Jump to content
PCC Guy

TTC CLRV/ALRV updates and discussion

Recommended Posts

4200 is one of the retired ALRVs according to an operator in the Transit Toronto FB group.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4089 and 4098 are on the 501.

4164 is at Roncesvalles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/7/2019 at 10:00 PM, PCC Guy said:

4200 is one of the retired ALRVs according to an operator in the Transit Toronto FB group.

...aaand 4090 is done too.

  • Sad 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, 7969 said:

How long has it been since an ALRV was in service.  I haven't seen them in quite  a while.

It was Jan 19 I believe, unless one ended up going into service without being logged into its respective route. 4204 and 4230 were in service that day until the early afternoon, and I haven't found any more recent records of them in service.

Given how garbage those cars are, I have to wonder if they will bother putting them back into service at all.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, MK78 said:

How come the ALRV's are so much worse reliability wise than CLRV's? They're newer, aren't they?

I believe it was a similar reason that the H6s had reliability problems, the UTDC used more unreliable local content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, IRT_BMT_IND said:

I believe it was a similar reason that the H6s had reliability problems, the UTDC used more unreliable local content.

Ah I see, thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, IRT_BMT_IND said:

I believe it was a similar reason that the H6s had reliability problems, the UTDC used more unreliable local content.

Much of it on those cars was from Brush, so not local.  Local was when they were buying Westinghouse gear for PCC cars and H1-4s and it was made in Hamilton or GE gear for trolleycoaches and Montrealers and it was made in Peterborough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Downsview 108 said:

The H6s have the same motors as the ALRVs, right?

Nope it's different I think

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Downsview 108 said:

The H6s have the same motors as the ALRVs, right?

 

18 minutes ago, Rami A. said:

Nope it's different I think

They weren't identical, ie. ALRVs weren't exactly repackaged H6 subway cars, but there was a lot of overlap which did include the same Brush chopper and motors.  The air systems, particularly the friction brakes differed and the ALRVs had a static converter for low voltage power vs. the troublesome MA set on the H6 cars that the TTC replaced later in life to try and make them more reliable, which was required to provide three phase AC for the air conditioning, which was another thing that differed between the H6s and ALRVs.  At the time, TTC had been buying air conditioned buses and air conditioned subway trains but if you rode or worked in streetcars, no AC for you!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of AC, does anyone happen to know what kinds of modifications were made to 4041's innards to support the system being installed? I presume that they couldn't just drop it in and be done with it.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

Speaking of AC, does anyone happen to know what kinds of modifications were made to 4041's innards to support the system being installed? I presume that they couldn't just drop it in and be done with it.

It got a new low voltage converter and I believe the low voltage DC side is 24 volt. The converter had an audibly different sound as it was running compared to the stock CLRV unit.  It was a one-off in that respect.

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PCC Guy said:

4164 returned to service on the 506 yesterday.

Whatever caused it to end up at Roncesvalles probably wasn't anything major. I saw it heading back to Russell under its own power (not in service) in the middle of the afternoon last Friday the same day you reported it in the west end.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WoodbineSecondExit said:

Whatever caused it to end up at Roncesvalles probably wasn't anything major. I saw it heading back to Russell under its own power (not in service) in the middle of the afternoon last Friday the same day you reported it in the west end.

I saw 4164 (I believe it was Monday) pushing 4003 westbound, just west of Russell crossing Greenwood. Possibly to get 4003 to Roncesvalles 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/10/2019 at 9:19 AM, PCC Guy said:

4049 is on route 506

Missed this post but when I saw 4164 deadheading back to Russell during Friday's PM rush, the car it was tailing on Queen Street was a not in service 4049. Actually it might have been 4049 following 4164... but either way they were both rolling back to the yard at the same time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Andythagiant said:

Car 4106.

Crossposted from the streetcar news thread - looks like this one will be out of service again. What's with this trend of cars freshly returned from repairs going up in smoke? :lol:

  • Sad 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

Crossposted from the streetcar news thread - looks like this one will be out of service again. What's with this trend of cars freshly returned from repairs going up in smoke? :lol:

This car gave me trouble on Tuesday. Suffered a low voltage issue that would normally be a small thing, but never resolved. Got pulled out of service as a precaution. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

Crossposted from the streetcar news thread - looks like this one will be out of service again. What's with this trend of cars freshly returned from repairs going up in smoke? :lol:

Speaking about equipment in general, not just streetcars, idleness is rough on equipment.  Lubricants dry out and set into place and that's rough on all the moving parts, dust settles into electrical contacts. The contact surfaces themselves oxidize in addition to becoming dirty.  Capacitor dielectric materials in electrolytic caps deteriorate from disuse.  Moisture gets into everything without any heat being generated from operation to drive it off and this deteriorates electrical insulation, especially in motors, and the air systems on the old cars are well known for moisture problems. The list goes on and factor in age related deterioration, if an older streetcar goes down for a bit of time for repair, things can get rough.  The TTC maintenance guys can probably relate to having stuff sit out of service for a while for repair, then go out after getting done and having it come back once or twice for follow up secondary issue repairs from sitting idle before it settles in and goes out out of the shop and stays out again.  It's surprising how fast problems can develop when something gets idled.

Recommissioning older equipment is a bit of an art form and you need to expect a few go rounds until everything falls into place and runs nicely again.  The military typically gives things full overhauls before being placed into long term storage for this reason, to make the startup and return to service as painless as possible, especially when it may need to happen very quickly for operational/deployment reasons.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×