[kEiThZ]

Davisville to College

My method Eglinton, Bloor, Wellesley, College = 4 stops.

Old method, St. Clair, Summerhill, Rosedale, Bloor, Wellesly, College = 6 stops
Sharon.

RTFQ.

He didn't ask for a station count. He asked you to give him a trip breakdown. Tell him how long your method takes vs. the current trip.

 

[Asterix]

Davisville to College

My method Eglinton, Bloor, Wellesley, College = 4 stops.

Old method, St. Clair, Summerhill, Rosedale, Bloor, Wellesly, College = 6 stops
Sharon.

Ok, so I see that my interpretation was incorrect as to what happens south of Bloor (I had the impression there was still only express outhbound).

What about times for this trip?

Using my previous estimations:

Current system:
1:30 + 0:30 (leaving St Clair) + 1:00 + 0:30 (leaving Summerhill) + 1:00 + 0:30 (leaving Rosedale) + 1:00 + 0:30 (leaving Bloor) + 1:00 + 0:30 (leaving Wellesley) + 1:00 = 9:00

Your proposal:
1:30 (leaving Eglinton) + 5:00 + 0:30 (leaving Bloor) + 1:00 + 0:30 (leaving Wellesley) + 1:00 = 9:30

This 9:30 also assumes there is a train immediately ready for you at Eglinton and that the time it takes everyone who wants to go to the Bloor line, plus Rosedale, plus Summerhill, plus St Clair, plus Davisville to get off at Bloor is the same time as it takes everyone who wants to go to the Bloor line to get off with the current system.

9:30 is not half the time of 9:00.

Is your math different? Please explain.

 

[subway safety]

Asterix,

Headway is ofcourse extremely important.

There is absolutely NO HEADWAY, if you are sitting in a tunnel, or creeping along in a tunnel.

Less stops also means less variables to slow the system down. Removing variable is what atc is for. One of the biggest obsticle is people, sorry to say.

Automatic train control don't control people.

People actually control trains.

My math is from Kennedy to Kipling it will now take only 51.64 minutes if there are no suicide bombers, earthquakes, flood, tunnels caving in.
The variable are lessened.

The present time end to end is 105 minutes. Actually now reduced to 103 minutes because of the Yonge & Bloor improvement.

Are you running out of questions? Can you perhaps see that I am on to something? Even if I am right.........no matter the value to the commuter, to our environment to the bottom line. ....it doesn't mean they will accept it.
I can only try.
This is all in addition to the fact that I believe I have uncovered that because of the yellow line renovations in 1993 and following that at that time they were to meet the new 1993 code "safety requirments within station" 3.3.13, stating that "guards" must be installed on the platform if there is a renovation or a new station. Can of worms eh?
Sharon.

 

[Asterix]

Simple logic would suggest that express and local trains can't coexist on the same track without some serious issues (like bunching for example).

Agree with everything else you've said, but from what I understand of this proposal is that there are not competing local and express trains on the same track.

During morning peak, all southbound trains would be running express (what stops are serviced is still to be absolutely determined). All northbound trains would be running local. Hence why the Davisville to College passenger has to go north to Eglinton to catch a southbound train (unless they wanted to attempt a boarding at 70 km/h - probably not conducive to safety).

Afternoon peak would be reversed - all northbound trains running express, all southbound trains running local.

This though still has yet to be shown to decrease travel time for anyone who isn't going exclusively between express stops (Eglinton to Bloor) or how train throughput (passenger capacity) would at all be altered, let alone doubled.

 

[Asterix]

Are you running out of questions?

No, because I am still trying to get an answer to my original question:

Please provide a stage time breakdown (as I did) for a passenger travelling from Davisville to College using the current system and using your proposed system.

As you'll see above, I got 9:00 current vs. 9:30 your idea.

Where is your math different?

Once you can provide a coherent answer to this very basic question, we can address the misunderstandings regarding headway and line capacity.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ And how the hell do you run such a system without piling on the trains at the terminii? This looks like an absolute operational nightmare. And I don't even want to imagine the ops safety implications, subway barrier or not.

 

[kEiThZ]

This system would also start pitting different parts of the city against each other. Guess what the folks who don't live at express stops are going to say about this system.

 

[subway safety]

You have to do the math on a large scale.

For a short trip time would may or may not be in half.
Besides on a long trip would likely show more accuracy.

From Kennedy to Kipling and from Kipling to Kennedy.

There are a total of 28 train stops
If you drove direct with no stops it would take 35.76 minutes over the 52.46 kilometre trip.

If each (strategic) stop takes 67 seconds ( 22 to stop your train, account for an average 15 dwell, and 30 seconds to bring you to full speed)

You then account for an extra 31.26 stoppage time allotment.

35.76 + 35.76 + 31.26 + .50 (Extra B&L) = 103.38 minutes to go from Kennedy to Kipling and back to Kennedy (two direction in 103.38 minutes)

Today it would take 210 minutes to go in two directions.

That's a 203 % capacity improvement potential.

Now how do you begin to fill. You put parking condos at Finch, Kenndy, Kipling, and Downsview. Each have convenient elevators, and moving walkways if need be. Why would a guy in a suit what to take the bus? No way. Why do people take GO today? That too is an easy answer.

With stop and creep and/ or atc this 203% is possible. Without either, it is a little harder to compute the ci. %

All inventors are not necessarily engineers. This is why I needed a meeting.

Now TTC is Fast, efficient, reliable, comfortable and affordable.
Sharon.

 

[kEiThZ]

Asterix,

Headway is ofcourse extremely important.

There is absolutely NO HEADWAY, if you are sitting in a tunnel, or creeping along in a tunnel.

Less stops also means less variables to slow the system down. Removing variable is what atc is for. One of the biggest obsticle is people, sorry to say.

Automatic train control don't control people.

People actually control trains.

My math is from Kennedy to Kipling it will now take only 51.64 minutes if there are no suicide bombers, earthquakes, flood, tunnels caving in.
The variable are lessened.

The present time end to end is 105 minutes. Actually now reduced to 103 minutes because of the Yonge & Bloor improvement.

Any grade 3 student can do the math to show that travel time is shorter when the train moves faster. You have yet to demonstrate how you would prevent trains from bunching (especially at the terminii) and how you would keep an even level of service by running express trains in one direction yet having the off-peak direction stop everywhere (effectively giving them a longer deadhead back).

Are you running out of questions? Can you perhaps see that I am on to something? Even if I am right.........no matter the value to the commuter, to our environment to the bottom line. ....it doesn't mean they will accept it.
I can only try.

You're not on to anything. You've done grade school math. Good for you. Now, how about showing us an ops model on how you would run this without preventing some serious bunching. And explain your curious assertion that the trains would be "half-full" with just as many people travelling in the same direction with presumably just as many trains.

And no, the commuters will have a tough time seeing value in a proposal that pits every third neighbourhood against the others by giving priority to some stations and not to others.

 

[kEiThZ]

You have to do the math on a large scale.

For a short trip time would may or may not be in half.
Besides on a long trip would likely show more accuracy.

From Kennedy to Kipling and from Kipling to Kennedy.

There are a total of 28 train stops
If you drove direct with no stops it would take 35.76 minutes over the 52.46 kilometre trip.

If each (strategic) stop takes 67 seconds ( 22 to stop your train, account for an average 15 dwell, and 30 seconds to bring you to full speed)

You then account for an extra 31.26 stoppage time allotment.

35.76 + 35.76 + 31.26 + .50 (Extra B&L) = 103.38 minutes to go from Kennedy to Kipling and back to Kennedy (two direction in 103.38 minutes)

Today it would take 210 minutes to go in two directions.

That's a 203 % capacity improvement potential.

Now how do you begin to fill. You put parking condos at Finch, Kenndy, Kipling, and Downsview. Each have convenient elevators, and moving walkways if need be. Why would a guy in a suit what to take the bus? No way. Why do people take GO today? That too is an easy answer.

With stop and creep and/ or atc this 203% is possible. Without either, it is a little harder to compute the ci. %

All inventors are not necessarily engineers. This is why I needed a meeting.

Now TTC is Fast, efficient, reliable, comfortable and affordable.
Sharon.

But how do you get the trains back if the return route is running at a different speed? Or is this going to be one giant running of the bulls for each peak?

 

[subway safety]

Bunching is illiminated or hugely reduced because of less variables and additionally since there are now no unpredictables.

BUt to allow the extra capacity flow, one must reimplement the stop and creep proceduce only for Yonge and Bloor.

Sitting in the tunnels and Yonge & bloor and all the stoppage time were the limiting factors before.

The last remaining limited facting aside from optimized passenger flow solutions need for Yonge & Bloor, would then be the need for stop and creep.

Trains become half full because they come and go twice a fast, therefore there is less platform filling up time.

Today you say have 100 people on the platform waiting for 3 minutes say.

Now you will have 50 people on the platform since the train come and goes every 1 and 30 seconds time.
This makes the trains half full , for mostly everyone.

When you achieve 100 people on the platform in 1 and 30 seconds, then you are back to full capacity again, with the added revenue of 1.346 billion new annual income otherwise not achieved without station skipping and platform safety.
Sharon.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ So in other words, you got nothing.

No engineer worth his salt is going to take your comment that 'unpredictables' are reduced at face value. Especially since your system would introduce a whole bunch of new issues with no slack to compensate for errors. And nobody will buy that 'stop and creep' would reduce bunching at Yonge-Bloor (btw, you'd have the same problem at every other major station and terminus).

Also, your assumption that there will be half the people because you have cut headways in half is fundamentally flawed. Where are the extra trains going to come from if the trains on the reverse trip are running at regular speed? Your solution is essentially good for one run at each peak. After that, the system would have to revert to normal operation. Given that peak runs a lot longer than 1 hr these days, I am doubtful this is an optimal solution.

 

[subway safety]

Asterix,
It's hard to have specific answers to everything. 5 minutes was a quick quess, it is more likely closer to 3 to 3.5 minutes from Eglinton to College direct.

Keithz,

I'm sorry but you haven't got it yet, and that's okay. Without a map, this is hard to get.

Gotta go now.
Sharon.

 

[Jonny5]

I'm sorry but you haven't got it yet, and that's okay. Without a map, this is hard to get.

I think we get it now.

Your system disintermediates a clear-thinking process improvement with balanced responsive intelligence and is equipped with pre-emptive high-level middleware running on a vision-oriented 5th generation implementation. There are grouped analyzing challenges but your systems reactive policy architecture allows a fundamental fault-tolerant orchestration creating customer-focused transitional info-mediaries.

But seriously, when someone points out something that doesn't make sense, you just say "you haven't got it yet" and then "Gotta go." I don't think anyone can get it without seeing a functioning model.

 

[Swarley]

From Kennedy to Kipling and from Kipling to Kennedy.

There are a total of 28 train stops
If you drove direct with no stops it would take 35.76 minutes over the 52.46 kilometre trip.

If each (strategic) stop takes 67 seconds ( 22 to stop your train, account for an average 15 dwell, and 30 seconds to bring you to full speed)

You then account for an extra 31.26 stoppage time allotment.

35.76 + 35.76 + 31.26 + .50 (Extra B&L) = 103.38 minutes to go from Kennedy to Kipling and back to Kennedy (two direction in 103.38 minutes)

Today it would take 210 minutes to go in two directions.

That's a 203 % capacity improvement potential.

Noone has pointed this out but where did you get the idea it takes 105 mins to go from Kipling to Kennedy? It takes no more than an hour under normal conditions. So much for "203%" capacity improvement.... 120 / 103 is a 16% (theoretical) capacity improvement.

Maybe you can see why you're not getting much respect here when you make a mistake as simple as that...