^There are cowling panels that go over the roof equipment that are missing from the above train but are present on the UP train photo (and appear in all the renders), so we can probably assume that one wasn't fully shrouded for modesty yet. It's altogether possible there are also meant to be some panels to cover some of the undercarriage gear, but the renders and UP photo are not as helpful.
 
smallspy said:
More specifically, a Bombardier-built Vlocity 160 trainset.

Which may actually meet most of our crashworthiness standards and regulations, unlike European equipment.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Click to expand...

ShonTron said:
It should. Australia's railway operations are actually quite similar to Canada's in many ways.
Click to expand...

Damn you for making me waste a particular dorky hour Googling about trains.

According to what I could scrounge up like this link, Australia apparently follows the European UIC standards rather than the American FRA ones.

If the VLocity was close enough to meeting FRA regs with a few tweaks and pokes, I suspect we would have seen Bombardier at least put a bid in on some recent North American EMU or DMU procurements. My research is shaky at best, but I can't think of and couldn't find any examples of Bombardier even showing up to play in that segment in more than a decade.

Indeed, Bombardier has really been doing very little in North America in the non-FRA DMU market, either --- and that's with the off-the-shelf Talent proven across the pond: they bid for and lost the contract for replacement O-Trains in Ottawa, didn't bid for eBART, kicked the tires on proposing the Talent as a non-FRA compliant option for SMART and then didn't bid, and if they were in the mix for the likes of Austin, Denton County or Oceanside orders they certainly didn't leave any online tracks for me to find.
 
Platform 27 said:
Damn you for making me waste a particular dorky hour Googling about trains.

According to what I could scrounge up like this link, Australia apparently follows the European UIC standards rather than the American FRA ones.

If the VLocity was close enough to meeting FRA regs with a few tweaks and pokes, I suspect we would have seen Bombardier at least put a bid in on some recent North American EMU or DMU procurements. My research is shaky at best, but I can't think of and couldn't find any examples of Bombardier even showing up to play in that segment in more than a decade.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing - I don't think that it's nearly that cut-and-dried in Australia.

You see, on top of the British designed HST, they also run in a number of places off-the-shelf US locomotives (and in some cases, former US locos modified for service there). And for a variety of different reasons, you can't run American equipment in Europe without a ton of modifications (if at all).

So, who's do they use? It may be that they differentiate the rules and regulations depending on the lines that the equipment runs on. I honestly don't know. It kinda blows me away, to be honest.

Platform 27 said:
Indeed, Bombardier has really been doing very little in North America in the non-FRA DMU market, either --- and that's with the off-the-shelf Talent proven across the pond: they bid for and lost the contract for replacement O-Trains in Ottawa, didn't bid for eBART, kicked the tires on proposing the Talent as a non-FRA compliant option for SMART and then didn't bid, and if they were in the mix for the likes of Austin, Denton County or Oceanside orders they certainly didn't leave any online tracks for me to find.
Click to expand...

They haven't be too interested in the non-FRA self-propelled vehicle market, but they've been busy with shopping around their FRA-compliant models. They won the huge LIRR/MTA M7 order, narrowly lost to Colorado Railcar on the tender for DMUs for Portland's WES and to Nippon Sharyo for the DMUs to soon be running on SMART. They were also apparently in the running for the Silverliner V order in Philly. Perhaps they felt that direction would be more lucrative in the long run.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
robmausser said:
No problem! Glad to clear up any misunderstandings.

However, I will admit that if proper planning had been done, conversion of the rolling stock wouldnt need to happen, which will of course cost $$.

Less than completely replacing the trainset of course, but I am sure the government will find a way to make it as expensive of a conversion as possible :p
Click to expand...

While they are designed to be convertible most of the sources indicated they will not be converted. It's much easier to procure new sets.

The current number of vehicles they have ordered are borderline minimum to running the system. The most you can do is pull one consist out at a time and send it away for conversion which will take a very long time. It will be a while before you make your way through the entire fleet.
 
So this happened:
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...include_a_fee_in_lieu_of_airport_parking.html

Can anyone think of a comparable service where the airport takes a cut? I for one have no idea how much GTAA are contributing here vs Metrolinx. Presumably GTAA are thumping the table about reduced taxi and coach permit fees in addition to parking, but they should be then required to open their books to Metrolinx to demonstrate actual losses before being compensated.
 
There is an airport fee charged to passengers buying single tickets at the YVR Canada Line stations - but the airport helped fund the line, IIRC. The additional fare there doesn't apply to airport-bound passengers or those using passes.
 
If there was an open process around the construction of this link maybe I'd feel better about GTAA looking for this money, but as it stands I have to wonder about what the actual financial contribution GTAA is making here, especially since according to Island airport opponents it will drive additional traffic to them from the Island rather than merely shifting modes between car/coach and train.
 
What a PR disaster. If they didn't mention "in lieu of parking," people would have grumbled but it wouldn't have received much media attention. The fact that they are actively admitting this is a total fail on their part. This is regardless of how I actually feel btw which is that a growing airport should welcome any and all modes and not play them against each other in terms of revenue.
 
I can't believe I'm quoting user "Socialism is Evil" on the Star's comments section, but that the GTAA feel "entitled to parking revenue as a right" is exactly what it is. I don't even own a car! If I'm ever taking this train, they wouldn't have lost any parking revenue from me, I always take the TTC or taxi.

What a blatant cash grab, this shows once again that Metrolinx can be pushed around by whomever.
 
Charging rail passengers for parking they won't use sounds like an idea developed in Rogers' boardroom.
 
JasonParis said:
What a PR disaster. If they didn't mention "in lieu of parking," people would have grumbled but it wouldn't have received much media attention. The fact that they are actively admitting this is a total fail on their part. This is regardless of how I actually feel btw which is that a growing airport should welcome any and all modes and not play them against each other in terms of revenue.
Click to expand...

Absolutely....they should have just called it a contribution to the land lease the GTAA pays the federal government to compensate them for part of the land covered by the lease now under UPe operational control.
 
I trust that this fee will not be payable by people who use it to get from Weston Station to downtown... right? And that tickets will have the "GTAA MONEYGRAB" itemized?
 
Should have just called it rent as TOareaFan said. Part of it is greed on the part of GTAA (induced demand suggests that the empty parking spots will be filled up by additional cars, though i doubt they have a space crunch at their parking garages).

Part of it is lack of integration in planning. GTAA had been asking/planning for a Rail Link since at least the late 90's and wound up going at it alone to build the people mover. Metrolinx seems to be building the ARL with little consultation with GTAA aside from the path of the rail track and location of the station.

Ideally Metrolinx/GTAA should have been building this as a partnership to create a multi modal transit hub at the Airport. Instead we have a Frankenstein of grafted on projects.
 
FNTS said:
I can't believe I'm quoting user "Socialism is Evil" on the Star's comments section, but that the GTAA feel "entitled to parking revenue as a right" is exactly what it is. I don't even own a car! If I'm ever taking this train, they wouldn't have lost any parking revenue from me, I always take the TTC or taxi.

What a blatant cash grab, this shows once again that Metrolinx can be pushed around by whomever.
Click to expand...

Small Correction. The GTAA is not a government agency it is a ,somewhat, arms length corporation, just like most of Canada's major airports, they don't really answer to a government boss per se.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top