|
|
|
- Thread starter drum118
- Start date
smallspy
Senior Member
Not quite that old, but yes, they did last far longer. But they also weren't built like your home minivan or pickup truck. They were much more akin to a full-blown transit bus in how they were constructed, and their materials and components.
Which also led in large part to their downfall. They were much more expensive to buy.
Dan
nfitz
Superstar
For most municipally-tendered consulting engineering work I've seen later, price is barely a factor. They've clearly set the process so it's almost entirely on technical. Looking at the math they use, at most the financial would be a tie-break on the technical. And the technical is so subjective that if they've already got a preferred vendor in mind, they will surely win.
Bojaxs
Active Member
Does it bother anyone else how just about every rapid transit line in Toronto uses a different form of rolling stock? 30 years from now how is the TTC or Metrolinx suppose to "cost effectively" procure trains in the future if every line is designed to use different trains? Instead of one large procurement that'll cover all the lines, they now have to do a bunch of individual procurements for each line separately. TTC & Metrolinx having to deal with multiple contractors. Having to budget for different parts/ components for different trains. Seems horribly inefficient for any transit operator.
Not just with the metros ( T1, Toronto rocket, Hitachi), but with the LRT's as well. Is it true that the Eglinton line and the Finch west LRT use different LRT trains?
What's the likelihood that at some point Line 1 & 4 will be standardised with the Ontario line? Or all LRT lines in Toronto will operate with the same trains?
I just feel that the more coverage a transit agency can achieve with fewer types of rolling stock, the more efficient the whole operation can run.
Not just with the metros ( T1, Toronto rocket, Hitachi), but with the LRT's as well. Is it true that the Eglinton line and the Finch west LRT use different LRT trains?
What's the likelihood that at some point Line 1 & 4 will be standardised with the Ontario line? Or all LRT lines in Toronto will operate with the same trains?
I just feel that the more coverage a transit agency can achieve with fewer types of rolling stock, the more efficient the whole operation can run.
T3G
Senior Member
No.
You don't. This is a luxury open only to "new" systems which were standardized in the very recent past. The world is filled with "legacy" systems that inherited a variety of different rolling stock and infrastructure built to various different specifications, and is really not a big deal. Doing one large procurement also seems unwise, so we should be thankful for the fact that we will be unable to:
a) if the vehicle turns out to be a lemon, now your ENTIRE network has to contend with that problem
b) because different vehicles were built at different times, trying to do a wholesale replacement would result either in vehicles being prematurely retired because we have new ones now, which is a waste of money, or in vehicles having their lives artificially extended, possibly beyond the point of feasibility, because you don't want to waste money by retiring something on another line that is only 2/3rds through its lifespan. For example: the TRs will be life expired in 20 years, the T1 replacements will come online in, say, 10 - how would you possibly replace both at the same time? Or the legacy Flexitys, despite being ostensibly similar to the Line 5 Flexitys, the oldest cars are already 1/3rd of the way into their natural lifespan, while the Line 5 Flexitys, despite already being 3-4 years old, have yet to carry a single revenue passenger. There is no way you could coordinate this, either.
They will, but both lines are designed to use off the shelf cars as much as possible. Both run on standard gauge at 750 V, so any vehicle that fits these specifications should be able to physically run on the line. They use different signalling, Line 5 uses Bombardier's Cityflo CBTC system, while Finch West uses Thales Seltrac, which may pose a slight difficulty, but then, I see no point in a primarily overground LRT line using anything but line of sight operation.
Zero chance. It would be a massive investment that would bring no tangible benefits to anybody - if anything, it would end up crippling line 1 because now you'd be running smaller trains with less capacity. Any automated replacement for the TRs will be built to the same body dimensions, which means you'll be benefiting more than if you ran the Hitachi gadgetbahn on it.
The real question we should be asking ourselves is why Metrolinx is using 'light' metros and leaving capacity on the table for the most important transit project of our times, instead of the traditional RT-75 style rolling stock that we are well used to in Toronto. I suspect you won't be getting that answer, and even if you did, you would find it unsatisfying.
That's a nice theory, but it doesn't seem to hold back the Europeans, who run much more efficient operations, as a general rule, with larger varieties of rolling stock than we do here. And again, the concern about being being locked in when you've purchased a lemon comes to mind.
Northern Light
Superstar
The answers provided by @T3G are all on point.
I would then add, standardization of rolling stock, to a point, does carry some advantages:
- economy of scale on new/replacement vehicle ordes
- standardization of replacement parts and maintenance training.
The primary benefit of the former isn't huge, but is real, particularly at the small order level, its less of an issue when you get to larger orders and/or off-the-shelf orders.
The primary benefit of the latter accrues when you have fewer maintenance facilities, which for many of these lines is not possible currently as they don't connect to any other line in the network (Finch and Eglinton, and the Ontario Line, notably)
****
I think my only quibble in line w/the above would be the use of too many non-standard liveries. (paint schemes)
Bojaxs
Active Member
What is RT-75 rolling stock? Heavier duty rail metro trains?
As much as I'm intrigued by how advance the Ontario line & Hitachi trains will be, there's a part of me that wishes that they had just opted to designed the entire line around the Toronto rocket or similar style trains instead. Even if it's seen as older technology. Simply for the sake of a "uniform/ standardized" system. But I understand your arguments about the potential for lemons.
Richard White
Senior Member
It is a work car designed for a specific purpose.
T3G
Senior Member
Essentially, yes. Everything that has run in the city since the M1s in 1963 have been built to the same general base guideline which the TTC refers to as RT-75.
There is a flat car numbered RT-75, but that is not what is being referred to here.
adys123
Active Member
Also, to the points above. Our transit system's reliance on large scale orders that happen only at large discrete intervals is why we end up with so little choice in the market and situations where we have to create orders to keep that manufacturing expertise. If we procured rail vehicles like we procured buses, like they do in other jurisdictions (always a mix of fleets in larger, continuously expanding systems), then we wouldn't have to struggle every single time we needed to replace an entire fleet.
Bojaxs
Active Member
adys123
Active Member
Light metro is a reference mostly to capacity. However, in the case of OL, the design has evolved from the initial marketing. MX shouldn't be using that term anymore, it really confuses people.
APTA-2048
Senior Member
LRT is a really broad term. The SRT was the original “light metro” and even it was sometimes called the LRT.
Bojaxs
Active Member
Aye! The terms streetcar, LRT, & subway get loosely interchanged so much during discussions about rapid transit, it confuses the hell out of me. I no longer know what is what.
T3G
Senior Member
I'm not a fan of the terms 'light metro' and 'light rail' as a general rule, I only used them to differentiate between the Hitachi trains and the traditional rolling stock of the legacy network.
One of the reasons I'm not a fan of it is because it is so vague and broad that it can be moulded to whatever you want. When the H5s and H6s were retiring a decade ago, there were plans to send them to Lagos, Nigeria, for use on their new 'light rail' system. Our cars are usually lighter than those that run in New York, and even New York's are feather light compared to freight locos on the continent, which is what I consider to be actual 'heavy rail'.
But if one looks at new build LRT lines, there are some that differ very little from what we are trying to do with the Ontario line, so you're not, strictly speaking, incorrect. And then there are LRT lines which are just grade separated streetcars, like Finch West. Light rail was originally marketing wank used to refer to the revivals of the 'streetcar' back in the 70s and 80s, that couldn't call them 'streetcars' because that was still something of a dirty word (still is, if you read the comments on any article about them here, too). It's become obfuscated beyond reasonable use.