[nfitz]

No, they are very similar, but not the same. In addition to the dimensions listed above, TC cars are going to be standard gauge while rest of the legacy system is TTC gauge. So you won't be able to switch a TC vehicle right on to a legacy line.

There's other key differences. The power will be supplied by pantograph instead of trolley pole. The voltage will be difference. The Transit City vehicles will have cabs on both ends, so they can reverse without loops. They look will be quite similar, and they are both based on Bombardier's Flexity family, but they seem to be quite different beasts.

 

[W. K. Lis]

There's other key differences. The power will be supplied by pantograph instead of trolley pole. The voltage will be difference. The Transit City vehicles will have cabs on both ends, so they can reverse without loops. They look will be quite similar, and they are both based on Bombardier's Flexity family, but they seem to be quite different beasts.

It is like saying a Rolls Royce and a Smart car are the same. They are the same but are also very different.

 

[reaperexpress]

It is like saying a Rolls Royce and a Smart car are the same. They are the same but are also very different.

There's no way our LRVs are as different from our streetcars as a Smart car is from a Rolls Royce.

I think a better analogy would be "It's like saying a Mercedes A class and a Smart car are the same". Both are hatchbacks made by Mercedes-Benz, but they are also very different.

 

[rbt]

It is like saying a Rolls Royce and a Smart car are the same. They are the same but are also very different.

95% of the spare parts ordered for the streetcars will be usable and fit on the LRT. Likewise, nearly all of the mechanics training will apply equally to both vehicles.

For operational purposes they are different, for maintenance purposes they are essentially the exact same thing.

 

[smallspy]

95% of the spare parts ordered for the streetcars will be usable and fit on the LRT. Likewise, nearly all of the mechanics training will apply equally to both vehicles.

For operational purposes they are different, for maintenance purposes they are essentially the exact same thing.

Not entirely true.

The control systems will have to be quite different between the two models. The legacy cars are not going to be capable of MU'ing, and will use a lower input voltage - and will only require input from one end of each car. They will actually be quite simpler in that sense than the Transit City cars. And then there's the issue of couplers, and the potential maintenance headache that they can be.

The traction motors, gearboxes and trucks may end up being the same, but they are only one (small) part of the equation.

Dan

 

[Agram]

For those of you that have time on your hands in the next week or so the TR will be going out on a tunnel test run. Basically to see if it will hit the walls, it will be towed by an RT work car. The train we have here apparently it will be going back to Kingston for some reason, the train in Kingston is having major problems with flat wheels. Don't expect to see a full revenue train in service till around April-May.

 

[M II A II R II K]

And what is it's official name for this train, T2?

 

[reaperexpress]

And what is it's official name for this train, T2?

No it's TR

 

[TTCboy13]

No it's TR

I think he's making fun of the TR b/c It's like the repeat of what happen to the first T-1's they were sent back due to some problems. hence that's why he asked if the names for the Toronto Rocket wereT-2's.

 

[TTC12]

Well, the T1's didn't have as much issues as the H6's did.

Here's a thought, if an H5 and a T1 had a baby, H6 would come out, if you look at them, they combine features from both models.

 

[reaperexpress]

I think he's making fun of the TR b/c It's like the repeat of what happen to the first T-1's they were sent back due to some problems. hence that's why he asked if the names for the Toronto Rocket wereT-2's.

Sorry, I have trouble detecting satire in writing.

Here's a thought, if an H5 and a T1 had a baby, H6 would come out, if you look at them, they combine features from both models.

I also noticed that, but it makes sense. Bomabardier picked up where Hawker-Siddeley left off.

 

[Electrify]

The TRs is simply a rebranded name of Bombardier's Movia trains.

Ya know, looking at the specs of the train sizes, the line between heavy rail and light rail is getting quite blurred. We have "light rail" trains operating entirely in right-of-ways with protected crossings. Likewise, the Chicago Brown line also has protected crossings. If train size between the two is interchangeable, what makes the Chicago's heavy rail and Edmonton's light rail?

Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to get Transit City going. Convert our existing subway to overhead wires (there are heavy rail systems which use them instead of third rail), then operate Transit City with subway trains rather than "light rail" trains.

Okay, obviously this is not going to happen. But it could be a way to keep our rapid transit rail network standardized, and could also shut up those who want "subways" over "LRT".

 

[smallspy]

The TRs is simply a rebranded name of Bombardier's Movia trains.

And Movia is simply a title with which Bombardier happens to group all of their subway/heavy-rail projects regardless of technologies used or the system architecture.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[superman]

The TRs is simply a rebranded name of Bombardier's Movia trains.

Ya know, looking at the specs of the train sizes, the line between heavy rail and light rail is getting quite blurred. We have "light rail" trains operating entirely in right-of-ways with protected crossings. Likewise, the Chicago Brown line also has protected crossings. If train size between the two is interchangeable, what makes the Chicago's heavy rail and Edmonton's light rail?

Maybe we could use this as an opportunity to get Transit City going. Convert our existing subway to overhead wires (there are heavy rail systems which use them instead of third rail), then operate Transit City with subway trains rather than "light rail" trains.

Okay, obviously this is not going to happen. But it could be a way to keep our rapid transit rail network standardized, and could also shut up those who want "subways" over "LRT".

As you pointed out, the vehicle sizes are quite similar, which I don't think is what people are complaining about for Transit City. Rather, Transit City is not a "light rail... operating entirely in right-of-ways with protected crossings" since it is not grade separated or separated by gates. The main concern isn't about heavy rail or light rail - more about the speed improvement from having grade separation or protected crossings. If Transit City LRT runs as fast or faster than the subway, I don't think people would complain what kind of vehicle they're in. Sidenote - the LA Gold Line is a LRT with protected crossings and I'm pretty sure it operates faster than our subway. If this is what transit city is, i dont think people would have a problem with that.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Meanwhile, back in Gotham City...

Since 2005, it has been illegal to walk between the New York City subway cars. The rule states:

No person may ride on the roof, platform between subway cars or on any other area outside any subway car or bus or other conveyance operated by the Authority. No person may use the end doors of a subway car to pass from one subway car to another except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an Authority conductor or a New York City police officer.

See this link for the full article in secondavenuesagas.com.

Seems people are upset for getting fined at $75 for walking between their subway cars in New York City.