[TheTigerMaster]

That's reasonable @drum118. In around five years, we should be beginning the procurement process for the replacement of the T1 cars. Once the T1 is retired, its probable that the TRs will be shifted to Line 2 and Relief Line, so that Line 1 can accept the new cars. At that time it would be appropriate to discuss platform doors.

 

[dowlingm]

but isn't this like building the st clair street car just to redo the platforms because we didn't know the streetcar dimensions before hand. It can be spun poorly. Probably wouldn't affect a government who has the trust of tis people but I don't know if that's likely in the GTA in a few years time.

Given the Auditor General's report about Pickering GO, I think it's worth another look at how that little fiasco on St Clair happened, exactly.

 

[44 North]

From my point of view, make all 7 cars the same length, which mean the cars will be shorter. It would reduce the squeal noise on the curbs because the c/c of trucks will be less than today ones..

This is something I'd be interested in for a Line 2 rolling stock purchase. Reason: a train with shorter cars or double articulation may be able to handle the curve from Kennedy stn to the Stouffville corridor without the need for a massive station rebuild. The trains would still be the same length, but with 7 cars instead of six. Like NYC we'd have two types of subway rolling stock (e.g the A and B divisions). If doable it could save a substantial amount.

 

[drum118]

This is something I'd be interested in for a Line 2 rolling stock purchase. Reason: a train with shorter cars or double articulation may be able to handle the curve from Kennedy stn to the Stouffville corridor without the need for a massive station rebuild. The trains would still be the same length, but with 7 cars instead of six. Like NYC we'd have two types of subway rolling stock (e.g the A and B divisions). If doable it could save a substantial amount.

You are looking at about 2050-2060 or later to see the TRII being move to line 2 to deal with the curve. The current TR will move to Line 2 to replace the T1 first.

The only way you can get TRII on line 2 sooner than later is for TTC to find a buyer for the TR at a good price and getting council to fund 2 new fleet at the same time. Can't see council doing this.

 

[Zach6668]

Also, Line 2 will never turn up the Stouffville corridor.

 

[TransitBart]

I would very surprise if the new fleet is not 500' long when order.

From my point of view, make all 7 cars the same length, which mean the cars will be shorter. It would reduce the squeal noise on the curbs because the c/c of trucks will be less than today ones..

Until the design for the new fleet is known, best to put the screen doors on the back burner.

We will know in a few months if the CEO will be doing another 5 year tour or not. Andy needs to hang around for another 5 years to get TTC back to where it should be and get the fleet it needs. He done a better job of any GM/CEO since the 90's. I know he pushing for 500' trains and adding more new Flexity cars sooner than later.

Hear! Hear! I hope Andy Byford hangs around.

 

[EastYorkTTCFan]

You are looking at about 2050-2060 or later to see the TRII being move to line 2 to deal with the curve. The current TR will move to Line 2 to replace the T1 first.

The only way you can get TRII on line 2 sooner than later is for TTC to find a buyer for the TR at a good price and getting council to fund 2 new fleet at the same time. Can't see council doing this.

I think they have said they are looking at replacing the T1s on line2 with new cars in about 10 years or so as the oldest T1 will be 30 years old at that point. Toronto Rockets are apparently going to staying on line 1 until they wil be replaced as per twits from brad ross in the summer when the TRs made a brief appearance on line 2.

 

[Steve X]

The TRs are slow as hell. They can stay on line 1 while Line 2 gets some better trains that actually benefits the line. There are way too many TRs (76 trains) for line 2. They only need 60 max with the Scarborough subway if they don't short turn some trains at Kennedy. Even if they got new trains for line 1, it would be a mixed fleet unless they want to trash $300m+ dollar of trains and spend $300m+ more to replace line 1 instead of line 2 trains. (TR trains costed $17-21m each) That's enough gravy to fill endless dishes of poutine!

A mixed fleet with both 6 and 7 car train isn't going to work well with PSDs. The 7th car has to be in the middle which throws off the alignment with 6 cars trains. Then we got the issue of figuring out what type of train is coming and how many doors (of the PSD) to open.

 

[44 North]

I think they have said they are looking at replacing the T1s on line2 with new cars in about 10 years or so as the oldest T1 will be 30 years old at that point. Toronto Rockets are apparently going to staying on line 1 until they wil be replaced as per twits from brad ross in the summer when the TRs made a brief appearance on line 2.

Interesting, wasn't aware of this. If we are to procure a new fleet for Line 2 perhaps it'd be optimal to go with something starkly different than the TR. It could still be part of Bombardier's Movia family, but maybe something like the C20. Stockholm uses it and although this is one car, it's split up into three segments. The length is 46.5m, which would work out to be approx two T1s. Not a physics major, but I believe the added articulation should allow it to handle tighter curves vs two longer T1 or TRs.

The benefit? Line 2 might be able to curve to Stouffville GO with minimal Kennedy disruption. And if Line 2 shares vehicles with the RL (which is planned) the RL can be more easily woven within narrow downtown right-of-ways and we'd have less issues curving below private property.

Also, Line 2 will never turn up the Stouffville corridor.

This is what I originally thought before reading the buried Metrolinx report discussed here a couple months ago. The curve can be done apparently, as long as we rebuild Kennedy. But with trains that can handle tighter curves the station wouldn't really have to be rebuilt, rather the platform moved (similar to what we're doing at Yonge/Eg). Theoretically at least. Surely using Stouffville GO's subsurface ROW + Ellesmere corridor is more advantageous than a station-less deep bore routing along Danforth Rd/McCowan.

 

[drum118]

Line 2 has always got the hand down fleet from line 1 and expect to happen with the TR, regardless there is more than enough that is needed for Line 2. TTC could try to sell the ones they don't need. We don't know if there an extension for Line 2 to the west down the road at this time.

If TTC going to push screen doors on all lines, then need to order 7 car trains for 1 & 2 at the same time and sell the TR fleet.

Having TTC fleet use the Stouffville line will never happen and the wrong equipment to do so.

 

[Zach6668]

This is what I originally thought before reading the buried Metrolinx report discussed here a couple months ago. The curve can be done apparently, as long as we rebuild Kennedy. But with trains that can handle tighter curves the station wouldn't really have to be rebuilt, rather the platform moved (similar to what we're doing at Yonge/Eg). Theoretically at least. Surely using Stouffville GO's subsurface ROW + Ellesmere corridor is more advantageous than a station-less deep bore routing along Danforth Rd/McCowan.

But we're not rebuilding Kennedy. Well, not in that manner. The Kennedy ECLRT station design is well past 60%, and shovels are going in the ground any month to start construction on it. The design provides for easterly extensions of both the LRT and the subway.

As much sense as it might make, that ship has sailed, IMO.

 

[44 North]

Having TTC fleet use the Stouffville line will never happen and the wrong equipment to do so.

Not talking about mixing subways with mainline railway. It's merely the north/south public ROW that is of interest. It'd be no different than Line 3 like we see today, or Line 2 west of Islington. In other words subway tracks alongside mainline rail (but 100% separate from road and rail). It can be an at-grade guideway like today along the right-of-way, or a tunnel below the ROW. Probably the latter considering GO plans for expansion.

But we're not rebuilding Kennedy. Well, not in that manner. The Kennedy ECLRT station design is well past 60%, and shovels are going in the ground any month to start construction on it. The design provides for easterly extensions of both the LRT and the subway.

As much sense as it might make, that ship has sailed, IMO.

True.

 

[robmausser]

The TRs are slow as hell. They can stay on line 1 while Line 2 gets some better trains that actually benefits the line. There are way too many TRs (76 trains) for line 2. They only need 60 max with the Scarborough subway if they don't short turn some trains at Kennedy. Even if they got new trains for line 1, it would be a mixed fleet unless they want to trash $300m+ dollar of trains and spend $300m+ more to replace line 1 instead of line 2 trains. (TR trains costed $17-21m each) That's enough gravy to fill endless dishes of poutine!

A mixed fleet with both 6 and 7 car train isn't going to work well with PSDs. The 7th car has to be in the middle which throws off the alignment with 6 cars trains. Then we got the issue of figuring out what type of train is coming and how many doors (of the PSD) to open.

The TR's are only slow because Line 1 is overcrowded and the track is in a terrible state of repair.

Once PTC is in place and the track is fixed the TR's will be speedy.

The slowness has nothing to do with the trains, and everything to do with the age and overcrowding of the line.

 

[smallspy]

The TR's are only slow because Line 1 is overcrowded and the track is in a terrible state of repair.

Once PTC is in place and the track is fixed the TR's will be speedy.

The slowness has nothing to do with the trains, and everything to do with the age and overcrowding of the line.

The TTC isn't installing PTC - the current signal system is basically a PTC system already. What they are installing is ATC/ATO.

I would argue that a lot of the issues with the supposed lack of speed of the TRs stems more from the number of trains on the line more than anything. Removing a couple of trains in the afternoon would go a long way to relieving the congestion at the terminals, and the double-step-backs currently in place should continue to be used to allow the trains to get out faster.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Richard White]

The TTC isn't installing PTC - the current signal system is basically a PTC system already. What they are installing is ATC/ATO.

I would argue that a lot of the issues with the supposed lack of speed of the TRs stems more from the number of trains on the line more than anything. Removing a couple of trains in the afternoon would go a long way to relieving the congestion at the terminals, and the double-step-backs currently in place should continue to be used to allow the trains to get out faster.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Dan,

I would like to counter your argument by stating that while a good idea, removing a couple of trains in the afternoon would cram people into cars where there is no room left to cram. Decreasing congestion at the terminals at the expense of capacity is a no win situation. You can speed things up or you can make life easier for passengers but not at the same time.

I know what you are trying to accomplish Dan and I agree that by decreasing congestion trains can move more easily along the line. With that said, there needs to be a point on the Bloor-Danforth and Yonge lines to turnback trains like they do at Glencairn or at least hold them temporarily to dispatch an empty train. The best places I can think of would Islington (or Vincent Yard when operational) and Chester on the Bloor-Danforth line as well as Davisville and York Mills on the Yonge Line.

The best example of why this is key is Bloor Station in the mornings. Trains are frequent but despite trains arriving every other minute they are full and the crowds keep growing. If a train ran private from Davisville to Bloor Station then turned back at St George you would alleviate some of the crowds at Yonge and decrease dwell time at the station which in turn would help speed up trains along the line.