Jump to content

M. Parsons

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


Contact Methods

  • AIM
    AOL sucks
  • MSN
    MSN sucks
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
    Yahoo Sucks

Profile Information

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

Recent Profile Visitors

24,815 profile views
  1. That "weird" reason is because of the shitty resolution your cell phone camera has. But how you couldn't get the whole bus in the image when it was stationary on apparently a 10 minute or longer layover is beyond me. Clearly you really aren't even trying. But your photos aren't even really good, quite frankly.
  2. Power certainly isn't the issue- 750VDC is 750VDC anywhere in the world. The AC power into the substation though it what would differ and require different configurations of equipment, but, that's not an LRV issue. " high floor infrastructure thats been utilized in almost all North American mass transit systems" my emphasis is bolded and italicized because I think that's quite false. Edmonton, Calgary, San Fransisco, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis I think are largely the only systems using a true high floor LRV. Those systems that have/ had LRV's with steps (ie San Diego, Denver, Salt Lake, Portland) are moving to 70% low floors, and I suspect others systems would go to 70% low floors when they replace equipment next time around (Sacramento, Buffalo) and a number of new systems have started off with 70% low floors (Houston, Charlotte, Sound Transit I believe). Plus, the plethora of smaller start ups that are 100% low floor. High floor systems are in the minority by a pretty good margin. The simple answer is North American (US!) requirements. Siemens does have this to say (with my emphasis added): "Low-floor concepts with low-level entrances, car floors without steps and the right level of comfort are the main criteria for such light rail vehicles. Siemens offers you trams and light rail vehicles that optimally fit your requirements and your city, such as innovative single-articulated trams or highly flexible multi-articulated trams from the Avenio family. We have also developed a separate platform to meet specific North American market requirements with regard to technical standards, operating conditions, and localization." https://new.siemens.com/global/en/products/mobility/rail-solutions/rolling-stock/trams-and-light-rail.html Also they say: "The body has a lightweight construction to reduce total weight. However, it takes into account the especially strict U.S. guidelines regarding static strength, crashworthiness, and fire protection." As I recall with the TTC streetcar procurement, Siemen's did put in a bid and it came in something like $500 million more than Bombardier. Now there were some specific TTC requirements which meant that simply porting a European design wasn't going to work, but, even for a green field development like Edmonton or Calgary, perhaps there just isn't enough demand still for Siemen's to competitively port their 100% low floor design from Europe. Edmonton "only" bought 26 cars, so, I could see without an off the shelf LRV no consortium would have probably wanted Siemen's involved, and Siemen's couldn't competitively price a new product that has to go through R&D for a relatively small number of cars. In Bombardier's case they won the TTC procurement and have since been able to offer that basic design from a large 204 car order for smaller purchases (Waterloo, Edmonton), and then the Metrolinx order, plus, being involved in the Calgary procurement.
  3. The S70 is still offered, but it's a 70% low floor, not 100% low floor.
  4. Depends I guess if Calgary was after a 100% low floor LRV which Siemens does not offer in North America yet. I'm not certain if Siemen's had a chance with Edmonton's Valley Line either. Bombardier and Alstrom where both involved on consortiums. I'm not sure however who the third consortium would have had for an LRV vendor as that wasn't obvious from the list of members.
  5. Hmmmmmmmm.... Perhaps better suited for a different part of this section, but none the less... Has there been any major upgrades to CT's original signal system(s) or any plans to upgrade? Edmonton of course completely replaced their legacy Siemens signal system in the 2010-2012 time frame and had practically standardized on GE equipment until the whole CBTC/ Thales fiasco.
  6. They said 20 service centers. There could be multiple Cummins service centers in an area close to an agency getting electric Gillig's.
  7. Except that St. Albert has bought BYD's, and Edmonton Proterra's. Additionally, both cities issue competitive tenders. So, no, given how many other Prairie cities have Nova Buses, there is no "orbit of influence" with maybe an exception for Winnipeg.
  8. Calgary see's a lot of buses passing through on delivery to Translink and BC Transit. It's almost surprising how few spottings actually occur. All of the Translink New Flyer trolleybuses passed through Edmonton, yet only a small number were ever spotted.
  9. 15 years of use is pretty decent for the work done. And while the argument can be made that before 2000ish they were underused, since the early 2000's the fleet has been heavily used, with at times only 1 or 2 spare cars at peak times. Since the arrival of the SD's there have been time periods of somewhat reduced U2 deployment, although, again, the U2's for awhile were the only 4 car capable trains on the system until power upgrades so we're often deployed at the heaviest times. Certainly since the Metro Line opening it's been U2's anytime, anywhere. There was even a period before the Metro Line where U2's were the only cars online almost every weekend for what ever reason. So yes, the refurbed cars are not just being slightly used and tossed away. And there will probably be life left in them when they are retired. I'd rather see them retired with life left rather than driven into the ground.
  10. I don't think it matters that they "only" ran between Clareview and Downtown/ University. Running, say, 15 revenue hours in Edmonton and 15 revenue hours in Calgary likely end up equaling similar mileage. Just the car in Edmonton did more round trips in those 15 hours. Now, there's so many variables at play. Arguably, Edmonton's might run less miles in that time frame due to more terminal layovers. On the other hand, 7th Ave might lead to slower speeds and lower mileage, but then again Calgary runs at 80km/h in locations. Of course, during this time frame Edmonton ran 10 minute midday/ Saturday service while Calgary was 15 minutes, which means for a given section of track, ETS needed more trains to provide that higher level of service. Then there's even average train length. So, yes, lots of variables. For sure, Edmonton's cars were in rotational storage in the 1980's, although I think that was to balance the mileage of the old cars with the new cars. At the end of the day, the U2 refurb was intended to extend the cars for 10-15 years. Regardless, they are an aging fleet with a lot of outdated components. I wish I had MTBF data and maintenance costs per kilometer. I suspect that the U2 will come in worse. As for the spare parts from Calgary... I think they are potentially a minor factor. Hopefully ETS got some cars with good mechanical and electrical components, at least better than what ETS has on hand. Sure, stuff like window glass is great to get on the cheap, but, that won't address MTBF issues due to 40 year old mechanical and electrical systems, or the time it might take to repair them even with available used parts (ie time spent refurbishing the part to original specs) vs. modern equipment new from the vendor.
  11. Everyone previously mentioned plus Kinki Sharyo, and CAF come to mind. Total will probably be 47 cars. 37 replacement, 10 for Blatchford, so it will be close to half the fleet so someone other than Siemens wouldn't be at a huge disadvantage. I'd still put my money on Siemens.
  12. 4753, 4752?, 4876 have test seats that lead to the seats on 7000's, but no specific conversion program. The LRT replacement seats have been tendered for a 3rd time and I believe the U2's are now out of scope for that.
  13. Procurement begins this year (apparently) to replace the U2 fleet, with replacement targeted to occur between 2023 and 2025. We'll see what actually occurs for procurement activity this year, but, the 2023-2025 time frame is right on schedule.
  14. Guess what? This is not TV. It's a photograph, so your "TV terminology" need not apply. Clearly Michael was intending to take a photo that was of more than just a locomotive and you sure the hell don't know what he intended to focus on. Michael does quite well with shooting scenes that intentionally don't put the vehicle as the only focus, but rather as part of a larger scene. And yes, I realize it could be hypocritical of me to criticize someone elses criticizing, but, I just think you're off the mark and your grain of salt comment in your signature confirms that.
  • Create New...