News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.3K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.5K     0 

Info on changes and tests to Dundas, St Andrew and St George subway stations -


I'm not opposed to some tweaks around fare gates and wayfinding; but I do hope this isn't all that significant an expenditure.

Ultimately, these busy stations need more vertical circulation capacity (stairs, escalators, elevators, entrances/exits) and where possible, larger mezzanines and more space for queuing in front of stairs/escalators etc.

These are expensive things to address. The Ontario Line should have positive impacts, but growth in population will eat into any benefit quite quickly.

St. Andrew, Osgoode, St. Patrick and Queen's Park would all benefit from an additional exit from the platform.

So would Dundas, though the latter also really needs an additional escalator between the SB mezzanine and the concourse level, and enlarged mezzanine space.

Right now only Bloor-Yonge and King are getting big expansion dollars, with St George in the offing in a few years.

A second exit is in planning/design for Dundas.

Suffice to say, I'd rather see more $$$ focused on critical solutions; but some time-buying is forgivable if the expenditure is modest and the payback tangible.

****

I'm going to add here, Sherbourne and Bathurst are among stations that will be facing capacity constraints in the years ahead, and they aren't even on the planning radar yet.
 
According to Steve Munro, the 501 streetcars eastbound will shortly be running via WELLINGTON. The 503 seems to be remaining on King as now but will, soon, be streetcars again not a bus.

501D Queen streetcars will operate between York Street at King Street West and Neville Park Loop via south on Church Street, west on Wellington Street, north on York Street, east on King Street, and north on Church Street.
 
No word of the tracks ON York St - which Metrolinx are apparently rebuilding.

1696594798993.png
 
Not to worry I think the politicians are just waiting for the T1's are held together with duct tape, just like the Mark 1 fleet and ALRV/CRLV fleet. As soon as the duct tape gets slapped on those bad boy T1s, they'll get serious about replacing them.

Until then, let's just wait until they start falling apart gradually.

The sad part is, once the duct tape hits the trains they will be too far gone to get replacements in time. We need to start ordering now, not when the cars are so bad we consider them a safety hazard.

One thing I hate is the lead time for these cars.. you can get new cars but it will take 6 years before they arrive! Grab something off the shelf or at least with the ability to mass produce these things.

This is one of the things I hate about Toronto. We call ourselves "World Class" and attempt to attract business along with investors to the city. Toronto is a dump because of all the wasted money, lack of spending, etc.

Honestly, if Politicians would get off their lazy asses and actually spend money we would have a much better city. Unfortunately, any repairs to the TTC, increase to service or replacement of cars needs endless studies, reports and begging for money before they can even consider a prolonged and overinflated tender process.
 
Not to worry I think the politicians are just waiting for the T1's are held together with duct tape, just like the Mark 1 fleet and ALRV/CRLV fleet. As soon as the duct tape gets slapped on those bad boy T1s, they'll get serious about replacing them.

Until then, let's just wait until they start falling apart gradually.
The sad part is, once the duct tape hits the trains they will be too far gone to get replacements in time. We need to start ordering now, not when the cars are so bad we consider them a safety hazard.
No worries, if duct tape isn't enough they can use these instead:
1696604797585.png


Funny how 100 year old Peter Witts run in Milan and 60 year old Tatras run in Prague, but in Toronto, a 25 year old train is enough to make the city nervous.
So what? I'm sure there are some 25-y/o streetcars in Bratislava that should make the city nervous too.
None of Prague's subway trains ever ran anywhere close to 60 years. The first generation only ran from 1974 to 1997!
One thing I hate is the lead time for these cars.. you can get new cars but it will take 6 years before they arrive! Grab something off the shelf or at least with the ability to mass produce these things.
Yes I hate that too, but at least given the new cars are supposed to be based on the TRs that should hopefully speed up the design & building process by a lot. Moreover, if they don't place the order now and Thunder Bay shuts down after 2025 due to lack of work, it's going to be a headache finding another supplier (Alstom already had an advantage over the other 3). And if they defer the project by a decade due to lack of funding, who said funding will magically appear a decade later? The longer this is dragged on, the more I lose faith in the city and our politicians.
 
Last edited:
So what? I'm sure there are some 25-y/o streetcars in Bratislava that should make the city nervous too.
None of Prague's subway trains ever ran anywhere close to 60 years. The first generation only ran from 1974 to 1997!
The point is that age itself shouldn't be as much of a concern as maintenance is.

I'm not saying the T1s SHOULD last to 60 years, but if they are so profusely concerned that line 2 will have to be shut down because they can't get replacements on hand in time, common sense would've dictated a rebuild several years ago (say, 2017-18), so that the subway cars are in fine form to keep going if their replacements are delayed, but also that it wouldn't have been a total waste of money if the replacement cars had been available as scheduled. We've seen this nonsense time and again, the CLRV replacement was not on time, the SRT replacement was not on time, the GM replacement was not on time - AND there is no guarantee that the replacement cars wouldn't have been lemons that would have required the T1s to keep going even longer. It is the height of stupidity to assume that it will be and that no actions need to be taken to secure the reliable operation of line 2 going forward.

But of course, that would require a bit of planning for the future, which Toronto is terrible at. Distract the unwashed masses with promises of shiny new trains, and don't do anything about the equipment you've already got.
 
The point is that age itself shouldn't be as much of a concern as maintenance is.

I'm not saying the T1s SHOULD last to 60 years, but if they are so profusely concerned that line 2 will have to be shut down because they can't get replacements on hand in time, common sense would've dictated a rebuild several years ago (say, 2017-18), so that the subway cars are in fine form to keep going if their replacements are delayed, but also that it wouldn't have been a total waste of money if the replacement cars had been available as scheduled. We've seen this nonsense time and again, the CLRV replacement was not on time, the SRT replacement was not on time, the GM replacement was not on time - AND there is no guarantee that the replacement cars wouldn't have been lemons that would have required the T1s to keep going even longer. It is the height of stupidity to assume that it will be and that no actions need to be taken to secure the reliable operation of line 2 going forward.

But of course, that would require a bit of planning for the future, which Toronto is terrible at. Distract the unwashed masses with promises of shiny new trains, and don't do anything about the equipment you've already got.
I mean, it was a more recent decision to purchase a new fleet. They were planning on rebuilding and extending the life of T1s through the 2030s, up until quite recently.

The lessons learned from the CLRV and ALRV rebuild process is that it cost far more and produced far fewer results.

Maintenance is very important, and even more important than rebuilds is the daily maintenance. If we increased our daily maintenance standards, we could probably go many more years. But, it always boils down to costs, as equipment ages, the cost to maintain goes up.
 
I mean, it was a more recent decision to purchase a new fleet. They were planning on rebuilding and extending the life of T1s through the 2030s, up until quite recently.
Even that was too late to be waffling on the fate of the T1s, IMO.

But it begs the question - why, before they had even secured a commitment of funding, did they decide to walk away from the T1 life extension plan? Because politicians have shown themselves to be so reliable and trust worthy that they could've just counted on them funding a replacement fleet?

The lessons learned from the CLRV and ALRV rebuild process is that it cost far more and produced far fewer results.
I'm not sure anything can be deducted from the CLRV and ALRV. The CLRVs didn't receive any kind of comprehensive overhaul, there were certain cars which had body rebuilds done in the first half of the 2010s, but it was not a complete, top-to-bottom rebuild, and it had little effect on reliability - some of the most reliable cars, which held on until the end was drowing close, were the ugly, rusted out ones with faded paint. They were so reliable mechanically they rarely made their way to the shops, and the consequence was that they looked awful.

As for the ALRVs, it is my understanding that the "refurbishment" (itself a pretty generous term) they got was largely cosmetic, they did little work on the mechanical innards, and the ones that got work done were not really the problem. Part of the problem also was that the ALRVs were always lemons, and sometimes, no matter what you do, things can't be made better. The T1s have historically been one of the most reliable fleets the TTC has ever run, if not the most reliable.

Maintenance is very important, and even more important than rebuilds is the daily maintenance. If we increased our daily maintenance standards, we could probably go many more years. But, it always boils down to costs, as equipment ages, the cost to maintain goes up.
Day to day maintenance is of course important, but as a vehicle ages it can encounter problems such as frame corrosion/fatigue or degradation of vehicle systems which daily maintenance wouldn't really cover. If it was as simple as upping our daily maintenance standards, we still could've been riding around in G1s and M1s (which I would've hardly minded). At some point you reach a crossroads where you have to decide to rebuild or replace.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC
But it begs the question - why, before they had even secured a commitment of funding, did they decide to walk away from the T1 life extension plan?
They never walked away from that plan, it just became Plan B when replacement was brought back to the table, which they now walked away from (hopefully not very far) a few months ago. The real question is, why were they even thinking of extending their lifespan years before they even knew they'd have trouble funding a new fleet? The life extension was kicked around in some form (even if just some vague rumors) as early as 2014! It's almost like it's always been Plan A, and replacement was Plan B.
several years ago (say, 2017-18)
Several years ago?? 2017/2018 was 5 minutes ago! 😭
 
Last edited:

Back
Top