Jump to content

TTC CLRV/ALRV updates and discussion


Recommended Posts

On 6/18/2021 at 4:00 PM, 7749 said:

Saw this today, did 4089 have a wrap before it retired?

20210618_151430.thumb.jpg.796977e4de9b8549d7e5079b729402fc.jpg

The wrap fooled me when I saw it, thought it was getting stripped for refurb or retrofitted track cleaner.

On 4/1/2021 at 11:11 PM, MRD10 said:

On the right corner features a paint-stripped CLRV. Either this is 4089 undergoing some sort of restoration, or we'll soon be seeing the other 2 running around in a yellow livery like their PPC Rail-grinder predecessors several year's ago.

image0-4.jpg

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
1 hour ago, drum118 said:

4207 nose is sticking out of Roncesvalles carhouse with X behind it on track 18?.

The historic cars are at Roncesvalles in preparation for the 100th anniversary. There will be a media event with a number of TTC vehicles. However, it will not be a public event and they plan to limit attendance which is hugely disappointing. Myself and others had hoped with such a high vaccination rate and many restrictions eased that there could be something more for the 100th anniversary. However, the TTC does say they hope to hold a larger celebration for employees and customers in 2022.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/21/2021 at 2:02 PM, 2044 said:

The historic cars are at Roncesvalles in preparation for the 100th anniversary. There will be a media event with a number of TTC vehicles. However, it will not be a public event and they plan to limit attendance which is hugely disappointing. Myself and others had hoped with such a high vaccination rate and many restrictions eased that there could be something more for the 100th anniversary. However, the TTC does say they hope to hold a larger celebration for employees and customers in 2022.

That is disappointing.  It's even more disappointing that they scratch anything for the same public they've had no problem packing into overcrowded buses for the whole last 18 months of pandemic, but then all of the mandates since March, 2020 have been very selective about what is and is not safe and unsafe and restricted.  I guess the TTC's 100th anniversary is going to be another round of stay home and watch the higher ups, the politicians, the well connected enjoy themselves on TV.

I hope the TTC does something in 2022, but even if it's safe(er) to do so, do you think they're likely to follow through and do it or let it quietly slip through the cracks over the next year?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

I remember in 2005, the TTC had a few CLRV wrapped in a promotion for a mobile phone company where the red on the CLRV livery was changed to a different colour. Does anyone remember how many cars were used or their numbers. I know for certain there was a blue CLRV and  I believe a green  CLRV.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...
40 minutes ago, CLRV4002 said:

Beaches Easter Parade is on this year for the first time since 2019, does anyone know if they're bringing out the old streetcars like they used to? 

My understanding is that the stretch of overhead on Queen where that will take place has been converted to pantograph only operation, so not very likely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

My understanding is that the stretch of overhead on Queen where that will take place has been converted to pantograph only operation, so not very likely.

Hehe, they can take it up Kingston Road for the "Upper Beaches".

Or maybe they can tow it behind a Flexity. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were several CLRVs which were retired due to "small wheels".

Would anyone be able to elaborate on this ailment? I am picturing that the wheel has worn away like a shoe with worn out soles, is this correct? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, T3G said:

There were several CLRVs which were retired due to "small wheels".

Would anyone be able to elaborate on this ailment? I am picturing that the wheel has worn away like a shoe with worn out soles, is this correct? 

I thought that they use the same wheels as the Hcars?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, T3G said:

There were several CLRVs which were retired due to "small wheels".

Would anyone be able to elaborate on this ailment? I am picturing that the wheel has worn away like a shoe with worn out soles, is this correct? 

That’s correct. Due to the state of the vehicle’s condition, cars were being retired from service in that if other cars with more of a serviceable status would be prioritized for repairs and truck replacements. 

 

24 minutes ago, Shaun said:

I thought that they use the same wheels as the Hcars?

Subway track gauge is the same as streetcar. The wheels are not the same because the streetcar wheels on the truck had bolts all the way around whereas subway wheels do not

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bus_7246 said:

That’s correct. Due to the state of the vehicle’s condition, cars were being retired from service in that if other cars with more of a serviceable status would be prioritized for repairs and truck replacements. 

 

Subway track gauge is the same as streetcar. The wheels are not the same because the streetcar wheels on the truck had bolts all the way around whereas subway wheels do not

To add to the tread width and flange depth differences. Gauge was the only thing in common.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, T3G said:

There were several CLRVs which were retired due to "small wheels".

Would anyone be able to elaborate on this ailment? I am picturing that the wheel has worn away like a shoe with worn out soles, is this correct? 

Despite them being steel, the wheels absolutely do wear down over time due to a number of different reasons. And because of that, there is a range/tolerance that the wheels can be used in.

 

But once the wheels reach the minimum parts of the range, they need to be replaced. On some vehicles, such as subways that use a monobloc wheel pressed onto the axle, the whole axle is easily dropped out of the trucks and replaced with a fresh one. The ALRVs can also have this done, but with their multi-piece dampened wheels the wheel treads can also be replaced separately from the axle and wheel hub without removing it from the vehicle.

 

The CLRVs also use these same wheels, but their truck and axle design is far, far different. They use outside-framed trucks, which don't lend themselves to easily disassembling the wheels to replace the treads - the axles need to be pulled out no matter what is done.

 

And so because the amount of effort was so high to replace them, there were cars towards the end of service that were retired where there were no other issues other than wheels that had been worn to less-than-minimum tolerance.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Shaun said:

Why did they use different trucks for ALRV's and CLRV's? Wheel noise?

The CLRV trucks were built with only one motor each truck. The ALRV trucks were made with motors on each wheel (centre truck was unpowered).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Shaun said:

Why did they use different trucks for ALRV's and CLRV's? Wheel noise?

The CLRVs were designed to be able to run both as single units at low speeds within the city, and MU'd at high speeds on lines such as the SRT. There was also the influence of the time, such as the mono-motor propulsion design.

 

By the time the ALRVs were being designed it was realized that there simply wasn't a case to be made for the longer distance, higher speed services such as the SRT, and so the design was altered to reflect both that - as well as the various lessons learned from a half-decade of CLRV operation. The fact that the H6 subway cars were being designed at the same time didn't hurt, and so they decided to build in some commonality between them.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Neat historical shot: a 6 car train of CLRVs was tested at St Clair Carhouse on March 21, 1982, using 4191 + 4063 + 4011 + 4095 + 4055 + 4186. Ray Corley, one of the fathers of the CLRV, took this photo and supplied it to Steve Munro's blog.

ttc_820321_6carclrvtrain_wychwood_rfc_c.

https://stevemunro.ca/2010/06/16/multiple-unit-clrv-and-alrv-operation/

Not so fun fact: as built, MU CLRVs were not compatible with the necessity action remote operated switch system. The pushbutton to activate/block a switch had to be held down separately on each car, operating dead slow until the whole train was clear of the switch. Imagine if this 6 car behemoth tried to traverse the downtown core... would take years haha

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 4/18/2022 at 9:01 PM, T3G said:

Neat historical shot: a 6 car train of CLRVs was tested at St Clair Carhouse on March 21, 1982, using 4191 + 4063 + 4011 + 4095 + 4055 + 4186. Ray Corley, one of the fathers of the CLRV, took this photo and supplied it to Steve Munro's blog.

ttc_820321_6carclrvtrain_wychwood_rfc_c.

https://stevemunro.ca/2010/06/16/multiple-unit-clrv-and-alrv-operation/

Not so fun fact: as built, MU CLRVs were not compatible with the necessity action remote operated switch system. The pushbutton to activate/block a switch had to be held down separately on each car, operating dead slow until the whole train was clear of the switch. Imagine if this 6 car behemoth tried to traverse the downtown core... would take years haha

This was true of multiple unit PCCs for the same reason.  The location of the overhead contacts for the old NA system was different for two car trains which is why you don't see pictures of MU charters all over the city* because the mess a two car train would have when the pole on the first car hits the contact to throw the switch back while the second car's still over it.  This only got resolved with the current NA system that was brought in because of the ALRVs.  The TTC's couple up procedure actually allows for arbitrary length trains now by cutting out the rear antenna on the first car, front antenna on the last car (for 3 or more cars, both antennas would have to be killed on the ones in the middle) so that when the leading edge of the first car passes over the coil in the street, it either sends the signal for normal or the signal to throw and the switch locks in the requested position and stays there the whole time the consist is going past until the trailing edge of the last car with the live rear antenna passes over the second antenna to revert and unlock the switch.

I don't know if any are online but there are pictures of a three car MU PCC with a TTC A7 leading, a Louisville in the middle, and a Cleveland bringing up the rear that was smacked together and driven around one of the divisions, I think Danforth but could be mistaken.  Not sure if you've seen that but it's believed to be the only time a three car MU PCC was done in Toronto.

* This problem was surmountable by doing a two, three whatever length MU PCC charter by running the cars as single units and then banging them together for posed photo stops and for limited running in sections where you have stretches of track that don't have NA switches present before splitting the train up again to pass over non-MU NA switches as the individual single units.  As bad as Toronto is for not thinking outside the box these days, I can only imagine how awful it must've been back when the equipment for such a charter was still available, when the place was a total official snore-fest.  No wonder nobody attempted to do such a thing.  I can hear the "You can't do that!" with the eyes bulging and veins pulsing now...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

This was true of multiple unit PCCs for the same reason.  The location of the overhead contacts for the old NA system was different for two car trains which is why you don't see pictures of MU charters all over the city* because the mess a two car train would have when the pole on the first car hits the contact to throw the switch back while the second car's still over it.  This only got resolved with the current NA system that was brought in because of the ALRVs.  The TTC's couple up procedure actually allows for arbitrary length trains now by cutting out the rear antenna on the first car, front antenna on the last car (for 3 or more cars, both antennas would have to be killed on the ones in the middle) so that when the leading edge of the first car passes over the coil in the street, it either sends the signal for normal or the signal to throw and the switch locks in the requested position and stays there the whole time the consist is going past until the trailing edge of the last car with the live rear antenna passes over the second antenna to revert and unlock the switch.

I don't know if any are online but there are pictures of a three car MU PCC with a TTC A7 leading, a Louisville in the middle, and a Cleveland bringing up the rear that was smacked together and driven around one of the divisions, I think Danforth but could be mistaken.  Not sure if you've seen that but it's believed to be the only time a three car MU PCC was done in Toronto.

* This problem was surmountable by doing a two, three whatever length MU PCC charter by running the cars as single units and then banging them together for posed photo stops and for limited running in sections where you have stretches of track that don't have NA switches present before splitting the train up again to pass over non-MU NA switches as the individual single units.  As bad as Toronto is for not thinking outside the box these days, I can only imagine how awful it must've been back when the equipment for such a charter was still available, when the place was a total official snore-fest.  No wonder nobody attempted to do such a thing.  I can hear the "You can't do that!" with the eyes bulging and veins pulsing now...

You would think that with the technology available today there would be a better way to do this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Shaun said:

You would think that with the technology available today there would be a better way to do this. 

Who said anything about today?

There are more modern technologies in existence to deal with tram junctions than what we have today, but the problem described above was sorted out 35 years ago.

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...