M. Parsons

That's interesting that they used parafil cable. Not sure how many other systems use that in North America. Edmonton had a few sections of parafil on the trolleybus network dating back to the mid-1980's that survived until the end of trolleybus ops, but none on the LRT. I could see parafil being used in some specific situations for the weight savings, but, it looks like it was used everywhere in place of steel cable.

Thanks, I'll try that too. Looked through Bytown's archives and Expo Rails Canadian Rail collection.

Gee whiz! Thanks Captain Obvious! Too bad you didn't answer my question. Not by a long shot. Thank you very much. I have seen a photo of the sweeper being unloaded in Edmonton 2 days after the first U2's arrived in April 1977. First time I've ever seen/ heard anything of this sweeper coming West. Having said that, today there is no trace of it that I am aware of. It never received a mention in Edmonton's Electric Transit.

After a quick look I couldn't find anything like a streetcar history thread, so, I'll just ask my question here. Does anyone have disposal information for TTC sweeper S-41. Thanks!

This was far from a great quality slide to start with (soft focus), but, none the less a U2 being assembled in Anderson.

Valley Transit #251, ex CT 1027. Valley Transit serves Appleton, Wisconsin.

Do you know what the fleet number for the tamper is? Are you of aware if it has seen much use? A lot of the red pieces look like they were added during whatever refurb work CT has done to the unit since it left ETS. Not sure if I would have ever posted this in the CT section of this board. This is ETS's ex CT Pettibone.

Rumor has it that The Canada Bus will cancel runs if they don't have enough riders. I can't attest to that personally from a passenger stand point, but, the last time I was trying to shoot them, their bus didn't show up.

What was this beast being used for?

According to the Postmedia article, some random worker says there have been several instances of vehicles hitting trains in the side. This was just the first involving the front of a train. "first time a train on this line has struck a vehicle, although vehicles have driven into the side of the train several times before."

Welcome to Canada- 1 1/2 CT U2's on delivery in Vancouver at Centennial Pier.

Even in the adjusted way the Commission was planning things today vs. expectations 2-3 years ago, was it worth to kill the entire thing over $15 million/ year? Were all other City budget items that much more pressing that it was worth it for the City of Edmonton to take the hit to our reputation within the region? I'm torn. The way it was going for the Commission routes overlapping ETS routes that would be maintained it seems, was ludicrous, but $15 million seemed reasonable for a starting point. Huge missed opportunities to slowly bring components together. On Demand for all regions could have been done under one contractor with one region wide App. The Commission had a plan for a Airport to Downtown bus which would have been cost shared. If the City of Edmonton decides that it still wants this, will the City end up paying the full costs now? Given the fight over costs for the 747 and the big stink the City made about that last time, I can't see other partners coming together to fund a more expensive (longer anyways, presumably more expensive as a result) service, even if it money was saved by cancelling the existing 747 service.

Careful with Edmonton! The Valley Line is still under construction. It doesn't have crossing gates at intersections and it has already had 1 reported collision.

Still wrong... when ETS only has 37 U2's. This isn't even the right thread for this question.

None ordered. And not 800.

They've done relatively well in Edmonton? That's news to me. They've had their fair share of teething issues and ETS still doesn't run them on weekends. For quite some time they were peak hours only this year. Of course, that's not to say that some of that could be ETS's own mismanagement.

I spy bright green hoods of EPCOR line trucks. I guess that means CT is still contracting with EPCOR for certain services. ENMAX did the OCS on ETS's SLRT extension to HSS, but, that ended up being the one and only time ENMAX worked on Edmonton's LRT.

I once had a request from a customer to manually charge them more for a $24.98 item so they would meet the $25 threshold. The thing is, to spend those points you need to be using them in a Loblaw store, which generally means you're continuing to patronize Loblaw's and not going somewhere else. Mission accomplished. It's entirely possible that some people will take advantage of a stack of offers like yours, and then not patronize Loblaw other than to use their points, but that is not all that common.

While I haven't researched it, I don't believe the battery system in a hydrogen bus is much greater than a standard hybrid, so not as many batteries as an electric bus. Very simplistic, but the diagrams for fuel cell and hybrid buses on New Flyer's website show 2 battery icons, and for an electric bus 5. It actually seems like at least some of the components aren't too heavy. 260kg for the fuel cell package and 37.5 kg for a full load of hydrogen (plus weight of tanks). Although it's not an apples to apples comparison and specifically applies to Edmonton's specs... Proterra (with no diesel heater installed) 43,600 lb GVW New Flyer XHE40- 43,570 lb GVW New Flyer XE40- 44,400 lb GVW Obviously the electric buses could be affected by the amount of batteries and I didn't read through the relevant Altoona reports (yet) to see what the capacity was for the 2 electric buses. Theoretically, I don't see hydrogen buses being any more reliable than an electric. You have the relatively simplicity of a electric power train, but you're installing the power generation onto the bus. With an electric bus, this is off board. And if a battery charger dies, you move to the next one. None the less, I am cautiously optimistic towards the hydrogen fuel cell. They could be the answer for those runs that require longer running than electrics can do right now. They also seem to have significantly more range than an artic battery bus can manage. New Flyer claims an equivalent battery energy of up to 1030 kWh with a hydrogen artic, while a battery electric artic is 525 kWh, which New Flyer say is good for around 153 miles.

Developing blue hydrogen is a large part of the reason why this funding even existed. The Provincial Government is trying to get into the hydrogen business to diversify and prolong the relevance of fossil fuel industries. The initial report to Council about this purchase did bash electric buses to a degree, including their garage infrastructure, so things haven't changed since the trolleys it seems. ETS has also at times referred to the buses as "hydrogen battery" buses, and indeed had that phrasing was on decals recently applied to the buses although the "battery" was removed in a very short timeframe before the buses were on display this past weekend. Of course, with no detection systems for hydrogen leaks in any garages, these 2 buses have sat outside since being delivered. While ETS had the 2 CNG buses they had 1 or 2 bays at their heavy repair Paterson facility equipped with CNG detectors to allow maintenance and storage of the two buses. I can only imagine ETS will end up doing the same for their hydrogen bus. I would love to see well to wheel emissions between the electric and blue hydrogen buses in Alberta, given that most coal electricity generation has transitioned to natural gas.

The hydrogen should be local, but will be blue. CP also has a 3 unit hydrogen locomotive fleet being built. They plan to produce green hydrogen in Calgary using solar panels on their HQ, and blue in Edmonton. I would imagine the Edmonton fueling infrastructure might be shared with the bus and truck test fueling site.

I would hope that companies in the business of supplying home and building supplies would have had the foresight to realize that once the world reopened, sales would drop. Home Depot, however, wasn't the only one to apparently not see that coming. It is unfortunate that you would seem to be stuck in this situation and I am sympathetic, however I do have counter points. Raising prices with inflation currently is probably not a good look. First, it could further reduce demand for products and materials if consumers decide that now increasing prices on products and materials has priced them out of completing projects for now, further reducing sales and leading to additional job reductions. Second, if one company increases prices to keep staff employed, but another company doesn't, that gives the leaner company a price advantage, leading a further drop in sales at the one trying to keep staff employed through higher prices. Rules for returns- I am unfamiliar the policies in your industry, but, I have my doubts that any changes will do much to give additional hours to staff. Becoming stingy with a return policy just gains you a reputation that could, again, drive customers elsewhere if they're easier to deal with. Discounting- Depends upon the context. Again, unfamiliar with myself, but, in general you sometimes gotta take a lose to move product that isn't moving. It's not good for the balance sheet to have product sitting around and not moving. If it is the context of volume discounts, then the question again is does your competitor still offer the same? Loss Prevention- Very frustrating. I've seen everything within my company from heavy use of a loss prevention, to a period when we had virtually none. We've evolved since then the ugly days of virtually no loss prevention. Since then technology, and now even environmental design have been employed. I'd be curious how much shrink is budgeted vs. what is actually occurring. I remember being shocked when I read through my first P&L and learned that the shrink line included loss from theft. I think even if a company understood that they would be unlikely to see the same sales from last year, what are they to do? They need to schedule to needs of the business. There's no point in paying employees to just be there if the customers aren't there. That's not good business sense. They also can't just start letting people go for no reason to reduce the head count as sales drop. Unfortunately, that's where the reduced hours become an incentive for some people to quit and go find somewhere else where they can get more hours, which then allows more hours for everyone else. It's a harsh way of doing it, but, I would imagine that's the way it would play out in a lot of retail environments.

Good luck. Arguably, using it for PR work is a commercial use.

Well, not quite the FrontRunner's, but, PWT purchased the same basic Ford Transit/ Micro Bird used for the 200's On Demand buses for Edmonton and numbered them immediately after the Edmonton buses. I didn't have long so I'll go back for better pics later... the all white bus is likely 231 (license plate is one lower than 232's). 11-202 was running route 10.

What sort of bullshit is this? Why post identical photos? Remember: someone is paying for this board to exist. The least you can do is not spam it with duplicate photos and waste the space they pay for.