[smallspy]

While I personally do not know the Royson James twatiness factor for myself, whether his numbers are skewed or not, you bring no evidence yourself to refute his claims, besides anecdotal evidence and opinions.

Empirical evidence will only be refuted when better evidence is given in its place, not calling someone a twat.

So until you do so, I will have to believe what I see as the most reputable source of information, which at this point are the articles I posted.

You can believe whatever you like to believe. Personally, I try to glean my knowledge from the source - the TTC's own public reports (plus whatever access to others I can get). If you choose to believe the second-hand knowledge of someone in a position of power without doing the research, you're more than welcome to do so.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I'm not going to argue the SRT technology should be kept or extended to other lines, but the TTC isn't getting rid of the SRT because it's unreliable. It's unreliable because the TTC is getting rid of it. A decision was made years ago to replace it with LRT, then subway, so the bare minimum of maintenance was done, and of course no new vehicles were (or could be) procured. Except now that it needs to be kept running another 10 years, we magically find that the existing equipment and line can be kept going for 10 years for about a 20th of what the replacement will cost.

And while we're at it, it's not that unreliable to begin with. The latest TTC monthly scorecard gives it a 98% rating, second only to Sheppard and higher than the 2 major subway lines.

Yes, it has snow issues and is a technological orphan, but let's keep those in perspective.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The TTC wouldn't have been so eager to get rid of it if it weren't based on proporotary Bombardier technology. Then the TTC would be able to buy newer generation trains, without having to rebuild parts of the line, as ICTS MARK 2 requires.

And isn't it impossible for the TTC to source many new parts for the ICTS vehicles, including computer components for the ATO?

Anwyays either way I'm glad to see the ICTS go. Using proprietary vehicles, who's only major benefits over LRT are faster acceleration speeds and slightly smaller sizes due to no on board engine, seems a little silly to me.

There's a reason why so few cities have chosen to use this tech for legitimate mass transit systems (I'm excluding people movers and specialty lines for airports, theme parks, etc...)

 

[Forgotten]

Whats wrong with Line 3? It has the highest reliability of any of the lines in the TTC

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...lect-of-scarborough-rt-is-shameful-james.html

“Notwithstanding criticisms and misinformation over the years, the Scarborough RT has been the single most-reliable service operated by the TTC.â€

Ontop of that, it was supposed and could have simply been refurbished and extended for a fraction of the cost of LRT, and thats what a transit study suggested to do.

It was Miller and his "LRT for every route ever City" that called for the RT to be replaced by LRT. There was zero need to.

http://torontoist.com/2012/02/after-the-vote-what-does-the-future-hold-for-council-and-the-ttc/

http://coderedto.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2010_Scarborough_RT_Trans_Report.pdf

"According to initial plans, the Scarborough RT was to be refurbished and extended northeast to Malvern Centre."


There is nothing nor ever was anything wrong with Line 3.

You're going to take the word of a known subway hater just because?

He should change his name to Michael Schillabas. His prejudices are well known to anyone who is the least bit informed. He's a crackpot who should be ignored.

 

[44 North]

I'd hardly call Schabas a "subway hater". Although he doesn't support a DRL, he does support non-416 subways like the Vaughan ext, and (an express) Yonge North. So he's pretty much like Rob Ford in terms of selective subway support.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I'd hardly call Schabas a "subway hater". Although he doesn't support a DRL, he does support non-416 subways like the Vaughan ext, and (an express) Yonge North. So he's pretty much like Rob Ford in terms of selective subway support.

Doesn't support DRT, but does support TYSSE. That's all I need to hear about Mr. Schabas.

 

[44 North]

Doesn't support DRT, but does support TYSSE. That's all I need to hear about Mr. Schabas.

Schabas is one of the few supporters of ALRT / light RT / light metro / ICTS / medium-capacity systems...(i.e subway-like transit, but done affordably). Which I tend to support. So I’ll give him credit for that. But agreed, his noncompliance on the DRL front is simply absurd.

 

[innsertnamehere]

"one of few"

might be a reason there are few.

 

[44 North]

Fair enough. But Schabs doesn’t just support Bombardier’s unique version of ICTS using LIM, he supports light RT in general (last paragraph: http://www.neptis.org/latest/news/urban-toronto-review-big-move-report ). These are definitely not proprietary, considering other companies manufacture these modes. London’s DLR is a great example of such a system. And numerous other cities from Copenhagen to Tokyo use it.

On the whole, I think standard LRT is the most optimal mode because it's so flexible. But the way I see it, for all the different ideas that were being studied during the 70s and 80s by different govt’s or institutions, ICTS is definitely one of the better ones. Grade-separated rapid transit which embraces the merits of “light†rail (i.e smaller stations than subways, more flexibility, more affordable, just as fast etc).... The only difference between it and standard LRT is that it can’t run in traffic. Other programs at the time pushed oddball ideas like TurboTrains, or PRT (which is still pushed to this day, and embraced by places like Markham for "urban" developments). IMO ALRT is a helluva lot better than PRT, which everyone knows cannot be taken seriously.

 

[smallspy]

I'm not going to argue the SRT technology should be kept or extended to other lines, but the TTC isn't getting rid of the SRT because it's unreliable. It's unreliable because the TTC is getting rid of it. A decision was made years ago to replace it with LRT, then subway, so the bare minimum of maintenance was done, and of course no new vehicles were (or could be) procured. Except now that it needs to be kept running another 10 years, we magically find that the existing equipment and line can be kept going for 10 years for about a 20th of what the replacement will cost.

And while we're at it, it's not that unreliable to begin with. The latest TTC monthly scorecard gives it a 98% rating, second only to Sheppard and higher than the 2 major subway lines.

Yes, it has snow issues and is a technological orphan, but let's keep those in perspective.

It is unreliable, and has always been unreliable when compared to the subway lines. Perhaps you weren't lucky enough to be taking it regularly 15 years ago - I was. In the winter, in heavy rain, in the hottest part of the summer, it was best to avoid it entirely, and that's what a lot of us did. While there's no debating that the TTC hasn't made the situation any better in the past couple of years, the fact of the matter is that it's never run as well as it should. And even then, with this current project to rebuild the equipment and update the computers, it's felt that it's never going to get that much better than it is today.

That 98% reliability rating is a bit misleading, as for one any train that arrives within 3 minutes - ahead or behind - of its scheduled time scores as being on-time. Two numbers that would help show its unreliability are the Mean Time Between Failures and Availability Rate - the percentage of time that a particular train that is needed to go out is actually capable of going out. Considering how many times over the years that the TTC has only been able to put out 5 trains at rush hours instead of the scheduled 6, I would suspect that the Availability Rate is quite low.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[rbt]

Fair enough. But Schabs doesn’t just support Bombardier’s unique version of ICTS using LIM, he supports light RT in general (last paragraph: http://www.neptis.org/latest/news/urban-toronto-review-big-move-report ). These are definitely not proprietary, considering other companies manufacture these modes. London’s DLR is a great example of such a system. And numerous other cities from Copenhagen to Tokyo use it.

They're entirely proprietary. Also, are you sure the DLR uses a LIM? It's 3rd rail, automated, and elevated but I don't recall seeing the LIM components (it's been a few years though). Perhaps you were thinking of the Birmingham airport shuttle?

You cannot, AFAIK, use the track LIM components from one company and the vehicle LIM components from another company. They don't intermix due to heavy patent protection. Both pieces need to be replaced when changing companies.

That means no intermixed environment, including a transition period. That means pre-ordering all vehicles from the new company, putting them in a new yard, building a test track to ensure they function, shutting down the line (for a few days, maybe week) to replace all the LIM components. Rollback, if the new vehicles end up having production issues (has TTC ever gotten a problem free vehicle?) is another week to restore the old LIM components. That's pretty nasty vendor lockin. In my industry we pay extra for significantly inferior components to avoid it because the long-term cost is much lower.

The easiest transition would be to go to normal internal motors for a few years to allow track level and yard changes, and vehicle manufacturing/delivery to be done for the new LIM based vehicle.

 

[44 North]

They're entirely proprietary.

I guess. But if that’s the case, then isn’t Toronto’s streetcar system “proprietary” – considering we require tighter turning radii, different track gauges, special wheelchair ramps? We can’t just buy one standard LRV and start using it in operation fresh out of the box...it’d take years to modify and test. And like what’s been discussed re: Sheppard and a retractable panto and 3rd rail... wouldn’t such an LRV be rendered “proprietary” too?

A lot of modifications or changes to vehicles are made to order, and don’t necessarily mean a vehicle is proprietary. How the system is run is one of the defining features of ALRT / Light Metros. I guess my point was that ALRT or Light Metros doesn’t have to mean a specific brand like Bombardier’s Innovia involving LIM. Vehicles can use overhead, or third rail, or something else. They can be purchased from different companies, with specs unique to Toronto as part of the deal.

Just like how standard LRT can be operated as if it were an ALRT (e.g like the SLRT rebuild); I guess ALRTs can be modified to run as a standard LRT. IMO it’s HOW the system is run that is the defining characteristic of ALRT / Light Metro.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I guess. But if that’s the case, then isn’t Toronto’s streetcar system “proprietary” – considering we require tighter turning radii, different track gauges, special wheelchair ramps? We can’t just buy one standard LRV and start using it in operation fresh out of the box...it’d take years to modify and test. And like what’s been discussed re: Sheppard and a retractable panto and 3rd rail... wouldn’t such an LRV be rendered “proprietary” too?

A lot of modifications or changes to vehicles are made to order, and don’t necessarily mean a vehicle is proprietary. How the system is run is one of the defining features of ALRT / Light Metros. I guess my point was that ALRT or Light Metros doesn’t have to mean a specific brand like Bombardier’s Innovia involving LIM. Vehicles can use overhead, or third rail, or something else. They can be purchased from different companies, with specs unique to Toronto as part of the deal.

Just like how standard LRT can be operated as if it were an ALRT (e.g like the SLRT rebuild); I guess ALRTs can be modified to run as a standard LRT. IMO it’s HOW the system is run that is the defining characteristic of ALRT / Light Metro.

View attachment 43698

We could have had grass on the 509, 510, and 512 right-of-ways, if it weren't for the anti-transit folks on council and in the roads department.

 

[rbt]

I guess. But if that’s the case, then isn’t Toronto’s streetcar system “proprietary” – considering we require tighter turning radii, different track gauges, special wheelchair ramps? We can’t just buy one standard LRV and start using it in operation fresh out of the box...it’d take years to modify and test.

Technically, yes, Toronto's downtown streetcars are proprietary to the TTC (not a vendor, the TTC itself). You will find that generally both old streetcars designed for the TTC and new streetcars designed for the TTC can use the system at the same time, with no complaints from the vendors.

A lot of modifications or changes to vehicles are made to order,

Bombardier may not be willing to sell Siemens their specific LIM components (necessary to work with the track pieces) to put into your new Siemens SRT replacement trains.

You can remove the track level LIM components and install new LIM components from the new vendor; but you have zero transition time. One day you run Bombardier equipment and the next production day you run the new vendors stuff. I went through this in my last post; you need a new yard, full delivery of all vehicles, a separate test track to ensure the new vehicles actually work, plus a line shutdown period.

Just like how standard LRT can be operated as if it were an ALRT (e.g like the SLRT rebuild); I guess ALRTs can be modified to run as a standard LRT. IMO it’s HOW the system is run that is the defining characteristic of ALRT / Light Metro.

I have nothing against high floor LRT vehicles with automated signalling/driving. Nothing there locks your next rolling stock purchase into the vendor who provided the last set. Signalling/automation could have but those companies happily install their kits into all vendors trains; again, Bombardier will NOT install their LIM gear into a competitors train.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

I guess. But if that’s the case, then isn’t Toronto’s streetcar system “proprietary” – considering we require tighter turning radii, different track gauges, special wheelchair ramps? We can’t just buy one standard LRV and start using it in operation fresh out of the box...it’d take years to modify and test. And like what’s been discussed re: Sheppard and a retractable panto and 3rd rail... wouldn’t such an LRV be rendered “proprietary” too?

A lot of modifications or changes to vehicles are made to order, and don’t necessarily mean a vehicle is proprietary. How the system is run is one of the defining features of ALRT / Light Metros. I guess my point was that ALRT or Light Metros doesn’t have to mean a specific brand like Bombardier’s Innovia involving LIM. Vehicles can use overhead, or third rail, or something else. They can be purchased from different companies, with specs unique to Toronto as part of the deal.

Just like how standard LRT can be operated as if it were an ALRT (e.g like the SLRT rebuild); I guess ALRTs can be modified to run as a standard LRT. IMO it’s HOW the system is run that is the defining characteristic of ALRT / Light Metro.

View attachment 43698

No, Toronto's streetcar system isn't proprietary. Anyone can design vehicles for the system without running into patent troubles.