Jump to content

Bombardier/Alstom Flexity Deliveries


Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Keee said:

You might forget 4400...

LRV Arrived September 29/2012 As A Prototype, 
LRV Shipped To Thunder Bay July 22/2013 (318 Days),
LRV Arrived Rebuilt July 4/2014 (357 Days), 
LRV Enter Service August 31/2014 (58 Days), 
LRV Shipped To La Pocatiere Quebec For Welding Issues September 07/2018 (1479 Days),
LRV Return October 03/2019 (291 Days), 
LRV Re-enter Service November 21/2019 (49 Days), 

4466 was the 67 and last car to have welds fix, but it was determined that it wasn't needed. I am assuming TTC made the call and other can correct me if this is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
3 minutes ago, WoodbineSecondExit said:

I'm hoping one of the modifications made to the second version of the fleet is for doors that open and close faster than a snail. Then maybe they could pass a budget that utilizes more of the fleet than is kept mothballed in the yards.

Enough spares are needed to ensure adequate reserve for service levels. 

Also given that the queen detour is not yet operational there are less cars required. Not to mention the Broadview construction. At least St Clair is running to the end. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, WoodbineSecondExit said:

I'm hoping one of the modifications made to the second version of the fleet is for doors that open and close faster than a snail.

The TTC is the one themselves who modified the door opening/closing to be slower and they could make it faster again tomorrow if they wanted to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/22/2023 at 7:05 PM, Shaun said:

Also given that the queen detour is not yet operational there are less cars required.

I'd have thought that they'd need less cars to operate the Queen detour (on Richmond/Adelaide) than the current detour on Dundas. Isn't it supposed to be faster?

As for the doors. I've really not perceived much difference between Flexity and C/ALRVs. The old doors didn't even begin to close until you'd finished going up the steps - if anything I'd think they were slower, especially when it was crowded. The only vehicle I really notice a notable delay are the buses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/27/2023 at 10:58 AM, nfitz said:

As for the doors. I've really not perceived much difference between Flexity and C/ALRVs. The old doors didn't even begin to close until you'd finished going up the steps - if anything I'd think they were slower, especially when it was crowded. The only vehicle I really notice a notable delay are the buses.

The CLRV and ALRV doors (both front and rear) closed faster than the LFLRVs currently do.

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lip said:

The CLRV and ALRV doors (both front and rear) closed faster than the LFLRVs currently do.

They also required people to go up or down a set of stairs, and at the rear doors get off a set of treadles built into the steps. The whole process was much slower than simply stepping up into a Flexity.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, smallspy said:

They also required people to go up or down a set of stairs, and at the rear doors get off a set of treadles built into the steps. The whole process was much slower than simply stepping up into a Flexity.

 

Dan

Except the lflrv doors require people to move clear of the optical motion sensor, which most people don't realize is there. People get in, and stand in the doors or their bags are blocking the sensor while they try to tap on their presto or stand and look around for a seat. With the steps, most people understood they had to get up to the top, and the doors were far faster to close after they cleared them. Plus the drivers had that little toggle switch to disable the treadles if they wanted to speed things up a little.

 

The best the lflrv drivers can do is un-enable the doors after the doors start closing, which is against the rules since it disables the optical sensor.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Disabling the treadles didn't actually disable them until the last person was off the steps. If someone was standing on the treadle, the doors would not close.

I think putting the Presto readers in the doorways was pretty silly. If they spread them out throughout the car (and added a few more), more people would move along and spread themselves out throughout the car instead of stopping in the doorway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting that they expect to have them in service by September. I assume then that there's no difference technologically that would require an extensive training or testing process?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably because receiving new equipment and not using it would be foolish??? What's the alternative, leaving them on the sidelines for the next several years until whatever curse that has put so much of the streetcar network out of commission all at once is lifted?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, WoodbineSecondExit said:

 

It looks like it's already late!

You mean early

Wasn't to arrive until Sept or later this year with only 3 been delivery in total. Was to be 20 per year until the order is completed which maybe sooner than plan now,

Where are 4471 & 4478??

It possible 4604 could be at the dock for off loading on Tuesday

On 7/31/2023 at 4:03 PM, Cityflyer said:

More interestingly is the current fleet utilization % which is at a historic low so why do they even need to put these new ones into service?

Need some in service running to make sure things are ok before the rest arrive. The standard testing and burn in may find some issues, but in service is the best way to find issues.

Easy to fix things sooner for production than have a fleet that needs changes after arriving and tying TTC personal up fixing the issues while not dealing with the existing fleet requirements. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, drum118 said:

You mean early

Wasn't to arrive until Sept or later this year with only 3 been delivery in total. Was to be 20 per year until the order is completed which maybe sooner than plan now,

You said something different 2 weeks ago:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-flexity-streetcars-testing-delivery-bombardier.3263/page-1043#post-1973095

If there was a timeline that called for the first car to be delivered in September, I haven't ever seen it shared publicly.

Anyways: does anyone know if 4401 was counted among the cars sent out for frame welding work? Since it's an early build I would guess it's safe to presume it did receive the work, but since it wasn't TTC property at the time, was it counted among the total number of units sent out for warranty work? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, T3G said:

You said something different 2 weeks ago:

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ttc-flexity-streetcars-testing-delivery-bombardier.3263/page-1043#post-1973095

If there was a timeline that called for the first car to be delivered in September, I haven't ever seen it shared publicly.

Anyways: does anyone know if 4401 was counted among the cars sent out for frame welding work? Since it's an early build I would guess it's safe to presume it did receive the work, but since it wasn't TTC property at the time, was it counted among the total number of units sent out for warranty work? 

It was something that came out of no where and passing it on with no real backup. Was taking it with a grain of salt as that a larger change than plan.

Somewhere in the CEO report last year or a report, the first car wasn't due until Sept/fall of this year and there would be only 3 cars in total. Same with the 20 per year and all info could be in the contract announcement as well for delivery.

4401 went to Quebec first to have the welds fix and then to TB to be rebuilt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me phrase my question about 4401 a different way: since it was not TTC property until all the construction defects had been corrected, is it even accurate to count it as part of the group of cars that was sent out for warranty work?
 

I am looking to fill in the notes on my Flexity car roster. I want to know if it would be more accurate to say that 65 cars (against an original plan of 66) were sent away for warranty work, or whether it should instead say 64 cars against 65 planned plus 4401. I don't know what either the original contract or the agreement the TTC had with Bombardier for the reworks said. I am hoping someone here does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, T3G said:

Let me phrase my question about 4401 a different way: since it was not TTC property until all the construction defects had been corrected, is it even accurate to count it as part of the group of cars that was sent out for warranty work?
 

I am looking to fill in the notes on my Flexity car roster. I want to know if it would be more accurate to say that 65 cars (against an original plan of 66) were sent away for warranty work, or whether it should instead say 64 cars against 65 planned plus 4401. I don't know what either the original contract or the agreement the TTC had with Bombardier for the reworks said. I am hoping someone here does.

4401 first entered service in May 2020. The original prototype wasn't ever delivered (as such) to TTC. So the welding modifictions wasn't warranty work. The other 65 (4400 and 4402 to 4465).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, nfitz said:

4401 first entered service in May 2020. The original prototype wasn't ever delivered (as such) to TTC. So the welding modifictions wasn't warranty work. The other 65 (4400 and 4402 to 4465).

That seems logical. Thanks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/6/2023 at 9:51 AM, T3G said:

Let me phrase my question about 4401 a different way: since it was not TTC property until all the construction defects had been corrected, is it even accurate to count it as part of the group of cars that was sent out for warranty work?
 

I am looking to fill in the notes on my Flexity car roster. I want to know if it would be more accurate to say that 65 cars (against an original plan of 66) were sent away for warranty work, or whether it should instead say 64 cars against 65 planned plus 4401. I don't know what either the original contract or the agreement the TTC had with Bombardier for the reworks said. I am hoping someone here does.

Until TTC signs off with the paperwork, the streetcars belong to Bombardier and that is after the testing and burn in is done.

The plan call for the first 67 cars built to have their welds fix under warranty which were 4400-4466. At the end, it was demean 4466 didn't the welds fix.

4401 never saw service once it arrived until it was sent to be rebuild

My notes

LRV Arrived June 17/2013 As A 3rd Prototype Car 
LRV Ship To Quebec For Welding Issues And Be Rebuilt May 14/2018 (1,792 Days)
LRV Return March 23/2020 (679 Days) After Been Rebuilt To A Production Car 
LRV Enter Service For The First Time April 14/2020 (22 Days) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, drum118 said:

Until TTC signs off with the paperwork, the streetcars belong to Bombardier and that is after the testing and burn in is done.

The plan call for the first 67 cars built to have their welds fix under warranty which were 4400-4466. At the end, it was demean 4466 didn't the welds fix.

4401 never saw service once it arrived until it was sent to be rebuild

My notes

LRV Arrived June 17/2013 As A 3rd Prototype Car 
LRV Ship To Quebec For Welding Issues And Be Rebuilt May 14/2018 (1,792 Days)
LRV Return March 23/2020 (679 Days) After Been Rebuilt To A Production Car 
LRV Enter Service For The First Time April 14/2020 (22 Days) 

*May 14, 2020

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...