[Allandale25]

I interpret this to say that the construction forces have generally demobilised, except for where they are performing commissioning and testing and/or correcting defects.



Drives me crazy how the ML Board tosses easy pitches. So, what was the comparable statistic for the past two quarters (I should look these up, but if ML were running proper metric-based reporting we wouldn't have to) 69.2% sounds impressive - but only if it's a significant movement from a quarter or six months ago.



To be balanced, this does sound like progress.



Back to my last-quarter question. Only five of 46 complete does not sound like "systematic steady progress", especially if the number reported last quarter was non-zero. How many are projected to be complete by the next quarterly report?

The bigger-league question that never seems to be pitched: there have been rumoured or reported structural deficiencies, some of which while never voiced officially sure sounded serious, eg the alleged defects in the underpinning at Eglinton-Yonge. So, to set the record straight once and for all - has ML concluded that there are no serious quality concerns and/or outstanding issues which would require some significant further construction work? Is the entire structure built to the quality expected and life span as contracted? Are any of the remaining 41 seen as problemmatic?

Second big league question - of the remaining known defects and correction orders that are being worked down, which one has the longest projected time to completion? (Another way of asking - if something is at least x months from correction, that would mean no opening for that many months yet, right?)



Basic math then says that if we are running a bedding period of 2-3 months and the intent is to not announce a starting date until 3 months prior to opening, the start of the bedding period is a big hint about opening date.... but even then we will have to see how well the full test performs.

- Paul

Re comparable stats...it would take digging but I remember posting them from the February Board meeting where I think Verster did a similar verbal update. It also goes back to the Fall of 2023 when they had a display board for media at a press conference (or two).

 

[Coolibop]

... so that we can get to a completion of training and [so that] services can start in in year - - in the months to follow;

Was that a slip of what they hope to achieve (by year end)?

 

[Allandale25]

Was that a slip of what they hope to achieve (by year end)?

I didn't really do any heavy editing in that section from the transcript YouTube made. So for greater clarity you may want to click on the time marked link and go to that section in the transcript to listen for yourself.

 

[Coolibop]

I didn't really do any heavy editing in that section from the transcript YouTube made. So for greater clarity you may want to click on the time marked link and go to that section in the transcript to listen for yourself.

I did. 16:15. The transcript is accurate.

 

[Parkdalian]

Well, I guess it's good that he didn't slip up and say "years to follow" - at least the outer bound is a year?

 

[grammin]

Thanks for the great summary on here. I thought this was a much more positive presentation than we have seen in recent times. I think, I hope, that the TTC is taking what appears to be a very positive approach to this will really boost the progress through. Enthusiasm is infectious.

I note that they received their version 6 software a month or two earlier as Versteer had said it was going to be a June update at the earliest. They seem to have gotten well ahead of that.

I was intrigued that the Ontario Line stations are being dug out ahead of the bores, this is a sea change from the approach at Crosstown and the west extension is it not? Would save a tonne of time.

 

[generalcanada]

Thanks for the great summary on here. I thought this was a much more positive presentation than we have seen in recent times. I think, I hope, that the TTC is taking what appears to be a very positive approach to this will really boost the progress through. Enthusiasm is infectious.

I note that they received their version 6 software a month or two earlier as Versteer had said it was going to be a June update at the earliest. They seem to have gotten well ahead of that.

I was intrigued that the Ontario Line stations are being dug out ahead of the bores, this is a sea change from the approach at Crosstown and the west extension is it not? Would save a tonne of time.

I think it was mentioned for the Ontario line presentation that they want the station excavated before the TBM's reach the stations and i quote "so they can push them through"

 

[smallspy]

I’m surprised they can say construction is basically finished and they are only testing and doing integration work while Eglinton station shows there is still lots of work to do to get Eglinton on Yonge line ready. Unless the plan is to leave Eglinton on Yonge line in a decrepit state unworthy of a new transfer station.

There is very, very little to do left at Yonge & Eglinton, at least when it comes to serious work. Almost all of the street-level work is completed, and they haven been steadily removing the hording from around the various vertical accesses and passageways within the existing station.

There may be some small deficiencies left to correct, but the picture to those of us who use the station regularly is that it is opening soon.

(Of course, we know that "soon" is a pretty subjective thing, but after all that has gone on, it does seem like there is a light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.)

Dan

 

[jordanmkasla2009]

Back to my last-quarter question. Only five of 46 complete does not sound like "systematic steady progress", especially if the number reported last quarter was non-zero. How many are projected to be complete by the next quarterly report?

The bigger-league question that never seems to be pitched: there have been rumoured or reported structural deficiencies, some of which while never voiced officially sure sounded serious, eg the alleged defects in the underpinning at Eglinton-Yonge. So, to set the record straight once and for all - has ML concluded that there are no serious quality concerns and/or outstanding issues which would require some significant further construction work? Is the entire structure built to the quality expected and life span as contracted? Are any of the remaining 41 seen as problemmatic?

Second big league question - of the remaining known defects and correction orders that are being worked down, which one has the longest projected time to completion? (Another way of asking - if something is at least x months from correction, that would mean no opening for that many months yet, right?)

A lot of the certificates are very site-specific and there may be multiple certificates that will be issued for certain sites (i.e. Cedarvale, Eglinton-Yonge).

The underpinning of Eglinton-Yonge was a well-known and public problem as they had to pause work on underpinning the station in order to reinforce the caissons of Eglinton-Yonge as those (built in the 1950s) had deteriorated more than anticipated over the almost 70 years of it's life and were now defective and needed serious work to correct. That work contributed heavily to the delays in construction of the Eglington-Yonge Lower Concourse and Eglinton-Yonge Lower Station as there were fears that the underpinning work itself might cause the caissons to fail and significantly affect the structural integrity of both the existing station and the underpinning work they were doing.

I think if the caissons on Eglinton are any indication of anticipated lifespan (which I wouldn't even begin to know where to find that kind of information about them since they were built in the '50s) versus actual lifespan its that you can build for 100 year lifespans and still have things fail prematurely (looking at you Calgary's water transmission trunk main). NB: Now that Metrolinx knows that the caissons were failing prematurely at Eglinton they'll be able to anticipate the possibility of that being the case at Queen Station on the Ontario Line as well and will likely have factored that possibility into the work that will happen there as well.

Let's just see where we are after all the rail grinding is 100% completed as that would give everyone a better indication of what defects still remain.

 

[Aplus23]

Just seen some work crews doing track grinding at Eglinton and warden

 

[fanoftoronto]

I found this quote from 6 months ago on Reddit in the TTC subreddit providing an answer on comparison between the Flexity Freedom and Citadis Spirit, supposedly from one of the testing operators.

Of note, there's a statement in the quote stating that the reason for the delay is the difference between operating modes between the surface and grade separated portions of the line. I've bolded the relevant section in the quote below:

Im one of the testing operators for the Eglinton Crosstown LRT.. even tho the track gauge is the exact same both the Flexity and Citadis are completely differently vehicles and will not be interchangeable because of that. The original plan was for all the lines to use Flexity vehicles but due to Bombardier being late delivering the first vehicles: Metrolinx cancelled the contract and gave a new contract to Alstom (Prior to Alstom taking over Bombardier) Thus thats why all the other lines (Finch, Hurontario) will have different cars than Eglinton.

For starters on Line 5 Eglinton - each train car is considerably smaller compared to the finch line (Flexity cars are the exact same as the current TTC Streetcar) thus will always have a minimum of 2 units coupled together at all times on the line. These trains also have CBTC (Communications Based Train Control aka a moving block) but also have UTO and ATO mode available. All trains on the line 5 will run in ATO mode (Automatic Train Operation) between Mount Dennis and Laird (The tunnel section) and at Laird station Eastbound trains will switch to ATP-M Mode (Essentially becoming a streetcar) - while Westbound Trains switch into ATO mode. The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar. Straight up UTO and ATO are some of the biggest reasons Line 5 is not open yet. Trains keep randomly emergency braking in ATO mode causing wheels to go flat. Metrolinx is too scared to tell the public this or just be honest about anything with the line in general.

The line 6 Finch West LRT will instead use Alstom Citadis trains (Same fleet as the O-Train disaster in Ottawa). The Citadis are much longer trains (1 car length is approximately a car and a half when compared to Flexity vehicles). So these trains will all run as single units and not be coupled together. Like Line 5 these trains will also have CBTC and ATP-M but unlike Line 5, these trains will not have UTO or ATO Mode due to the whole line being in the in the middle of the road street like a streetcar for the entire line. The Citadis train cars are much longer compared to the Flexity cars, are simpler to operate but the downside is the drivers cab on the Alstom vehicles is significantly smaller, so if you're very tall or very large youll have a hard time getting comfortable in the drivers seat. The layout of the passenger doors on the Alstom train doesnt make any sense and will bother commuters (They really should of copied the simple and efficient flexity door layout) but otherwise these cars will be alot easier to run and maintain due to them being run as a single unit and having less computer systems.Line 5 Eglinton is supposed to be getting a few of the Alstom cars to supplement the Eglinton west extention but these cars will also have UTO / ATO mode so they will not be used on the finch line and will also be run as single units. No flexity vehicles will ever run as single units in service.

Overall if you took out the computer systems and took away the things like UTO/ATO the Bombardier Flexity trains would be the superior vehicle.

They should of just made both of these lines regular TTC streetcar routes, they both would have been long opened by now.

Absolutely no way to source check the information presented but figured I'd bring this forward for discussion. Also, I'm choosing to fully reject the last statement regarding making both these routes as streetcar routes! I don't even know what that means!

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Even taken at face value, this isn’t actually identifying genuine incompatibility in any sense but the fleets not being interchangeable with zero modification. Frankly it reads as being FUD on the level of the regular proclamations we saw over the years that TTC gauge made anything approaching a standard streetcar impossible.

 

[T3G]

I would accept "The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar." as an argument if the cars in question were refurbished PCCs. Either this is misinformation (assume everything on Reddit is garbage unless otherwise indicated), or otherwise it says a lot of very negative things about BBD's signalling division that they couldn't figure out how to enable line of sight operation on a signalling system. But I'm going with the former, Reddit is like Facebook for those who think they are too cool for Facebook.

 

[Aplus23]

Wait, is the west extension a separate line that will be a transfer? Or one day will we have 1 line from renforth to Kennedy?

 

[Voltz]

I would accept "The trains were not designed for this, they were designed to be a regular streetcar." as an argument if the cars in question were refurbished PCCs. Either this is misinformation (assume everything on Reddit is garbage unless otherwise indicated), or otherwise it says a lot of very negative things about BBD's signalling division that they couldn't figure out how to enable line of sight operation on a signalling system. But I'm going with the former, Reddit is like Facebook for those who think they are too cool for Facebook.

I disagree with that argument also, the same vehicles are being used as LRT elsewhere, and there are differences between the Eglinton vehicles and the downtown streetcars, such as width, doors, number of motors, turn radius.