We could also go back to our roots (blatantly copying Frankfurt) and go for the Flexity Swift U5, might be more difficult since there hasn’t been any North American variants ordered.
IMG_3546.jpeg
 
TravellingChris said:
I really hope they go with the S200s like Calgary...I know in the past we've piggybacked on their orders for the SD160s resulting in a better price per unit for both cities.
Click to expand...
That's not quite accurate. Edmonton's first order were the first of the restyled SD160s. I don't recall the second group being piggybacks to Calgary's. They might have followed Calgary's on the production line, but I don't believe they were ever a piggyback onto Calgary's as Edmonton has different specs than Calgary.
 
EdwardEdm said:
That's not quite accurate. Edmonton's first order were the first of the restyled SD160s. I don't recall the second group being piggybacks to Calgary's. They might have followed Calgary's on the production line, but I don't believe they were ever a piggyback onto Calgary's as Edmonton has different specs than Calgary.
Click to expand...
No, I recall an order where Calgary purchased forty SD160s and Edmonton tacked on an order for ten. We pooled our order with theirs to get a lower price per LRV from Siemens. During a town hall for the Valley Line, I actually raised the point with reps from the City Transportation department that opting for a low-floor line meant that we would no longer be able to pool our orders with Calgary. They conceded that this had been advantageous with the Siemens LRV but pointed out that the Valley Line was a different vision of LRT.
 
TravellingChris said:
No, I recall an order where Calgary purchased forty SD160s and Edmonton tacked on an order for ten. We pooled our order with theirs to get a lower price per LRV from Siemens. During a town hall for the Valley Line, I actually raised the point with reps from the City Transportation department that opting for a low-floor line meant that we would no longer be able to pool our orders with Calgary. They conceded that this had been advantageous with the Siemens LRV but pointed out that the Valley Line was a different vision of LRT.
Click to expand...
We never had an order of 10. We had 1 order of 37 and 1 order of 20.
 
TravellingChris said:
No, I recall an order where Calgary purchased forty SD160s and Edmonton tacked on an order for ten. We pooled our order with theirs to get a lower price per LRV from Siemens. During a town hall for the Valley Line, I actually raised the point with reps from the City Transportation department that opting for a low-floor line meant that we would no longer be able to pool our orders with Calgary. They conceded that this had been advantageous with the Siemens LRV but pointed out that the Valley Line was a different vision of LRT.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that a joint order could happen when it comes time to replace the original LRVs for the Valley and Green lines. Both systems use 7-segment LRVs

Yeggy said:
I will still hope for… the Alstom
Click to expand...
Please for the sake of all that is holy, no Alstom products!!

Seamusmuldrew said:
We could also go back to our roots (blatantly copying Frankfurt) and go for the Flexity Swift U5, might be more difficult since there hasn’t been any North American variants ordered.
Click to expand...
This has always been my dream, along with the U5-KR open gangway type sets which would allow for a fully continuous 5-car train, measurably increasing passenger capacity within the same length of platform. I repainted this drawing in ETS and Calgary colors:
[edit: ironically, the U5 is now technically an Alstom product 🤣]
ets_u5.png
ct_u5.png
 
Last edited:
EdwardEdm said:
That's not quite accurate. Edmonton's first order were the first of the restyled SD160s. I don't recall the second group being piggybacks to Calgary's. They might have followed Calgary's on the production line, but I don't believe they were ever a piggyback onto Calgary's as Edmonton has different specs than Calgary.
Click to expand...
TravellingChris said:
No, I recall an order where Calgary purchased forty SD160s and Edmonton tacked on an order for ten. We pooled our order with theirs to get a lower price per LRV from Siemens. During a town hall for the Valley Line, I actually raised the point with reps from the City Transportation department that opting for a low-floor line meant that we would no longer be able to pool our orders with Calgary. They conceded that this had been advantageous with the Siemens LRV but pointed out that the Valley Line was a different vision of LRT.
Click to expand...

Well at least the conversations are happening for potential joint orders in the future for the high floor fleet:
Administration continues to have conversations with the City of Calgary about possible joint LRV procurement opportunities...
Click to expand...
An advantage of S200s would be the fact that in the past 8 or so years of operation, Calgary Transit and SF MUNI have already gone through most of the teething pains with these trains unlike a new vehicle from a different manufacturer
 
Last edited:
whatchyyc said:
This has always been my dream, along with the U5-KR open gangway type sets which would allow for a fully continuous 5-car train, measurably increasing passenger capacity within the same length of platform. I repainted this drawing in ETS and Calgary colors:
[edit: ironically, the U5 is now technically an Alstom product 🤣]
View attachment 522091View attachment 522090
Click to expand...
Oooh I like this haha thanks for making that
 
Re: Please for the sake of all that is holy, no Alstom products!!

They will be built in Canada. I stand by Alstom.

The new Lrv’s will be made by the Hyundai Rotem Company. I wonder if the pacific free trade agreement opened up a foreign supplier.
 
Last edited:
Seamusmuldrew said:
We could also go back to our roots (blatantly copying Frankfurt) and go for the Flexity Swift U5, might be more difficult since there hasn’t been any North American variants ordered.
Click to expand...

Minneapolis runs a low floor version of the Flexity Swift, so, there is indeed a North American variant. It a 70% low floor LRV, so high floor at the ends above the powered trucks and low floor in the middle.
whatchyyc said:
Please for the sake of all that is holy, no Alstom products!!


This has always been my dream, along with the U5-KR open gangway type sets which would allow for a fully continuous 5-car train, measurably increasing passenger capacity within the same length of platform. I repainted this drawing in ETS and Calgary colors:
[edit: ironically, the U5 is now technically an Alstom product 🤣]
Click to expand...
What's wrong with Alstom?
I have heard rumors that the new LRV order could be single ended vehicles. Whether that means connected with a gangway like the U5-50, or more like Portland's S70's which are coupled conventionally and just have extra seating space, I'm not sure.
 
whatchyyc said:
Seems like all their new mfg has problems like the Ottawa Citadis and the Avelia Liberty
Click to expand...
Re Ottawa. Alstom was not the initial bid winner, the lrv’s were to be supplied by a Spanish company that was disqualified. Opportunities to optimize LRV’s to track design were lost.

Next, Ottawa demanded near subway levels of capacity from an lrt. The train designs for Ottawa did not exist when Alstom was brought on board. The changes made to the lrv’s to meet ottawa’s demands were untested in other markets.

Alstom LRV’s, metros and commuter rail livery systems operate the world over without issue. Ottawas embarrassing system is not Alstom’s making alone.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top