Toronto Union Pearson Express | ?m | ?s | Metrolinx | MMM Group Limited

dowlingm said:
As I pointed out then, Toronto's orders are, generally speaking, massive compared to most other operators and therefore fleet economies of scale only go so far before they get outweighed by products insufficiently optimised for quite different taskings.
Click to expand...
Not on this model. Other than SMART and UPX, there appears to be no other customers. It's probably an orphan, and *apparently* (although documentation, not hearsay, would prove or disprove this, Metrolinx used to publish specs, I have a link, it's gone dead) even SMART's and UPX' aren't to the same specs. Interior layout difference is obvious, some of the technical mods aren't.

A total of 32 have been built, and other operators have considered these, looked at the price and limitations, and walked away. It creates a dilemma as to expanding the fleet, or cutting losses and deciding on something else. Claims of ease of electrifying approach the absurd. Metrolinx has pulled that page down now too. Covering their tracks, so to speak. This acquisition is far from "massive". Sharyo are now, or shortly due to, disassemble their assembly jigs for this model. Follow-on and new sales are non-existant and Sharyo has some very serious issues with their larger contracts to deal with.

And btw: Here's support for Vegeta's earlier claims:

Posted 12 April 2016 - 09:57 PM

Delay of two more years. Also read the DMUs in Toronto are also having large number of failures, mainly drivetrain related.

Quote

In a written response to questions from The Wall Street Journal, Nippon Sharyo said the 88-foot-long Amtrak cars are “different from all of the existing railcars” it has built for U.S. customers. “Programs of this type are complex undertakings, have high thresholds for safety and technical challenges are not uncommon,” the company said.

It had to rely on suppliers that it has never worked with before and found some components so difficult to obtain in the U.S. that it sought permission to make them in Japan, the California Department of Transportation said.
http://www.wsj.com/a...cars-1460308921
*if paywall encountered, use google search
Click to expand...
http://www.jnsforum.com/community/topic/11403-troubles-at-nippon-sharyo-with-amtrak-coach-order/
 
Last edited:
TOareaFan said:
The way this forum works is we have anonymous posters who in the past have exhibited a level of knowledge and expertise to the point that most here believe what they say--and ask questions of the sort that might clarify what they mean/say but not question their motives or level of knowledge.
Click to expand...
Well there Mr Fan, feel absolutely free to set Cummins, Sharyo and Sumitomo straight on their published engineering specs. It's an odd thing how some posters know it all, with absolutely no reference, but the manufacturers know nothing about their own products. You state reams more than you intend.
 
steveintoronto said:
Really Dan? I've quoted this info before, but you continue to make things up with absolutely no reference or admission that you were completely out to lunch prior, like you claim for "125mph".
"Onboard power such as air-conditioning is generated from the QSK19-R by means of a high-efficiency drive shaft, eliminating the need for an additional engine for head-end (hotel) power.".

Here's the whole detailed article from Railway Age directly quoting Cummins.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...-cummins-tier-4-compliant-power.html?channel=

As to "my point"? I'll repeat it *yet again* since you lack the capacity for retention, let alone nuance: Metrolinx' claims as to how "green" this vehicle is as that pertains to regeneration and other factors (Exhaust components being one) are doubtful. Regenerative recovery is only a small degree of the energy wasted in heat. I leave it at that. I don't want to confuse a grease monkey with engineering concepts that don't come prepackaged in a service kit.
Click to expand...

And you continue to quote third-party sources such as poorly-written industry publications and free online encyclopedias, as well as out-dated literature on a product that may not even be the same as what is running here.

But yeah, someone who's probably never seen the equipment must know better than the guys who built it and were shipped to Toronto trying to re-engineer the bloody thing because it didn't work properly at first. Or the guys who were testing it before the service opened.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
steve, the DMUs are built. Unless there's a buyer, we're stuck with them for now. I was describing a replacement situation as someone else posited re: 4 car GO EMU consists.
 
dowlingm said:
steve, the DMUs are built. Unless there's a buyer, we're stuck with them for now. I was describing a replacement situation as someone else posited re: 4 car GO EMU consists.
Click to expand...
My apologies. And yes, we are stuck with the Sharyos, for better or worse. It was acquisition in haste, probably something Metrolinx had every sixth-sense not to buy, but were forced by QP to have something running in time for the Games. The chances of finding a 'sell-on buyer' are pretty poor, unless they're sold at substantial loss.

smallspy said:
And you continue to quote third-party sources such as poorly-written industry publications
Click to expand...
Well you know, my engineering background leans me towards sources who build the product. "Cummins High-Horsepower Engine Business Vice President and General Manager Ed Pence" should know a thing or two...

So was the separate HEP (Technically a Hotel Power auxiliary unit) unit you claim exists added in by Metrolinx as a retrofit? If so, then that's a story in itself. You'd know all about it according to your prior claims, so I'd love to hear the story on that.

Edit to Add: Dowling, re-reading your post in closer detail:
dowlingm said:
Also, this notion of "standardisation" across UPX/ST/GO is how Bombardier landed both the downtown streetcar and uptown LRV orders, and look how well that turned out. As I pointed out then, Toronto's orders are, generally speaking, massive compared to most other operators and therefore fleet economies of scale only go so far before they get outweighed by products insufficiently optimised for quite different taskings.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware that the TTC and Metrolinx piggybacked their orders, I thought there was more difference than just bogie gauge, but your general point is showing up in other cases, not the least the JSF F-15, Jack of all trades, master of none, and to make the compromise work, it can actually end-up costing more. As that relates to the Sharyo DMUs though, there's also a critical number of a model to produce before the jigging and development costs become acceptable in the over-all cost. Depending on many factors, probably in the hundreds for this type of vehicle. There's no way the Sharyos come even close to that at 32 produced.

I'll look to see what's written in the LRV forums on this, it is an interesting point.
 
Last edited:
dowlingm said:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...-lrt-vehicles-from-bombardier/article1211787/
Click to expand...
OK, I knew the options had been assigned, and I think there's still some outstanding options to be used IIRC, but the vehicles are separate orders, not piggybacked.
The delay in Waterloo is being closely watched by Metrolinx, the provincial agency in charge of transit expansion in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area. That’s because Waterloo’s LRV purchase is part of a larger, $770-million order spearheaded by Metrolinx for 182 trains, including the vehicles for the Eglinton Crosstown and Finch Ave. W. lines in Toronto.

Both the lines are supposed to open in 2021, but Metrolinx has yet to receive the pilot vehicle that Bombardier was supposed to produce by spring 2015. That pilot will be used to work out any bugs in the LRV design before the full order is manufactured — and the test period alone could last one to two years.[...]
Click to expand...
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...-force-waterloo-to-push-back-lrt-opening.html

Bombardier had an excuse, lame as it is, on the TTC ones due to having to radically modify the trucks and body segment lengths and many other details, like the pole as well as pantograph. On the LRT ones, they're based on standard models already running and tested in Europe. I've often wondered (lol, when and if they finally arrive) whether dual voltage variants (already running in Europe, 750 v DC and 25Kv AC) could and or should be used on the RER routes offering some interoperability with the LRT routes. Needless to say, until TC FRA mimic regs are altered (which even the US is now doing in offering waivers for some lines) the idea will be dismissed out of hand. Unfortunate, as these vehicles will out-accelerate and outbrake anything GO has in mind for RER. And ready a lot sooner...one hopes.

Rail technology leader Bombardier Transportation has been awarded a contract to supply 12 FLEXITY tram trains to the city of Karlsruhe, Germany. The contract is valued at approximately 60 million euro ($67 million US) and is a call-off from an order for 30 dual-system tram trains originally placed in 2009.
Click to expand...
http://www.bombardier.com/en/media/...e-additional-flexity-swift.bombardiercom.html

The Flexity Link tram-train has dual voltage capabilities and is compatible with mainline railway regulations (e.g. BOStrab) that permit operation on both urban tram networks and mainline railways, reducing transport infrastructure costs. Although this particular model is only used in Saarbrücken,[12] a recent order has been made for dual-voltage Flexity Swift vehicles in Karlsruhe, where the tram-train concept was pioneered.[13]
Click to expand...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity#cite_note-KarlsruheTT-13
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexity

Other European manufacturers also produce dual voltage/dual current mode.
 
Last edited:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/25/could-the-ttc-end-up-running-the-up-express

I could definitely see this happening and glad they are considering it. I want this to happen. And have the line represented on TTC maps.

It would be cool if they charged the regular $3.25 fares between Union to all stations within Toronto. Surcharge fare for those going to/from the Airport. They could arrange the lineup at Union so that airport travellers paying the surcharge get priority seating if crowding becomes an issue.

This way the line actually gets used and crush loaded.
 
wilson_wu said:
http://www.torontosun.com/2016/06/25/could-the-ttc-end-up-running-the-up-express

I could definitely see this happening and glad they are considering it. I want this to happen. And have the line represented on TTC maps.

It would be cool if they charged the regular $3.25 fares between Union to all stations within Toronto. Surcharge fare for those going to/from the Airport. They could arrange the lineup at Union so that airport travellers paying the surcharge get priority seating if crowding becomes an issue.

This way the line actually gets used and crush loaded.
Click to expand...

The line already gets used - it runs above the target load during peak periods. Chopping the fare would accomplish little other than to reduce the cost recovery. As we've said here repeatedly, we need to add a lot of capacity before we can think about charging as little as $3.25 for a full trip on the line. Realistically, we can only bring it into the "TTC" fare system once that fare system is in fact a regional one which charges a lot more than $2.90/3.25 for longer trips such as Vaughan - Downtown or Pearson - Downtown.

The line is effectively a GO Transit line now that they accept GO fares. If fares are a problem here, then they are a problem on all GO lines.

That article is from the Toronto Sun, so I don't need to bother pointing out any of its issues.
 
Last edited:
Agreed with Reaper. There is no story here. PostMedia is looking for anything to fill money-losing papers. Article states:
But Transportation Minister Steven Del Duca denied the province is investigating the committee’s recommendation when asked about the proposal this week.

“No, that is not something we are considering at this time,” Del Duca told the Toronto Sun in an e-mail.
Click to expand...
Even SomewhatSmartTrack will be run by Metrolinx, ostensibly as GO, as well it should be. Fractionating a system is in no-one's interest. The City might have to invest in infrastructure (extra stations for instance) but some form of further, if not complete integration of fares is inevitable at some point.

Btw: UPX handing out cards for a satisfaction survey which directs one to upsatisfaction.com
 
What an odd proposal.

TTC can take it over by name, but there is still a contract with Bombardier to staff it ( EDIT: and PNR to maintain it). The running trades have a different union than TTC and the staff aren't interchangeable with transit operators in terms of skills or training. Possibly wages and work rules favour TTC but pension and benefits costs likely favour Bombardier. And, while Josh Colle claims TTC has expertise, it isn't in a CROR environment. Nor can it be maintained in existing TTC shops. It will have to be dispatched by GO. So a big awkward transition....for what?

Possibly the province wants to be rid of this moneyloser and PR fiasco (and fare policy renegade), and TTC wants the precedent of contracting out a chunk of their workforce. But at the cost of standing on one's head.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
What an odd proposal...It will have to be dispatched by GO. So a big awkward transition....for what?
- Paul
Click to expand...
Not to mention the 'idea' would require the province granting the cost of operating loss to the city...so why not just keep it themselves?

I can see logic to having the TTC running the LRTs, that's really the TTC's specialty if not domain, but heavy rail? *IF* SmartTrack was to be run by LRVs integrated into the LRT network, then I could see a case, but that's a huge if, and it would require some drastic regulatory changes. It is and can be done (mixing light and heavy passenger vehicles on the same tracks) and I favour the idea, but that's a long way different from the Nippon Sharyos, which by purpose, were chosen as they are totally FRA compatible.

Btw: I filled out the survey at upsatisfaction.com and they seem to be on the ball, asking many of the right questions, including if one wishes to be on their user advisory panel...to which I answer in the affirmative.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top