[crs1026]

A line operating as GoA4 with the public needs to have a lot of additional systems and features in order to ensure that the public remains safe in all situations. And that includes emergencies that require evacuating a train. The Crosstown does not have those.

The system operates as a GoA4 in the yard, because the public will never ride trains in there - so it doesn't need those additional features and systems.

The optimist in me thinks that maybe it's a good thing that the incident happened in the most complex level of the system. Possibly this implies that the system level that protects passengers is robust and dependable, and it's only the higher tech segment that has a flaw. How's that for looking for a silver lining in all this.

As well, the problems experienced by the Crosstown are certainly not unique to the system that has been installed on it. There have been lots of issues over the years, including collisions, on lots of other vendor's systems. It all comes down to set-up.

It's not extravagant to expect that the software that provides safety to thousands of transit riders every day be as well qualified and tested as avionics software. The risk level is comparable. I wonder what the process is to do this qualification. As we saw with Boeing, accepting incidents as part and parcel of perfecting software is not really acceptable, although it may be reality.

It's pretty easy if you think about it - cost avoidance. Don't have to pay for nearly as many hostlers to shuttle trains around the yard.

I will digress and post this nostalgiac shot of the hostler complement at Roncesvalles Division coming to a complete halt due to the non-operability of PCC car 4580 that was being moved to dockside for sale to Egypt.
I dunno, letting a bunch of humble people earn a living by hostling cars is not the worst outcome, IMHO - but I don't have the exact cost comparison.

- Paul

 

[Admiral Beez]

I will digress and post this nostalgiac shot of the hostler complement at Roncesvalles Division coming to a complete halt due to the non-operability of PCC car 4580 that was being moved to dockside for sale to Egypt.

I wonder if our PCC's are still running. The climate should be forgiving.

Trams in Alexandria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[T3G]

I wonder if our PCC's are still running. The climate should be forgiving.

Trams in Alexandria - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Long gone. The last of them were withdrawn in 1984.

The climate may have been forgiving, but the maintenance conditions were anything but. And some units never even got to enter service and were destroyed in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war, too.

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

Long gone. The last of them were withdrawn in 1984.

We have a couple preserved but they're currently at the Halton Country Radial Railway while they do upgrading work at Hillcrest to reactivate it as a carhouse and storage yard.

 

[cplchanb]

cant they run on manual control in the tunnels until they can transition in the fix if it is indeed a bug? why must they rely on ATO in the tunnels? run it like they do at queens quay.

 

[T3G]

We have a couple preserved but they're currently at the Halton Country Radial Railway while they do upgrading work at Hillcrest to reactivate it as a carhouse and storage yard.

Without wanting to drag this discussion too far off topic, I was talking about the cars in Alexandria. We used PCCs in Toronto until 1995.

 

[nfitz]

cant they run on manual control in the tunnels until they can transition in the fix if it is indeed a bug?

They probably could after they spend $1 billion and 10-years to install the necessary signalling system.

2040 opening anyone?

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

It's not extravagant to expect that the software that provides safety to thousands of transit riders every day be as well qualified and tested as avionics software. The risk level is comparable. I wonder what the process is to do this qualification. As we saw with Boeing, accepting incidents as part and parcel of perfecting software is not really acceptable, although it may be reality.

- Paul

Routes within the yard track are far more complex than out on the main. With ~50 or so switch points, there are quite literally hundreds of possible routing combinations so it's not unlikely for one of those routing combinations to have an overlooked checkbox that should be checked but isn't, or be unintentionally configured to interlock the wrong switch. The fact that it's been discovered now probably has more to do with the controllers at Davisville doing regular fleet rotation movements or whatever and finding an edge case in those route configurations that wasn't discovered until they started doing RSD.

 

[A 6264]

Without wanting to drag this discussion too far off topic, I was talking about the cars in Alexandria. We used PCCs in Toronto until 1995.

Less than 10 years ago I was on a PCC car on Carlton. It was during rush hour, and I presumed they had a few old cars for when extra are needed. Or was I dreaming?

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

Less than 10 years ago I was on a PCC car on Carlton. It was during rush hour, and I presumed they had a few old cars for when extra are needed. Or was I dreaming?

They still have them. They just don't see any use right now because they're pole only and much of the track is converted to pantograph only. There is an RFP for converting them to use pantographs.

 

[Northern Light]

As this thread was the most recent place to see discussion of the Allen/Eglinton intersection, and the need to alter/mitigate it............ I will place this here.

A report to next week's Infrastructure and Environment Ctte updates the issue and notes that the department is the process of hiring an engineering consultant (they could model this themselves, but I digress)....
to study the options. They will report back in Q2 2026 to the Ctte.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/mmis/2025/ie/bgrd/backgroundfile-259436.pdf

From the above:

I will flag some people who may have thoughts, @innsertnamehere , @reaperexpress , and @TwoWheelPoli come to mind, I will also post a link to this thread over in the Cycling thread given the impacts this intersection is having on cycling on Eglinton.

 

[innsertnamehere]

All contemplated changes look relatively minor.

that intersection is simply never going to operate particularly well as it was never designed as a Freeway terminus, but anything helps.

 

[micheal_can]

All contemplated changes look relatively minor.

that intersection is simply never going to operate particularly well as it was never designed as a Freeway terminus, but anything helps.

Then maybe the answer is that we need to make it more like it should have been.
The eastbound Eglington, take and build a lane raised in the centre and then have a flyover from it to Allen.Rd.
From the southbound Allen Rd, do much the same thing with a flyover.
You would need to close Everden Rd

It won't look pretty, but it will flow,and pedestrians can get through there easily.

 

[turini2]

Sort of. It needs an asterisk.

A line operating as GoA4 with the public needs to have a lot of additional systems and features in order to ensure that the public remains safe in all situations. And that includes emergencies that require evacuating a train. The Crosstown does not have those.

The system operates as a GoA4 in the yard, because the public will never ride trains in there - so it doesn't need those additional features and systems.

Sure, thanks!

The system is an off-the-shelf signal system, and is used in dozens of other systems worldwide.

A large part of the issue, however, is that these systems need to be thought more, as an application, like Excel - the software gives the the framework with which you configure it for your use.

As well, the problems experienced by the Crosstown are certainly not unique to the system that has been installed on it. There have been lots of issues over the years, including collisions, on lots of other vendor's systems. It all comes down to set-up.

It's pretty easy if you think about it - cost avoidance. Don't have to pay for nearly as many hostlers to shuttle trains around the yard.

Makes me think of the pain that Crossrail had at getting the Paddington auto-reverse to work.
The asterisk probably applies there too - basically, the train leaves Paddington in GoA3, drives into the siding automatically and then resets itself before driving back to Paddington in the other direction - all while the driver walks down the 200m long train to the other driving cab, ready to drive the rest of the core section in GoA2.

It wasn't fully working until a good year until the Elizabeth line core had opened.

 

[smallspy]

cant they run on manual control in the tunnels until they can transition in the fix if it is indeed a bug? why must they rely on ATO in the tunnels? run it like they do at queens quay.

Visibility is not nearly as good in a tunnel as it is outside. It's much harder to gauge stopping distances, for instance. So yes, you need signals to safely operate in the tunnels.

And while there is a degraded manual mode for emergencies, much like on the subway system it's not really useful for running any significant revenue service.

Less than 10 years ago I was on a PCC car on Carlton. It was during rush hour, and I presumed they had a few old cars for when extra are needed. Or was I dreaming?

10 years ago? No, you didn't. 30 years ago, perhaps.

The TTC has not used any of the the PCCs in revenue service since the end of 1995s. Their last days of revenue service were on Carlton, as they'd been booted off of Queens Quay due to noise complaints. All but the two kept for the historical fleet were sold off by the end of the next year.

They have had them out for publicly-accessible special events from time-to-time, but they would not have been used in regular revenue service.

Dan