mind_the_gap
Active Member
Thank you for mentioning this… I was thinking about this too! It really is a great opportunity to articulate these T1s, to provide TR-like circulation. Despite the narrow passageway, it really is possible.
|
|
|
- Thread starter Northern Light
- Start date
smallspy
Senior Member
Due to the design of the T1s, that's not going to happen. The cars are built with vertical structural elements called collision posts that are located at the ends of the cars immediately outboard of the end doors.
And, once again, the TRs are not articulated. Each car does not require its neighbour to be there in order to operate on the rails. The cars are all standalone, but have wide gangway connections between each. The ALRVs and Flexity cars are articulated.
Dan
mind_the_gap
Active Member
Would it not be possible though to install buffers like GO trains have in-between cars to provide safer passage?
Technically, the TTC could change this rule tomorrow if they allowed passage ”at your own risk” in between T1 cars.
Edit: But the inter-car door alarm would be sounding constantly.
Last edited:
jje1000
Senior Member
I give that it's the columns in the plan below right?
I wonder how much of a rework is possible to move those columns? Maybe cars could be paired together with a gangway between two cars with the cabs facing outwards? Then you would have three sets of these paired cars for 6-car operations, etc.
That being said, from my last experience on Line 2, I would almost say that gangways are not necessary yet, but the cars do at least warrant a refresh to make them less dour.
smallspy
Senior Member
Not buffers, diaphragms. And in theory, sure. But it would be quite a narrow passage.
If they were going to go through the trouble of installing diaphrams, don't you think that they would also remove the alarm?
That's correct.I give that it's the columns in the plan below right?
Anything is possible if you throw enough money at it.
But considering that they are a vital structural element, it would take a lot of rework. It may require the strengthening of the corner posts - a separate set of vertical structural elements that are located at the outside corners of the carbody. It would also likely require strengthening of the floors to account for those changes, as well as the creation of a large opening at the ends of the cars which had never existed originally. It may even require moving or reworking the mounting points for the couplers - after being replaced by drawbars, of course - which would likely also require a whole bunch of additional structural changes and improvements.
And you're all suggesting this to be done to a car that had a 30 year expected lifespan, when built, and which would have had that lifespan expire by the time the first set of cars is outshopped with all of these modifications done. It really doesn't seem like the wisest use of scarce resources.
Dan
cplchanb
Senior Member
by the time you do all this structural reworks the cost would probably be the same as getting brand new trains. well be back to square one.I give that it's the columns in the plan below right?
I wonder how much of a rework is possible to move those columns? Maybe cars could be paired together with a gangway between two cars with the cabs facing outwards? Then you would have three sets of these paired cars for 6-car operations, etc.
That being said, from my last experience on Line 2, I would almost say that gangways are not necessary yet, but the cars do at least warrant a refresh to make them less dour.
mind_the_gap
Active Member
Sorry if this is a silly question, but with the deferral of the new train purchase… Would it make sense to purchase the Ankara, Turkey H5/H6/T1 ”Frankensteins”, to supplement the T1 fleet? If we could get a good price on them.
Exterior:
Source
Interior:
Source
I’m unaware of their current condition, or the amount of work required to adapt them for the TTC’s use, if possible.
Exterior:
Source
Interior:
Source
I’m unaware of their current condition, or the amount of work required to adapt them for the TTC’s use, if possible.
adys123
Active Member
We don't really have a shortage of trains though, I would imagine that they are quite old and would require a lot of adaptation. Are you suggesting using them instead of the T1s?Sorry if this is a silly question, but with the deferral of the new train purchase… Would it make sense to purchase the Ankara, Turkey H5/H6/T1 ”Frankensteins”, to supplement the T1 fleet? If we could get a good price on them.
Exterior:
Source
Interior:
Source
I’m unaware of their current condition, or the amount of work required to adapt them for the TTC’s use, if possible.
Northern Light
Superstar
Sorry if this is a silly question, but with the deferral of the new train purchase… Would it make sense to purchase the Ankara, Turkey H5/H6/T1 ”Frankensteins”, to supplement the T1 fleet? If we could get a good price on them.
Exterior:
Source
Interior:
Source
I’m unaware of their current condition, or the amount of work required to adapt them for the TTC’s use, if possible.
In a word 'No'.
As @adys123 notes above, we don't need replacement trains today. We need trains w/ATC and possibly some net new ones by the time the SSE opens in 2031 (ish). The above will be pushing 50 years old by then and not be equipped for ATC either.
Last edited:
mind_the_gap
Active Member
Not at all, but to supplement the T1s to be able to provide full service on the SSE, instead of every other train turning back at Kennedy.
Edit: They could even ”sandwich” an Ankara married-pair in between two T1 pairs, to create more six-car consists.
Last edited:
drum118
Superstar
Those seats will go over like a lead balloon at all levels starting with riders.Sorry if this is a silly question, but with the deferral of the new train purchase… Would it make sense to purchase the Ankara, Turkey H5/H6/T1 ”Frankensteins”, to supplement the T1 fleet? If we could get a good price on them.
Exterior:
Source
Interior:
Source
I’m unaware of their current condition, or the amount of work required to adapt them for the TTC’s use, if possible.
If Howard was still around as TTC chair, they wouldn't get within in 100 foot of TTC property or even been order.
I Agee with other posters on needs.
T3G
Senior Member
Not like the horrible fuzzy seats used on the T1s and TRs are any better. In fact they are several magnitudes worse.
smallspy
Senior Member
So, funny thing here.....Ankara's system uses an ATC/ATO system.
It's not the same as Toronto's, but they are already automated. Not that it really changes the rest of the issues with using 50-ish year old cars that are designed with a 25 or 30 year lifespan.
Dan
Northern Light
Superstar
I wouldn't have said so.
Compared to bare plastic?
An order of magnitude btw is 10x (moving the decimal place over by one) so to suggested its several orders of magnitude worse is over 1,000x worse. That seems a bit much.
I would prefer to see the subway with GO-style seats, high-back, ergonomic, and padded. I appreciate that very few systems do anything like that, but I think they should. Comfort matters. Its less an issue for an able-bodied rider, for a short-trip.
But I know people in East York who haul out to the airport every day, that's a very long commute for sub-par comfort.
My preferred seats for a subway-type service, BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit in SanFran) probably comes closest
From: https://sf.curbed.com/2017/6/7/15757580/bart-sf-seat-hog-fine
But Warsaw also ranks pretty well, except for going bench-style where I prefer Transverse:
From: https://www.123rf.com/photo_1361362...ors-on-the-first-station-empty-without-p.html
Northern Light
Superstar
Good info, I certainly would not have guessed at that based on the age of the rolling stock!