News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.7K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.5K     0 

The 510 had a capacity of 1250 pphpd with the CLRV. Capacity will be 3120 pphpd with the LFLRV, operating at current headways. Max capacity of the LFLRV is 3900, on the King Line

http://www.ttc.ca/PDF/About_the_TTC/DRTES_Final_Report_-_September_2012.pdf (page 18)

For 5 to 7k pphpd, you'd need coupled trains, which the LFLRV is not capable. Our Flexity Freedom LRVs can be coupled, and those will offer capacity of 15,000 pphpd on the surface, at 90 second headways with three car trainsets.

Cool, thx. That chart is handy. But I'm still not fully resolved on this issue since what rbt pointed out (using 130 passenger crowding standard). I guess 130 is an appropriate number to use since it's not realistic to achieve a steady 250 per vehicle? What initially brought me to question the capacity numbers of the LFLRVs is the discussion a couple of days ago concerning Union Loop and the volumes projected in/out of there. On the surface just east of the portal we're expected to see over 4k, and at Ferry Docks stn 5.7k (n/b) and 7.3k (s/b). Will that be achievable or does that break the threshold of what can be reliably carried by an Outlook?
 
I'm pretty skeptical about being able to fit 250 people into a Flexity during normal operations. There's no internal circulation at all, the aisles are far too narrow to fit the number of standees required for 250 while still allowing people to enter, exit, pay, etc. The seats and other interior finishes feel so bulky, too. I'm really not a fan of the interiors at all. The CLRVs have so much open space to move around in. I know low vs high floor makes a big difference on this, but still.
 
Cool, thx. That chart is handy. But I'm still not fully resolved on this issue since what rbt pointed out (using 130 passenger crowding standard). I guess 130 is an appropriate number to use since it's not realistic to achieve a steady 250 per vehicle? What initially brought me to question the capacity numbers of the LFLRVs is the discussion a couple of days ago concerning Union Loop and the volumes projected in/out of there. On the surface just east of the portal we're expected to see over 4k, and at Ferry Docks stn 5.7k (n/b) and 7.3k (s/b). Will that be achievable or does that break the threshold of what can be reliably carried by an Outlook?

7.3 pphpd southbound is 56 cars an hour (with 130 passengers per car). That's about a streetcar every 65 seconds. The TTC has historically scheduled streetcars that frequent in less friendly operating environments, so I suppose it's possible, but it doesn't sound all that reliable. 7.3k pphpd southbound is basically as many people as you're going to fit.

With 7300 pphpd, the system really should have been designed with coupled trainsets in mind. These are the same loads that were expected for Scarborough LRT and Scarborough subway extensions. Streetcars aren't enough.
 
Anybody already comment on how jerky the new streetcars are, especially when releasing the brakes from a full stop? Seems the suspension isn't quite tight enough.
 
Anybody already comment on how jerky the new streetcars are, especially when releasing the brakes from a full stop? Seems the suspension isn't quite tight enough.

Everything new and stiff. Like new stiff jeans, needs a wash or two to wear it in.
 
Sorry if the gobbledygook got in the way.

The short answer - The Germans have the know-how, so they are the trainers, and the Canadians are the trainees. Clasrooms, exchange visits, conference calls, site visits, skype meetings, management meetings, hands-on practice under German supervision first in Germany and then at T Bay - to see that the Canadians are trained, capable, following the plans, and can access the experts to solve problems as they arise.

It's challenging enough to do this between two countries on different continents, with two languages and cultures at work. But cutting it down from three to two is an exponential improvement.

The gobbledygook does all matter, actually. I don't know which of these words fits Bombardier's disfunction, but it's likely at least some of them.

Paul
Case in point was the last streetcar order, the UTDC ones. First prototypes were Swiss built, tested and (Edit: *Superficially* perfected, salt and terrible roads/railbeds weren't/couldn't be accounted for):
[...]
When the first of the sleek new low floor, air-conditioned streetcars leave Spadina station this summer it will mark the beginning of the end for the 195 iconic red, white, and black streetcars currently circulating in Toronto. At nearly 40 years old, the CLRVs, as they are technically known, hark back to a time when the TTC seriously considered doing away with surface rail entirely.

The first six CLRVs - numbers 4000 through 4005 - are particularly special. Built in Switzerland, they still feature several interior design choices not found on other TTC streetcars. The very existence of the "original six," and the streetcars that followed, is the result of a well-timed and effective citizen-led protest.
[...]
What's most impressive about streetcars 4000-4005 (and really the rest of the fleet) is their longevity. All but one remains in service thanks to a team of mechanics at the TTC's Hillcrest facility - there's even an in-house blacksmith who forges metal parts.
[...]
http://www.blogto.com/city/2014/02/days_are_numbered_for_ttcs_original_six_streetcars/

It may be due to special care not accorded to the Cdn produced examples, but the original cars stand out from the rest of the fleet by being in better shape! That's totally a subjective view, but I've noticed it more than a few times of late on the College car.
(Edit: Lemur, who posts at UT, from link above:
the lemur / February 24, 2014 at 03:05 pm
default-userpic-90.jpg

According to some of the drivers, cars 4000-4005 are better assembled and handle better than the later models.)

Whatever, the point is that the *teething problems* should be handled by the best engineers a company can find within their organization, not necessarily in charge of production. That seems to be where BBD have tripped up. There's a way to satisfy the balance of best-design to competitive production costs done domestically.
[...]
The order for ten Swiss CLRV models was cut down to just six in the late 1970s in order to provide the parts needed to build an experimental articulated version of the design. It is because of this that the CLRV fleet number jumps from 4005 to 4010 in sequence. There has never been any CLRVs numbered 4006, 4007, 4008 or 4009. Only one articulated prototype would be built (ALRV 4900). In the meantime, the new SIG cars started to arrive in 1977 and 1978, with the UTDC cars starting in 1979.

Revenue service began on September 30, 1979 on the LONG BRANCH route. As deliveries continued, this was followed by BATHURST (February 29, 1980), ST. CLAIR (including EARLSCOURT, which ended up merged into the former route name, April 16, 1980), KINGSTON ROAD (June 9, 1980), DOWNTOWNER (August 7, 1980), QUEEN (January 4, 1981), KING (July 20, 1981), and finally DUNDAS and CARLTON (October 23, 1981).

Teething Problems
The CLRVs' European styling was quite different from the Art Deco subtleties of the PCCs, which came as a bit of a shock to Torontonians. However, they didn't arrive without their teething problems. Passengers complained about the inability to open windows (a design feature to enhance possible future air conditioning, although air conditioning was not installed in the cars ordered) and the seating arrangements (angled front seating in the first six cars was modified to the standard seating style of the remaining cars in 1981). Some Torontonians also didn't like it when the streetcar route names like QUEEN and KING were removed from the front rollsigns, in favour of route numbers like 501 and 504, and some blamed the CLRV's single rollsign design for this change.

As the cars started operating on Toronto's streets, there were further complaints about wheel noise. These vehicles, which had been designed for heavy-duty use on the Scarborough RT (before its conversion to linear induction technology), were undeniably louder, and homeowners near the 501 QUEEN streetcar complained that passing streetcar would shake their homes. This issue was solved by changing the CLRV's Bochum wheels (which contained rubber in compression) to SAB wheels (which contained rubber in shear, as was the case with the PCCs). The Commission also had to tackle the issue of salty slush. During the CLRVs' first winter, the corrosive slush got under the streetcars and into the equipment shorting out components that weren't adequately protected against the elements. Further fears about the couplers snagging pedestrians unlucky enough to be hit by these cars were trumpeted by councillor Edna Shiner, resulting in "safety skirts" nicknamed "Shiner shields" being installed in 1984. The couplers proved to be problematic in any event, and were removed by 1988.

It wasn't long, however, before the mechanical issues were resolved and the cars properly shielded against Toronto's weather. By 1985, the public had gotten used to the new vehicles. They quickly became the face of the TTC's streetcar fleet as PCC retirements began in earnest in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

[...]

CLRV Trivia
  • As the CLRV was being designed, some thought was given to fitting the vehicle with a pantograph. CLRV #4000 had a pantograph installed when it was under test by Schweizerische Industrie Gesellschaftbefore. The pantograph was replaced by a trolley pole before the car was delivered to Toronto. It would be another thirty-five years before pantograph operation was seriously considered, in time for the arrival of the next generation of streetcars, the Flexity LRVs.
  • The CLRV continued the TTC's tradition of mounting green bull's eye lights to the top-front of the vehicle, as seen on the Peter Witt and PCC models. Indeed, they mounted two, above the top corners of the destination sign.
  • The CLRVs, along with the ALRVs, were equipped with typical streetcar gongs to warn away competing vehicles. These proved inadequate in 1997 when the 510 SPADINA streetcar route opened to a rash of streetcar-motor vehicle accidents. To make the warnings more audible, the gongs were supplemented with horns salvated from M-1 and H-1 class subway cars that were being retired and scrapped. These horns were replaced in 2011 by new electric horns during a rebuild.
  • Car 4063 was the first CLRV to be officially retired. Around 2005, the car was stripped down ahead of a possible major overhaul, which would have introduced propulsion and control systems. However, the cost of such an overhaul was not deemed to be a sufficient enough savings compared to buying a new generation of streetcars (which would have been fully accessible). With the car stripped to its frame and no overhaul to be done, the shell was sold for scrap in March 2009 and taken away by Future Enterprises of Hamilton, Ontario.
  • On December 27, 2014, TTC bus #7807 ran a red light on Main Street, crossing Danforth Avenue and rammed CLRV 4062 head-on, de-railing the car and causing injuries. Car 4062 was hauled to Hillcrest but, after a few weeks at the facility, was deemed too costly to repair. It was removed from TTC property on a flatbed truck on March 16, 2015, the second CLRVs to be scrapped.[...]
 
Last edited:
According to the tracker, 4425 is in service on 510 at this time. It heading northbound, north of college.

It show up last night, southbound on Parliament and then head to the Barns. It was in the service bay all day yesterday. Only saw one trip and it could been a short one.

If it is in service, that is a quick turn around to date and didn't cover the burn in distance.
 
If it is in service, that is a quick turn around to date and didn't cover the burn in distance.

I wonder if they are shorting that to get more i service? Does anyone know how long it took for them to break in Toronto Rocket trains and if they shortened it at some point as well?
 
I wonder if they are shorting that to get more i service? Does anyone know how long it took for them to break in Toronto Rocket trains and if they shortened it at some point as well?
As it was pointed out to me elsewhere, test runs could had happen over the long weekend to meet the burn in distance and the tracker wasn't turn on tell Tuesday.

Based on past following of various cars, I found there was next to no runs for 4425. Just because I didn't see them, doesn't mean the burn in distance was met.

I have no idea on the TR's since I never follow them.
 
Wasn't BBD the lowest bid? If I am recalling that correctly, then adding 8% to their bid would not have produced a lower bid....would it?
Lowest bid, or lowest total outlay? Add in the cost to keep the old fleet running, etc., I'm not sure BBD can be considered the lowest cost option, though we'd need a full apples to apples comparison of the landed costs of the alternatives.
 
Lowest bid, or lowest total outlay? Add in the cost to keep the old fleet running, etc., I'm not sure BBD can be considered the lowest cost option, though we'd need a full apples to apples comparison of the landed costs of the alternatives.
Lowest bid....all the other things that we know now....at the time of the bid no one knew them...so if the lowest bid was x...and building overseas was gonna add 8% (I think that is what someone said)...it would not have produced a lower bid.
 
Lowest bid....all the other things that we know now....at the time of the bid no one knew them...so if the lowest bid was x...and building overseas was gonna add 8% (I think that is what someone said)...it would not have produced a lower bid.
Siemens' bid was like 50% higher. BBD probably realized they bid poorly and could have easily added on another $300m. So they gave us this crap product since their cheap Mexican labour didn't work out as planned.
 

Back
Top