The Finch problems are well known. But hang on, the extension to Vaughan didn't mitigate the terminal problem there? Surely they should have designed the Vaughan terminal ... which surely is going to be the end of the line for generations - to handle 2 minute service (currently 4.7 minutes in AM peak).
Vaughan can already handle 2-ish minute frequencies, but that's by nature of the signal system. They are physically incapable of running more frequently than that because of the crossover at the south - the same issue that arises with Finch. The improvement in headway is solely going to be possible with the signal system, and nothing else.
What would it take to convert them back (given they'd need 12 new cars to extend the trains back up to 6 cars)?
New cars. There's no converting an A car to something else.
I know OPTO on the Sheppard line saves a bit of money for the agency, but could that be replicated with converted T1s with ATC and full cabs (or just having the operator stand up at every station, even though that may anger the union).
The OPTO system was originally going to be installed on the T1s, so that should be no issue. But ATC/ATO is a non-starter - there's no point for a vehicle that has less than 10 years of life left.
As for standing up at each station - why? The OPTO system deals with that.
What about running the 4 car TRs on line 1 during rush hour while having ATC enabled T1s run on Sheppard? I don't think it would be extremely feasible, but it could be used as a stopgap solution until the next train purchase.
I can't see how that would work. Can you imagine the backlash on Twitter from people who missed their train because it's only 4 cars long? The TTC has long been leery of intermingling long and short trains, and frankly this idea wouldn't make them feel any better about it.
This is solved for Spadina leg of Line 1. The terminus for high frequency operations is both Vaughan & Steeles, each handling ~3 minute frequencies for turnarounds providing a combined 90 second headway.
Not Steeles - Finch West. But yes, that is correct.
The solution for the Yonge leg will be similar, split terminus between 2 stations.
Except that way too high of a proportion of service is needed to go to Finch on the Yonge side. That's why ideas such as routing service onto the Sheppard Line are such a non-starter.
For the record, the only places where that would be capable under Yonge are Eglinton (and not easily) and Lawrence. Both of which are way too great a distance with which to cut back service.
Essentially, any station with a north-side pocket track (or far-side from the center point) can act as 50% of the line terminus @ 90 second frequencies. It takes much less time to switch into a pocket track than it does to do a full cross-over to the other side as is done at Finch.
All of that is correct. The problem now is that there are no places with which to do it. When the line is extended north, Finch could (and may very well) be that location. But until that? We're boned.
Nope. Sheppard has a south side pocket track.
There is no pocket track at Sheppard. There is a crossover on the south side of the station, but those are of no use in this situation.
A bigger issue is not the 90 sec service frequency but actually ability for Line 2 to handle the more frequent loads from Line 1.
This is going to be a very big concern in the future, and not that far off, either. As it is the platform at Yonge is approaching the limits of what it is safely capable of handling. I suspect that we will see a solution not unlike what was done at Union.
Also, there is a small issue of not having enough TR trains for Line 1 to even have capacity for 90 sec service.
Never mind 90 second service - we don't even have enough for a service increase beyond what is running today once the ATC/ATO is completed.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
