The TTC has an open RFP on the Bonfire site for a Triennial Contract for design services for its streetcar overhead contact system. Much of this document is boilerplate legalese, but the scope of work shows that the TTC plans to address key issues with systems related to streetcar overhead. Five specific tasks are listed in the RFP and more might be added over the term of the contract.
- Overhead/Traction Power Supply Study
- This involves a review of the existing system that supplies power to streetcars and the demands placed on it as vehicles move through the network. There is no mention of modelling the effect of increasing service, but this should obviously be part of the study to determine where constraints might exist to service growth. (The recent suspension of streetcar service on Bathurst during the busy CNE period thanks to a power supply failure is an obvious incentive for this work.)
- Overhead Design for Interections
- This task would review existing intersections with a view to improvements where appropriate.
- Overhead Design for New and Existing Lines
- The title is self-explanatory but it begs the question of why a new design is needed for the existing system, much of which has been rebuilt once for dual-mode trolley pole and pantograph operation, and again for a pantograph-only configuration. The latter work is still in progress, and is responsible for some of the extended bus-streetcar substitutions in recent years. Also notable is the absence of any reference to eBus charging infrastructure.
- Streetcar Track Switch
- Although track switches are not part of the power supply to streetcars, historically they were controlled through hardware mounted on the overhead wires. The current system uses antennae in the pavement and on streetcars, and responsibility for the system rests with the Streetcar Overhead section.
- Streetcar Signal System Alterations
- The definition of this task is unclear in that there are almost no signals anywhere on the streetcar system. Moreover, there is no reference to the interface between streetcar operations and traffic signals.
In this article I will address only the last two items as they are both related to issues of streetcar operating speeds, a topic raised in a recent UITP review of the streetcar system. (See The UITP Peer Review: What is the TTC Trying to Hide?) Details from this review might become public at the November TTC Board meeting.
The detailed requirement for the consulting assignments are:
Streetcar Track Switch [Scope of Services 3.3.4]
Toronto streetcars are equipped with a track-switch control system which allows the operator of the streetcar to initiate movement of electrified track-switches. The microprocessor-based system consists of an on-board computer and 2 transmit antennae at the front and rear of the streetcar. The system has been in service for approximately 20 years, and has recently undergone a comprehensive rehabilitation program to extend its service life and address certain operational problems. The system, however, is non-vital and, as such, imposes significant operating restrictions at switch areas. TTC desires an improved system offering electrical and mechanical locking, and route indication to streetcar operators.
In order to assist TTC in the compilation of the final Bid Specification and evaluation of various solutions, TTC is seeking a Consultant experienced in the domain of streetcar/rail control systems, systems engineering and safety assurance. The Consultant shall also have prior experience working on the track-switch control systems, physical and operational limitations of the operating environment (both on-board and wayside), and comprehensive knowledge of the functions provided by typical operating departments within an organization such as TTC, whilst taking into account the need to maintain current streetcar operations during periods of construction.
The RFP seeks a system with “a route indication to streetcar operators”, but it is not clear whether this would be a completely separate signal, or something integrated into existing traffic signals. There are really two separate but related pieces of information an operator requires: which way is a switch actually set and locked, and is the selected route through an intersection protected from conflict with other traffic.
Streetcar Signal System Alterations [Scope of Services 3.3.5]
TTC undertakes a number of asset renewal/upgrade programs which introduce new or modified equipment to the system which cannot be treated as like for like basis. These renewals require some degree of design alteration to introduce new hardware into the existing system. In some cases, providing additional functionality which was not present in the original system. In other cases, relocation of equipment without impact to service quality may be required. Work may include, mechanical and electrical engineering support, independent safety analysis (assessments and assurance) for existing and new signalling systems, renewal/upgrade of power supplies, ground fault detectors, switch machines, local/zone control panels, and other signalling related systems and condition monitoring equipment. In addition, the Consultant may be required to undertake design of circuit alterations to modify functionality or improve performance of existing (conventional and electronic) interlocking equipment.
It is not clear just what these “signal systems” are as the existing network has only limited signals. The specification sounds more like something we would find on the subway system. (Note that signal systems on the new LRT lines are not the TTC’s responsibility, but will be maintained by the consortium hired by Metrolinx to provide vehicle and infrastructure support.)
With the traffic signals being under the City’s control, this would not strictly be a job for TTC consultants unless the City’s system has the ability to support functionality that the TTC is not yet exploiting.
On the signalling issue, there are various related concerns. First is that priority signalling, to the degree it exists, must be integrated with the City’s traffic signal system. For simple functions such as green time extension, this is straightforward, but for more complex needs including protection of streetcar turns, the switch controller is the mechanism by which the traffic signals are instructed to add a transit phase.
This occurs in limited locations, and it is unclear whether this is due to reluctance by the City to provide more protected turns for streetcars, or if the TTC only seeks to do this in a handful of problem locations rather than as standard practice anywhere streetcars might make turns.
Related to all of this are City plans to implement various “intelligent traffic signal” schemes and a basic question of just what these are expected to accomplish. One approach is to give transit absolute priority, while the other is to give priority on a limited basis to the degree the road system has capacity to spare. City policy appears to favour the latter approach.
There is also the problem of nearside versus farside stops, the priority of left turns for auto traffic, and the conundrum that a streetcar serving passengers nearside could chew up extra green time it cannot actually use.
Collectively, these factors would drive a specification for any new unified system, and development of this requires a clear understanding of policies related to the use of road space and time.
Slow Operation Through Intersections
Notable by its absence from this RFP is any mention of streetcar track and the dynamics of rail/wheel interactions, nor of general track conditions on operations at junctions. Some intersections renewed in recent projects, notably King & Church, suffered from deferred maintenance and safety issues with poor track.
The UITP’s summary review cites concerns with track switches and the stop-check-go policy as a source of delay, but slow operation through junctions extends well beyond the point where streetcars are clear of facing point switches (points where a car might turn or travel straight ahead). This practice arises from an abundance of caution regarding special work (switches, crossings, curve) generally and a concern about possible derailments. New switch controllers will address only one part of the problem.
One issue arising from time to time in the advocate and enthusiast communities is the question of single versus double blade track switches. The important technical difference is that double blade switches offer more pressure on streetcar wheels to make turns. Single blade switches were commonplace throughout the North American street railway industry since its inception, whereas double blade switches are found on newer systems, elsewhere in the world, and on all rapid transit and mainline railway systems.
One aspect of the 1930s era PCC streetcar design was its ability to operate over track that was in far from ideal condition given the limited resources of street railway companies for maintenance. Newer cars, particularly with smaller wheels for low-floor design, bring a greater challenge.
Even the 1970s generation of streetcars, the CLRVs, with standard sized wheels could derail because the originally-specified wheels would deform at switches. Replacement wheels, oddly enough of a design similar to PCC wheels, did not have this problem. The original wheels also contributed to increased track wear.
The need to operate through single blade switches was a requirement for the Flexity streetcar truck design, and the TTC knew at the time this would also require track to be kept in somewhat better condition than was historically the case.
What is needed is a full understanding of how the trucks on the Flexity streetcars interact with the track and which constraints are inherent to the design, as opposed to being caused by poor track maintenance. A consulting contract based only on the electrical components of the streetcar system completely misses this aspect of operations.
The problem of slow streetcar operation will not be corrected until all of the factors leading to the “go slow” policy are addressed. Indeed, it is so entrenched at the TTC that they will be reluctant to relax a long-standing “safety” policy.
Undertaking a design review of streetcar switching and other factors is definitely worthwhile, although long overdue. Any study needs to consider all aspects of the problem, not just the question of an improved track switch controller.
Steve Munro 
Obviously no sign of them expanding the overhead system to support trolley buses.
LikeLike
I would be interesting to see if this will lead to TTC modernizing streetcars to standard practices or just a baby step forward.
Steve: What “standard practices” do you have in mind?
LikeLike
This might be a good time to consider increasing the operating voltage, incrementally bu sub station, to 750 VDC which the cars are designed for.
LikeLike
Also I was in Iceland last week and the buses at many intersections have a queue skipping lane and an LRT style signal separate beside the regular one. The buses get a go signal before the autos do which lets them get a head of the traffic.
Steve: This would be challenging at many intersections where there is no room for a new lane, and taking one from traffic would face stiff opposition. TTC is already on record as wanting queue jump lanes, but has only identified a few possible locations.
LikeLike
I hope they find someone good. There are a lot of improvements that could be made across the system. Places like Nice and Tallinn make you start to see all sorts of deficiencies in the Toronto system.
Would be good if they did a pole rationalization program, especially where poles could be replaced with building anchors…huge win for the accessibility and anti pole crowd.
Steve: The problem with separate poles stems from a combination of inter-agency wrangling and changing standards for pole spacing. Hydro now wants its poles all to its own without TTC attachments. Once upon a time, Hydro pole would be on one side the of the street, and TTC poles on the other. Overhead would be strung between them. With the move away from incandescent lighting, fewer poles were needed for street lighting and this fouled up the spacing. Another source of pole clutter are the individual poles for parking signs and the like.
We’ve also discussed in the past short or long distance battery usage and how it could simplify, reduce outages/risk, lower costs in some areas and speed up redesigns at barns…we know we can likely upgrade the existing vehicles to add short distance batteries during their midlife rebuilds, it may be something to at least explore.
Whether Alstoms APS could also be retrofitted is something that should also be explored as it would push major improvements along with waterfront, and likely simplify waterfront east among other things…
LikeLike
Why do people want to go back to old obsolete technologies from a bygone era? And TTC will be well advised to spend the money on battery electric vehicles instead of wasting it on upgrading the obsolete overhead system over busy roadways.
Steve: With issues regarding battery weight and range on one charge, one alternative is in-motion charging with buses running as trolleybuses on major route segments, and then from batteries on branches and outer ends of routes. A lot depends on the network topology and how much infrastructure can be shared. To call the technology “obsolete” betrays a bias, especially when you talk of building this over “busy roadways”. The traffic on the road has nothing to do with the power supply system.
LikeLike
This may be true, but it’s a lame excuse, other cities have figured it out – many with much better results than Toronto…no reason Toronto can’t do it…if they are hiring someone to do this, do it right from the beginning and eliminate any conflicts with hydro…maybe even require them to bury their lines…
Maybe they should hire a person to design the hydro as well…or create an interagency task force to do all design work together before hand…or just charge hydro for extra poles at ridiculous prices…
Steve: Toronto Hydro is a City agency and so there’s not much point in the City charging them “extra” for poles. This is an internal City issue with each department/agency having its own priorities.
LikeLike
Is there a historic reason why agencies seem to be adversarial to each other? Like the issue you mention with Hydro and the TTC with regards to poles, or traffic signals with the city and the TTC being at odds with regards to priorities. From the outside it looks quite counterproductive, especially when these are all supposedly public agencies that should have common and overlapping interests.
Steve: Historically this was not a problem thinking back to the 1950s.
LikeLike
The Liberals privatised Hydro One. The Liberals would have privatised everything if Premier Ford had not put a full stop to this Liberal madness. Premier Ford is also on a transit building spree, things that the Liberals would promise every election only to never actually build anything after wining the election.
Steve: You are so wound up in your political blindness that you miss the point we are talking about Toronto Hydro, not Hydro One.
As for Ford’s building spree, the GO expansion is dawdling along and looks like it will only be a shadow of what was expected, especially the electrification project which is key to more stations and frequent service.
And we won’t say anything about the lines that are late, over budget and still not open.
LikeLike
David Miller sold the poles to Toronto Hydro for a one-time cash boost to keep property tax increases down. Ever since then everything is now attached to it’s own stick in the ground.
Examples are the new buttons to trigger the audible crossing systems which are being installed everywhere. They are all on their own posts which in a lot of locations eats into the tiny amounts of available sidewalk space and create new obstacles for pedestrians. A big irony for new accessibility features.
LikeLike
I was in Brugge Belgium yesterday and they have narrow gauge double blade double slip switches which the cars charged though at speed. It can be done.
Steve: The tightness of the curve is also important. Single or double blade, on curves with Toronto radii one would not operate at speed. The issue for most service, of course, is to operate swiftly on straightaways which are the majority of the crossings in regular service.
LikeLike
Darwin O’Connor: Obviously no sign of them expanding the overhead system to support trolley buses.
These are never going to come back. The overhead system for streetcars and buses is also different and one designed to support both will be treading in uncharted waters. A better solution will be to import hydrogen powered vehicles from India or China which countries are leading in clean technologies. What happened to Dalton McGuinty’s UPX electrification? What happened to Kathleen Wynne’s signature Hydrail? What happened to John Tory’s SmartTrack? Never panned out. We can import hydrogen trains from India, cheap and environmentally friendly.
Steve: You are making an apples and oranges argument.
First off, if Toronto builds any trolleybus overhead, it will be for in motion charging and likely far away from the existing streetcar network. More likely are charge points scattered around the system, but in motion charging has the advantage that it does not tie up space and time for buses to sit and “refuel”. The whole issue of eBuses is, pardon the pun, up in the air anyhow because the economics don’t work well without massive capital subsidies, not to mention extra operating costs. A fundamental question is whether the emission saving between hybrids and pure electrics is worth the extra expense compared to buying and running more service and getting more people onto transit. That’s a comparison I am sure the eBus fraternity do not want us to see.
Second, the hydrogen train you mention is appropriate (assuming other factors don’t get in the way) for mainline rail. Where this would fit on GO would be more on lightly served branch lines where full GO electrification is not justified. Sadly, there are few branch lines left in southern Ontario as they were all systematically abandoned. The question then is whether GO mainline expansion should be via hydrogen or via overhead power supply. These days, the whole electrification scheme seems to be moribund and GO is concentrating simply on rail expansion. The idea of very frequent service with EMUs rather than locomotive hauled trains seems to be like Monty Python’s dead (no, it’s only sleeping) parrot.
A big problem faced by UPX is the question of service capacity/frequency at YYZ and at Union, and that was designed in from the beginning. The stations were also badly placed with the Bloor subway connection only now under construction. The original service plan was a fantasy based on business class airport-downtown demand, not on more general commuters and off-peak riders. UPX may have started under McGuinty, but we’ve seen little improvement although Ford has had years to whip Metrolinx into shape.
SmartTrack was a joke the day it was announced. Technically infeasible. Based on a service plan the infrastructure could not support. Adapted from what was originally a real estate plan to make property in Markham near the Stouffville line, and south of the airport more valuable because both locations had trouble attracting employees and by extension investment in more office/industrial capacity. John Tory clung to that name and by doing so forced Toronto area planning to fit in a service that would never operate. All that’s left is a handful of stations, some rather dubiously located, and a big bill for Toronto to contribute to works like East Harbour that should be on the provincial tab.
I would be perfectly happy if Metrolinx would just announce a consolidated plan for GO expansion that we could bank on (unlike their LRT projects) rather than seeing occasional “Look! More Trains!” announcements with no long-term context. Hydrogen trains are a technological distraction we do not need.
LikeLike
Regarding the streetcar signals, one way is to do something like how Wroclaw, Poland handles it (which I doubt is rare in other European cities):
A tram, whether on a right of way or in mixed traffic approaches a traffic signal. No matter what, there will be a dedicated tram signal (using 3 horizontal dots above a single dot, like a T shape). — means stop, | means go. When approaching a diverging intersection, the operator flips a switch in the cab to go left or right. A track switch indicator signal will start flashing (separate ones for each direction), before counting down until the points are set, and the tram signal switches from — to \, |, or / to indicate it is safe to cross the special work.
I can easily imagine a system like this being used here. Very clear for the operator to know when it is safe to proceed, but without confusing other road users with signals common to them. There would be a cost associated with installation, but this would likely be done along repair or replacement of the existing track switches.
Steve: This technology has existed for decades, but here in Toronto runs headlong into two basic problems. First, the TTC has not pursued transit priority arrangements except for a few locations, and leaves many switches that should be electrified operating as manual, or electrically out of service. Second, the attitude to priority schemes at the City has not been broadly supportive with the attitude that making general traffic move better is the primary way to improve transit. With almost all switches located immediately after nearside stops, the idea of sailing up to a switch and proceeding through without slowing or stopping is unlikely, but the problem of track conditions and conservative practices forces slow operation even on straight track through junctions. Unravelling the links between these issues will not be easy.
LikeLike
Steve: This technology has existed for decades, but here in Toronto runs headlong into two basic problems. First, the TTC has not pursued transit priority arrangements except for a few locations, and leaves many switches that should be electrified operating as manual, or electrically out of service. Second, the attitude to priority schemes at the City has not been broadly supportive with the attitude that making general traffic move better is the primary way to improve transit. With almost all switches located immediately after nearside stops, the idea of sailing up to a switch and proceeding through without slowing or stopping is unlikely, but the problem of track conditions and conservative practices forces slow operation even on straight track through junctions. Unravelling the links between these issues will not be easy.
I am failing to grasp why the questions of priority and nearside stops preclude the TTC from installing signals that show conclusively which way the switch is set. Priority and electrification can be added later, a signal indication could eliminate the need to stop & verify. This feels especially helpful on King and St Clair where the stops are far side and therefore would benefit immediately from the elimination of the stop & proceed rule.
Steve: Of course the TTC could install signals showing switch settings, and even for cars stopped nearside there needs to be a way to select the route so that it is ready and locked. Some locations have problems with priority signalling because of the relative location of the stop, the detection point for signals, and the detection point to set switches. The geometry varies by location. I fully agree about King and St. Clair, but with their farside stops that’s not the issue I was addressing. The problem at farside locations is that the detection point for green time extension can be so close to an intersection that an approaching car can be trapped by a red signal it should have been able to pass. There are also traffic signals at locations that are not transit stops, especially as signals replacing pedestrian crosswalks proliferate, and these too can catch streetcars that should get the green time.
Another variation for implementation is that King Street has comparatively frequent service whereas other major routes like Queen, Dundas and Carlton come less often. The degree to which streetcars “interfere” with other traffic will vary depending on service levels. This is the sort of thing that should be studied on a route-by-route, block-by-block basis to flag the variations and provide for them.
LikeLike