TTC CLRV/ALRV updates and discussion

[TTC4120fan]

5 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

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.

No visual sighting, from the tracker. Last time I saw it was some time back in April on 506, looking pretty rough, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was retired. I thought someone mentioned back in service, then MIA again, but I guess not.

[christine]

17 hours ago, CLRV4002 said:

It's a shame that they're being scrapped with the rollsigns, it would have been good to sell them as memorabilia. 

Speaking of, if I wanted to buy parts from a decommissioned CLRV or ALRV for sentimental reasons, which department or people would i talk to?

[The Queensway]

17 minutes ago, christine said:

Speaking of, if I wanted to buy parts from a decommissioned CLRV or ALRV for sentimental reasons, which department or people would i talk to?

You can talk with them, but to be honest, I don't think they sell stuff from discommissioned units.

[TransitFan88]

4 minutes ago, The Queensway said:

You can talk with them, but to be honest, I don't think they sell stuff from discommissioned units.

Which is a shame really as they could be making boatloads of cash. 

[jor]

4207 is in the service bays again now

4243 hasn't tracked in almost 17 days, so this could be an indication that it is the next to be retired

[smallspy]

45 minutes ago, TransitFan88 said:

Which is a shame really as they could be making boatloads of cash. 

Boatloads? No.

 

They'd make a little bit of money, yes.  But you would be sorely disappointed if you think that this is potentially another avenue for a revenue stream for the TTC.

Dan

[CLRV4002]

20 hours ago, Andythagiant said:

4200 getting ready for the 1 stop ride to the scrapyard.

Looking at this and at the pictures I took last week, it seems little to no visible parts were stripped from 4200, when compared to 4240 for example. It’s either they now have an infinite supply of headlights and windshield wipers, or maintenance efforts beyond the bare necessities on the legacy fleet has come to an end

Seems to be in line with the CEO report where it says maintenance efforts are now focused on the flexity fleet

[Wayside Observer]

9 hours ago, CLRV4002 said:

Looking at this and at the pictures I took last week, it seems little to no visible parts were stripped from 4200, when compared to 4240 for example. It’s either they now have an infinite supply of headlights and windshield wipers, or maintenance efforts beyond the bare necessities on the legacy fleet has come to an end

Seems to be in line with the CEO report where it says maintenance efforts are now focused on the flexity fleet

Considering the legacy fleet itself is pretty much at an end within the next six months or so, how many spare parts do they need for a fleet that will,soon no longer exist?

I can totally see a shelf lined end to end with CLRV headlights somewhere inside one of the TTC's properties 25 years from now that everyone's afraid to throw out because nobody will know what they're for or if it's ok to toss them.

[dowlingm]

Seems odd to me that TTC is choosing to run 304 at 15" rather than convert 306 to LFsc in order to solve their storage problem... is it because some 306 runs turn into 506 (or vice versa) and it's too complicated to do otherwise/they don't want to mix vehicles on 506 yet?

It's more total service so that's good, of course, and hopefully it will be difficult for TTC to roll back later because the community has gotten used to the more frequent service.

[Ed T.]

2 hours ago, dowlingm said:

Seems odd to me that TTC is choosing to run 304 at 15" rather than convert 306 to LFsc in order to solve their storage problem... is it because some 306 runs turn into 506 (or vice versa) and it's too complicated to do otherwise/they don't want to mix vehicles on 506 yet?

I assume the storage problem is with the legacy fleet, with Roncesvalles being rebuilt and Russel full of junkyard cars. So keeping them out and running (those that do run ) solves the problem.

[dowlingm]

9 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

I assume the storage problem is with the legacy fleet, with Roncesvalles being rebuilt and Russel full of junkyard cars. So keeping them out and running (those that do run ) solves the problem.

But 304 runs on LFs and Roncesvalles is LFs only now (at least for service purposes) so it seems to me more likely this is an F storage issue.

[Ed T.]

4 minutes ago, dowlingm said:

But 304 runs on LFs and Roncesvalles is LFs only now (at least for service purposes) so it seems to me more likely this is an F storage issue.

Shouldn't Leslie be able to hold all of the 204 Flexities scheduled for delivery? I thought it was designed for that size of fleet. I could be wrong, of course. But with Roncesvalles holding a bunch of Flexities overnight (at least 10 I'd estimate), that would point to Leslie having a capacity of under 140 cars?

[smallspy]

2 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

Shouldn't Leslie be able to hold all of the 204 Flexities scheduled for delivery? I thought it was designed for that size of fleet. I could be wrong, of course. But with Roncesvalles holding a bunch of Flexities overnight (at least 10 I'd estimate), that would point to Leslie having a capacity of under 140 cars?

Leslie was built to maintain the whole of the LF fleet, but is only capable of storing about 140 of them (and even that number is in a pinch - the TTC would be happier with only about 120 cars stored there). This is why the rebuilds of Roncy and Russell were and are needed, to allow them to store the balance.

 

And with the work at Roncy not yet completed, and Russell not yet ready for conversion, this does leave a bit of a shortfall in terms of storage capability.

Dan

[dowlingm]

7 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

Shouldn't Leslie be able to hold all of the 204 Flexities scheduled for delivery? I thought it was designed for that size of fleet. I could be wrong, of course. But with Roncesvalles holding a bunch of Flexities overnight (at least 10 I'd estimate), that would point to Leslie having a capacity of under 140 cars?

Think part of the issue may be the intensity of Leslie yard movements with so many new cars clogging up the maintenance bays, so that even with 30+ cars in Roncesvalles (service summary says 33 I think) that there are challenges in having enough tracks available to move cars around to do day-to-day servicing work.

[Ed T.]

7 minutes ago, smallspy said:

Leslie was built to maintain the whole of the LF fleet, but is only capable of storing about 140 of them (and even that number is in a pinch - the TTC would be happier with only about 120 cars stored there).

I stand corrected, then. (My "140" was kind of a lucky guess, I guess!)

This is still kind of odd, because if anything, the Flexity deliveries are going more slowly than expected, while the legacy fleet is being scrapped fairly briskly. Isn't it part of fleet planning to make sure you have places to store all your streetcars? I don't think the fleet plan was to have to bustitute three point five routes due to a streetcar shortage; and if the plan was to have enough streetcars to run all routes, then where were they going to be stored?

[CLRV4002]

34 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

I stand corrected, then. (My "140" was kind of a lucky guess, I guess!)

This is still kind of odd, because if anything, the Flexity deliveries are going more slowly than expected, while the legacy fleet is being scrapped fairly briskly. Isn't it part of fleet planning to make sure you have places to store all your streetcars? I don't think the fleet plan was to have to bustitute three point five routes due to a streetcar shortage; and if the plan was to have enough streetcars to run all routes, then where were they going to be stored?

I’m not really sure what the issue is, you’d figure that when the TTC ordered the new cars almost 10 years ago that between then and now there’s been enough time and more to fix the storage issue. The fact that we can have both a streetcar shortage and lack of storage at the same time is quite something.

I think another issue is the changing of the fleet plans for the legacy vehicles multiple times. We’ve had ALRV life extensions to keep them until 2024, we’ve seen plans that include keeping CLRVs until 2024, 2020 ...etc. It seems like had the TTC stuck to a firm plan maybe they could’ve had firm numbers and dates for when Carhouse conversions can occur, especially with Russell. 

[Downsview 108]

10 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

Considering the legacy fleet itself is pretty much at an end within the next six months or so, how many spare parts do they need for a fleet that will,soon no longer exist?

I can totally see a shelf lined end to end with CLRV headlights somewhere inside one of the TTC's properties 25 years from now that everyone's afraid to throw out because nobody will know what they're for or if it's ok to toss them.

LOL a-la Lansdowne Garage

[dowlingm]

3 hours ago, Ed T. said:

This is still kind of odd, because if anything, the Flexity deliveries are going more slowly than expected, while the legacy fleet is being scrapped fairly briskly. Isn't it part of fleet planning to make sure you have places to store all your streetcars? I don't think the fleet plan was to have to bustitute three point five routes due to a streetcar shortage; and if the plan was to have enough streetcars to run all routes, then where were they going to be stored?

While overall the F delivery schedule is well behind, we are now receiving cars from three separate production lines at a faster pace than previously intended for 2019, so we have three or four cars at a time going through commissioning at a time even with the throttling effect of not offloading cars at weekends. A look at transsee shows at most times there are more than one unaccepted F in the service bays. A complication is now that having brought capacity back on line in Ronces with a view to shifting capacity reduction to Russell, the reconstruction of King-Queen-Roncesvalles will hamper intensive operations out of Ronces. Some things seem like bad planning but some things are just stuff happening.

Also - the fleet plan was predicated on the ALRV rebuild working out, and possibly continuing to rebuild cars beyond the first 30. Instead, it was terminated early and the subsequent performance of the rebuilt cars shows that TTC spent too little and expected too much (and possibly waited too long). A more extensive rebuild of the A fleet with a new accessible centre panto module might have been successful, but then the city bean counters would have demanded a reduction of the F order which might have left us in a worse situation down the road.

[TTC4120fan]

4147 and another CLRV which I think is 4165 are outside of Hillcrest. Photos to come later.

4110 is also MIA at Roncesvalles. Last saw service on May 6 and 7 on 501, making only a few trips those days.

[Ed T.]

3 hours ago, dowlingm said:

A more extensive rebuild of the A fleet with a new accessible centre panto module might have been successful, but then the city bean counters would have demanded a reduction of the F order which might have left us in a worse situation down the road.

I can't even imagine how that would work.

[GrandeWest_B35G]

4 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

I can't even imagine how that would work.

Probably cutting a section of the wall out, and putting a lift in its place. Of course, they'd run into a bunch of problems, but it would still be possible.

[dowlingm]

52 minutes ago, Ed T. said:

I can't even imagine how that would work.

Dallas did something similar with their Kinki Sharyo LRVs - insert an accessible centre module between the front and rear segments. It would have been an opportunity to add a panto rather than having to spend time adding it to the existing modules.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinki_Sharyo_SLRV#/media/File%3AAkard_Station_July_2015_10.jpg

[T3G]

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

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tram_1751_(Brno)#/media/File%3ABrno%2C_Moravské_náměstí%2C_BMUE_2004%2C_Tatra_K3R-N_č._1751.jpg

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.

[Wayside Observer]

1 hour ago, PCC Guy said:

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

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Tram_1751_(Brno)#/media/File%3ABrno%2C_Moravské_náměstí%2C_BMUE_2004%2C_Tatra_K3R-N_č._1751.jpg

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.

Hypothetically speaking, if you were to rebuild a limited number of ALRVs with a third section and don't mind sacrificing a car to the cause for each one, the underpower problem could be solved:

If you take two ALRVs and use the one with the better of the two bodies for the base vehicle and the equipment from a second, plus a newly made low floor third section for the middle, you'd end up with three sections riding four powered trucks.  You'd have to interface the operator's controls to the pair of control packages instead of just one as is the case now but it isn't insurmountable in theory.

If like in your Czech example new electronics/complete control packages were to be purchased, it would be even easier since the purchase would be specified for two sets of multiple unit equipment which would then be permanently coupled and chances are the vendor would take care of this sell it as a four truck car package.

With the way the ALRVs have always been basketcases and the expense involved in any kind of a fantasy plan like this though, it's a stillborn idea since for not much more money, you could get a new streetcar that doesn't have any age and wear on anything and comes with a manufacturer's warranty etc. so new vehicles are definitely the way to go.

[CLRV4002]

On 5/9/2019 at 9:14 PM, PCC Guy said:

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.

Seen it on the 506 today in person