M. Parsons

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About M. Parsons

  • Rank
    PCC= "Peter Cox's Car" #4612
  • Birthday 08/25/1983

Contact Methods

  • AIM AOL sucks
  • MSN MSN sucks
  • Website URL http://www.barp.ca
  • ICQ 666
  • Yahoo Yahoo Sucks

Profile Information

  • Gender Male
  • Location Edmonton
  • Interests Eliminating Chucky and Co. COMPLETE.

Recent Profile Visitors

20,780 profile views
  1. Cabs are fiberglass, but, I believe the side panels are metal, and of course the frame would be steel as well. Scrap yards could make some money off of the fiberglass cabs by reselling them to foamers to hang on their walls!
  2. Besides Captain Transit, wasn't it you saying that ETS was getting Nova Buses? If these were ETS's own purchase that would have disproved that Nova rumour and brought down your credibility, no?
  3. No, they are Beaumont units. They were scheduled to enter the production line on January 30, 2017. ETS's bus tender closed January 23. Sounds like they are an add on to the Spruce Grove order. There are clauses in a lot of tenders that allow similar organizations within a geographical area to purchase additional units (what ever the item may be that is being purchased) for the same basic pricing. This was used by the BVRTSC to purchase Vicinity's on Airdrie's tender. Obviously, ETS has offered different "packages" if you will for the services they provide. Fort Sask and Spruce Grove had nothing special and so they could be any buses from a given pool of highway equipped buses. Leduc had theirs decaled as C Line and were WiFi equipped as I recall. Why they aren't painted specifically as Beaumont I'm not 100% sure, but, it could well be because they will be in a pool of available buses for the service. Could be that ETS offers a lower cost to keep the buses as part of their larger fleet so they can draw from a pool of highway equipped buses, rather than having to keep 3 specific buses ready to go. Hell, if you look at the dispatching so far of the Spruce Grove fleet, it's not often there's more than 4 on the road. This afternoon there were 4/6. This morning 3/6 . Having one spare bus is a 16.6% spare ratio and industry standard is closer to 20% for fleets of 50 buses or more. Less than 50 buses I guess isn't as easy to nail down. As a result, it's actually likely standard to see only 4 Spruce Grove buses on the road although they have 6 total as the remainder of the fleet is provided by ETS. But I digress. I suspect that the contract between ETS and Beaumont yields the answer. But, until someone gets their hands on that, or asks questions of the right person, we're a little bit in the dark. Besides, who's to say they won't receive wraps (like the 747 did) or small graphics (C Line)? I take it when 6952 shows up that will kill that theory?
  4. The OMOT's production list says that Connecticut was the first, at least going by serial number. http://omot.org/roster/flxlist/flx870.html Can you elaborate on these images that you posted further?
  5. 28 has been "Serviced". No SD's have yet, while a significant number of U-2's have. Seems to me there must have some differences as to how the SD's are decalled.
  6. What would Greyhound even have to do create new routes in Saskatchewan? Obviously there must be some sort of regulation over the Saskatchewan routes as STC essentially had a monopoly. By shutting down STC, does it essentially deregulate the market?
  7. What is Calgary thinking? Is there a business case for this app? Clearly, this app is going to be for those who choose to use it. You cannot expect everyone to have a phone capable of supporting this app as not everyone has a cell phone. Will scanners still be able to scan images displayed on cracked screens? It's early and there aren't a lot of details yet, but, I think paper tickets will still have to be sold. One of the touted advantages of any electronic fare collection system is that it reduces a lot of work associated with the handling of paper fare products. Passes and tickets need to be securely printed, delivered to CT, and then delivered to retailers, all with a tracking system. Upon use of the bus tickets, there's then the handling of the used tickets in the fareboxes and destruction of used/ unsold product. Will this $5.5 million system reduce these costs enough to justify it's adoption? What advantages will this mobile ticketing have that justify the expenditure? Will this feature attract new rides, or retain existing ones? To me, I see this mobile ticketing app is another half assed attempt (the 3rd one now, disCONNECT being 1 and 2) by CT to do something with electronic fare collection. While CT says it will be compatible with future EFC, I think that's debatable. as know one knows what that will look like. CT sure the hell aren't going to keep this mobile ticket app for the sake of it when a single vendor would be supplying an entire solution. Trying to tack on the mobile ticketing app to something else sounds like a disaster waiting to happen. And, I would imagine with a new system using RFID, these scanners for the mobile ticketing app used by whomever (enforcement?) will probably not work on a future EFC where different technologies could be used. At it's simplest, say, a barcode that is displayed on a mobile device and read by a reader (laser), this could be a pretty simple system to install (see the EFC used in Saskatchewan). However, that means there's probably any number of companies that could deliver this mobile ticketing at a reasonable cost. There are fewer companies that could deliver a full EFC solution. That's where I suspect integrating the two would be perhaps a bit challenging and not worth it. I don't get too why CT wouldn't include bus passes in this mobile ticketing app. Edmonton did test it... a digital bus pass app, but, cancelled it in light of the decision to go for full EFC. http://www.metronews.ca/news/edmonton/2012/02/10/digital-bus-pass-tested.html I see this $5.5 million as being better used to get a EFC system off the ground. ETS has been working on it for years now, and it does take a long time. They've hired consultants, worked with other local transit operations, rolled out Smart Bus, received funding etc. Delaying EFC because of "rapid technology changes" is crap. Technology will always be evolving. The fact that CT has tacked on different payment options to the exisitng TVM's is enough of an example to support getting their ass in gear and start now on a EFC system that can accept future upgrades. The fact that CT is saying that TVMs + EFC is $40-60 million, so, $25-35 million for just EFC suggests to me that that $7-8 million planned for dis-CONNECT was certainly a cheap, half assed attempt. Hell, even the first round of CONNECT apparently grew to $13.5 million makes me think it was underestimated. Lets just say that they ended up with functioning CONNECT for $13.5 million... then CT tacks on mobile ticketing for $5.5 million. That's now $19 million for a system being cobbled together and it is nearly at the low end for a full EFC. In summary, put the money to better use and do EFC right from the start. No more half assing it.
  8. What I was referring to was that exact style in the image you posted. I'm working on seeing if any images of our first LED installations exist and I've found one thread so far for the lighting that was installed in 4747 and 6001. The links don't work any more, but, a Google site search yielded this: http://ledsmart.com/index.php/portfolio-item/edmonton-transit/ As you can see there's other transportation related installations as well linked from that page. LED Smart is an Edmonton company in fact. They're about a 15 minute bus ride from where I live. After searching the living hell out of the CPTDB, it finally occurred to me I probably put the pics of the LED lighting installed on a bus on my website... sure enough... interior pics of 6002. http://barp.ca/bus/alberta/ets/2007de40lfrgm/index.html This may or may not be a rare version of this LED lighting product from LED Smart. Certainly in Edmonton it's only the 3 buses with that style.
  9. Turns out I've already shot vehicles that have been "Serviced" without knowing it. 4374 showed up in a pic March 3, and 1035 on March 8. Seems Centennial is getting a lot of buses done, other garages not so much.
  10. Well, this discussion board isn't a court of law. However, board members can pass judgement on how board members conduct themselves to the rest of the board. I think it's clear from some of the "likes" where certain members stand in their view of other members. Anyways, I digress. On to the topic at hand. I think that there's are a few points that haven't been covered in regards to the wrapping of this MCI bus with the low floor section that are worth exploring. First thing I would like to discuss is the practicality of the wrap. The wrap covers practically every surface that could have been painted. That makes me wonder how much of the bus is even painted? Being perhaps an engineering prototype (the fact MCI hasn't slapped a single logo on it make me think they want to keep it low key right now), who knows what sort of combination of parts they bolted together to build this bus. Indeed, since you've noted that there's been some styling changes, I would almost expect that these are handmade/ low production run pieces to confirm fit, finish, and function before investments are made in tooling and what not. As a result, why paint it? The wrap solves that problem. Taking that thought a step further, this could even be some old demo/ engineering bus which has these different designs that was simply selected for this low floor modification just because it was sitting around and available for the engineering department to fiddle with. The different styling might not be representative of what the final product which might well look like any standard, currently produced, MCI coach. You suggest that maybe it's an electric J4500 at one point, and that got me thinking. The less the weight of the bus body/ frame the more weight the bus can carry in batteries (theoretically). Perhaps there's some different materials for body panels MCI is experimenting with? The wrap would certainly hide that. Especially that particular design that was chosen for the wrap. The design on the wrap certainly looks like it's meant to break up any features of the bus body it's applied to. Hell, for all we know, they could even be wood panels employed on this bus if they needed to come up with something quick to fit a panel design just for this specific bus. I would suspect that there's been some frame changes. Minor possibility, but, with the right atmospheric conditions frames can show through to the outside of a bus. I can't say I've seen it on a highway coach, but, I've certainly seen it on transit buses. Case in point: This could be the type of thing that MCI might want to not risk having a competitor able to see. It looks like the wrap could help break that up. Now, the second thing I would ilke to discuss is the repeated questing about whether or not the 96A3 or 102EL3 prototypes were wrapped. A lot has changed since the 102EL3 was released. Today, it doesn't take much for practically anyone to upload a photo on to the internet of a bus within seconds pf taking a photo. Today, you could have a coach driver come across a bus like that MCI, think to themselves "hey! That's cool, I'm going to take a photo and put that on Facebook". Pull out their phone, take a picture on the cell phone and upload it to a Facebook group. Back in 1996, even a small film camera would have been buiky to the extent that most people didn't carry cameras with them. And even if someone did come across something like that MCI, and had a camera, they would then need to finish the roll of film. get it developed, get it scanned, upload it somewhere onto the internet, and then somehow share it with other like minded people. Back when I had my first internet presence, that meant building my own website with HTML code or building it on Geocities. This wasn't a time of dumping the image onto Flickr or other services and sharing a link. The communities also didn't exist on the internet that exist today. Back then it was things like email lists that were used, you had to be on a computer to access them... not just open up an app on a phone and be instantly connected to like minded people like today. It took me a long time in the 1990's to meet like minded people, and hell, it took effort. Now, anyone can sign up anywhere and anytime they want and join discussion boards, chat rooms, social media sites etc. Long-winded perhaps, but, getting to my point now. Back in 1996 and certainly back in the 1980's there was probably less of a concern among bus builders when it came to keeping things like the test of a bus design quiet. Today however, there is a much greater concern among companies about what can surface on the internet, in particular, social media sites. Hence, I think it's much more likely a bus manufacturer would go to the lengths like MCI did by wrapping a bus in 2017 than they would have in 1996. It's an apples to oranges comparison between the thinking back then to the thinking today. Lastly, you have this holier-than-thou attitude and repeatedly suggest that you can get the information on whether or not an engineering/ prototype bus back in the 1980's was wrapped. Then why the hell are you repeatedly asking a board composed of mostly bus fans what the official name for the headlight frames are?
  11. I can't say I know how LED tubes are designed, but, certainly in a household bulb all of the power electronics to regulate power to the LED's is built into a bulb. As a result, with a standard screw in bulb I would imagine that you'd just need a bulb designed for the input voltage in the lighting circuit from the overhead. If it's a fluorescent tube, I think you'd probably have to replace the ballast with a external LED driver unless the tube is designed to accept the line voltage based upon how the LED are wired up inside of the tube (ie if there's series circuits and what not). Some reading: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/environment/the-subtle-circuitry-behind-led-lighting https://www.1000bulbs.com/pdf/understanding-led-drivers.pdf I think with modern electronics, there's no reason why shouldn't be able to accomplish what you're aiming for! Good, so my original thought that the Brill's/ PCC were running off of line voltage was correct. That was primarily what I recalled. I'll have to find that picture of the bulb as it would have the voltage on it. I would imagine it's 220V though as I would imagine a Brill trolleycoach and PCC would have been wired similar. Edmonton's first U-2's were equipped with LED's in 2010 so it's not out of the realm of possibilities that Newman's were equipped at that time. We had two or three buses retrofitted with LED lighting earlier than that. I just rode one in the last few days in fact. The U-2's lighting is more of a strip... which is the the common set up these days for replacing fluorescent tubes. The buses have tubes that seem to have discs of LED's throughout the tube, so, you have brighter spots and dimmer spots along the length of the tube. There might be a photo on this board somewhere of 6001's set up... but that was A LONG time ago I would have posted that. Probably 2006-07ish.
  12. Good choice. I was working on a reply as it applies to Edmonton's U-2's and their retrofit to LED, but, it needed a lot more polishing and I never got around to it. I suspect through that theoretically it might have even been easier to use LED's than fluorescent tubes. I recall Edmonton's Brill trolleybuses have special bulbs that were labelled along the lines of Street Railway Bulb or something like that. I have a photo somewhere from crawling around in a scrapped Brill of the markings. My friend actually took a few of the bulbs for his collection. Pretty sure the lighting circuit was simple... I want to a say a series circuit based off the voltage in the trolley line. It seems to me, having florescent lights would require ballasts and what not and wouldn't be as easy to implement off of line voltage? Certainly, on the U-2's there was the rotary converter, and later static converter, that provided the correct voltage for the lighting. I believe they didn't used household voltage, so, you couldn't just cross the road to Home Depot and buy new tubes when needed. I gather though, that a LED lighting circuit would be possible right from line voltage. The LED tube would probably have to be somewhat specific for the intended usage, and that might well mean the resistors and what not for each LED. Now having said that, line voltage does vary too. With a traditional bulb that would just mean it's dimmer. I believe LED's are either on or off. As a result, it might be impractical to run LED's off of line voltage. Myself, at one point I was trying to figure out if/ what trolleybuses and PCC's (1940's technology) had for anything like a rotary converter to provide lower voltage power to the vehicles systems. I believe I did find a reference to a motor generator set (I'm sure you're familiar, PCC Guy, with the discussion elsewhere on the board about low voltage power converters for rail vehicles... that was why I was looking), so when I used "line voltage" above that might be more so in reference to much older streetcar technology... pre PCC when it was straight line voltage that went into the lighting circuits. PCC technology might well have been the lighting circuits powered through a M-G set which I think theoretically makes florescent or LED lighting a more viable option. Like you, my electrical knowledge is very limited and a lot of what I wrote above might well be a wild ass guess. However, in terms of research... one suggestion to look into... Did the TTC not retrofit some of the G-1's with florescent lights? Might be worthwhile to figure out what that conversion took to implement and what sort of lighting/ low voltage power systems were on the G's. That ended up being longer than my original intended post on the topic. On to my intended post... I will reference this post: Orillia Transit is just one part of my entire fictional concept, which includes an entire railway network. A lot of this will be explored at a later juncture. In the model railway hobby, this is considered "freelancing" . Everything for me did start with my Orillia Transit, but then branched out into railways. For various reasons I've always had quite the interest in electric traction, whether it was streetcars, trolleybuses, LRT, commuter railroads or freight railroads. Largely rooted in my exposure to LRT and trolleybuses in Edmonton. While I've been working on the overall concepts for electrification of my railway lines, and generally have a good idea what I'm going to use for motive power, one area I'm debating a bit on is 1970-80's electric passenger locomotives. Being as forward thinking Alberta is (and not to mention a lot more populated than it actually is) in my version of things, I'm looking at high speed electrification in the 1970's. A very likely component of this will be the TGV Sud-Est sets. I quite like the angular lines of this first series of trains. Conveniently, the Eurostar Class 373's were built by GEC-Alsthom as well. While the TGV Sud-Est sets would run on a dedicated network, I envision running the Class 373-based trains over some existing lines, in particular due the fact that they have multi-voltage capabilities including 3rd rail. Again, conveniently, the Acela sets involve Alstom which I will probably use to replace, and supplement the first sets of equipment. I'm undecided if anything like the X2000 or ICE will make it into fleet at this point. I quite like the looks of the ICE 1. As this relates to electric locomotives... My freelanced railways company has 2 passenger components. Long haul and short haul. As the 1970's roll around they start working on replacing aging electrics. These will more than likely be fleets based around something like the New Haven EP4 and EP5 classes. I'm honestly not a fan of the GG-1. They've grown on me a bit however. There's also likely going to be locomotives fleets based on the Baldwin/ Westinghouse E2c and GE E2b. First up will be E60's. They'll probably end up on long distance trains. Given the fact I'll be buying TGV sets, and those were built by Alstom, I've all but decided I'll probably be including BB15000 or BB22200's in my fleet. I envision my Northwest Car and Locomotive company involved in the building of the TGV, so, that would then make sense to include regular locomotives as part of one large purchase. Exact years? I'm not sure yet. Probably somewhere around 1983-1987. Here's where I wouldn't mind for some feedback. I had always assumed I'd be including AEM-7's in my fleet. I'm not sure however if I can justify both AEM-7's and BB22200's. They both had similar production ranges. They both seem to have been quite reliable locomotives.Generally speaking, they seem to have similar specs in terms of HP and speed. The other locomotive I'm considering is the OBB Class 1044. They were built in a similar time frame and are a bit more powerful than the AEM-7's and BB22200's. I do quite like the overall look of it. I also like that BBC was involved in it. That's just a personal thing from being around Edmonton's BBC trolleybuses of course! The Class 1044 does have a lower top speed than the AEM-7 and BB22200. One factor when it comes to picking equipment for my fleets is what's the chances for me to actually build a model of it? As I've alluded to in this post and others, one day I'll hopefully actually get around to building some models for my freelanced railroads! I model in N scale. I already have a Class 1044 which is why this I am considering it. They are also generally available for reasonable prices on eBay. I had originally planned to use the chassis for a AEM-7 as it looks like it might fit. The correct chassis for the AEM-7 would be Class 1043's and Rc4's. These, however, are not as common it seems more expensive. The AEM-7 body is available on Shapeways for about $50, so, overall building an AEM-7 would be a bit of an expensive venture although not too bad ($130+) BB22200's are out there, or at least their similar looking BB15000's are. Pricing is certainly a bit higher than Class 1044's and seem to be around $110ish. I'm tempted to use the Class 1044's on commuter trains (lower top speed, wouldn't need high speed as much in that service). It's entirely possible I could primarily use the BB22200's on TGV lines for local services. Amtrak's X996, a CC21000, didn't do so well on North American track. Apparently part of the problem was that it used a quill drive with a single traction motor for each truck and that particular drive didn't do so well on North American track. It's worth noting that there were certainly older North American electric locomotives with quill drives, but, I'm guessing those had greater tolerances. Looking at specs for the BB22200's and BB15000's, it looks like with 2 motors, they would be quill drives as well. Hmmmmm... I'm kind of researching this as I go. That actually means it might be plausible to limit a BB22200 fleet to my upgrade/ high speeds lines. That would then mean I could include the AEM-7 for the high speed intercity trains on existing track. The Class 1044 uses 4 traction motors with B-B trucks, so, along the lines of the Rc4/ AEM7. While I seem to have actually justified what I was looking for input on, thanks to on the fly research for this post, I'm certainly still looking for comments, suggestions, other locomotives etc?
  13. Spruce Grove Transit 6900 approaching the flyer-over from 68 Ave within the South Campus lands to Fox Drive. Formerly, this was a bus only road, but, seems to have been opened up to all traffic now. Spruce Grove XD40's hold down all service on the 562 now, and can be see on the 560 as well.
  14. Welcome aboard and thanks for sharing! Do you take photos of trams as well?
  15. Don't think FRA rules apply in Canada. Granted, we probably have similar regulations.