the shortest-lived cars that retired during mass retirement in 2013/2014?

T3G said:
But I appreciate the T1s for their ruggedness, reliability, and being the last representatives of a Toronto that no longer exists
Click to expand...
Well to me, they're one of the reasons why that Toronto no longer exists (since 1999) and I never got to experience. And in that Toronto, they were what the TRs are in this Toronto.

T3G said:
Am I happy, for instance, that a private owner owns an ex-TTC Orion V which I am unlikely to ever get to photograph?
Click to expand...
I am (not overly happy since it's not an H5, but happy nonetheless). I haven't been lucky enough to see it out on the streets yet, but it'd sure be exciting if/when the opportunity presents itself.

T3G said:
My life would be unchanged if it had been scrapped.
Click to expand...
Mine may or may not be (since it's not an H5). But if 5707 were, heaven forbid...
 
Last edited:
Question, when TTC was designing their TRs, how come they went with the sloped aerodynamic designs whereas NYC’s MTA (or the MBTA) didn’t, for their new subway cars? I’m sure many still miss the railfan window on the H5s or H6s to be precise.
 
CMQSD402F9011 said:
Question, when TTC was designing their TRs, how come they went with the sloped aerodynamic designs whereas NYC’s MTA (or the MBTA) didn’t, for their new subway cars? I’m sure many still miss the railfan window on the H5s or H6s to be precise.
Click to expand...
How many MTA or MBTA trainsets operated in fixed lengths that don't change? The answer is that none of them do - they reconfigure their trainsets all the time, and so they have designed them with that flexibility in mind.

It's the same reason why they have been so against open gangway cars until now.

Dan
 
Streetcars make right turns from the left lane. To indicate, drivers in the right lane have to notice the right turn signal on the streetcars (if they don't have blinders on).

In the province of Québec, they use diagonal white bars so that buses can turn left from the right lane.
1772981146522.png


Toronto should do the same using right leaning diagonal transit signals for streetcars turning right at signalled intersections. They should also locate them on the nearside of the intersection at either the stop line, pedestrian crossing, or where the tracks actually turn right, not the farside, Along with a regular red traffic signal for the motorists (located on the nearside).

That's for signalled intersections. For unsignalled intersections, we should put up YIELD TO STREETCAR signs, to give the crowded streetcars priority, unlike nowadays where they are waiting for permission from the single-occupant automobile drivers.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1605331887962353665

YIELD to tram.jpg
 
Last edited:
smallspy said:
How many MTA or MBTA trainsets operated in fixed lengths that don't change? The answer is that none of them do - they reconfigure their trainsets all the time, and so they have designed them with that flexibility in mind.

It's the same reason why they have been so against open gangway cars until now.

Dan
Click to expand...
MTA's current trains are all in permanent 4/5/6-car sets, and they only ever couple 2 sets together, so there isn't that much flexibility to spare, not nearly as much as with married pairs (train length can basically only be either 1 set or 2 sets, and only a few lines, like G, run 1-set trains). And having a TR-style front end doesn't necessarily preclude sets from being coupled together & running in that configuration, as is the case in Stockholm, or even here on line 5. And the implementation of open gangways changed nothing about the configuration or operational flexibility of each set, since a 5-car R160 is just as much of a fixed set as a 5-car R211, and a full train still consists of 2 R211s coupled together.
 
smallspy said:
How many MTA or MBTA trainsets operated in fixed lengths that don't change? The answer is that none of them do - they reconfigure their trainsets all the time, and so they have designed them with that flexibility in mind.

It's the same reason why they have been so against open gangway cars until now.

Dan
Click to expand...
What I do mean is that why they (MTA) never went with Sloped Aerodynamic fronts like what the TRs have in the 21st century. Apart from having the R40s aka Slants many years ago.
 
81-717 said:
MTA's current trains are all in permanent 4/5/6-car sets, and they only ever couple 2 sets together, so there isn't that much flexibility to spare, not nearly as much as with married pairs (train length can basically only be either 1 set or 2 sets, and only a few lines, like G, run 1-set trains). And having a TR-style front end doesn't necessarily preclude sets from being coupled together & running in that configuration, as is the case in Stockholm, or even here on line 5. And the implementation of open gangways changed nothing about the configuration or operational flexibility of each set, since a 5-car R160 is just as much of a fixed set as a 5-car R211, and a full train still consists of 2 R211s coupled together.
Click to expand...
Right, but the same 8/10/11 car trains are not operated with the same sets of cars all day, every day. The swap them around - like the TTC swaps around pairs of T1s to make a 6-car trainset. They do move from line to line in some cases, and so they need to retain some of that flexibility.

In the TTC's case it was decided that the requirement to swap around pairs was not necessary anymore - thus they went to a fixed-length trainset. That conversation hasn't seemed to have happened yet in New York or Boston.

CMQSD402F9011 said:
What I do mean is that why they (MTA) never went with Sloped Aerodynamic fronts like what the TRs have in the 21st century. Apart from having the R40s aka Slants many years ago.
Click to expand...
The design of the R40 slants had nothing to do with aerodynamics - it was all Raymond Loewy.

As for now - an aerodynamic front requires space that can't be used to carry passengers. Depending on the design, it can complicate access and coupling as well. It would seem that MTA has decided that is makes more sense to prioritize passenger capacity and the ability to couple trains without concern than it does to focus on any aerodynamic benefit.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
In the TTC's case it was decided that the requirement to swap around pairs was not necessary anymore - thus they went to a fixed-length trainset.
Click to expand...
Well, it'll still be necessary to have pairs on line 2 for the foreseeable future (until Kipling yard), hence the new fleet being redesigned to allow it. I wonder if the new cars will also be swapped around, or if they'll be uncoupled only for maintenance without being swapped around otherwise.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top