TTC: Flexity Streetcars Testing & Delivery (Bombardier)

[TOareaFan]

Why not just sell them to Mexico City or Cairo, it wouldnt be the first time that the TTC has done this.It would beat out having them sitting in the our scrap yards or even peoples backyards.

would it be better, though, than adapting them into a new transit system somwhere else in the GTA? Something like the example I gave earlier:

........"instead of buses running along Queen St/Highway 7 (Acceleride proposal) to connect to the eventual subway in Vaughan...couldn't Brampton create a streetcar ROW and run TTC older 200 cars once they are replaced"

 

[Voltz]

What city would let new streetcar service be constructed if it meant using old clunky refurbished CLRV's? I mean, they wouldn't last half as long as new vehicles and would cost more to maintain and operate, while providing less desirable service.

They wouldn't save much, if any money, and a good chunk of the cost is the track and stations anyway. The stations would end up costing more if they needed a partial high floor platform for the old vehicles.

It is better to just replace the dammed things.

 

[Automation Gallery]

It is better to just replace the dammed things.

Check out this website on Toronto LRT

http://images.google.ca/imgres?imgu...&tbnw=137&prev=/images?q=lrt&gbv=2&hl=en&sa=G

 

[Hipster Duck]

The problem with a raised platform is that you have a suicide ledge-worth of space to move around on; most people that use island platforms tend to circulate around it by walking on the tracks.

 

[ShonTron]

There's also the possibility of installing lifts! All of the ex-TTC Kenosha PCCs had only two modifications - refitting the trucks to standard gauge and installing lifts. Four of the five cars were also repainted into different schemes, but that's about it. Otherwise you can board a streetcar in Johnstown, PA colours and see inside Ontario decals and TTC fares circa 1995 (and the interior beaverboard redo to make them look like CLRVs).

About as practical as rebuilding CLRVs to fit high platforms (a lift takes almost two minutes to load a disabled passenger on a lift-equipped Orion V), but hey.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Is 204 enough?

Is 204 single-ended low-floor light rail vehicles enough?

I don't think so.

A CLRV is 15.4 m long with a crush load of 132.
An ALRV is 23.2 m long with a crush load of 205.

A single-ended LFLRV could be 30 m long with a crush load of 260.

Now the 510 Spadina on a Saturday afternoon uses 21 CLRV's for service at every 2 minutes. Since the new LFLRV would have about double the crush load,I could see it running every 4 minutes using 10 or 11 LFLRV's.

For comparison, the 505 Dundas on a Saturday afternoon uses 24 CLRV's for service at every 4 minutes 45 seconds. With LFLRV, it could be using 12 LFLRV's running every 9 or 10 minutes.

If the TTC uses 1 LFLRV for every 2 CLRV, it could mean that he headways on the current streetcar network could be greatly degraded, if they use the accountants to do the decisions. The worst headway is the 502 Downtowner with a mid-day headway of 20 minutes. Could it become 30 or 40 minutes with LFLRV?

What should be the worst headway? What should be the average?

I would prefer to see 5 minutes as the average daytime service and 10 minutes at night. What do you think?

Then what about the Transit City's 480 double-ended LFLRV's? Should they have the same headway as the subway network, 5 minutes or better? Or is 10 minutes acceptable?

 

[Hipster Duck]

Considering how awful the waits are for streetcars right now, I can't imagine how bad service will be if they send half as many streetcars down the line.

 

[nfitz]

Considering how awful the waits are for streetcars right now, I can't imagine how bad service will be if they send half as many streetcars down the line.

Bingo. The reason the 501 Queen get's singled out, is that the frequency is less often, with the ALRVs than most of the other lines with CLRVs. The short-turns are just as bad on the fringes of the 506 route, but with the much higher frequency, not as noticeable.

If frequency is reduced with the introduction of larger vehicles, we will see even more complaints like we've been seeing on the 501 (unless they actually manage to make service more predictable and regular - but after over 100 years I'm not holding my breath on that one).

 

[Voltz]

Considering how awful the waits are for streetcars right now, I can't imagine how bad service will be if they send half as many streetcars down the line.

I don't think it will be twice as bad, since one reason for bad service is bunching of vehicles, running half as many vehicles will hopefully mean less bunching, and all door loading may help as well. But I'm sure the TTC will still find a way to screw it up.

 

[Railization]

204 is enough, but only prior to expansions such as Cherry St., Kingston Road to Scarborough Village, Queen's Quay East, and St.Clair to Jane/Scarlett.

Key thing to remember is that the spare ratio will come way down with the new fleet. It's currently at a stratospheric 33%. It should be single-digit with the new fleet, which will result in much higher fleet availability than what currently goes on.

There'll be enough, but eventually, they'd want to couple vehicles on certain routes and will need to buy more vehicles to do that.

 

[W. K. Lis]

In Portland, they have this schedule posted:

The streetcar runs approximately every 13 minutes on weekdays between 9:30am and 5pm. After 5pm & before 9:30am the trains run every 14-20 minutes. Saturday service is every 13 minutes between the hours of 11am and 8pm with morning and evening service every 15-20 minutes. Sunday service is every 15-20 minutes.

For Toronto, that sort of frequency would be unacceptable, for me.

I just hope that the tendency for almost everyone using the front doors to enter and exit, will be replaced by using all the doors with the new cars.

 

[nfitz]

Key thing to remember is that the spare ratio will come way down with the new fleet. It's currently at a stratospheric 33%. It should be single-digit with the new fleet, which will result in much higher fleet availability than what currently goes on.

When the fleet is new perhaps - but what when it is 30-years old?

And surely the TTC is going to reduce frequencies - we only have to look at Queen street, which has lower frequencies than other routes, to see that.

 

[Railization]

When the fleet is new perhaps - but what when it is 30-years old?

And surely the TTC is going to reduce frequencies - we only have to look at Queen street, which has lower frequencies than other routes, to see that.

Well that's pretty much the point. Right now the CLRV fleet is 30 years old! And the ALRVs are 25 years old. People wonder why they're falling apart?

The reason Queen has lower frequencies right now is because of age-old managerial screw ups where instead of investing in larger fleet to accomodate demand that the regular streetcars were struggling to support (as is the case with King St. service), the TTC tried to supply the same capacity with fewer vehicles to cut down on labour. Steve Munro urged the TTC to shift the ALRVs to King and run Queen with CLRVs at higher frequencies since Queen can make-do with that (King can't), but TTC having already dug themselves into a hole they can't get out of, which they got into by ignoring previous advice, ignored more advice, and King continues to get worse with only a very limited number of ALRVs mixed among the CLRVs in the AM only.

With all the streetcars of the same model, the calculations for frequencies will be consistent for all routes. Right now Queen uses its own formula unique in the system because it's the only ALRV route.

Frequencies might drop by 15 seconds, but I wouldn't say that's anything worth worrying about. Frequencies certainly won't be dropping on King, and on Queen they can't drop since they're already planning to blend in buses to make up for the failing streetcar fleet. It's gotten to the point where there's such a shortage of usable vehicles (i.e. too many are in the bleedin' shops for repairs), that buses are being brought in to help cope with the shortage.

Until now, the TTC has tried to get away with scheduling fewer vehicles and hoping nobody will notice, which of course was dumb, as the LRV order should have been placed at least 5 years ago (but they were too busy drumming up funding for TYSSE to replace the streetcar fleet ). Now we're really going to suffer until the new vehicles arrive. But when they do arrive, you'll see higher frequencies on Queen, because they'll want to stop running buses on that route as soon as possible.

 

[Railization]

For Toronto, that sort of frequency would be unacceptable, for me.

Portland's demand levels are nowhere near Toronto's. Toronto would never have such infrequent service, and even in the surburban TC plans, 5-6 minutes is the off-peak frequency. If TC lines are going to be every 5-6 minutes, the legacy routes would have to match that since the legacy routes are higher demand corridors.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Portland's demand levels are nowhere near Toronto's. Toronto would never have such infrequent service, and even in the surburban TC plans, 5-6 minutes is the off-peak frequency. If TC lines are going to be every 5-6 minutes, the legacy routes would have to match that since the legacy routes are higher demand corridors.

When I look up the bus routes that will be replaced by Transit City on the Service Summary reports, I get worried with the possible headways. A hybrid bus seats 36 people with a crush load of 53. Compare that with just a CLRV with a crush load of 132, and a possible crush load 260 on a LFLRV, we do have to wonder what the headways will be.

I would like to make sure that the current headways will be the minimum headways of Transit City, but I would prefer to see headways that match the subway's headways.