News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 6.8K     0 
Justin10000 said:
The line will be equipped with ATO. It's going to be pretty damn efficient especially if the frequencies are planned to be 6 min peak. and 12 off peak.

What is your rationale for automation resulting in cost-savings? Just because a train has no driver doesn't mean you save on labour. You're still going to need people to watch the trains in a control centre, highly trained employees to maintain the computers, and a maintenace staff that will need to be trained to repair and fix highly complex systems.
Click to expand...

what's the difference between ATO and ATC? I was under the impression that ATC allows the train to receive signals within the train cab, allowing it to funciton even if the physical tunnels signals aren't functioning. What does ATO do?
 
ATC is control, mainly in cab signalling and rules enforcement (i.e. speed limits, blocking of tracks, etc.). With ATC the driver tells the train to go and sets a desired speed and it will try to go that speed or go as fast as possible largely dependent on what is ahead of the train and the set speed limits. ATC is mostly about safety.

ATO is operation which includes the underlying ATC components but differs in that the train is controlled from a central system which looks after scheduling and often problem resolution. Interestingly enough the fact that the conductor will sit in the cab at the end of the train rather than the middle might be what enables the TTC to get the largest benefit from ATO... turning around a train quickly both at the end of the line or when there is a problem at a station. Imagine a train is disabled or stopped due to a passenger alarm in the station. Currently one direction of train traffic backs up and the other direction continues but ends up catching up to the backlog. With ATO the system would even out the flow, possibly have every third train pass through the station in opposing directions and have the rest turn around before getting into the backlog. Compare that to ATC which without any manual intervention would just hold all trains in the backlog until the tracks clear.
 
Of course automation saves money on labour which is why cities are switching over to it. Labour costs are the highest operating expense of any transit system and the lower it can be brought down the better. Considering Toronto and the TTC are constantly bitching to Queen's Park about not having enough senior government level support to help run the system the TTC should try to reduce it's operating expenses as much as possible.
This is one of the reasons why SkyTrain runs at such high frequency even when demand isn't near as high............due to have relatively low electrical costs it costs very little to offer the better service.
 
Standard said:
Steve Munro just got more info about the project.

Here's an interesting tidbit about proposed frequencies for the line. Service level seems to about as good as a moderately used bus line for TTC standards.

In response to a question about the level of service riders might see, a Metrolinx official replied that there would likely be 3-car LRV trains running every 6 minutes at peak, 12 at off peak. Metrolinx needs to understand that “rapid transit” is not the same as a GO train every hour. On a route where the average journey will likely be under 20 minutes (few will make the 45 minute trip from STC to Jane), long headways will contribute substantially to the trip length and to a perception that service is less than adequate. There’s a reason why the TTC runs subway trains every five minutes whether they are needed or not.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Steve Munro muses that person may just be confused:

"Steve: Or equally likely, the person answering the question didn’t know what he was talking about."

I'm not optimistic, but I hope Mr. Munro is correct. Those quoted intervals do not impress, for a main subway trunk.
 
Eug said:
Steve Munro muses that person may just be confused:

"Steve: Or equally likely, the person answering the question didn’t know what he was talking about."

I'm not optimistic, but I hope Mr. Munro is correct. Those quoted intervals do not impress, for a main subway trunk.
Click to expand...

to be fair, I'm sure the reduced frequencies will shave a fair amount of money from servicing, especially considering a 3 car LRV has plenty of room for the ridership, by the time the passengers disembark from their bus, and head down to track level they'll only be waiting around 3-4 minutes at peak.
 
BMO said:
to be fair, I'm sure the reduced frequencies will shave a fair amount of money from servicing, especially considering a 3 car LRV has plenty of room for the ridership, by the time the passengers disembark from their bus, and head down to track level they'll only be waiting around 3-4 minutes at peak.
Click to expand...

Not really. If you take a couple minutes to get from your bus to the platform, and you reach the platform just as the train is pulling out of the station, you'll still be waiting 6 minutes. A 6 minute headway is a 6 minute headway, the amount of time it takes someone to walk down a flight of stairs is irrelevant.
 
Why do we care about the Metrolinx opinion on headways, when the line is to be operated by the TTC?
 
k10ery said:
Why do we care about the Metrolinx opinion on headways, when the line is to be operated by the TTC?
Click to expand...
Because Metrolinx is paying for the design, and the design influences and is influenced by the headways. Thus, Metrolinx should have a good idea of what standard they need to build to and willing to share the info, while the TTC has more at stake in telling the public a figure that might not be realised.
 
Mapleson said:
Because Metrolinx is paying for the design, and the design influences and is influenced by the headways. Thus, Metrolinx should have a good idea of what standard they need to build to and willing to share the info, while the TTC has more at stake in telling the public a figure that might not be realised.
Click to expand...

Plus Metrolinx will own the Eglinton LRT, I forget partially why it is important for the province to own it. I remember one of my co-workers explaining to me something about it being easier to put upfront capital to expand a line if the province owns it, as opposed to if the city owns it.

The Province was looking at owning "extensions" to existing subway lines, but it was found that it just wasn't practical or feasible to do this.

This is why it seems like Metrolinx is keen on owning the whole TTC rapid transit system. And subsequently the TTC would own the surface bus routes, etc.
 
Mapleson said:
Because Metrolinx is paying for the design, and the design influences and is influenced by the headways. Thus, Metrolinx should have a good idea of what standard they need to build to and willing to share the info, while the TTC has more at stake in telling the public a figure that might not be realised.
Click to expand...

Well I'm no expert but I'd have thought offpeak frequency was a purely operational decision. You design for peak loads and then decide how many operators to pay for in the middle of the day, right?

I'll leave it to someone else to explain how they could be contemplating peak hour headways that are slower than Sheppard!
 
BMO said:
Plus Metrolinx will own the Eglinton LRT, I forget partially why it is important for the province to own it. I remember one of my co-workers explaining to me something about it being easier to put upfront capital to expand a line if the province owns it, as opposed to if the city owns it.
Click to expand...

Because Metrolinx will own the assets, the initial outlay for them does not get added to the provincial government deficit. This has nothing to do with operational decisions about the line, which will be the TTC's.
 
k10ery said:
Because Metrolinx will own the assets, the initial outlay for them does not get added to the provincial government deficit. This has nothing to do with operational decisions about the line, which will be the TTC's.
Click to expand...

Yes I know, I never said the TTC would not operate it. But Metrolinx is purchasing vehicles and building it based on frequencies it is deciding. You don't bite the hand that's feeding you.
 
nfitz said:
TTC finally awarded the design contracts for Chaplin and Oakwood stations - http://www2.ttc.ca/html/awards.htm $4-million each to Aecom. The previous 5 stations awarded back in March from the same tender ranged from $4-million to $10-million.
Click to expand...

Interesting.. I thought Oakwood and Chaplin stations were not going to be omitted? Don't get me wrong, I am glad the stations will be part of the ECLRT, but I heard Metrolinx were going to omit them?
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top