News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
A Message to Our Readers
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
EarthCam Time-Lapse Documents Rafael Viñoly-Designed New Stanford Hospital Construction
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
Resort Town
 4.7K     0 

SSE mentioned in the IO CEO's letter and the latest market update.

October 2021 Market Update

The October 2021 Market Update affirms Ontario’s historic commitment to modernizing the province’s public assets, including hospitals, highways, public transit, children’s treatment centres, courthouses and correctional facilities.
www.infrastructureontario.ca www.infrastructureontario.ca
 
micheal_can said:
You are a funny person if you think the Canadian military has an almost infinite budget. We aren't the USA.
Click to expand...

Its not just budget. Its risk. There is an expectation of safety that is on a civilian transit system that is not expected in the military. You can't just MacGyver and hack parts together on a public transit system like you can in the military. There are wayyyyyy stricter standards etc for a public transit system, and I know what you will reply with "the military has strict standards too" and, they do, but nothing near what is required for the TTC and GO.

People join the military with an expected understanding that there is risks involved with such a job. People do not go on a transit system expecting the same level of risk.
 
asher__jo said:
They have a budget, but infinite is an amusing joke. The reason they make parts is because there is no budget for procuring newer equipment.
Click to expand...

Militaries have strong maintenance teams (compared to private corporations and other government departments) because supply chain disruption during war is an expected problem with potentially severe consequences. Equipment is old due to budget, but essential new equipment can be largely rebuilt by staff too.

If TTC lost 10% of their fleet tomorrow, it would be frustrating but not particularly deadly.
 
robmausser said:
Its not just budget. Its risk. There is an expectation of safety that is on a civilian transit system that is not expected in the military. You can't just MacGyver and hack parts together on a public transit system like you can in the military. There are wayyyyyy stricter standards etc for a public transit system, and I know what you will reply with "the military has strict standards too" and, they do, but nothing near what is required for the TTC and GO.

People join the military with an expected understanding that there is risks involved with such a job. People do not go on a transit system expecting the same level of risk.
Click to expand...

It isn't MacGyvered when it is made using the blueprints. The problem is, the ships we had just a few years ago, some of them were older than 40 years old.

 
micheal_can said:
You are a funny person if you think the Canadian military has an almost infinite budget. We aren't the USA.
Click to expand...
While there was more than a little bit of sarcasm in my statement, the truth is that there is more than a bit of reality to it, too.

The TTC, and other transit agencies too, do many bespoke parts all of the time. The problem is that from a cost-benefit point, it is hugely resource intensive to do so, and so the agencies are far better served to buy off-the-shelf as much as possible. And sure, there is also a safety implication to it too.

While the above is absolutely applicable for the military, the equipment that they are buying is highly customized and for which off-the-shelf is usually not usually an option. Thus, there is always going to be the expectation that some amount of in-house fabrication is going to be needed over the lifetime of the equipment to keep it operable. And that's not even going into the long, storied tradition that the military has of make-do-and-mend on the battlefield and away from home, which results in even more customization and specialization to the equipment. Doing that in a transit sense is often seen as a detriment, not a positive.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
While there was more than a little bit of sarcasm in my statement, the truth is that there is more than a bit of reality to it, too.

The TTC, and other transit agencies too, do many bespoke parts all of the time. The problem is that from a cost-benefit point, it is hugely resource intensive to do so, and so the agencies are far better served to buy off-the-shelf as much as possible. And sure, there is also a safety implication to it too.

While the above is absolutely applicable for the military, the equipment that they are buying is highly customized and for which off-the-shelf is usually not usually an option. Thus, there is always going to be the expectation that some amount of in-house fabrication is going to be needed over the lifetime of the equipment to keep it operable. And that's not even going into the long, storied tradition that the military has of make-do-and-mend on the battlefield and away from home, which results in even more customization and specialization to the equipment. Doing that in a transit sense is often seen as a detriment, not a positive.

Dan
Click to expand...

We are making the parts,, not because the part is special. We make them because it is too old for the original manufacturer to produce it.
 
micheal_can said:
We are making the parts,, not because the part is special. We make them because it is too old for the original manufacturer to produce it.
Click to expand...
They have been doing that with the SRT but ther are some parts that can't be made anymore or sourced like all of the 1980's computer parts. The TTC also did that with parts for the CLRV's and ALRV's too they actually used to have a full-time blacksmith working for them.
 
micheal_can said:
We are making the parts,, not because the part is special. We make them because it is too old for the original manufacturer to produce it.
Click to expand...
It's both.

What do you think is a better use of time - buying an installing an off-the-shelf part and installing it, or having to make one?

This is why older transit vehicles get retired when they do - the parts become hard to come by and in some cases need to get made. Take, for instance, the CLRVs - sure, they could have kept them running for a couple more years. But they are now so old that most of the OEMs don't build the parts used in them anymore, and so the TTC has to either build new parts to fix them, or modify different parts to fit. And that still takes time and effort to do.

Going back to the military analogy, there is absolutely a case where they will absolutely bolt up direct replacements - where direct replacements exist and are available. But if you're in the middle of Afganistan or Serbia, and you don't know when those replacements will arrive but you have something else which may work, then you make-do-and-mend.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
It's both.

What do you think is a better use of time - buying an installing an off-the-shelf part and installing it, or having to make one?

This is why older transit vehicles get retired when they do - the parts become hard to come by and in some cases need to get made. Take, for instance, the CLRVs - sure, they could have kept them running for a couple more years. But they are now so old that most of the OEMs don't build the parts used in them anymore, and so the TTC has to either build new parts to fix them, or modify different parts to fit. And that still takes time and effort to do.

Going back to the military analogy, there is absolutely a case where they will absolutely bolt up direct replacements - where direct replacements exist and are available. But if you're in the middle of Afganistan or Serbia, and you don't know when those replacements will arrive but you have something else which may work, then you make-do-and-mend.

Dan
Click to expand...
Actually, they bring spare parts to Afghanistan or anywhere else that has a Forward Operating Base (FOB)
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top