Solid Snake
Active Member
my bad, wrong line
|
|
|
- Thread starter New_EastYork
- Start date
Asterix
Active Member
Do you have any particular inside information from Bombardier to this effect?
As I've mentioned before, I'm always skeptical of message board posters who say things can "easily be done" when talking about multi-million dollar projects or contracts. Anyone who thinks complex things are "easy" very likely doesn't understand the full picture or all the implications.
Fair enough. Can you think of any reason why Bombardier wouldn't want to revamp a contract that would a) generate more money for them, and b) increase the exposure of their ICTS technology in North America?
Solid Snake
Active Member
Fair enough, but it's a 2 way relationship. Bombardier needs those contracts to keep their revenues up and jobs in Thunder Bay. If the new order is at least the same value or more than the previous order, why on earth would you impose penalty fees just for the sake of it? That's just not how you do business and I studied in that area. Bombardier certainly doesn't want to lose their business with the City of Toronto. They wouldn't risk losing any future orders to the competition over that (at the condition that the order is modified or upgraded)
Just cancelling the whole thing, then yes you are 100% correct...We would have to pay the penalty for sure EX:The case of the Legacy Streetcar vehicule was about Ford cancelling it, period.
A contract can be renegociated if both parties agree to do so and if it benefits both parties. TTC/Metrolinx ordering Mark II vehicules and new TR trains would be beneficial for both parties. Why Bombardier would impose penalty fees for the cancellation of the LRT vehicules if that same order is being replace by Mark II vehicules and more TR trains?
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Bombardier would certainly want to keep the TTC as a customer, but the question is whether they need to allow the TTC to change the contract to do so. I think it's likely that the TTC will suffer through whatever is thrown at them because Bombardier is the only remaining Canadian rail manufacturer. That puts Bombardier very powerful position, so I wouldn't put it past them to charge unfair fees.
Asterix
Active Member
Several points:
- Isn't this order being paid for by the province, which would have its own incentives to keep jobs in Thunder Bay, even at the expense of higher prices than some Chinese manufacturer? Who else do you see the province choosing to purchase from (especially if any contract change fees can be dumped on Toronto and not the provincial treasury)?
- Wouldn't Bombardier have already invested time (and money) in the existing contract, even if actual production work hadn't started? It's not like they wouldn't do any work before the first rivet is applied. That would all be lost if they were to start from scratch with a new contract. As a private company with a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, I'd expect they'd want to be compensated to some degree for work that was wasted due to no fault of their own.
I would imagine the majority of the work would be building a prototype or doing detailed design work. This would work continue, because there are other LRT lines (possibly) that will still be using these trains. The only thing that would change would be the quantity of the order.
Dan416
Senior Member
I think the LRVs for Eglinton will be kept. The Sheppard ones and SLRT ones are the only ones we really need to dispose of. And now that Metrolinx is in charge, it can give them to Hurontario and Hamilton instead.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I don't see why Bombardier would wave a cancellation fee to replace it with subway. Bombardier already gets all of the TTC contracts despite the fact that the TTC pretends it is an open bidding process. If the TTC wants the trains and want the province to pay for them it would demand the work be done in ontario which means Bombardier.
On the other hand I could see them wave a penalty if Toronto was to go with SkyTrain as it would be huge exposure for the technology which Bombardier wants. It has Vancouver but getting the third largest transit system in NA to construct a major SkyTrain trunk line would be very beneficial for Bombardier. By building in the heating mechanisms it would also help raise it's profile in cities with colder climates.
If they wave the cancellation fee for the LRT to switch it to SkyTrain then Bombardier would still get a equivalent dollar value but get the exposure the technology needs outside of Vancouver. Bombardier could also extol the fact that Toronto was so impressed with the technology , even if it's a lie, that they decided to expand the system.
On the other hand I could see them wave a penalty if Toronto was to go with SkyTrain as it would be huge exposure for the technology which Bombardier wants. It has Vancouver but getting the third largest transit system in NA to construct a major SkyTrain trunk line would be very beneficial for Bombardier. By building in the heating mechanisms it would also help raise it's profile in cities with colder climates.
If they wave the cancellation fee for the LRT to switch it to SkyTrain then Bombardier would still get a equivalent dollar value but get the exposure the technology needs outside of Vancouver. Bombardier could also extol the fact that Toronto was so impressed with the technology , even if it's a lie, that they decided to expand the system.
EnviroTO
Senior Member
So can LRT if fully grade separated.
They are newer than the CLRVs and need replacement.
LRVs can have third rails if fully grade separated (although I'm not sure it is a benefit)
Hey... here is a single point where ART might actually have a more impressive stats. I actually haven't found any numbers to confirm it but it is plausible. Is it worth the non-standard vehicles? LRTs can to 0-60mph in about 20 seconds which is faster than most people standing can handle. Taking off like a race-car isn't nice for granny who hasn't got to her seat yet. This isn't high-speed rail where everyone has a seat.
This is true. Metrolinx may just request a later delivery date of some of the LRVs (what's the projected opening for Hurontario? 2020?), and then sign a new contract for the ICTS trains. That way it's an even sweeter deal for Bombardier, because not only are they building the same number of LRVs, they're also getting an ICTS contract on top of it. I wonder how hard Bombardier is lobbying for Eglinton to be redesigned as ICTS. We all know that was Metrolinx' preference when the process began, it was the TTC that pushed for LRT.
And I have to say, I'm warming up to the idea of the SRT being upgraded to Mark II and then being interlined with the Eglinton line. This will basically ensure that the Eglinton line gets a decent ridership right from the get-go (8,000-10,000 pphpd from the SRT alone), and it will reduce pressure on Bloor-Yonge, as these passengers will be boarding at Eglinton-Yonge instead. Bad news for those at St. Clair et al though, as their waits will get a bit longer. It also eliminates a forced transfer at Kennedy. The transfer will still be there, but it will be optional for people who are going downtown. Plus doing it as ICTS would ensure the entire line is grade-separated, which is something I've wanted from Day 1. Doing it as ICTS would also force the TTC to examine other options for the western portion, including the Richview corridor (something I've also been pushing for since Day 1).
My biggest issue with the current plan is the forced transfer at Kennedy. Any plan that eliminates that, and involves a grade-separated line, I'm good with.
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The Transit City plan also planned interlining between the SLRT and the Eglinton Line. It was shown in the presentations about the Kennedy station rebuild.
It seems that the biggest advantage that people are citing about ICTS is that it forces the TTC to grade separate the line. It seems kind of pointless because you can get exactly the same results at a lower cost with LRT. All we need to do is pressure the TTC to do it. It shouldn't be too hard to get widespread support: it benefits everyone: cyclists, pedestrians and drivers.
Yes, but the TTC has never really made a commitment to run the SLRT and the ECLRT as one continuous line. Every map and report generated about Transit City distintly shows them as two separate lines. There's also an interlining between the Yonge and Sheppard Subways at Sheppard-Yonge, but that doesn't necessarily mean it will ever be used in operation.
It's not pointless if the TTC refuses to grade-separate the line. The mantra throughout Transit City is "grade separate only where it's absolutely unfeasable to not run in-median and at-grade". Metrolinx imposing ICTS as the technology gets the TTC out of that mindset. I'm not opposed to LRT either, I'm just saying, with ICTS it removes the temptation for the TTC to slip back into that 'everything at-grade and in-median' mentality that dominates TC. Leaving it as LRT still allows the TTC further down the road, once Ford is out of office, to start skimping again.
kd86
New Member
Well said. Interlining a proposed Eglinton Skytrain with the current srt would help with the transfer issue at Kenned. This would also open the doors further expansion on the BD east along Eglinton once ridership supports it..
Plus Skytrain vehicles would fit perfectly in the tunnels currently proposed for Eginton.
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I, as you know, would have built the whole Eglinton line as Monorail as SaoPaulo is doing with it's new Bomardier Monorail system. They are quiet, fast, have great curve and incline ability, due to rubber wheels they are very quiet and the tracks are covered so snow and ice is irrelevant.
The trouble is that it would still mean ripping down an entire transit line. Those wasted funds would go a long way to system expansion and a STC-Eglinton-Pearson route make very good sense. Also a great advantage is that the TTC already has a SkyTrain garage and control centre which are expensive to build. That alone would save a lot of funds. SkyTrain would work exceptionally well along this route and would allow for the BD line to be continue east to Kingston and beyond.
BTW, it is true that LRT can be driverless it would NEVER happen. Unless the TTC wanted the entire line with total grade separation it can't be done for obvious reasons. If the TTC chooses LRT it will have several at grade stops so it's only a driverless system in theory. That's another advantage............SkyTrain by being completely grade separated can be run with no staff which saves a fortune on the labour costs which is any transit systems biggest expense. It's operating costs would be a fraction of LRT and Ford, unlike Miller, will be more than willing to take on the powerful TTC union and now that transit has been declared an essentail service he will have the law to back him up.
The trouble is that it would still mean ripping down an entire transit line. Those wasted funds would go a long way to system expansion and a STC-Eglinton-Pearson route make very good sense. Also a great advantage is that the TTC already has a SkyTrain garage and control centre which are expensive to build. That alone would save a lot of funds. SkyTrain would work exceptionally well along this route and would allow for the BD line to be continue east to Kingston and beyond.
BTW, it is true that LRT can be driverless it would NEVER happen. Unless the TTC wanted the entire line with total grade separation it can't be done for obvious reasons. If the TTC chooses LRT it will have several at grade stops so it's only a driverless system in theory. That's another advantage............SkyTrain by being completely grade separated can be run with no staff which saves a fortune on the labour costs which is any transit systems biggest expense. It's operating costs would be a fraction of LRT and Ford, unlike Miller, will be more than willing to take on the powerful TTC union and now that transit has been declared an essentail service he will have the law to back him up.