Jump to content


CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by PCC Guy

  1. Does anyone know if it was a practice, at any point in the history of the CLRV, for cars to swap numbers?

    A while back, in the Toronto Transit FB group, a TTC employee from Leslie Barns replied to a photo of 4126 by saying that that car used to be 4158. Now, this member was not known for posting trustworthy information (they previously claimed 4002 had been scrapped back in March, the day before the car returned to service, and when called out on it said that they were just messing with people), but I thought I'd ask here for a confirmation/denial of these claims. Thanks!

  2. Where are you seeing that the only PCC they list as operational is 4000? If I go to their site I see all the usual suspects still listed.


    I was told that 4000 is way too old, fragile, and lacks commonality with the post-war cars for it to run on any kind of regular basis, so it would be very strange if that was the only PCC they kept running.

  3. 8 minutes ago, jor said:


    Did you forget 4215? I didn't hear any news about it being scrapped yet.

    No, I didn't see 4215. The lines at Russell were short enough that by walking around the perimeter of the property, I could photo every ALRV on the west side of the yard. If the car is still in Toronto, I didn't see it.

    In other news, 4103 is MIA. I witnessed it push 4094, looping around Russell, yesterday, and then about half an hour later I came back and their positions had been reversed and 4103 had its pole pulled down. Last ran May 9.

  4. 24 minutes ago, CLRV4002 said:


    4207 out again this morning and 4221 is out now too. They’re not signed in to the 501 but this was the case with 4207 yesterday and I believe they are AM rush trippers 

    Seems strange that both cars would be not signed in, unless one of these AM trippers have not yet had trip data uploaded onto NextBus yet. But I presume this is good news for the fleet either way.

    Meanwhile, here are a couple of photos of 4210 & 4251 in days gone by.

    28969656083_bcf8b63178_z.jpgToronto Transit Commission 4210 - 01 by Andrew P., on Flickr

    34177362116_dac5b2b627_z.jpgToronto Transit Commission 4251 - 02 by Andrew P., on Flickr

    • Like 8

  5. That cannot be. For one thing, it's been rainy/overcast all day, for another, those are not evergreen trees, so they wouldn't be green at this point, and finally, the grass in the photo is very dry, even though it's done very little except snow and rain all year.

    Have a look for yourself. How would Google have been able to capture the image today and get it uploaded in time, and why would they claim the image is from July 2018?


  6. 9 minutes ago, The Queensway said:

    It's probably because the streetcars aren't functioning properly at the moment.

    What does "not functioning properly" mean?

    There is nothing irregular happening to the streetcar fleet right now, it's just going through an immense shortage that is not going to ease up any time soon.

    the 7900 buses are being used on the streetcar shuttles because they're not equipped with VISION. They are instead using TETRA radios just like the streetcars are. What the 1600s are doing there I don't know. Maybe they've decided to use them in tandem with the 79s.

  7. It's also been done all over the former Czechoslovak countries, usually coupled with a full rebuild of the original body with new electronics.


    Of course, it also requires the base vehicle to be powerful enough. Considering that an ALRV has an unpowered center truck, and it already struggles with the Bathurst hill in unclear weather, it would likely require some major engineering work done to be able to haul around another section.

  8. 11 minutes ago, Matthew TTC 4120 said:

    4171 is on 501

    Do you have a physical sighting of this unit? It was last reported as being partially stripped at Russell, but with the power still on, and then a few days later it started tracking back in service. That sounds highly suspect, and I presume that, just like with 4242, someone neglected to reprogram the fleet number. Some visual confirmation would be nice, however.