Jump to content

Streetcar News


CLRV4037

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, TTC T6H-5307N 2252 said:

Then TTC will consider postponing the Retirements of the CLRVs and ALRVs

If it's not economical to repair the unit, it will be retired, Flexity or no Flexity. There are more retired and MIA legacy cars than Flexities in existence right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The car driver should have his license automatically revoked for life. The level of stupidity displayed on their part is incredible.

While they're at it, they should force him/her to pay for all the damage they caused.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, lip said:

The car driver should have his license automatically revoked for life. The level of stupidity displayed on their part is incredible.

While they're at it, they should force him/her to pay for all the damage they caused.

The King Street Pilot probably confused the driver

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, leylandvictory2 said:

The yellow line is clearly painted on the road *facepalm*

Not sure if they were looking at their GPS as I don't know if their GPS is updated to show traffic restrictions

3 minutes ago, nfitz said:

Alcohol probably confused the driver!

Eh maybe mixed in the two ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, lip said:

While they're at it, they should force him/her to pay for all the damage they caused.

Is it really worth going through the effort to make them pay for the 50 ml of paint that will be required to repair the CLRV?

 

Dan

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, smallspy said:

Is it really worth going through the effort to make them pay for the 50 ml of paint that will be required to repair the CLRV?

 

Dan

Wouldnt hurt, apparently money seems to be the only thing that gets people's attention these days. If a big huge streetcar doesn't catch one's attention, all hope is lost to that clueless soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lip said:

Wouldnt hurt, apparently money seems to be the only thing that gets people's attention these days. If a big huge streetcar doesn't catch one's attention, all hope is lost to that clueless soul.

You totally missed the point.

 

The streetcar had virtually no damage to it whatsoever. The only damage was to the skirt - which is basically a consumable part anyways - and some minor scratches to the anticlimber. That's it. The car was likely back in service later that day or the next.

 

Therefore, there's no point in charging for "damages to the vehicle" when there was no damage to begin with. What are you going to do, send him a bill for zero dollars?  What's the cost of 50ml of black paint, 75 cents?


Dan

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, smallspy said:

You totally missed the point.

 

The streetcar had virtually no damage to it whatsoever. The only damage was to the skirt - which is basically a consumable part anyways - and some minor scratches to the anticlimber. That's it. The car was likely back in service later that day or the next.

 

Therefore, there's no point in charging for "damages to the vehicle" when there was no damage to begin with. What are you going to do, send him a bill for zero dollars?  What's the cost of 50ml of black paint, 75 cents?

 

Dan

Considering how many retired CLRV's there are, they can take a skirt off one of the streetcars awaiting conversion to a soup can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, smallspy said:

The streetcar had virtually no damage to it whatsoever. The only damage was to the skirt - which is basically a consumable part anyways - and some minor scratches to the anticlimber. That's it. The car was likely back in service later that day or the next.

I checked it on the tracker, later in the morning. The accident was downtown, heading to Bathurst Street. Later in the morning, it was in service on St. Clair.

 

I'm not sure it even left service - at least not for very long. I've seen streetcars downtown involved in fender benders before, simply parked on some unused track for a short period, and then continue in service.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, smallspy said:

You totally missed the point.

 

The streetcar had virtually no damage to it whatsoever. The only damage was to the skirt - which is basically a consumable part anyways - and some minor scratches to the anticlimber. That's it. The car was likely back in service later that day or the next.

 

Therefore, there's no point in charging for "damages to the vehicle" when there was no damage to begin with. What are you going to do, send him a bill for zero dollars?  What's the cost of 50ml of black paint, 75 cents?

 

Dan

Very fair point there. I wasnt aware of the extent of damages in this particular case, so yes of course there would be no point in billing them with damages if the damage was very minor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not agree that knocking the skirt off that streetcar was without cost. The TTC’s Service was disrupted, another operator presumably summoned to move the vehicle - presumably now out of service and no longer earning revenue - since the operator at the time was taken to hospital, mechanics required to source and fit replacement mountings. We don’t know if the operator was forced to take sick time or what other rostering impacts or overtime accrued. If any of that is economically recoverable by TTC in house lawyers, why not seek it when if the situation was reversed the Commission would be facing a demand for tens of thousands, even if later settled for nuisance value which could still be a four figure sum.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, lip said:

Very fair point there. I wasnt aware of the extent of damages in this particular case, so yes of course there would be no point in billing them with damages if the damage was very minor.

Hang on. You replied to the question of "is it worth making them pay for 50 mL of paint" with "Yes". That desire to recover the cost of 3 tablespoons of paint is inconsistent with your statement above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

?

I just agreed with Dan that there would be no point in recovering the cost of said "3 tablespoons of paint" as the damages in this case were very minor (ie: the 3 tablespoons of paint). I dont know what you're getting at here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, dowlingm said:

I would not agree that knocking the skirt off that streetcar was without cost. The TTC’s Service was disrupted, another operator presumably summoned to move the vehicle - presumably now out of service and no longer earning revenue - since the operator at the time was taken to hospital, mechanics required to source and fit replacement mountings. We don’t know if the operator was forced to take sick time or what other rostering impacts or overtime accrued. If any of that is economically recoverable by TTC in house lawyers, why not seek it when if the situation was reversed the Commission would be facing a demand for tens of thousands, even if later settled for nuisance value which could still be a four figure sum.

To add if the driver of the car appeals to the police charges, the streercar operater will receive a court supena to attend the court hearing probably on ttc time. 

 

Also if the accident took place in the streercar's last trip, the streetcar driver is obligated to stay to remain at thr scene pending the police investigation.  The duration at the scene will be considered as OT should the investigation passed his/her scheduled finished time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, leylandvictory2 said:

Also if the accident took place in the streercar's last trip, the streetcar driver is obligated to stay to remain at thr scene pending the police investigation.  The duration at the scene will be considered as OT should the investigation passed his/her scheduled finished time.

Given the accident was before 6 AM, and the 512 streetcar was heading west downtown towards Bathurst and away from the yard - and was in service on St. Clair later in the morning ... I think we can safely conclude that there was no OT for the operator!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, nfitz said:

Given the accident was before 6 AM, and the 512 streetcar was heading west downtown towards Bathurst and away from the yard - and was in service on St. Clair later in the morning ... I think we can safely conclude that there was no OT for the operator!

The operator of the streetcar was taken to hospital as a precautionary measure, so I don’t think we can say with certainty either way

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...