Early on June 11, two streetcars collided at Bay and Dundas due to an open switch incident. Coverage of this can be found at the Globe & Mail and at the Sun.
Reports suggest that the operator of an eastbound car failed to check the setting of the east-to-north switch, drove into the intersection and turned into the path of a westbound car. Reading the Globe article, I can’t help thinking that a discussion of the situation and the history of streetcar switching is badly needed.
TTC officials say it is the driver’s responsibility to check that every switch on the tracks is aligned properly before proceeding, a rule established in 2002 to avoid accidents like yesterday’s.
From other background, it appears that the Dundas route was diverting on Tuesday evening around events at Dundas Square, and the east-to-north switch would have been left open for that diversion.
Most of the TTC’s streetcar switches – little steel arms on one side of the tracks where the vehicles have the option of turning – are controlled electronically by a device in the cockpit.
Well, no, actually. “Most” is quite an overstatement. Many switches are “electronic” (as I describe below), but many are not.
[Update] Bay and Dundas has no electric switches in any direction. Moreover, when the intersection was rebuilt recently, there was not even provision for retrofitting electric operation (empty switch machine casings and drains) at this location. Any discussion about electric switching in regard to this incident is utterly inappropriate.
Bay and Dundas eastbound is a manual switch. Therefore, if it is set for the curve, it would not automatically reset for the straight when a car approaches. Typically, there are more automatic switches for left turns than right turns, but this is not a universal practice. Many years ago, the TTC resisted automating switches that were part of regularly used short turns to save on the capital expense preferring instead the service delays of manually setting and resetting switches.
In practice, there are three types of switches on the system:
- manual
- automatic
- “automatic” but not operational
Examples of the latter include some switches on Spadina where the traffic signal hookup has never been installed, and streetcar turns are very difficult because they don’t get a dedicated turn phase. The TTC has a particular problem when there are two closely-spaced switches (for a right, then a left turn) to ensure that operators planning to turn left don’t accidently open the right turn switch instead. This is basic design flaw as the signal transmitted by the car should include a way of selecting, definitively, one switch in a sequence.
The TTC’s streetcar switching system is archaic by modern light-rail standards, using “single-point” switches that rely on one moveable steel piece – a switch tongue – to pull one of a streetcar’s wheels onto the second track.
Most modern light-rail vehicles – including the low-floor models the TTC is considering buying – use “double-point” switches, one for each wheel.
They may be “archaic”, but they work, and the same accident would have occured with a double-blade switch. The question of which type of switch we use is completely separate from yesterday’s collision, and we shouldn’t get the idea that a massive retrofit will prevent future accidents.
Transit City lines will use double-blade switches, and there will likely be a move to gradually retrofit the existing system where practical. However, the special work renewal cycle is about 25 years long, and it will be at least 2035 before every intersection has been rebuilt.
In all the discussion about automatic switches, the TTC didn’t mention that the electric switching systems are unreliable and that there is a capital project to completely replace them.
Originally, track switches were operated through contactors on the overhead wire. When a car passed through the contactor, a button on the operator’s console sent a signal indicating whether the switch should be opened or closed. This system, dating back to the 1920s, became obsolete with the arrival of the 75-foot long ALRVs in the late 1980s because the spacing between the front of the car and the point where the trolley pole meets the overhead is different for the longer cars.
At that point, the system was changed to use loop antennae buried in the road and transmitters onboard the vehicles. To deal both with variations in vehicle length and train operation, there are two transmitters per car, one at each end. The leading one sets and locks the switch, while the trailing one signals that the switch can be unlocked. In trains, only the transmitters at the front and back of the train are active.
The system has a number of reliability problems including:
- failing electronics
- failing antennae
- false locked states due to a failure to unlock after a car or train passes
Common sights around Toronto are out of service electric switches where some component has failed. Parts are not available, and less important locations may give up their working electronics to keep critical junctions in operation.
The unreliability of the “new” switching system eventually brought on the stop-and-proceed rule for all facing point switches. This may satisfy the TTC’s love for safety, but it doesn’t do much for ride comfort as cars jerk through intersections. Moreover, it fails to address the basic issue that such equipment should be reliable. Imagine if the subway operated the same way!
Why has the TTC allowed a substandard, unreliable system to remain in operation for two decades? Was it simply that the streetcar system didn’t deserve the attention? Did anyone care that this was one more way to make streetcars look less attractive?
Yesterday’s accident happened at a manual switch, and discussions of switching electronics don’t apply here. However, they are relevant to the streetcar system overall, and it’s time the TTC took the issue seriously.
Steve Munro 
I know all the BRT haters are going to pounce on me for this, but the use of a switching system in any form is one of the disadvantages of any LRT or streetcar system, no matter how “advanced” this can be. As evidenced here in this accident, a combination of operator error and a flaw in the system caused the accident. And despite BRT being completely manual, you have more control over its vehicles than an LRT. Switching accidents like these should never happen.
Again, I’m not saying we should junk all our streetcars and LRT routes and replace them with BRT (although it is a less costly proposition than what we are maintaining now) but the advantages of BRT cannot be ignored.
Steve: Subway trains can run into each other in tunnels because of operator error and signal failures, but this doesn’t stop us from building subways. Buses can run out of control because operators lose control of their vehicles, but this doesn’t stop us from using buses. Computer controlled trains can break down because their designers forgot to think about the effects of snow and ice.
The issue as always is the appropriateness of any technology for the job it’s doing. Your argument is totally without merit, and you seek simply to apply the disaster of the moment out of context. You do BRT advocates a disservice with this approach.
LikeLike
This isn’t wholly on topic, but I’m wondering if you know what proportion of the streetcar switches are still manual (even a ballpark), or have become de facto manual because they are (to use your term) “automatic but not operational”?
If you don’t know, do you know how I might find out?
Steve: Being a railfan, I have the streetcar trackmap etched in my brain, and it wouldn’t take much work to count up the switches. In fact, the electric switch locations are shown on the TTC’s map, but the most recent version isn’t online.
Off the top of my head, I would say that more than half of the switches are manual (and I am omitting yard trackage which has lots and lots of them). A current inventory of auto-but-manual requires a system tour for up-to-date stats.
LikeLike
I read somewhere that LRT has lower overall accident rate than bus-based transit (although I can’t find the link now).
Steve: The problem is always to define the metric: per passenger kilometre, per trip, or whatever. For example, based on distances travelled, airplanes are extraordinarily safe; you just don’t want to be in an accident. Streetcars and buses may run into things, even each other, but usually with minor effects.
LikeLike
And buses have collided headon on busways. For example, check out:
http://www.lightrailnow.org/facts/fa_brt_2006-10a-2.htm
LikeLike
Accidents happen. It would be nice if switch control on the streetcar system was centralized and activated by streetcars reporting their position by GPS. So, an operator would just key in his route and the system would do the rest. The only problem I could see with this approach is that streetcars wouldn’t be able to tailgate each other.
The driver shouldn’t be blamed for this. After a while, we all drive on auto-pilot. When something is set 99.99% of the time a certain way, the brain eventually pushes it into the background and then skips it altogether. It’s unrealistic for the TTC to expect drivers to visually check each switch. How do they do this at night, when it’s raining, etc. etc.?
Steve: This is a major conundrum related to the unreliability of currently-used technology. The standard should be that switches are always electric, but if there is concern that they may fail often enough to cause a problem, then it doesn’t matter what the sensing system is. For a GPS router to be effective, the system also needs to know the intended destination and route of the car. This is fairly easy when on a scheduled, predictable run, but very tricky for diversions (as we have seen with CIS).
LikeLike
The Globe article said: “Low-floor vehicles often do not have conventional axles, so instead of pulling a streetcar over, a single-point switch might simply pull a wheel off. TTC engineers and spokesmen for the main companies in the running to build the transit agency’s next generation of streetcars have maintained they have solved this problem and that the new vehicles will work on city tracks.”
This sounds like adventurous, untried and unproven technology. And on 12 meter radius curves as well!?
Steve: I am waiting to see the detailed proposals for new vehicles complete with info on how they expect to handle our city trackage.
LikeLike
A few things…how badly could the streetcars hit each other? When a streetcar (train, subway, anything else on metal tracks) makes a turn, if you go fast enough, you will derail. I am sure if a streetcar is going through an intersection at 60kph…it will derail. How comes the eastbound driver did not check? Could he of been busy on his cell phone, taking a sip of his coffee? I have seen so many drivers (not just streetcars) be distracted with their cell phones (many of them without a hands free earpiece), EATING while driving….
Steve: There’s a lot of things that the driver might or might not have been doing including answering questions from riders. You can’t assume that every accident is the result of operators being naughty boys (or girls).
second question: Let’s say we are at York Street/Queen’s Quay going west, I go to Spadina station, you go to the Riccoh Colliseum, we will know the route of each streetcar by that sign saying 510 SPADINA STATION / 509 EXHIBITION. If the next one says 510, I board and you wait, if it says 509, You board and I wait. Isn’t that how it is supposed to work? Something in the Streetcar tells the switch ahead it’s ‘Route ID’ (in this example: 510 or 509). On Sheppard Avenue East, an 85/167/190/224 can pass each other (before Victoria Park)…the streetcars can’t unless one turns around on a loop.
Steve: This model works as long as where, say, the Harbourfront car is going is known. However, it might be diverting via King that day and will actually travel north on Spadina like a Spadina car, then turn west on King and later south on Bathurst. The destination may be ad hoc, and it’s difficult to program all of the permutations into a routing system. All we really need is a way for an operator approaching an intersection to indicate which way he wants to go.
third question: would YOU ever trust the switches (streetcars & subways) if they were all automatic and being controlled by a computer? Do you think if the system was automated that this problem would not of happened? I recently read that the “Docklands Light Railway” in London UK has no drivers, just one staff that checks tickets and can take control of the train under certain emergency circumstances. The SRT was supposed to be fully automatic at the begining but it changed. Would YOU ride the streetcars if they were fully automatic? subways? I know it is not even close to possible but what if the buses somehow became automatic?
Steve: All switching in the subway is automatic, and the technology to do this has been around for over half a century. However, the number of possible routes in the subway is much more limited. In the early days, trains carried identification devices that told the signal system which route they were on, and the switches were lined up accordingly. More recently, the same information is carried in the computer-based train control system. Either way, if a train has a clear signal, the assumption is that it can proceed at track speed through facing point switches.
The TGV does this at hundreds of km/h, and subway trains routinely pass through junctions at 60-80 km/h. This is possible because the signalling and switching are all tied together. That is much more difficult if not impossible to do with a street railway system.
The issue is that the track switching system worked to an acceptable level of reliability for decades until about 20 years ago. Operators were still responsible for checking switches ahead of them, but they were not afraid that they would open unexpectedly. The present situation is a direct result of the TTC’s leaving an unreliable system in place.
And, finally, as I said before, the switch in question is a manual switch. Computer control or anything similar is not an issue.
Car drivers run red lights all the time with dire consequences, but we don’t put autopilots in every car to prevent this.
LikeLike
I saw the aftermath of this while on my way to take a transitfanning trip to Niagara Falls (BTW, you’re not welcome there if you don’t have a car!)
I overheard the discussions of some of the TTC people on site, and basically what you are saying is what I heard. It should be noted that the eastbound (turning) car was also derailed as a result.
LikeLike
Steve wrote:
“To deal both with variations in vehicle length and train operation, there are two transmitters per car, one at each end. The leading one sets and locks the switch, while the trailing one signals that the switch can be unlocked. In trains, only the transmitters at the front and back of the train are active.”
When was the last time the TTC ran a train on the streetcar lines? (or does this include disabled vehicles being pushed/towed?)
Steve: Yes, this is used all the time when pushing disabled cars. It prevents switches from being thrown by the transmitter at the front of the second car.
Does anyone still publish a TTC track map with the switch controls marked? I think I used to buy them from Ray Corley at train shows.
Steve: Yes, the TTC has such a map. I just don’t have the most recent version and James Bow doesn’t have it on his website. As any railfan will tell you, the “current” version usually has at least one mistake on it.
The item on CITY news talked about “2 streetcars on the same track” (reporter talking to policeman).
Steve: They got it wrong. If you go to Dundas and Bay and look closely (probably best done during the daytime), you can see the scrapes in the concrete where the front truck of the eastbound car ran on the pavement, probably when it was pulled back onto the track. These won’t last long as they are already wearing off — I had to look hard to spot them earlier this evening.
LikeLike
“Transit City lines will use double-blade switches, and there will likely be a move to gradually retrofit the existing system where practical.”
So why is the TTC continuing to install single-blade switches, in some cases without provision for installing switch motors, on newly rebuilt track? This might turn out to be a problem when the TTC replaces the new steetcars with a newer generation.
Steve: If the TTC is going to change over, it needs to redesign its special work, and double-blade switches are a challenge for in-street track wherever there is cold weather. (The linkage between the blades has to run within the pavement, and is subject to freezing up.) Also, the project that pays for new intersections isn’t funded to enhance the system, and enhancements that should have been made such as extra curves were omitted for budgetary reasons at some locations.
For years, the TTC has been in denial about the need to adapt its infrastructure to a coming new generation of cars.
LikeLike
Good evening/morning in my perspective it’s 5 in the afternoon with no Leaside bus to get me to Donlands station. 🙂
My first reaction to be honest when I heard about two streetcars in a head on collison was “What? Is that possible?” Once I understood what happened and read this post it made sense. But before I got home, the anti union insane right wingers at work went on their rants and attacked the TTC as a whole. They freaked out at the bus that lost control, the streetcars messing up downtown auto traffic.
New slogans for the TTC are getting more and more cold. The “Take The Car” slogan I thought was funny and my coworkers were joking and it was just an inocent little fun thing. With now Transit City all of these new taxes the TTC is now called the “Toronto Tax Collection agency.” Mind you they are farsighted and can’t see the big picture, or refuse to see it.
What I am getting at is something has to be done to get rid of the bad press, I am saying we should put a higher regard in social programs as raising money for Daily Bread and such. Spark feel good press and raise some money for causes. Talk to 113 ask it’s members to volunteer their time make it a joint venture between the office and the union, show the people that there is caring TTC employees and have some fun. This has gone off topic, but bad press is, well bad. Let’s spark civic pride and generate some money for worthy causes!
LikeLike
Steve said … “In the early days, trains carried identification devices that told the signal system which route they were on, and the switches were lined up accordingly”.
Chicago did this with Identra coils at their junctions — but we didn’t. Even our subway fell victim to stupid switching technology. The Y was controlled by 6 ATD (automatic train despatch) timers on the entrances and exits which were on four fixed schedules. A ridiculous system which couldn’t possibly work smoothly unless every single train arrived on time. An additional 4 of these contraptions handled the terminals (Keele, Woodbine, Eglinton, and later, St. George).
Steve: The TTC used Identra coils to indicate which route a train was on so that it could be switched properly at the Y and to drive the Solari “next train” signs. The service was a mess due to fixed scheduling (and those pesky ATDs) as well as scheduled interlining (Keele-Woodbine trains changing into, say, Woodbine-Eglintons) that required absolutely proper sequencing.
The whole business example is a textbook example of that damning catch-22: either the TTC set out to make the system fail, or they were incompetent to run it.
In any event, it’s a moot point now.
LikeLike
On Melbourne’s tram network, all facing points are compulsory stops. While there are some manual switches, most that involve regularly scheduled routes (many routes interline through the Central Business District) are powered under the control of the driver.
There is the rare instance of switches that involve a pushbutton on a post, but most are controlled by the operator and use in-road sensors. Even when two trams are following closely and the second will be taking a separate route, the second tram can register its direction with the system while the points remain set for the first tram.
Rather than try to explain this, I’ll point to an article on pavement markings that discusses powered switches at http://www.vicsig.net/index.php?page=trams&article=markings
LikeLike
Steve said: “Also, the project that pays for new intersections isn’t funded to enhance the system, and enhancements that should have been made such as extra curves were omitted for budgetary reasons at some locations.
For years, the TTC has been in denial about the need to adapt its infrastructure to a coming new generation of cars.”
Though it’s slightly off topic I wonder if the TTC has a listing of curves it would like to add, and if not why not? I suggest that one place where an additional curve is needed on an existing set would be a north to west curve at Parliament and Queen (supposedly to be rebuilt in 2009 or 2010) so that King cars going up Parliament can quite quickly return to King via Church.
A possible place for totally new curves would be to link King and Queen by River Street (this is a ca. 50 yard stretch of River just west of the bridge). River Street is to be reconstructed there soon as part of the West Don Lands project and it would surely add flexibility if King and Queen cars could both turn there (in either direction). Does the TTC think of such things when major road reconstruction is planned? Does Transportation ask them?
Steve: You have been reading my mind! There is a serious need to look at special work both on Parliament, and for access to Parliament Loop. The latter was originally to be rebuilt as part of the King Street track project, but was dumped for budgetary reasons. River Street would be very handy for both King and Queen short turn moves.
LikeLike
Steve, I’m not sure if you mentioned it, but dual-point switches have their own sets of headaches as well. They are more difficult to clean and keep clean, cost much more and I’ve yet to see a model that will allow for facing-point manual operation such as single-point switches.
Besides, aren’t Boston’s much-maligned Breda cars running on their existing trackwork (single-point switches and all) now?
Dan
LikeLike
Regarding River and Parliament .. one hopes someone “in authority” at TTC reads this site!
BUT, the Parliament Street loop may no longer be possible. The TTC is supposed to have leased it to the owner of the Porsche dealership on Front Street whose present site was bought by Province as it sits on top of the First Parliament. The Committee of Adjustment approved some “adjustments’ to the zoning a couple of months ago – over the objections of the St Lawrence Neighbourhood Assn) but to date nothing has happened. It is not clear, to me, if this lease is for the whole loop or only the southern part of it – which adjoins the derelict gas station already owned by Mr Porsche.
Steve: I have not seen anything come through a TTC agenda disposing of the loop property.
LikeLike
Is there really any need for the Parliament loop once Cherry street is done? The tracks could be taken another block north on Sumach to link up to Queen westbound, but the Parliament loop is really for King anyway. In either case though, the extra distance is only a kilometer to the foot of Cherry.
Steve: Either Parliament Loop, or the River Street trackage with some strategic addition of curves. EIther way, we don’t have to wait for Cherry Loop to actually be in operation to get the benefit.
LikeLike
M. Briganti Says:
June 12th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
Absolutely wrong! The Operator is 100% to blame. Safety is of the utmost importance. Every switch must be checked to ensure it is set correctly and it is safe to proceed. Everything else comes second.
LikeLike
“Every switch must be checked to ensure it is set correctly and it is safe to proceed. Everything else comes second.”
Streetcar service would slow to a crawl. Operators already do give these things a check but to be 100% certain 100% of the time you’d have to slow service down so far you’d literally force people off the streetcar and into thier cars. Saftey is not a 100%+100% thing – if it was there’d never be a single accident, or type-o on a keyboard, or spelling mistakes. We can be more and more safe, but we can never be perfectly safe.
Steve: Nothing can be perfectly safe, but it is possible to check track without even coming to a full stop as many cars I have ridden do.
LikeLike
Someone spoke earlier of spin control – at least we did not hear anything about drugs or alcohol being involved – which was my first reaction.
LikeLike
I know I’m a bit late to the dance…
I didn’t know if I should laugh or cry Steve when I read your response to the first comment about the subway trains colliding in tunnels. And BRT, doesn’t that rely on signal priority (and sober operators)?
Trains aren’t much better either GO (thanks to the CN operators) managed to have trains collide at the platform at Union Station. And ask anyone that takes GO trains how many times each winter they are stuck due to “switch or signal” problems. We’ve had railways in this country for over 170 years? Did any one not notice we get winter here?
I have no idea who engineered the current switch system for surface transit, but it does seem to a recipe for problems. The pervasive lack of foresight (and things like not provisioning for automatic operation) is almost mind numbing when it comes to transit in these parts.
I will repeat myself, we just don’t do technology well here in Toronto (Ontario and probably the whole country). My suspicion is that the “must be invented here” approach has got to go. We need affordable technology that is best suited to our environment. Technology should be used to solve problems, not create them!
LikeLike
Is that why across many switches, there is a small, brown, rectangular “sewer-grate”, to prevent ponded water from accumulating and freezing?
Steve: I suspect what you refer to is the electric switch machine.
LikeLike