My thoughts on gangway trains as a Torontonian

[GojiMet86]

53 minutes ago, Deucey said:

I’ve told this before, but in 2014 I was stuck on a  train held by a track fire at 207th Street. 20-30 minutes before the first car of the train inched into the platform so we could get out. Except the doors between cars on R46 trains are locked, and in that instance, they didn’t unlock.

So I and 50 people were trapped, and if the track fire was not contained, since the train couldn’t reverse because a train was right behind it, we could’ve had a very bad day.

While fires in car would spread faster, on open gangway cars, there’s only two choke points/failure points instead of 8 on R46 and R68 models - the cabs operators sit in and the exit door.

 

Part of me thinks the preference would be to guarantee the fire is contained to one car but burn almost everyone in it, rather than have the fire spread, hurt (but not necessarily kill) more people, and destroy more equipment.

Let me revise this a little.

Japan does this for metros that spend almost all their time underground, but not for trains that spend most of their time outside.

So it appears that tunnel ventilation is a factor.

Edited March 3, 2021 by GojiMet86

[Deucey]

2 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

 

Part of me thinks the preference would be to guarantee the fire is contained to one car but burn almost everyone in it, rather than have the fire spread, hurt (but not necessarily kill) more people, and destroy more equipment.

Let me revise this a little.

Japan does this for metros that spend almost all their time underground, but not for trains that spend most of their time outside.

So it appears that tunnel ventilation is a factor.

If folks could be trusted to not be stupid or opportunistic trolls, the fire danger could be fairly mitigated - especially in the situation I was in - by having door releases accessible inside the cars for evacuation once a TO or Conductor flips a switch indicating a train in distress.

I’d personally rather take my chances with rats, stagnant water and third rails rather than hope the electric locks unlock when the Conductor presses that button (since they didn’t work).

That with open gangways makes it easier for people to crawl to safety to avoid fires.

[R10 2952]

11 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

So let's back up, it appears there's a conflation between several concepts, like open-gangways and flexibility.

1. Are we talking about open-gangways or no walking in between?

2. Are we talking about short 2-car sets or 4-5 car sets?

3. How about single cars like the Arnines?

See, a 2-car open-gangway set seems reasonable. But longer sets without open-gangways? Not so much.

2-car pairs with no walking in between for the metro system that has the highest ridership in the Western hemisphere is unreasonable to me. The only line that is limited to 2 cars is the Franklin shuttle. If you're going to have smaller sets, they better be open-gangway sets (unless the MTA actually does find them unfeasible because of curves). But I argue for longer sets in the rest of the system.

PATH is essentially one line with two of branches; longer-fixed sets might not work when their trains constantly vary between 7 and 8 (and eventually 9 and 10) cars, but shorter open-gangway sets might.

WMATA has stated they won't order open-gangways because of the curves and their longer cars, and their yards aren't made to work with longer sets, although they could theoretically order 2-car open-gangways instead. This is the same agency that constantly derails its trains, so smaller pairs make more sense.

CTA has really, really sharp turns.

Even though the other USA systems don't have the ridership, they are more than capable of doing 2-car open-gangways.

Toronto has decided to go forward with longer, open-gangway sets. The older T1 trains are always put into 6-car consists, peak or off-peak, so there goes the ridership argument.

Montreal has gone with longer, open-gangway sets, and the new light-rail REM will have 2-car open-gangways.

Mexico City has gone with longer, open-gangway sets.

Santiago has gone with longer, open-gangway sets.

Buenos Aires has moved to longer, open-gangway sets.

In Europe, SNCF in France has open-gangway commuter trains not only to improve flow, but to lessen crime. People legit feel safer when they have an option to run as far away as possible. Open-gangway makes it easier for people to run away. Same with the Paris Metro, which has been open-gangway for decades now.

London has moved to longer, open-gangway sets.

And open-gangway also means there are more eyes watching. Think of the older NYC stock that only had windows on the storm doors. Not much you can see.

And when crap hits the fan, everyone wishes they could run to the next car without anything blocking the way.

So notice then, that open-gangway, in and of itself, and regardless of the number of cars in a set, is much more beneficial than what NYC has now. This is in terms of passenger flow and passenger safety.

Now curiously, what I have seen no one here mention before, and that's because the discussion is almost always centered around stinky homeless people, crime, or cutting up trains, is that the biggest knock against open-gangways isn't about flow of passengers, or flexibility...

It's Fire.

Or more specifically, fire underground.

In an open-gangway train, fire can spread quicker because there's more oxygen, whereas in the closed design, the fire has less oxygen to burn.

In Japan, subways with underground portions do have open-gangways, BUT they have self-closing doors:

 

Well if it has closed partitions, it's not really an "open gangway", is it?

Anyway, aside from what could happen in a fire, the other issues I've always had with the open-gangway design are: the lack of operational flexibility (same as with the current 4 and 5-car sets); the apparent lack of anticlimbers (cars could telescope into one another in an accident); the homeless not only running up and down more, but also spreading their body odor through 4 or 5 cars now instead of 1; and the precipitous decline in ridership levels that no longer warrants such a design in the first place (work-from-home will stick around, it'll be years before crowding comes back, if at all).

You also have to ask yourself at one point do these designs begin to outweigh the cost.  Just look at where the mentality regarding wider doors has got us- the side windows on the R211 are tiny.  What's next, no windows at all? The real solution to overcrowding is to build new subway lines, not some band-aid half-measures.

I also don't know where some of you get this hivemind tendency that if other places in the world do X with their transit, then we must do the exact same thing also.  I am tired of people endlessly preaching the gospel of innovation without taking into account any independent thought around here; I'm beginning to see why folks like Joe, Snowblock and Julio all left.

Edited March 3, 2021 by R10 2952

[bobtehpanda]

42 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

 

Well if it has closed partitions, it's not really an "open gangway", is it?

Anyway, aside from what could happen in a fire, the other issues I've always had with the open-gangway design are: the lack of operational flexibility (same as with the current 4 and 5-car sets); the apparent lack of anticlimbers (cars could telescope into one another in an accident); the homeless not only running up and down more, but also spreading their body odor through 4 cars now instead of 1; and the precipitous decline in ridership levels that no longer warrants such a design in the first place (work-from-home will stick around, it'll be years before crowding comes back, if at all).

You also have to ask yourself at one point do these designs begin to outweigh the cost.  Just look at where the mentality regarding wider doors has got us- the side windows on the R211 are tiny.  What's next, no windows at all? The real solution to overcrowding is to build new subway lines, not some band-aid half-measures.

I also don't know where some of you get this hivemind tendency that if other places in the world do X with their transit, then we must do the exact same thing also.  I am tired of people endlessly preaching the gospel of innovation without taking into account any independent thought around here; I'm beginning to see why folks like Joe, Snowblock and Julio all left.

Gangways were actually introduced by Pullman to prevent telescoping.

Even if ridership declines, there is more emphasis on keeping people distant, which will drive up demand for space. There is a reason why offices do not actually see a reported vacancy decline; many firms are looking to expand the space they have for the headcount they already employ.

Does the average passenger care about side windows? They're certainly nice to look out of but if you ask "would you rather get on the train or get passed up by a train with slightly larger windows" the choice would be plainly obvious. And unless the MTA is going to cut costs new subway lines are not going to happen.

How many times has the MTA been burned by slow adoption of technology? Metrocard lasted way longer than it had to. Cell and wi-fi came very late to MTA, as did countdown clocks, BusTime, to say nothing of earlier attempts at technology like air conditioning.

Quite frankly, this is a lot of hemming and hawing over one small test train, which is the only R211T actually confirmed to come since the option order has not been paid for. If it works out it works out and if it doesn't it doesn't; that's the entire point of a test train. Sticking your fingers in your ears because "we don't do that here" isn't some great display of independent thought. Particularly when the examples of things like car flexibility have to be brought up from almost 40 years ago.

Edited March 3, 2021 by bobtehpanda

[GojiMet86]

2 minutes ago, R10 2952 said:

 

Well if it has closed partitions, it's not really an "open gangway", is it?

Anyway, aside from what could happen in a fire, the other issues I've always had with the open-gangway design are: the lack of operational flexibility (same as with the current 4 and 5-car sets); the apparent lack of anticlimbers (cars could telescope into one another in an accident); the homeless not only running up and down more, but also spreading their body odor through 4 cars now instead of 1; and the precipitous decline in ridership levels that no longer warrants such a design in the first place (work-from-home will stick around, it'll be years before crowding comes back, if at all).

You also have to ask yourself at one point do these designs begin to outweigh the cost.  Just look at where the mentality regarding wider doors has got us- the side windows on the R211 are tiny.  What's next, no windows at all? The real solution to overcrowding is to build new subway lines, not some band-aid half-measures.

I also don't know where some of you get this hivemind tendency that if other places in the world do X with their transit, then we must do the exact same thing also.  I am tired of people endlessly preaching the gospel of innovation without taking into account any independent thought around here; I'm beginning to see why folks like Joe, Snowblock and Julio all left.

The decline in ridership doesn't rule out 2-car open-gangway trains. You can still have operational flexibility. Again, the lack of flexibility and the homeless are completely blown out of proportion. We don't have to do exactly the same things other countries do, but is is very nice to be open-minded about other possibilities, which is what the MTA has not done in the last 70 years.

And are we to listen only to the most wise, most exalted Trainmaster5 or Snowblock, and only them? You know, there are thousands and thousands of other train operators in the world that would disagree with them. There are the also engineers, safety experts, etc.

They are also not the be-all, end-all. Appreciated? Sure. But they can't be right 100% of the time. No one is. Even I'm not.

According to them, trying wouldn't even be worth it in the first place!

The gospel here is New York Exceptionalism. If it didn't come from here, it's garbage. It's stubborness.

It's one of the reasons why Andy Byford left. Trying too much to provide change.

 

2 minutes ago, bobtehpanda said:

Open gangways were actually introduced by Pullman to prevent telescoping.

Even if ridership declines, there is more emphasis on keeping people distant, which will drive up demand for space. There is a reason why offices do not actually see a reported vacancy decline; many firms are looking to expand the space they have for the headcount they already employ.

Does the average passenger care about side windows? They're certainly nice to look out of but if you ask "would you rather get on the train or get passed up by a train with slightly larger windows" the choice would be plainly obvious. And unless the MTA is going to cut costs new subway lines are not going to happen.

How many times has the MTA been burned by slow adoption of technology? Metrocard lasted way longer than it had to. Cell and wi-fi came very late to MTA, as did countdown clocks, BusTime, to say nothing of earlier attempts at technology like air conditioning.

Quite frankly, this is a lot of hemming and hawing over one small test train, which is the only R211T actually confirmed to come since the option order has not been paid for. If it works out it works out and if it doesn't it doesn't; that's the entire point of a test train. Sticking your fingers in your ears because "we don't do that here" isn't some great display of independent thought. Particularly when the examples of things like car flexibility have to be brought up from almost 40 years ago.

Thank you. What a resistence to a couple of pilot trains.

[Deucey]

1 hour ago, R10 2952 said:

You also have to ask yourself at one point do these designs begin to outweigh the cost.  Just look at where the mentality regarding wider doors has got us- the side windows on the R211 are tiny.  What's next, no windows at all? The real solution to overcrowding is to build new subway lines, not some band-aid half-measures.

London S7/S8 trains have 6 doors and 6 windows per car - whether 57 ft or 51 ft, and wide doors.

Difference is their doors aren’t pocket doors. And the trains are open gangway.

Your point on expansion is salient - nothing’s gonna make life better on the Central, District, and Jubilee Lines like Crossrail will, just like the Lex won’t suck less without SAS. But given that it’s going to be years before new lines are shovel-ready in NY - even if the mood was pro-expansion - CBTC and open gangways aren’t bad ideas for addressing capacity concerns.

Maybe if  decides to use off-the-shelf platforms like Bombardier/Alstom’s Movia platform instead of ground-up builds, it could save money and ditch pocket doors so you can see all the glory of Masstransiscope (assuming trains don’t stop in the Flatbush approach).

[trainfan22]

One arguement I haven't seen in this open gangway debate.. how do you isolate an car someone released body fluids in? I'm sure we've all seen an entire car closed off in a consist cause the car needed to be cleaned or whatever.

 

 

How would this be handled in an open gangway train? Genuinely asking IDK lol

[GojiMet86]

49 minutes ago, trainfan22 said:

One arguement I haven't seen in this open gangway debate.. how do you isolate an car someone released body fluids in? I'm sure we've all seen an entire car closed off in a consist cause the car needed to be cleaned or whatever.

How would this be handled in an open gangway train? Genuinely asking IDK lol

Well, it's pretty similar to the smell argument.

It cannot be isolated, at least at the moment of the incident. Call it in, take out the consist, have it cleaned, and have it ready for the next day or however long it takes.

But the same thing happens with R46s, R68s, the NTTs. You're just down a set. That's it. Not a big deal. Or if time allows...they could make sure trains have the capability to close the doors in one car, and seal it off at the terminal with tape or a barrier. But even with the current closed-off configurations, conductors still have trouble keeping regular folk away from troubled cars. I once sat on an R46 that had one car affected by smell, and I spent 30 minutes hearing the conductor warning people to stay away from the car.

With trains made up of single cars or married pairs, trains still have to be taken out of service to remove the car/pair.

My question to the pair crowd is, when was the last time the MTA stored 2-car pairs around the system and not just in yards? When was the last time they even ran a sole 2-car pair to meet up with the impacted train? What space will be used for these spares? What happens if my  at Astoria needs a pair? Where will it come from? All the way from Coney Island? Still going to take the same amount of time, gangway or none. Might as well have a full train come.

Notice the BMT was beginning to order articulated trains, even in the heyday of cutting up trains. Cutting up trains makes way more sense if there are very clear peak and off-peak periods. But now, peak and off-peak are beginning to resemble one another.

Edited March 3, 2021 by GojiMet86

[Trainmaster5]

3 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

The decline in ridership doesn't rule out 2-car open-gangway trains. You can still have operational flexibility. Again, the lack of flexibility and the homeless are completely blown out of proportion. We don't have to do exactly the same things other countries do, but is is very nice to be open-minded about other possibilities, which is what the MTA has not done in the last 70 years.

And are we to listen only to the most wise, most exalted Trainmaster5 or Snowblock, and only them? You know, there are thousands and thousands of other train operators in the world that would disagree with them. There are the also engineers, safety experts, etc.

They are also not the be-all, end-all. Appreciated? Sure. But they can't be right 100% of the time. No one is. Even I'm not.

According to them, trying wouldn't even be worth it in the first place!

The gospel here is New York Exceptionalism. If it didn't come from here, it's garbage. It's stubborness.

It's one of the reasons why Andy Byford left. Trying too much to provide change.

 

Thank you. What a resistence to a couple of pilot trains.

Thanks for raising me to exalted status. When do I pick up my lifetime achievement trophy? I find it hard to believe that you can take someone's personal experience and opinion and try to belittle it because it doesn't jibe with your own. I don't have a problem with the gangway idea one way or another. My concern is/was operational flexibility. Same thing with single cars, married pairs, and four or five car linked units. Because of my personal experience I'm more interested in how many single cars will remain in the system for transfers,  especially interdivision. I have no idea how the gangway cars are going to be constructed.  My only concern is flexibility. Look at the situation with the B1 and B2 division and train lengths. Now do you understand what I'm driving at ? I don't need anyone putting words in my mouth or misconstruing my concerns. Thank you. Carry on. 

 

[T to Dyre Avenue]

16 hours ago, GojiMet86 said:

Well, it's pretty similar to the smell argument.

It cannot be isolated, at least at the moment of the incident. Call it in, take out the consist, have it cleaned, and have it ready for the next day or however long it takes.

But the same thing happens with R46s, R68s, the NTTs. You're just down a set. That's it. Not a big deal. Or if time allows...they could make sure trains have the capability to close the doors in one car, and seal it off at the terminal with tape or a barrier. But even with the current closed-off configurations, conductors still have trouble keeping regular folk away from troubled cars. I once sat on an R46 that had one car affected by smell, and I spent 30 minutes hearing the conductor warning people to stay away from the car.

With trains made up of single cars or married pairs, trains still have to be taken out of service to remove the car/pair.

My question to the pair crowd is, when was the last time the MTA stored 2-car pairs around the system and not just in yards? When was the last time they even ran a sole 2-car pair to meet up with the impacted train? What space will be used for these spares? What happens if my  at Astoria needs a pair? Where will it come from? All the way from Coney Island? Still going to take the same amount of time, gangway or none. Might as well have a full train come.

Notice the BMT was beginning to order articulated trains, even in the heyday of cutting up trains. Cutting up trains makes way more sense if there are very clear peak and off-peak periods. But now, peak and off-peak are beginning to resemble one another.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen the MTA store single or paired cars stored anywhere except yards. But I’ve also never seen single 4- or 5-car sets anywhere outside of yards either. Only full length trains (like at City Hall Lower). In the case of the , the train would head back to CI and the defective pair would be swapped there. That’s what they did when the  ran with R32s and R40s. 

As for the BMT articulated trains, keep in mind they had shorter car bodies than the 67-foot Standards did. So technically a full length BMT articulated train would have had more “cars” than a full train of Standards. 

Edited March 4, 2021 by T to Dyre Avenue

[bulk88]

On 3/2/2021 at 7:18 PM, 40MntVrn said:

Instead, the circuitous question that keeps prevailing: will more space on a train provide more space on train?

Absolutely not, because headways WILL BE INCREASED next pick because the trains have more capacity now. Its like articulated buses. Any time the MTA adds articulated buses to a route, they cut frequency.

[bulk88]

On 3/3/2021 at 4:32 PM, Deucey said:

off-the-shelf platforms like Bombardier/Alstom’s Movia platform instead of ground-up builds, it could save money and ditch pocket doors so you can see all the glory of Masstransiscope (assuming trains don’t stop in the Flatbush approach).

Certain London stock uses pocket doors that retract into the space between 2 sheets of window glass. Watch this video, you will see the door panel retract INSIDE the window that passengers CANT OPEN. Example 

 

[Lex]

13 minutes ago, bulk88 said:

Absolutely not, because headways WILL BE INCREASED next pick because the trains have more capacity now. Its like articulated buses. Any time the MTA adds articulated buses to a route, they cut frequency.

That's easy to say, but the math doesn't check out. See, open gangways squeeze out a smaller proportional increase in capacity per train than artics do when stacked against their rigid counterparts.

[Deucey]

3 hours ago, bulk88 said:

Certain London stock uses pocket doors that retract into the space between 2 sheets of window glass. Watch this video, you will see the door panel retract INSIDE the window that passengers CANT OPEN. Example 

 

Deep tube consists do that with the door next to the operator cab.

Never understood why they have that single door there for pax, but that question was overshadowed by the fact I was finally on the Piccadilly Line after two decades of wanting to go to London.

[40MntVrn]

20 hours ago, bulk88 said:

Absolutely not, because headways WILL BE INCREASED next pick because the trains have more capacity now. Its like articulated buses. Any time the MTA adds articulated buses to a route, they cut frequency.

You're talking around my point. More space on a train provides more space on a train.

If more space on a train causes a dramatic drop in need for trains, then headways will be adjusted.

Don't artic's provide ~20% more space than their 40-foot counterparts?  Might be a bit of a reach to think that a max of 5% more space on a train would be enough for the MTA to reduce headways.

[RR503]

As a general rule, I try to stay out of rolling stock discussions on here, but some quick points:

- Having married pairs or single units actually decreases reliability. Because you can't spread systems across the set, and because you have more coupling points, you end up with significant duplication and more points of failure. In isolation, the flexibility is nice, but NYCT's experience with the fleet in recent years -- to say nothing of the experiences of other countries -- should vindicate the perspectives of those who see linked sets as the way to go here.

- The "more capacity" point is one that I think is getting too little stress here. More standing room/car will obviously help smooth peaks, but OGs likely will also shorten dwells. If you're more able to move throughout the train, the chronic end-loading seen on some lines should moderate. Even if this affect is only slight, it counts for something. 

Edited March 8, 2021 by RR503

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/7/2021 at 5:05 PM, RR503 said:

As a general rule, I try to stay out of rolling stock discussions on here, but some quick points:

- Having married pairs or single units actually decreases reliability. Because you can't spread systems across the set, and because you have more coupling points, you end up with significant duplication and more points of failure. In isolation, the flexibility is nice, but NYCT's experience with the fleet in recent years -- to say nothing of the experiences of other countries -- should vindicate the perspectives of those who see linked sets as the way to go here.

- The "more capacity" point is one that I think is getting too little stress here. More standing room/car will obviously help smooth peaks, but OGs likely will also shorten dwells. If you're more able to move throughout the train, the chronic end-loading seen on some lines should moderate. Even if this affect is only slight, it counts for something. 

To add onto this general point, it makes the classic NY problem of "position yourself near the exit" a lot less annoying.

There are people who exit differently from where they enter, and right now some people will try to run as far as possible to get as close as possible, probably shove themselves into a door as its closing, cause it to reopen, and slow the whole damn thing down.

In a train that you can mostly walk through, you could just get on, and then spread out or walk inside the train, so the above becomes less necessary.

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/6/2021 at 2:25 PM, Deucey said:

Deep tube consists do that with the door next to the operator cab.

Never understood why they have that single door there for pax, but that question was overshadowed by the fact I was finally on the Piccadilly Line after two decades of wanting to go to London.

Well, if you're willing to make the journey, these trains have now been converted to diesel operation on the Isle of Wight.

[bobtehpanda]

On 3/6/2021 at 11:15 AM, bulk88 said:

Absolutely not, because headways WILL BE INCREASED next pick because the trains have more capacity now. Its like articulated buses. Any time the MTA adds articulated buses to a route, they cut frequency.

This hasn't really happened during previous sets of subway car replacements, what makes you think they'd start now?

[Lex]

3 hours ago, bobtehpanda said:

This hasn't really happened during previous sets of subway car replacements, what makes you think they'd start now?

Because it's happened with articulated buses.

Of course, as much as open gangway trains increase capacity per train, the proportion pales in comparison to the difference between a 40-foot rigid and its articulated counterpart.

[RR503]

Worth noting that while the additional square footage is going to mean R211s will have more peak capacity than previous fleets, the reduced seating capacity (bc wider doors) should actually net out to increased headways based on a strict interpretation of NYCT loading guidelines. Whereas peak service is calculated on a seated capacity + passengers/available sq ft basis, off peak service is adjusted up from 10 min headways where loads exceed seating capacity +25%, a figure which will be lower on the 211s than on (say) the 160s. 

[Lex]

2 hours ago, RR503 said:

Worth noting that while the additional square footage is going to mean R211s will have more peak capacity than previous fleets, the reduced seating capacity (bc wider doors) should actually net out to increased headways based on a strict interpretation of NYCT loading guidelines. Whereas peak service is calculated on a seated capacity + passengers/available sq ft basis, off peak service is adjusted up from 10 min headways where loads exceed seating capacity +25%, a figure which will be lower on the 211s than on (say) the 160s. 

Sure, under current guidelines, frequencies should increase, but let's not kid ourselves.

[bobtehpanda]

12 hours ago, Lex said:

Because it's happened with articulated buses.

Of course, as much as open gangway trains increase capacity per train, the proportion pales in comparison to the difference between a 40-foot rigid and its articulated counterpart.

MTA's left hand doesn't know what the right is doing. 

Given that it's never happened on the subway, and generally speaking I haven't heard of bus operational practices crossing over to subways or vice versa, this is all hypothetical.

[RR503]

10 hours ago, Lex said:

Sure, under current guidelines, frequencies should increase, but let's not kid ourselves.

Yeah, I think the most likely outcome is that they just use the 160 seated capacity figure for the 211s as if there's no difference. Point being: there may be peak cuts, but I would be quite surprised to see the 211s causing off-peak reductions. 

[MisterSG1]

What a difference a week makes, I've just been busy.

My issues I was speaking about were from experiences riding the Toronto Rockets as a passenger over the last decade or so.'

On 3/2/2021 at 8:05 PM, GojiMet86 said:

 

And with that thought process, how often will a homeless guy just jump to you? How often will a random guy just start attacking you?

The chances of being with a New York City police officer are higher than being stuck with a deranged lunatic.

While this is probably true, I know the Transit Police has thousands of officers, you rarely ever see law enforcement on the TTC, other than the more recent fare inspectors since the streetcars started using the honor system. What I was getting at moreso was a hypothetical order of magnitude problem, how many sworn officers they have, how many subway trains are in service in the most peak times versus the least peak time, shifts of the officers and so on. I don't think the MTA could have the resources to do this, but I could be wrong. Look at the following videos:

https://youtu.be/xSHe8kIHE-Y

In this video, this passenger isn't particularly "dangerous", but moreso annoying, am I to believe that in a patrolled situation, the MTA would have handled this situation differently, rather than the TTC operator simply stating with no authority that he'll get the police to come?

https://youtu.be/8DPYfvw5pZc

Or in this video, the first clip which lasts for about 2 minutes, the operator should have called police and removed this guy instantly, perhaps these kind of actions are dealt better with in NYC, but who knows.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad2sN7bJOpY

Perhaps the only time I've ever seen the TTC Special Constables do actual police work. But this is the kind of response I expect to happen when there is misbehavior in the transit system.

 

On 3/2/2021 at 8:15 PM, bobtehpanda said:

It mostly just sounds like you're fishing for people to go along with your excuses rather than actually engaging a debate. Three feet of space is three feet of space. Compared to a 60 foot car, that is 5% of space.

As I said, I wasn't 100% sure of this, but I was referring to the overall habitable space between the end of one car compared to the next. A gangway isn't entirely as wide the rest of the cross-section of the train, is there really a net gain or loss of space? I'm unsure of the answer but even so, it's a very small amount. The subway cars used in Toronto are 75 feet by the way, so the amount of space would be even smaller compared to a 60 foot car.

 

On 3/2/2021 at 11:21 PM, Around the Horn said:

 

Hypothetically speaking (since the MTA's use of two person crews complicates this) if the system were entirely open gangway trains I could place one police officer on every train and because of the gangways they could respond to any issue in any car within seconds. i don't see the problem here.

As before, is there enough police officers to do this? For the record, the TTC ALSO uses 2 person crews, but I wonder with the adoption of ATC if that will be phased out to 1 person. We have the driver and the guard, which I assume have the same responsibilities as the motorman and conductor. (The conductor just keeps their eyes on the platform and closes the doors when it's safe to do so, right?)

 

On 3/3/2021 at 2:56 AM, GojiMet86 said:

Toronto has decided to go forward with longer, open-gangway sets. The older T1 trains are always put into 6-car consists, peak or off-peak, so there goes the ridership argument.

 

Not 100% true, the trainsets on Line 4 Sheppard have always consisted of 4 cars. First they used the T1s in 4 car formation when the line opened in 2002, and then eventually shifted to a Toronto Rocket that is 4 "cars" long in 2016 or so. (For the record, the Sheppard stations all have knockout panels in which the platforms can easily be extended, but I highly doubt that will ever happen considering the future plans to this incredibly political subway line, Sheppard-Yonge station even has a spanish solution that is designed but currently not used)