[drum118]

Looks like 4500 was doing a short test as it was back in the service bay an hour later. It was most likely testing the AA system as a final test before enter service.

 

[Johnny Au]

St. Clair Avenue West, east of Bathurst Street to west of Spadina Road, crossed the Nordheimer Ravine, where the Castle Frank Brook flowed. See link and link.

The city filled in the crossing for the St. Clair Civic Railway line. See link. Being fill, it was "easy" to dig down for an underground loop.

...and for Loblaws and for St. Michael's College

 

[drum118]

4500 has enter service on route 512, after being here 14 days

4501 in the service bay and being prepare to enter service this week

4502 was off loaded Monday

Looks like problems on the straight section of 512 at St Clair West, as a car was damage using pans there. Looks like they are using the new OS on the straight section now. It was in place when I saw it Friday, but no idea about the junctions.

All Flexity on 512 now with pans being raised at Bathurst and lower at Vaughan. The end of CLRV and poles on the line.

As for the car going to Corning, guess its to keep worker busy than getting the pink slip to them.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

If there was no loop, where would the buses load/off load other than the street?? Then, where would the platforms be to get riders to/from the surface other than where they are, as well the subway?? Need a hole in the south wall to get to/from the surface and subway, with the wall being 10' further south than it is and would be under the centre of each lane.

Yeah, wasn't proposing elimination of the loop, just it not being used by streetcars. But again, I digress.

St. Clair Avenue West, east of Bathurst Street to west of Spadina Road, crossed the Nordheimer Ravine, where the Castle Frank Brook flowed. See link and link.

The city filled in the crossing for the St. Clair Civic Railway line. See link. Being fill, it was "easy" to dig down for an underground loop.

Yeah, and it's a shame we fracture our ravine system like that.

 

[smallspy]

Looks like problems on the straight section of 512 at St Clair West, as a car was damage using pans there. Looks like they are using the new OS on the straight section now. It was in place when I saw it Friday, but no idea about the junctions.

There was no damage to the car. It was a car that was entering service, and the pantograph detected an issue and dropped into the stowed position - as they are supposed to do.

The problem is that they have decreed that no trolley poles are to be used on St. Clair at all as of yesterday, due to the removal of the old overhead in St. Clair West Station. So the car ended up dead in the water and needed to be towed back to Leslie for inspection, as the rules state.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Richard White]

There was no damage to the car. It was a car that was entering service, and the pantograph detected an issue and dropped into the stowed position - as they are supposed to do.

The problem is that they have decreed that no trolley poles are to be used on St. Clair at all as of yesterday, due to the removal of the old overhead in St. Clair West Station. So the car ended up dead in the water and needed to be towed back to Leslie for inspection, as the rules state.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I am surprised that the OS was not designed to work with both. I get one is of a higher voltage but it would be useful in these sorts of situations.

 

[robmausser]

Yeah, wasn't proposing elimination of the loop, just it not being used by streetcars. But again, I digress.



Yeah, and it's a shame we fracture our ravine system like that.

we used to, in the west end.

The east wasnt developed until a time when we realized that was a bad idea.

The west would look more like the ravine system in the east had we not filled it in.

 

[smallspy]

I am surprised that the OS was not designed to work with both. I get one is of a higher voltage but it would be useful in these sorts of situations.

They are converting the existing, pole-friendly overhead to a rigid overhead rail designed solely for the use of pantographs. There is no change to the voltage.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Richard White]

They are converting the existing, pole-friendly overhead to a rigid overhead rail designed solely for the use of pantographs. There is no change to the voltage.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Thanks for that. For some reason I thought Pantos drew more power than the poles leading to higher voltage reqs.

 

[DonValleyRainbow]

Thanks for that. For some reason I thought Pantos drew more power than the poles leading to higher voltage reqs.

I think increased voltage is a potential future improvement, but not one that can be explored until the fleet and the network is fully converted, and not something the TTC has publicly mused about yet.

 

[steveintoronto]

The pole shoes are failing due to *over current* not voltage. As much as the voltage may dip or crest (mostly the former) that's not the concern. For whatever reason (mostly lack of suppliers now) the current rating of the carbon shoes is below what full current demand is on the CLRVs, and particularly the ALRVs. Yet another problem dissipated by late Flexities. Surface area alone on the pants is multiples more than on pole types, plus the pickup area is swept laterally on pantos as the vehicle moves. You can see this on train-lines more than trams where the catenary is actually zig-zagged laterally more than even the random amount from alternate side suspension guying. This also allows much greater heat dissipation from the contact resistance, which can be hot enough to effectively melt the carbon shoe in extreme cases of overcurrent. (in fact, the structure changes, it mostly vaporizes, but that's physics) .

There's a multitude of advantages with pantos, not least the need to not 'switch' the pole shoe at junctions.

Addendum: Just Googled to find reference for above.

Technical paper here: (two of the authors are TTC staff)
https://www.apta.com/mc/rail/previous/2016rail/presentations/Presentations/PWhite.pdf

And good non-tech one here:
https://transit.toronto.on.ca/streetcar/4002.shtml

Late Addendum: Don't know if it's covered in the tech paper or not, it's intrinsic knowledge to techs and engineers, but *higher voltage* per the same demand (power) in fact *reduces the current needed* proportionate to the increase in voltage.

This means the LRTs will only display a fraction (less than half for technical reasons, power factors are geometric, not arithmetic) of the problems with catenary pick-up than the streetcars, since overhead voltage is twice that (1500 VDC) of the streetcars.

AC v DC also changes the proportionate wear factor, but that's getting very technical....(For those that dare):
switches - Switch current rating AC vs DC - Electrical Engineering

 

[KevinT]

This means the LRTs will only display a fraction (less than half for technical reasons, power factors are geometric, not arithmetic) of the problems with catenary pick-up than the streetcars, since overhead voltage is twice that (1500 VDC) of the streetcars.

I thought Waterloo Region's ION vehicles, being a tack-on to the original Metrolinx' order of 184 Flexity Freedoms, were built to identical specs but our OCS runs at a nominal 750V. (Per section 6.5 of Project Agreement Schedule 15-2 Article 6: Traction Electrification System). Where has 1500V been stated for the Crosstown?

 

[steveintoronto]

I thought Waterloo Region's ION vehicles, being a tack-on to the original Metrolinx' order of 184 Flexity Freedoms, were built to identical specs but our OCS runs at a nominal 750V. (Per section 6.5 of Project Agreement Schedule 15-2 Article 6: Traction Electrification System). Where has 1500V been stated for the Crosstown?

If it is 750V, then my mistake. It's typical to use 1500V as losses are considerably less, and the cost of substations to minimize current losses considerably less also, as typically only a third as many are needed for the same load demand for acceptable line losses.

I'll check later, but thought the TTC streetcars ran 600-750V and most ML LRTs ran at 1500V. (Edit: Perhaps in the cause of commonality of electrical parts it was decided to stick to the TTC voltage specs. I find the choice puzzling, if not retrograde)

Ottawa's Confederation Line, for instance, runs on 1500 VDC, albeit the Alstom Citadis Spirit spec supplied is "Supply voltage 750V DC or 1500V DC"
http://www.mississauga.ca/file/COM/HuLRTDisplayBoardsJune2017Web.pdf

Alstom has also been building 34 Citadis LRVs for the Ottawa Confederation Line LRT, scheduled to open this December, with work being done at the customer’s Belfast LRT shop. The main difference (of) the Metrolinx LRVs will be an operating voltage of 750 volts, rather than 1,500.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/light-rail/alstom-brampton-plant-ramping-up/

"The LRT will operate on 1500 volts of DC power."
https://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/news/did-you-know-27/

I've found various references to earlier Metrolinx studies where consultants offered the choice of 750VDC 0r 1500VDC:
http://www.metrolinx.com/HurontarioLRT/EN/Public-Consultation/Documents/Public_Informattion_Centre_2/HLRT Boards_May_14_2013_Final_sm1.pdf Doc no longer available.

Engineering discussion here on 1500VDC v 750VDC: https://www.witpress.com/Secure/elibrary/papers/CR04/CR04095FU.pdf

 

[dowlingm]

1500v DC seems rare for a tram. Commuter heavy rail, yes. (e.g. South Shore Line, Dublin DART)

 

[steveintoronto]

1500v DC seems rare for a tram. Commuter heavy rail, yes. (e.g. South Shore Line, Dublin DART)

It's the accepted int'l modern standard, just as 25kV is for AC. There's exceptions, but for new-build, that's due to some mitigating reason, not best choice.

North Am is slowly adapting:

A step forward or backward? Sound Transit opts for 1500 VDC traction electrification

1500 VDC traction electrification met all requirements and is widely accepted worldwide, but is rare in the United States.

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/869989?reload=true

More here: (National Academy of Science)

A FIRST LOOK AT THE NEW 1500 VDC LIGHT RAIL VEHICLE IN SEATTLE
The Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority (Sound Transit) is proceeding into construction of the Central Link Project, a 14 mile light rail transit line in the greater Seattle, Washington area. As part of this project, Sound Transit is procuring a fleet of 31 low floor light rail vehicles (LRVs). This paper provides a first look at these new LRVs, which will utilize a 1500 Vdc propulsion and auxiliary electric system. While there are a few examples of 1500 Vdc rail systems in North America and several in Europe and Asia, the Sound Transit project will be the first "new start" light rail system in the United States that is configured around 1500 Vdc. The basis for the decision to proceed with 1500 Vdc is examined. A brief description of the project, its chronology, and the alignment characteristics are provided as background. The chronology of the LRV procurement through contract award is listed, and the paper describes the "best value" approach that Sound Transit used to receive and evaluate proposals. The description, characteristics, and manufacturing plan for the selected vehicle are discussed. Focus is placed on those aspects of the vehicle that include or are affected by the 1500 Vdc. Finally, the schedule for manufacture and testing of the LRVs is provided.
[...]

https://trid.trb.org/view/705217