[APTA-2048]

Interesting new Renders on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1635329177686773761

Blue stripe and no TTC logos 🙃

 

[MovingBlock]

New York is operated as two separate divisions which do not have any interlining between them at all, as they were built to do different loading gauges. There is interlining within each of the divisions.

The interlining within divisions is why interoperability is needed in New York, and why it is an inappropriate comparison case for Toronto.

You're right, that's what they've done in Paris and London. Elsewhere too.
And because of that, it's greatly complicated equipment transfers between the lines in Paris. Equipment transfers now take weeks and months, rather than hours.

Much like Toronto, each line in Paris has its own staff and depot(s), so there's no need for equipment to be transferred within hours.

I'm curious - what potential signalling innovations do you know about that the TTC has not used that could increase capacity?

From the people that I've talked to in the signalling industry, many of the shortcomings with the current signal system are due to the track layout, not the capacity of the signal system itself.

My concern is more with cost than capacity. I am not opposed to interoperability per se, but I think it's not worth paying extra for when resignaling Line 2, given how the TTC organizes its services.

It might be less to do with the signaling system itself, and more to do with not needing with TTC's other practices that would hurt a line like this such as the unions mandating drivers.
I call it the Sydney approach, where the Sydney Metro was built as a way to extend the Sydney Trains network in a way that was cheaper than the existing system, whilst not having to deal with unions striking and shutting down rail service (since the trains are now automated).

A wise decision given how transit is funded in Toronto. If you can easily get funding for capital projects, but there is no appetite for funding operations, projects should be designed to minimize operating costs.

I don't think any of these problems would go away if they built a light metro rather than trying to match the IND specifications, and doing so would preclude the running of through services like the Q.

If using light metro tech in downtown Toronto is a dubious proposition, the thought of using it on one of the most desperately needed subway lines in Manhattan sounds much worse.

The Second Avenue Subway cannot achieve frequencies as high as a stand-alone metro line because of interlining. At present, the Q runs every 5-10 minutes because of constraints around Dekalb avenue. A light metro line would the reduce the cost of building stations vs. for the 600ft trains of the B division. The higher frequencies of a metro would allow comparable capacity, and would be more attractive to travelers. As ARG1 said, the main issue would be finding a site for the MSF.

 

[W. K. Lis]

A "railfan window"? Be still my beating heart!!

Still on his phone? Will there actually be WiFi in the tunnels?

Or does he have to stand to get good reception?

 

[generalcanada]

A "railfan window"? Be still my beating heart!!

Still on his phone? Will there actually be WiFi in the tunnels?

Or does he have to stand to get good reception?

that reminds me, will the crosstown have cell service in the tunnels?

 

[crs1026]

^Don't you love renders. So very wide.

As shown, the loading gauge must be at least 5' 6".

- Paul

 

[ARG1]

This is the first I'm hearing that the Second Avenue Subway took so long to build because it used legacy tech. Do you have a link to an explanation for this? It has always been my understanding that the problem was in the difficulty of building in dense neighbourhoods, the bedrock under Manhattan, and some tangles with the unions. I don't think any of these problems would go away if they built a light metro rather than trying to match the IND specifications, and doing so would preclude the running of through services like the Q.

If using light metro tech in downtown Toronto is a dubious proposition, the thought of using it on one of the most desperately needed subway lines in Manhattan sounds much worse.

Its an amalgamation of many different issues tied together. While all of the things you've mentioned are contributors, you also have: Overbuilt stations with unnecessary flourishes like full platform mezzanines, whilst also building them unnecessarily deep to reduce surface disruption. What I'm referring to when talking about the need to adhere to IND tech is the fact that the line needs to interline with Broadway Subway (the Q) which will long term lead to massive issues. The line is only being built as a 2 track subway (a topic that merits its own line of discussion), meaning that half of the line's ultimate capacity is taken up by a Broadway Subway service that in turn has to interline with a bunch of other routes which in turn significantly reduces the overall capacity. Some of this could be solved by sending more Broadway trains up 2nd Avenue, but that would take away service from other potential destinations for Broadway such as Astoria and Queens Blvd.

This is why theoretically, a project like 2nd Avenue could be built much cheaper if it didn't have to directly interline or interface with other services - requiring fewer junction boxes, and allowing itself to be built to cheaper modern standards that maximizes capacity via frequency, something that due to the endless interlining of the legacy network, isn't really possible with the current 2 divisions. Of course the problem is how to do so in practice, an independent 2nd avenue line would have to figure out where to place an MSF, how to create transfers to other subway services (since only a few east-west lines have stations near 2nd avenue at all, there is a reason why a branch of the broadway subway is going up 2nd avenue), etc. These problems however are more or less exclusive and unique to NYC as a whole, none of this is an issue in most other transit cities, or Toronto. The only thing you can argue about in Toronto is how much does diverting from the TTC Standard actually grant you in terms of benefits, to which the answer is debatable.

 

[superelevation]

New York is operated as two separate divisions which do not have any interlining between them at all, as they were built to do different loading gauges. There is interlining within each of the divisions.

Despite that, they are planning on using that one signalling system with 3 vendors across their whole system.

Because of that I would argue that it is an excellent comparison case.


You're right, that's what they've done in Paris and London. Elsewhere too.

And because of that, it's greatly complicated equipment transfers between the lines in Paris. Equipment transfers now take weeks and months, rather than hours.


I'm curious - what potential signalling innovations do you know about that the TTC has not used that could increase capacity?

From the people that I've talked to in the signalling industry, many of the shortcomings with the current signal system are due to the track layout, not the capacity of the signal system itself.


That was my point - all three of those systems were purposely built differently than the existing network, and to different standards. One of them - Paris - is only peripherally attached to their existing metro system, so it would be argued that there wasn't a need to fully integrate it/build it to those existing standards. Sydney is built to allow metro service on a heavily-travelled commuter line. Montreal is built as a much lower capacity line than their current metro and instead increase its range.

The Ontario Line connects at several points with the existing subway network, and is planned to be just as heavily used as the current subway. It is exactly the wrong technology to use.

Dan

No no no, Sydney Metro is replacing the commuter service - the line will be converted so it won’t be using the same infrastructure. Total line rebuild.

As was mentioned, we probably shouldn’t be designing the system such that we’d want to move stock between L1 and L2, they are both substantial enough operations to justify large separate fleets.

 

[JSF-1]

Blue stripe and no TTC logos 🙃

What's the over/under on that blue strip disappearing at some point?

 

[W. K. Lis]

What's the over/under on that blue strip disappearing at some point?

You mean the Tory blue?

 

[Sunnyside]

What's the over/under on that blue strip disappearing at some point?

Depends on if the PCs are still in power by the time it opens.

Although, for me blue does have its appeal in offering contrast to the existing (sleek) red that blankets the TTC. Of course, that can also be seen as a downside, further separating this project from the city it is in…

 

[skto]

You mean the Tory blue?

It's the TTC's existing Line 3 blue that is on the map and the RT cars.

 

[T3G]

I miss the original Scarborough RT kinder egg livery. There was an elegance to it.

I didn't mind the airport express wrap for the Orion VIIs, but I never felt quite at home with the light blue for line 3, I find in anything but clear sunlight it looks rather gaudy. Still better than what has been proposed for the OL, Crosstown, or Finch West though.

And - I'll be the dissenting voice - I think the proposed OL trains look awful. Possibly the worst looking train design I've ever seen.

 

[Natika33]

I miss the original Scarborough RT kinder egg livery. There was an elegance to it.

I didn't mind the airport express wrap for the Orion VIIs, but I never felt quite at home with the light blue for line 3, I find in anything but clear sunlight it looks rather gaudy. Still better than what has been proposed for the OL, Crosstown, or Finch West though.

And - I'll be the dissenting voice - I think the proposed OL trains look awful. Possibly the worst looking train design I've ever seen.

I'm also not thrilled by the design nor the blue. Do we need to indicate the line colour on the train itself?

 

[smallspy]

The interlining within divisions is why interoperability is needed in New York, and why it is an inappropriate comparison case for Toronto.

There is no interlining between "A" division and "B" division routes. Despite the fact that the track gauge, rail profile, power supply and signal system are all the same, the physical size of the equipment is different - and incompatible. "A" division trains can run on "B" division lines (although there will be a huge gap between the train and the platform), but not vice-versa.

Much like Toronto, each line in Paris has its own staff and depot(s), so there's no need for equipment to be transferred within hours.

About Paris, you're right - but they do cascade trains quite regularly from line-to-line as new fleets get introduced. And before this was quite literally a multi-minute job, as all they needed to do was replace the signage.

Now trains need to be taken out of service, equipment removed, the train towed to the new garage, and new equipment installed. At best this is a week or two, and can be much worse if staff is busy with other priorities.

This is as opposed to Toronto, where equipment has been transferred back and forth within minutes to deal with all sorts of situations.

My concern is more with cost than capacity. I am not opposed to interoperability per se, but I think it's not worth paying extra for when resignaling Line 2, given how the TTC organizes its services.

Considering that this is being set up from the specs of the project, as opposed to introduced after the fact or a change order, any additional cost should be very minimal.

A wise decision given how transit is funded in Toronto. If you can easily get funding for capital projects, but there is no appetite for funding operations, projects should be designed to minimize operating costs.

On this, I completely agree with you.

And that should mean tanking a rather holistic approach to the whole project. Even things as simple as removing unnecessary curves and switches/crossovers can help immensely over time.

Dan

 

[ARG1]

There is no interlining between "A" division and "B" division routes. Despite the fact that the track gauge, rail profile, power supply and signal system are all the same, the physical size of the equipment is different - and incompatible. "A" division trains can run on "B" division lines (although there will be a huge gap between the train and the platform), but not vice-versa.

I forget the specifics, but he might be technically correct in that I believe sometimes when they need to deliver A division cars (namely the 7 train), it has to travel on B division to reach the flushing line and Corona Yard. The Flushing Line isn't directly connected to any other IRT line, so movement of A division trains has to occur throughout the B division, and this happens in many occasions even outside of deliveries for the Flushing Line.