[urbanclient]

H1 cars 5336, 5458, and 5459 are still used for asbestos abatement according to https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Toronto_Transit_Commission_Rail_Workcars. I'd assume the latter two are relatively intact if they are crew cars.

My point though is that if some of the H4s (and H1s?) and T1s have been successfully converted to ATC, in the early 2020s - then why is it a no-go to convert the remaining T1 fleet?

Ok I get what you're saying now, H-Series as work cars right? I think that's the answer, a few H-1s were converted to work cars with ATC apparently, but non-Toronto Rockets were never converted to ATC for revenue service AFAIK, and we all agree on this last point right? H-1s were taken out of revenue service in 1999 is what I meant earlier.

 

[nfitz]

Ok I get what you're saying now, H-Series as work cars right? I think that's the answer, a few H-1s were converted to work cars with ATC apparently, but non-Toronto Rockets were never converted to ATC for revenue service AFAIK, and we all agree on this last point right? H-1s were taken out of revenue service in 1999 is what I meant earlier.

The discussion was about converting the remaining T1s to ATC. So yes, the discussion has been the ($300,000 or so per car) conversion of work cars to ATC. Which likely includes H1s, H4s, and T1s.

Thus meaning it's not prohibitively expensive to convert the remaining T1 fleet to ATC.

I'm not aware of any non-Toronto Rockets revenue cars being ATC. Except of course whatever was on the S1 fleet.

 

[T3G]

You can see them in Greenwood at times from the GO Train. I'm not sure if there's a good vantage point. Wilson too I think ...

Greenwood - only if you got lucky and the train stopped for a red light right next to the yard. The yard juts out right next to the rail corridor.

Wilson... maybe if one had a drone.... but you didn't hear that from me...

 

[81-717]

I do not think it is new trains, the need is for the new signaling system so that trains will always 'park' in the same places and the train doors and platform doors 'line up'.

Now I'm curious how the St. Petersburg subway manages to have PSDs Ultra Pro Max with old manual 81-717 trains with 1970s technology (definitely not driverless or ATC'd).

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Lomonosovskaya_metrostaion-doors_open.JPG

H1 cars 5336, 5458, and 5459 are still used for asbestos abatement according to https://cptdb.ca/wiki/index.php/Toronto_Transit_Commission_Rail_Workcars. I'd assume the latter two are relatively intact if they are crew cars.

idk when that page was last updated but this is news to me. Unfortunately, asbestos would probably seal their ultimate fate.

My point though is that if some of the H4s (and H1s?) and T1s have been successfully converted to ATC, in the early 2020s - then why is it a no-go to convert the remaining T1 fleet?

Work cars would be the exception, not the rule, I'm guessing. Otherwise they wouldn't need to have ordered more TRs just to get every last T1 off line 1.

 

[Admiral Beez]

1. Constantly kicking out the mentally ill & homeless is not a long term solution

You don't have to kick out disruptive non-paying people if they never get past the gate. That's where fare enforcement works.

a reminder we have a separate thread for ttc homelessness and safety

Well, said, the above is my last word on the matter here.

 

[urbanclient]

Now I'm curious how the St. Petersburg subway manages to have PSDs Ultra Pro Max with old manual 81-717 trains with 1970s technology (definitely not driverless or ATC'd).

PSDs don't actually require moving block CBTC i.e. modern ATC systems or even older fixed block ATC. Case in point metros that had PSDs prior to ATC retrofit. There are regional and intercity HSR-esque lines that have PSDs in China without the ATC we're all talking about, much less CBTC.

The earliest ATC / ATO was fixed block, and later systems gradually improved to a sort of halfway point between traditional fixed block and moving block, before communication based train control became widespread. Technically you don't need CBTC to get moving block, but in practice, CBTC is a prerequisite for moving block. ATP and ATO are parts under the umbrella of ATC. I assume the ATC we're talking in this thread would imply ATO/driverless capability or at least semi-automatic / GoA2 like on the TTC's Line 1.

 

[81-717]

PSDs don't actually require moving block CBTC i.e. modern ATC systems or even older fixed block ATC.

But they do require the train stopping at the exact same place (down to the cm) every single time, something that just isn't doable with human drivers, which aren't exactly perfect robotic machines.

 

[T3G]

But they do require the train stopping at the exact same place (down to the cm) every single time, something that just isn't doable with human drivers, which aren't exactly perfect robotic machines.

Not sure where this idea even comes from. Yes, a computer driven machine will be able to stop in the same place all the time much more reliably, but there are workarounds.

Nothing says that PSDs have to have the exact same dimensions as the train doors, if you make the PSDs wider then you suddenly have a lot more room for error (see also: the gap fillers New York used/uses at the old South Ferry and 14th St - Union Square stations).

New York's IRT stations tend to have no extra room at the end of the platform, either, and they get on fine, too.

Sure, it's not as convenient, but if they truly felt that the danger was so prominent that PSDs were expeditiously required, they could do it.

 

[urbanclient]

But they do require the train stopping at the exact same place (down to the cm) every single time, something that just isn't doable with human drivers, which aren't exactly perfect robotic machines.

It's possible with manually driven trains and some driver-aids active when trains are alongside platforms, but none that rise to the level of the ATC we seem to be talking about. Also, they don't have to be down to the centimeter, PSDs are usually much wider than train doors (buffer).

I think the buffer is probably smaller, but not by much compared to what I've read can cause a TTC subway operator to get moved permanently to other vehicles. If an operator misses their mark by too much, 3 times, they apparently get booted from subways onto streetcars or buses? (UT or reddit post)

 

[81-717]

Nothing says that PSDs have to have the exact same dimensions as the train doors, if you make the PSDs wider then you suddenly have a lot more room for error

Sure, but there's a limit to how much wider the PSDs can be vs. the train doors, and it's basically this. Might add a few feet for error. And those doors in St. P don't appear that much wider than the train doors.

(see also: the gap fillers New York used/uses at the old South Ferry and 14th St - Union Square stations)

Bit of a different situation here, since, as you're very well aware, these trains run on a fixed path that allows them to pass within a few cm of the platform without scraping it, unlike a bus where the lanes are wider to allow room for error.

It's a total shame none of the 5's or 6's were preserved. Not a single one :/

That's why I always keep saying it loud & clear: the T1/TRs better never be saved either, not a single one. That's the only way to make it fair, "not repeating past mistakes" would just make it unfair×2.

 

[T3G]

Sure, but there's a limit to how much wider the PSDs can be vs. the train doors, and it's basically this. Might add a few feet for error. And those doors in St. P don't appear that much wider than the train doors.

Let's assume a scenario where the fixed structure of the PSD is placed on the middle of the yellow safety line, and the sliding doors themselves jut out of the fixed structure, in the same way the SRT doors did (they are not flush with the fixed structure in the way most subway car doors are).

If you alternate the positions of the actual sliding door portion (one door on the inner (passenger facing) side, one door on the outer (track facing) side), you can have a gigantic amount of space.

Bit of a different situation here, since, as you're very well aware, these trains run on a fixed path that allows them to pass within a few cm of the platform without scraping it, unlike a bus where the lanes are wider to allow room for error.

The point of the example was to show how they don't have to match the width of the doors. Not sure where I mentioned buses.

 

[81-717]

Let's assume a scenario where the fixed structure of the PSD is placed on the middle of the yellow safety line, and the sliding doors themselves jut out of the fixed structure, in the same way the SRT doors did (they are not flush with the fixed structure in the way most subway car doors are).

The SRT-type doors are still constrained by the same limitations as sliding subway doors with door pockets, to avoid hitting each other when they're fully open.

If you alternate the positions of the actual sliding door portion (one door on the inner (passenger facing) side, one door on the outer (track facing) side), you can have a gigantic amount of space.

I suppose, but I've never seen such a door configuration anywhere.

The point of the example was to show how they don't have to match the width of the doors. Not sure where I mentioned buses.

Got it.

 

[T3G]

The SRT-type doors are still constrained by the same limitations, to avoid hitting each other when they're fully open.

I suppose, but I've never seen such a door configuration anywhere.

Well, that is why I specified they would have to alternate. Of course, if they were all on the same side, it wouldn't work.

As for the fact that you haven't seen any anywhere... I'm offering possible solutions that show that new trains are not inherently a prerequisite for PSDs, if sufficient engineering creativity is shown. Just because no property thus far has deemed such a configuration to be necessary, doesn't mean it couldn't work if the TTC did do it. But the arrival of new trains, even if they are catastrophically delayed, will still predate the installation of PSDs by many years, so the point is moot. It's just a thought exercise.

 

[81-717]

The point of the example was to show how they don't have to match the width of the doors. Not sure where I mentioned buses.

Also a different situation, because they don't slide in the same direction as doors do, and thus are not constrained by width whatsoever, they could have a single long gap filler spanning the length of the entire platform (aside from it being curved, that is) if they wanted to.

Just because no property thus far has deemed such a configuration to be unnecessary

But the arrival of new trains, even if they are catastrophically delayed, will still predate the installation of PSDs by many years

It should also predate the installation of ATC by at least a couple years, and ATC is due in 2036.

Frankly, the T1s were an outdated design for something built between 1995-2001 anyways.

Good reality check for those who think they're still top-of-the-line modern in 2025.

 

[smallspy]

But they do require the train stopping at the exact same place (down to the cm) every single time, something that just isn't doable with human drivers, which aren't exactly perfect robotic machines.

Care to explain the UPX, then?

Dan