[smallspy]

I was away for 5 days from Toronto and *of course* 4408 has not arrived yet. Saw that coming.

There were/are some very serious issues with the construction of 4408. Don't be surprised if 4409 shows up first.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Napoleon]

Do you live on BizarroSpadina? The LFLRV's are very much in the minority on the 510. This morning there was only 4400 and 4407 running but 16 CLRV's.

Yeah, I have to agree…I was in and around the area just at lunch running errands, and I saw 13 CLRV's but didn't manage to see the one LFLRV (4407) which is running on Spadina.

It's not just that I prefer riding the new streetcars, but the advantage of concentrating them versus spreading the wealth is that there's a much higher probability of being able to use Presto on a given line. Useful if you don't have coins or tokens.

 

[FC_]

It's not just that I prefer riding the new streetcars, but the advantage of concentrating them versus spreading the wealth is that there's a much higher probability of being able to use Presto on a given line. Useful if you don't have coins or tokens.

I guess its so they can claim "509 and 510 are Presto Enabled!!", assuming you wait around 30 minutes or more for a new one to show up.

Also, what is up with LFLRVs on the 510 being assigned to the King or Queens Quay loop short turns? Why aren't they dedicated to making the full run to Union? If all Union bound 510s were LFLRVs, you'd have that new streetcar presence the 509s give on Queens Quay now.

I'm admittedly a bit biased on this one, living on Queens Quay, working up on Spadina, and having had a Presto card since they first launched in Oakville. I love using Presto to get to and from work, but it's upsetting to see new streetcars looping back north instead of going to Union.

 

[robmausser]

There were/are some very serious issues with the construction of 4408. Don't be surprised if 4409 shows up first.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Was this one a result of those improperly built frames from Mexico? Did Bombardier try to rivet it together to make it work, and TTC inspection refused it?

 

[nfitz]

Was this one a result of those improperly built frames from Mexico? Did Bombardier try to rivet it together to make it work, and TTC inspection refused it?

There have been rumours floating around that 4408 was rejected by TTC because of frame issues. Given the timing of Byfield's comments, and the date they'd likely have refused 4408 based on the 4407 delivery ... then that's a reasonable guess.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Finally...

From link

 

[Voltz]

So I finally rode a new LFLRV the other day, and I couldn't believe how creaky it was! All sorts of weird noises that made it feel like the thing was not put together correctly. Is this normal? Is it due to the articulated design or because Bombardier really does have serious manufacturing problems?

I noticed the same think as well last fall, it would have been one of the first two in service, it seems the squeaking was from the interior components, such as the wall panels.

 

[W. K. Lis]

I noticed the same think as well last fall, it would have been one of the first two in service, it seems the squeaking was from the interior components, such as the wall panels.

Even new houses and buildings creak.

 

[Johnny Au]

Do you live on BizarroSpadina?

Does MetroMan live on Ishpadinaa?

 

[Amare]

I noticed the same think as well last fall, it would have been one of the first two in service, it seems the squeaking was from the interior components, such as the wall panels.

I'm definitely noticing that creakiness as well, and it really doesn't sound right. It doen't even sound like it's around the wall panels, but more around the articulation joints. I'd be curious to compare it to the Flexity Freedom's and Ottawa's Alstom Cars once these LRV's make their appearances.

 

[Duck]

Didn't all the recent articles say they ended up permanently riveting panels in place? If that's the case, as the frame twists a bit, the panels have no place to go so will distort and rub against each other in a forced way.

 

[DSC]

Didn't all the recent articles say they ended up permanently riveting panels in place? If that's the case, as the frame twists a bit, the panels have no place to go so will distort and rub against each other in a forced way.

I think that the TTC refused to accept rivets.

 

[Napoleon]

I think that the TTC refused to accept rivets.

That was indeed what I took away from Byford's statements as well. It sounded like the TTC was incredulous that Bombardier would attempt to rivet together parts that didn't fit. I'd rather have a late delivery that doesn't break than one with fundamental problems in service.

 

[smallspy]

The issue with 4408 wasn't the frame - those problems have seem to have been largely resolved.

One of the trucks was not assembled correctly underneath the car, which lead to it being located a couple of inches off of where it should have been. Rather than disassemble it and reassemble it properly, Bombardier's first answer was to "rivet it into the proper place - it'll only take us a couple of hours", to which the TTC gave an unequivocal no.

I guess the folks at Bombardier did a couple of midnight shifts to get the car completed correctly. As of 2 weeks ago it was looking like 4409 would be the next out of the factory.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Tulse]

Rather than disassemble it and reassemble it properly, Bombardier's first answer was to "rivet it into the proper place - it'll only take us a couple of hours"

Yikes. If that's their notion of quality control, I'm going to start only taking flights that don't involve C-Series jets. Seriously, how does an aerospace company get away with an attitude like this?