Perhaps it's obvious BS?
A quick look up suggests that the T1s weigh 33.1 tons per car, while the TRs weigh 34.3 tons. That 1.2 ton (3.5% increase) in weight is insignificant. A bit more perspective, at peak load, the 183 passengers would add about another 16 tons. While the extra 60 at the theoretical (but likely impossible) crush load is another 5 tons.
Meanwhile the cars the subway were designed for, were only 17 metres long instead of 23 metres long. BUT each car weighed 38 tons. So the load per axle was significantly higher than the current equipment.
WearyInspection5396 is full of it. I don't know people fall for such obvious fake news.
-----------------
Once again our resident expert on all things in the universe has settled the debate with 0 cited sources...
I look at these presumptuous posts and just laugh---> "[The TTC operator is] obvious fake news" et al--->(Anything counter to my views is fake news or gaslighting)
| Rolling Stock | Wheel Diameter (new) | Tare per Car | Empty Weight per 6-Car Train | /24 = Axle Load | Est. Contact Area (per axle w/ 2 wheels) | Est. Avg. Pressure |
|---|
| G-1 (steel) | 30 in | 85,525 lb | 513,150 lb (calculated) | 21,381 lb | ~0.319 in² | ~67,100 psi |
| G-2 (aluminum) | 30 in | 73,452 lb | 440,712 lb (") | 18,363 lb | ~0.288 in² | ~63,800 psi |
| G-3 | 30 in | 76,720 lb | 460,320 lb (") | 19,180 lb | ~0.296 in² | ~64,800 psi |
| G-4 | 30 in | 82,776 lb | 496,656 lb (") | 20,694 lb | ~0.309 in² | ~67,000 psi |
| M-1 | 28 in | 59,000 lb | 354,000 lb (") | 14,750 lb | ~0.244 in² | ~60,400 psi |
| H-1 | 28 in | 59,900 lb | 359,400 lb (") | 14,975 lb | ~0.247 in² | ~60,600 psi |
| H-2 | 28 in | 56,515 lb | 339,090 lb (") | 14,129 lb | ~0.236 in² | ~59,900 psi |
| H-3 | 28 in | 56,425 lb | 338,550 lb (") | 14,106 lb | ~0.235 in² | ~60,000 psi |
| H-4 | 28 in | 57,724 lb | 346,344 lb (") | 14,431 lb | ~0.239 in² | ~60,300 psi |
| H-5 | 28 in | 67,110 lb | 402,660 lb (") | 16,778 lb | ~0.259 in² | ~64,800 psi |
| H-6 | 28 in | 72,000 lb | 432,000 lb (") | 18,000 lb | ~0.271 in² | ~66,400 psi |
| T-1 | 28 in | 72,960 lb | 437,760 lb (") | 18,240 lb | ~0.274 in² | ~66,700 psi |
| Toronto Rocket (steel) | 28 in | 75,508 lb | 205,500 kg (~453,045 lb) (published) | 18,877 lb | 0.280 in² (est. reference point) | ~67,400 psi |
So the Toronto Rockets do have the
highest average contact pressure (2/3rds of calculated Hertzian
contact stress), due to it being the
heaviest rolling stock on
28 inch wheels. That’s without even accounting for differences in train capacity, load factors, and aggregate passenger weight between the past and today.
Furthermore, even a 1% increase in contact pressure per trip translates into larger-than-1% increases in accumulated damage, due to the sheer number of daily trips (300+), further accumulated 365 days a year. It's a classic case of cumulative fatigue damage. An analogy is if you eat at a 1% calorie surplus for your weight every single day for a year, a 200 lb person would gain about 2.6 lbs, after 10 years their weight grows to 228 lbs. Not a 1% gain anymore. Still, the 1% pressure increase would accumulate more proportional damage than the 1% calorie surplus gains in weight per year: there are 300+ daily cycles on Line 1 in each direction, versus 1 daily cycle for calorie surplus.
Contact stress leads to fatigue and cracks, which dominate long-term maintenance costs, unlike axle load, which primarily drives lower-cost routine wear.
Assuming what WearyInspection said is true, it's just as possible that the T-1s and later H-series were overweight 'for the rails' when loaded, considering that the Rockets were adopted 10-15 years ago. Surely much of the long-term damage to the tracks happened before that.
A TTC operator may not be omniscient of all things TTC, but they are more credible than a forum veteran.
And again, this entire exchange is a distraction from the central point: regardless of vehicle minutiae, Line 1 is demonstrably operated slower today than in 2021, and slower still than decades ago.
That the Toronto Rockets have the highest pressure is congruent with WearyInspection’s explanation of RSZ whack-a-mole for lower speeds, among other reasons.
Sources:
For the well read, the implication is obvious:
How do drivers rocket as fast as possible on Line 1 with ATC? This makes me suspect the origin of that "experience".
Before the Toronto Rocket, the T-1s and H-series on Line 1 were indeed rockets by comparison.
You mistakenly assumed that WearyInspection meant "rocket as fast as possible"
with ATC. T-1s and H-series ran without ATC; they also operated at higher average speeds, thus answering your question. That erroneous assumption, and reflexive dismissal of any narrative counter to your own, overlooks that T-1s and H-series were running on Line 1 just over 10 years ago, while ATC was fully enabled in 2022. Not being able to read between the lines is far from a universal problem on Urban Toronto. Had I directly addressed your mistaken assumption, would I not be met with the usual rain of insults? Misleading, lying, gaslighting etc...
It's not gaslighting to point out mistakes, like those in a person's arithmetic when they can't even do division to derive the population density from an area and its population that they themselves cited...
Genuinely don't know what they were thinking going from aluminium to stainless steel, new ASME crash standards maybe? I doubt it though... Just sounds like typical Toronto transit ineptitude. Instead of meeting stricter standards with better design, they switch to heavier materials. See Williams F1 team as of late.
