|
|
|
No, as in what @Bojaxs said above (more specifically, the lack of track connections between all lines except 1/2/4). For lack of a better analogy, it's the equivalent of packaging candy as each small piece individually, instead of packing several of them in 1 large box, or buying 10 bottles 100ml each instead of a single 1L bottle. Or, if you will, the equivalent of using 6 of these instead of 1 of these.
They're talking about an idealized situation, where in places like some Chinese cities, they have highly standardized Type A and B rolling stock that is more or less interchangeable among lines running A and B stock respectively, so long as they have the same signalling (Alstom, Siemens, CASCO etc.. CBTC) and contact system (third rail or OCS), and trainset/platform lengths (4, 6, 7, 8 cars).
Standardization is overrated and impossible. You won't be able to replace everything in one fell swoop due to their varying ages, and manufacturers aren't going to offer the same product for 30 years continuously, so you won't be able to achieve standardization, you'll always have something different. And pragmatically speaking, the users of the lines don't care what kind of rolling stock they ride on and diversity is what gives life flavour.
This has been my experience too. While some degree of criticism is good if it leads to improvements (e.g., the wave of disappointment at Line 6's slowness that made the city finally realize we need to work on TSP), the changes in the last 10 years have really altered how I get around the city. I definitely have used GO & UP more and Line 5 has already proven useful, too. I also didn't even realize how much I'd started to take for granted the 2-hour transfer window either until I was back in Japan recently. It mildly annoyed me that I had to fish out my phone/ pass/ ticket to exit each time & re-pay when transferring from line to line. Annoying not just for the cost, but also for the lack of efficiency & awkwardness when carrying stuff.
I ride the thing everyday.
Why?
Having different types of rolling stock running on the same line/system is the good kind of diversity that I fully support, yes. Not the same as having each line disconnected & incompatible with other lines, which is the kind of diversity that should be avoided & kept to a minimum (like when the SRT was the only such line).
The 81-717s were in production from the late 1970s to 2014 essentially unchanged (in addition to various modernized versions that came out over the past 20 years).
If the last T1s are (hopefully) replaced before 2035, and the rest of the new trains (for extensions) will be delivered through to 2035, they technically could expand the order & have the TRs replaced starting in 2035 (when the oldest will be roughly the same age as the H6s), rather than placing a separate order to be delivered only 5 years later.
I don't think you appreciate the cost and complexity that comes from having to customize rolling stock for the pre-existing infrastructure. By this, I refer to stuff like track gauge, power voltage, ability to negotiate curves and hills, etc. It's cheaper and easier to buy a pre-existing design, both from an engineering and vehicle testing perspective, and that is why the Flexity Outlooks were ordered in 2009 and didn't enter service until 2014, while, for example, Bratislava ordered Skoda trams in the summer of 2013 and they began to enter service in the spring of 2015, or Brno ordered Skoda 45 Ts in February 2021 and was able to put them in service in December 2022, or when Prague ordered Skoda 52 Ts in November 2023 and they started entering service in June 2025. It's just so much less of a headache to buy a pre-existing product.
You'll be able to find exceptions to every rule, especially in communist countries (though not exclusively, as the capitalists had their GM New looks and Nova LFSes). However, those are products of a bygone age. Technology moves a lot faster now. Not to mention that they had a far bigger audience: there were over 7000 81-717s built (this was helped by the centrally planned economy of the communist states, who wouldn't be able to buy alternative rolling stock if they wanted to), and buses are far less specialized than rail stock so they can be dropped in and used in pretty much any city on the planet. How many T1s were built in comparison? TRs? H5s? Because of the customization for Toronto, any stuff that gets built for the legacy network will not have the same universal appeal, so there is no reason to assume that the TR Mark 2s will still be offered in 30 years time.
Do you understand why the H6s were replaced when they were? It was only done because they were maintenance nightmares. Their example is not one that can be extrapolated to replacement decisions of fleets that cause considerably less trouble. The plan was originally for them to last at least until 2019. The youngest ones (5934-5935) were only in service for 22 years! The youngest TRs, in 2035, would only be 18! You would gain NOTHING from replacing them that soon.
I hope they don't remove it entirely. I haven't seen it yet!
I get what y'all are saying, but I feel like there is a nuanced middle ground here.
I mean, Hurontario was initially supposed to be built to a near-identical spec to Flexity Outlook streetcars, changing later to Flexity Freedom streetcars when Transit City shifted to standard gauge, which freed up the LRV widths. The point isn't for day-to-day sharing of a unified fleet, but the flexibility to move trains around in extenuating circumstances (lots of precedence for this abroad: routine fleet overhaul, non-routine defect repair like in Ottawa, etc...). The cost savings of standardized maintenance is another factor.
I agree. I would be quite content if they were to keep building T1 replicas to the end of time.
The crucial part of my response here is in response to the two bolded statements.
This is completely not true. And even the stuff that is interchangeable is so seldom done that the stanchion's in the cars are often coloured to the line colour.
