Jump to content
CLRV4037

Streetcar News

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, Allandale25 said:

4401 pictured in this.

 

A friend was up by the plant 2 weeks ago, and 4401 was in that exact same location, and with the same decals and paperwork still applied. I don't believe that it has moved since it was delivered there a number of months ago.

 

Dan

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4429 involved in a collision with a car last night near Broadview/Danforth. It looks like the front left got hit but not too badly 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/5/2019 at 11:11 AM, smallspy said:

A friend was up by the plant 2 weeks ago, and 4401 was in that exact same location, and with the same decals and paperwork still applied. I don't believe that it has moved since it was delivered there a number of months ago.

 

Dan

I'm starting to wonder if 4603 will see service before 4401

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom1122 said:

I'm starting to wonder if 4603 will see service before 4401

They are almost certainly waiting until the last car is on the line before running 4401 through the process. Whether 4603 will be that car or not remains to be seen.

 

Dan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talked to some people at Halton today, there is absolutely no consensus between what cars will be saved, some saying that the museum will get none, while others saying they'll get 4 and the TTC will keep a further 3. Apparently, the big thing that's preventing cars from being stored now is the lack of a new barn at Halton, which they are a decade behind in funding. Assuming they had/will get the space to store streetcars, the goal is to obtain 4 streetcars altogether (3 of which at least will be donated). Of these, 1 will be an ALRV (static, cannot run along the existing tracks or through their loops, and there are no plans to increase their size), 1 will be an original CLRV for operations, 1 will be a UTDC built CLRV for operations, and 1 will be a UTDC built CLRV for parts.

Some have stated that the TTC will likely save 3 cars for future charters and parades, these being an ALRV (if they can get the air pressure systems working), an original CLRV, and a UTDC built CLRV.

Whether any of this happens or not remains to be seen, but if you want to ensure that Halton has room for some CLRVs/ALRVs, I would encourage you to donate to the museum to ensure that they will have the room to store them in the future.

https://hcry.org/donations/#general

  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Talked to some people at Halton today, there is absolutely no consensus between what cars will be saved, some saying that the museum will get none, while others saying they'll get 4 and the TTC will keep a further 3. Apparently, the big thing that's preventing cars from being stored now is the lack of a new barn at Halton, which they are a decade behind in funding. Assuming they had/will get the space to store streetcars, the goal is to obtain 4 streetcars altogether (3 of which at least will be donated). Of these, 1 will be an ALRV (static, cannot run along the existing tracks or through their loops, and there are no plans to increase their size), 1 will be an original CLRV for operations, 1 will be a UTDC built CLRV for operations, and 1 will be a UTDC built CLRV for parts.

Some have stated that the TTC will likely save 3 cars for future charters and parades, these being an ALRV (if they can get the air pressure systems working), an original CLRV, and a UTDC built CLRV.

Whether any of this happens or not remains to be seen, but if you want to ensure that Halton has room for some CLRVs/ALRVs, I would encourage you to donate to the museum to ensure that they will have the room to store them in the future.

https://hcry.org/donations/#general

I assume the reason the ALRV wouldn't run is because it will be hard to maintain. I know that if a CLRV can handle the loops, an ALRV can as it has the same turning radius as a CLRV. Plus in the past, they've run W-30 and W-31 as a train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything I’ve heard has been totally all over the map but the prize winner that’s been repeated for about 10 years since the possibility of Halton getting CLRVs once the low floor order was placed was the story about how the regenerative breaking is a serious risk of making the substation explode.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Tom1122 said:

I assume the reason the ALRV wouldn't run is because it will be hard to maintain. I know that if a CLRV can handle the loops, an ALRV can as it has the same turning radius as a CLRV. Plus in the past, they've run W-30 and W-31 as a train.

They mentioned that the Bellows was the limiting factor for turns and that because of the weight of the ALRV, it would not be able to handle the grading along the existing HCRR line.

 

This is speculation, please take it with a grain of salt: The loops at Halton are smaller than those used on the current TTC lines, so while the two may have a defined minimum turning radius that's the same, practically, I'm assuming the CLRV can manage tighter curves than it's rating. There's also the fact that a minimum turning radius on paper doesn't mean that an ALRV ever went under that minimum turning radius while in service with the TTC. Because of the smaller loops, the Halton loops might be approaching that minimum turning radius. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

Everything I’ve heard has been totally all over the map but the prize winner that’s been repeated for about 10 years since the possibility of Halton getting CLRVs once the low floor order was placed was the story about how the regenerative breaking is a serious risk of making the substation explode.

If that's true, OMG power generators like windmills and solar panels must be making those substations explode everyday.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

They mentioned that the Bellows was the limiting factor for turns and that because of the weight of the ALRV, it would not be able to handle the grading along the existing HCRR line.

 

This is speculation, please take it with a grain of salt: The loops at Halton are smaller than those used on the current TTC lines, so while the two may have a defined minimum turning radius that's the same, practically, I'm assuming the CLRV can manage tighter curves than it's rating. There's also the fact that a minimum turning radius on paper doesn't mean that an ALRV ever went under that minimum turning radius while in service with the TTC. Because of the smaller loops, the Halton loops might be approaching that minimum turning radius. 

I've never walked it - but the HCRR seemed relatively flat to me compared to hills the ALRV would climb in regular service, such as Coxwell and Broadview.

Are the CLRV and ALRV curve radii that different? I thought the bogies on the ALRV were slightly closer together - and the ALRVs didn't swing as much as the CLRVs doing curves, I've noticed, standing at intersections. I'd have assumed the ALRV could do a slightly tighter curve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

They mentioned that the Bellows was the limiting factor for turns and that because of the weight of the ALRV, it would not be able to handle the grading along the existing HCRR line.

 

This is speculation, please take it with a grain of salt: The loops at Halton are smaller than those used on the current TTC lines, so while the two may have a defined minimum turning radius that's the same, practically, I'm assuming the CLRV can manage tighter curves than it's rating. There's also the fact that a minimum turning radius on paper doesn't mean that an ALRV ever went under that minimum turning radius while in service with the TTC. Because of the smaller loops, the Halton loops might be approaching that minimum turning radius. 

 

4 hours ago, nfitz said:

I've never walked it - but the HCRR seemed relatively flat to me compared to hills the ALRV would climb in regular service, such as Coxwell and Broadview.

On the bright side, the grading may not be all that bad due to the extreme weight of the ALRV.  Run it on the line once and it’ll flatten it out!

Yeah, HCRR’s line is pretty well flat.  We’re not talking about climbing the hills along Bathurst St especially the steep part up to St. Clair or along Gerrard St. or Kingston Rd. Or Coxwell. Or Roncesvalles. Or Broadview. Or the Queensway as it approaches Roncesvalles.  When it comes to museum lines, compared to National Capital, New York Museum of Transportation, and Seashore, the Halton line’s flat as a pancake.

The loops are curves that have radii which means as such they can be compared to any other curve. Doesn’t have to be an explicit loop to loop comparison. The big question is, are they inside or outside of the ALRV performance envelope?  That leads to question 2.  Is the geometry of the Halton loops known?  If they were built with available materials on a loose design of a pretty good idea of where the track needed to be put down, there may not be a design with plan and (elevation -can’t forget that pesky grading that’s even worse than Pittsburgh!) drawings and numbers.  And if there are, how close is what was built to what was specified?  From having been down the road of having the “this isn’t like that” revelation of the documentation not matching the reality, that is something to keep in mind.

The idea of the ALRV at Halton sounds like more fun every day!  Is the loop going to snap the streetcar in half?  Will the substation explode as soon as someone’s foot brushes the brake pedal?  Step right up, step right up, right this way folks, $100 a head to see the trolley of doom!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

Everything I’ve heard has been totally all over the map but the prize winner that’s been repeated for about 10 years since the possibility of Halton getting CLRVs once the low floor order was placed was the story about how the regenerative breaking is a serious risk of making the substation explode.

That's an old rumour that has been thoroughly debunked.

 

The substation design, apparently, is one-way only and doesn't lend itself to allowing the cars to regenerate power back to it very easily. That part is true. But will it blow up? No.

 

The CLRVs are designed so that if the overhead is not receptive to regenerative that they automatically flip over to rheostatic braking. Not only that but the regenerative (and rheostatic) braking can be cut out entirely via the breaker panel on the front dash if it's a really big concern.

 

14 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Talked to some people at Halton today, there is absolutely no consensus between what cars will be saved, some saying that the museum will get none, while others saying they'll get 4 and the TTC will keep a further 3. Apparently, the big thing that's preventing cars from being stored now is the lack of a new barn at Halton, which they are a decade behind in funding. Assuming they had/will get the space to store streetcars, the goal is to obtain 4 streetcars altogether (3 of which at least will be donated). Of these, 1 will be an ALRV (static, cannot run along the existing tracks or through their loops, and there are no plans to increase their size), 1 will be an original CLRV for operations, 1 will be a UTDC built CLRV for operations, and 1 will be a UTDC built CLRV for parts.

It should be noted that despite the fact that people may volunteer at HCRY, they aren't necessarily involved in either the day-to-day operations nor the high-level discussions that involve things like the museum fleet.

 

There are only 3 or 4 people there who do those things. I suspect that you didn't talk to any of them, and thus the confusion.

 

Dan

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, smallspy said:

That's an old rumour that has been thoroughly debunked.

 

The substation design, apparently, is one-way only and doesn't lend itself to allowing the cars to regenerate power back to it very easily. That part is true. But will it blow up? No.

 

The CLRVs are designed so that if the overhead is not receptive to regenerative that they automatically flip over to rheostatic braking. Not only that but the regenerative (and rheostatic) braking can be cut out entirely via the breaker panel on the front dash if it's a really big concern.

 

It should be noted that despite the fact that people may volunteer at HCRY, they aren't necessarily involved in either the day-to-day operations nor the high-level discussions that involve things like the museum fleet.

 

There are only 3 or 4 people there who do those things. I suspect that you didn't talk to any of them, and thus the confusion.

 

Dan

There are a few senior members I talked to, and they were the ones that noted that they were receiving cars, and would likely store them outside or in temporary barns until a more permanent structure is built. More of the part time volunteers claimed that they wouldn't receive any cars because of the lack of storage. 

 

However, I do not know for certain if the senior members are main contributors to the museum, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or two were. What's certain is that if they get an ALRV, they will not be running an ALRV along the current line, and that barn space is at a premium with funds being needed to store future vehicles. Currently, they do not know where they are going to construct a barn, or whether they're going to reconstruct barn 1.

 

What's also pretty certain is that the public will not really go out of their way to "save" any CLRVs by funding barn space like they did in saving one of the Witts. 

2 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

 

On the bright side, the grading may not be all that bad due to the extreme weight of the ALRV.  Run it on the line once and it’ll flatten it out!

Yeah, HCRR’s line is pretty well flat.  We’re not talking about climbing the hills along Bathurst St especially the steep part up to St. Clair or along Gerrard St. or Kingston Rd. Or Coxwell. Or Roncesvalles. Or Broadview. Or the Queensway as it approaches Roncesvalles.  When it comes to museum lines, compared to National Capital, New York Museum of Transportation, and Seashore, the Halton line’s flat as a pancake.

The loops are curves that have radii which means as such they can be compared to any other curve. Doesn’t have to be an explicit loop to loop comparison. The big question is, are they inside or outside of the ALRV performance envelope?  That leads to question 2.  Is the geometry of the Halton loops known?  If they were built with available materials on a loose design of a pretty good idea of where the track needed to be put down, there may not be a design with plan and (elevation -can’t forget that pesky grading that’s even worse than Pittsburgh!) drawings and numbers.  And if there are, how close is what was built to what was specified?  From having been down the road of having the “this isn’t like that” revelation of the documentation not matching the reality, that is something to keep in mind.

The idea of the ALRV at Halton sounds like more fun every day!  Is the loop going to snap the streetcar in half?  Will the substation explode as soon as someone’s foot brushes the brake pedal?  Step right up, step right up, right this way folks, $100 a head to see the trolley of doom!

It's relatively flat but you have to remember that this is a museum line, with limited available power to the vehicles, and really bad track/ties. Apparently the PCCs are power hogs compared to the Witts so they generally don't run those because they use too much electricity. While the power systems may provide enough current to supply an ALRV going at a flat grade, they likely do not supply enough to run one going up even a 0.5% incline. 

Again, just speculation, please take with a grain of salt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, smallspy said:

That's an old rumour that has been thoroughly debunked.

 

The substation design, apparently, is one-way only and doesn't lend itself to allowing the cars to regenerate power back to it very easily. That part is true. But will it blow up? No.

 

The CLRVs are designed so that if the overhead is not receptive to regenerative that they automatically flip over to rheostatic braking. Not only that but the regenerative (and rheostatic) braking can be cut out entirely via the breaker panel on the front dash if it's a really big concern.

I was bored this morning and had some time on my hands so I decided to have a bit of fun.  In other words, I was being a sarcastic jerk.  I really hope at this point, after 10 long years, that rumour is debunked.  But, sure enough, back in February, I heard someone rattling on about installing "the diode".  The first thing I thought was, "I can't believe I'm hearing this $h!t again", and then I walked away because I didn't want to explain that if you've got semiconductor diodes performing the rectification, you don't need to add another semiconductor diode (or some other member of the rectifier class of semiconductors) in series to protect it from reverse current because that's what the first ones in the rectification circuit are doing in the first place, which is how the "Halton diode protection diode" joke got started probably around the same time the rumour got started.  So yes, Halton's substation is one way.  By definition.  That's the fundamental principal of rectification of AC to DC, making electric current flow one way, and with semiconductor rectification it truly is one way only.

There is a basis in reality for rumours though, so what's the basis in reality for this one?  Well, back in the day before silicon or germanium power semiconductors, there were the old ways of making AC into direct current.  Things like mercury arc rectifiers, motor generator sets, and synchronous rotary converters.  Mercury arc rectifiers don't handle reverse currents well and you could cause the arc to go out or cause the thing to get very unhappy so if you have an existing substation using these and suddenly get regenerative braking equipment, you'd drop a semiconductor in line to keep the reverse current off the rectifier.  ERRS used to have a mercury arc rectifier substation at Fort Edmonton park but they decommissioned it, unfortunately.  As for the spinning equipment, those were all bidirectional capable, which means in a reverse current situation, you could end up backfeeding the grid aka spin the hydro meter backwards and the utility companies don't like that especially when it's unplanned and spurious.  It's actually quite dangerous to work crews when that happens and something that's supposed to be de-energied suddenly becomes live from the customer end.  So yeah, you'd drop something in line to prevent that situation from happening.  But diode protection diodes?  No.  Well, at least not among people that are familiar with power conversion anyways.

 

29 minutes ago, Streety McCarface said:

There are a few senior members I talked to, and they were the ones that noted that they were receiving cars, and would likely store them outside or in temporary barns until a more permanent structure is built. More of the part time volunteers claimed that they wouldn't receive any cars because of the lack of storage. 

 

However, I do not know for certain if the senior members are main contributors to the museum, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or two were. What's certain is that if they get an ALRV, they will not be running an ALRV along the current line, and that barn space is at a premium with funds being needed to store future vehicles. Currently, they do not know where they are going to construct a barn, or whether they're going to reconstruct barn 1.

 

What's also pretty certain is that the public will not really go out of their way to "save" any CLRVs by funding barn space like they did in saving one of the Witts. 

It's relatively flat but you have to remember that this is a museum line, with limited available power to the vehicles, and really bad track/ties. Apparently the PCCs are power hogs compared to the Witts so they generally don't run those because they use too much electricity. While the power systems may provide enough current to supply an ALRV going at a flat grade, they likely do not supply enough to run one going up even a 0.5% incline. 

Again, just speculation, please take with a grain of salt. 

 

Numbers.  It comes down to numbers.  Like curve radii, these are all quantities that can be measured and calculated and evaluated.  Are we talking about peak current draws?  Averages?  Total kilowatt hours used in a day?  For what it's worth, a CLRV with 2x185 HP motors has more installed traction motor power on it than an ALRV does with 4xHP motors with a total of 370 and 348 HP respectively.  So if you've got enough electrical capacity to move a CLRV, you definitely have enough to move an ALRV.  And you can also see one reason why the ALRVs have been sucky performers.  Work the numbers.  Stick with objective facts, quantifiable, measurable, physical parameters and work the numbers.  The wishy washy subjective stuff along the lines of things like  "I like maroon and cream because it's even more better" doesn't determine if something will work or not.

As for raising money, the only insight I have here is between the early fifties when Halton was starting up and now, the middle class has taken one hell of a bashing especially in recent decades, especially in the greater Toronto area where wage inflation hasn't remotely kept up with runaway cost of living.  A lot of people just don't have the disposable incomes to be able to give money to this sort of thing the way they used to.  It's an unfortunate situation on all sides.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

Apparently the PCCs are power hogs compared to the Witts so they generally don't run those because they use too much electricity. 

I'm surprised they'd use more than those larger Port Stanley cars - which they often have one running when I've been there.

Though there's usually a PCC running when I've been there as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, nfitz said:

I'm surprised they'd use more than those larger Port Stanley cars - which they often have one running when I've been there.

Though there's usually a PCC running when I've been there as well.

I’m thinking current shunt and either a meter with a chart recorder or go fancy high tech and drag people kicking and screaming into the late 1970s and get a digital meter hooked up to a computer via HP-IB aka GP-IB aka IEEE-488 or maybe a National Instruments data acquisition card or something of that sort and get some actual measurements.

Bonus points for also logging line voltage simultaneously so you can see what a given car’s doing for current draw and what impact on line voltage it’s having which would speak to the stiffness of the power supply and impedance of the distribution along the line.

That combined with some carefully designed test runs would settle things pretty definitively.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Numbers.  It comes down to numbers.  Like curve radii, these are all quantities that can be measured and calculated and evaluated.  Are we talking about peak current draws?  Averages?  Total kilowatt hours used in a day?  For what it's worth, a CLRV with 2x185 HP motors has more installed traction motor power on it than an ALRV does with 4xHP motors with a total of 370 and 348 HP respectively.  So if you've got enough electrical capacity to move a CLRV, you definitely have enough to move an ALRV.  And you can also see one reason why the ALRVs have been sucky performers.  Work the numbers.  Stick with objective facts, quantifiable, measurable, physical parameters and work the numbers.  The wishy washy subjective stuff along the lines of things like  "I like maroon and cream because it's even more better" doesn't determine if something will work or not.

As for raising money, the only insight I have here is between the early fifties when Halton was starting up and now, the middle class has taken one hell of a bashing especially in recent decades, especially in the greater Toronto area where wage inflation hasn't remotely kept up with runaway cost of living.  A lot of people just don't have the disposable incomes to be able to give money to this sort of thing the way they used to.  It's an unfortunate situation on all sides.

While it's true that maximum power output for a CLRV is higher, the fact still remains that an ALRV weighs almost twice as much. Remember, these are museum conditions, I doubt the power output required to run a CLRV or ALRV at Halton would be anywhere near the maximum the motors could handle. After all, they have the interest of preservation on their side. With the better traction motors on the CLRV, it's also worth noting that the acceleration is greater for the CLRV than the ALRV. 

With all this in mind, almost everything (average power consumed, total power used per day, etc) would increase linearly with mass simply because the vehicle would have much more kinetic energy than a comparable CLRV. The one in question would be peak current draw but thats only assuming the CLRV and the ALRV are accelerating at their max speeds (1.5 m/s^2 and 1.2 m/s^2 respectively). This obviously would not happen at Halton, and both would probably be limited to the same acceleration each. 

@nfitz raises a good point regarding the Interurban Car running on the railroad, of which, it is about 50 tons (almost 15 tons heavier than an ALRV). But it should be noted that the car has far fewer electrical components than a CLRV/ALRV, and accelerates far slower than any streetcar used by the railway. 

Let it be known that I am not in any way an electrical engineer, so I am not qualified to make claims on the electrical systems or mechanisms, this is again, my educated guess based on my knowledge. I'm really only relying on speculation because there aren't any hard numbers available for the dimensions of the Halton line, and even if there are, they'd be somewhat inaccurate due to the shape of their line. I'd have to go back and check their archives for power consumption information as well, so I don't have much to work with. 

In terms of actually saving vehicles and donating to Halton, my general assumption is that people tend to have more of a disdain for the CLRV/ALRV family than previous generations of streetcars, likely fueled by the Ford fiasco, the age of the cars, the lack of AC, the overhaul program failure, the lack of unique characteristics distinguished by the public (compared to the wooden nature of the Peter Witts, or the historical significance of the PCC in Toronto) and the whole bombardier fiasco. If people see something that they believe is worth saving, they'll save it. The lighthouse preservation societies in the US are a great example of this. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Streety McCarface said:

While it's true that maximum power output for a CLRV is higher, the fact still remains that an ALRV weighs almost twice as much. Remember, these are museum conditions, I doubt the power output required to run a CLRV or ALRV at Halton would be anywhere near the maximum the motors could handle. After all, they have the interest of preservation on their side. With the better traction motors on the CLRV, it's also worth noting that the acceleration is greater for the CLRV than the ALRV. 

With all this in mind, almost everything (average power consumed, total power used per day, etc) would increase linearly with mass simply because the vehicle would have much more kinetic energy than a comparable CLRV. The one in question would be peak current draw but thats only assuming the CLRV and the ALRV are accelerating at their max speeds (1.5 m/s^2 and 1.2 m/s^2 respectively). This obviously would not happen at Halton, and both would probably be limited to the same acceleration each. 

Very true about the kinetic energy but the correlation over to electrical energy isn't exact because of the way the transfer function of electric motors plays out plus the overheads in the control systems.  I was saying about working the numbers and things get a real nasty shade of ugly there with math that's better kept to things like Simulink and the MATLAB tf command!  Fortunately for the LRVs, chopper controls are very efficient and they also take the edge off high starting currents so easing a CLRV or ALRV into motion and then picking up some speed is going to be pretty gentle in terms of how close you're going to get to hitting the overload limit set on the substation's breaker.

To be honest, and this is just my opinion since I don't have hard numbers to back me up on this, I don't think the substation's going to be an issue with running any LRVs at Halton.  What all of us have been doing so far is comparing one car against another when the substation's capable of powering multiple vehicles simultaneously and several miscellaneous streetcars going at once would definitely add up to more than one LRV by itself does.  Pretty much every museum has informal procedures in place so that the big power hungry cars get moved on their own so as not to trip out the line since most places don't have monster substations.  And if a monster substation is present, that kind of shifts the problem to the hydro bill depending on how your utility company does demand billing and for some places, that can be very expensive.  Realistically, as far as an ALRV goes, I'm more concerned about the loops falling inside or outside what those cars are designed to handle because they are tight, but are they too tight, plus the maintenance basketcases those cars have always been.

21 minutes ago, Streety McCarface said:

 

@nfitz raises a good point regarding the Interurban Car running on the railroad, of which, it is about 50 tons (almost 15 tons heavier than an ALRV). But it should be noted that the car has far fewer electrical components than a CLRV/ALRV, and accelerates far slower than any streetcar used by the railway. 

 

Let it be known that I am not in any way an electrical engineer, so I am not qualified to make claims on the electrical systems or mechanisms, this is again, my educated guess based on my knowledge. I'm really only relying on speculation because there aren't any hard numbers available for the dimensions of the Halton line, and even if there are, they'd be somewhat inaccurate due to the shape of their line. I'd have to go back and check their archives for power consumption information as well, so I don't have much to work with. 

L&PS 8 is a 1500 volt car by the way.  There was some talk years ago about changing out the 1500 V air compressor for a 600 V one because it was taking an eternity to charge up the air system with the higher voltage one running slowly on the lower line voltage.  Don't know if they did or if it's still got the original on it.  The 'low voltage' relatively speaking for control power on that car is 600 V and a motor generator's present to make it but disconnected since it isn't needed with the incoming line at 600.  But at less than half line voltage, performance and energy consumption on that car is going to be very forgiving which is fine in a museum.  Those must have been great in the summer on the London & Port Stanley though with all the windows open and the thing cranked up all the way screaming down the line.

There's no problem with not being an engineer and educated guesses are a good starting place.  You just have to be curious and have a desire to learn and bit by bit you pick it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Wayside Observer said:

Very true about the kinetic energy but the correlation over to electrical energy isn't exact because of the way the transfer function of electric motors plays out plus the overheads in the control systems.  I was saying about working the numbers and things get a real nasty shade of ugly there with math that's better kept to things like Simulink and the MATLAB tf command!  Fortunately for the LRVs, chopper controls are very efficient and they also take the edge off high starting currents so easing a CLRV or ALRV into motion and then picking up some speed is going to be pretty gentle in terms of how close you're going to get to hitting the overload limit set on the substation's breaker.

To be honest, and this is just my opinion since I don't have hard numbers to back me up on this, I don't think the substation's going to be an issue with running any LRVs at Halton.  What all of us have been doing so far is comparing one car against another when the substation's capable of powering multiple vehicles simultaneously and several miscellaneous streetcars going at once would definitely add up to more than one LRV by itself does.  Pretty much every museum has informal procedures in place so that the big power hungry cars get moved on their own so as not to trip out the line since most places don't have monster substations.  And if a monster substation is present, that kind of shifts the problem to the hydro bill depending on how your utility company does demand billing and for some places, that can be very expensive.  Realistically, as far as an ALRV goes, I'm more concerned about the loops falling inside or outside what those cars are designed to handle because they are tight, but are they too tight, plus the maintenance basketcases those cars have always been.

L&PS 8 is a 1500 volt car by the way.  There was some talk years ago about changing out the 1500 V air compressor for a 600 V one because it was taking an eternity to charge up the air system with the higher voltage one running slowly on the lower line voltage.  Don't know if they did or if it's still got the original on it.  The 'low voltage' relatively speaking for control power on that car is 600 V and a motor generator's present to make it but disconnected since it isn't needed with the incoming line at 600.  But at less than half line voltage, performance and energy consumption on that car is going to be very forgiving which is fine in a museum.  Those must have been great in the summer on the London & Port Stanley though with all the windows open and the thing cranked up all the way screaming down the line.

There's no problem with not being an engineer and educated guesses are a good starting place.  You just have to be curious and have a desire to learn and bit by bit you pick it up.

Lol, I'm an engineer, just not an electrical engineer. I too have a love-hate relationship with MATLAB : P
But this is exactly why I'm here, you almost never learn things outside your field in a uni classroom dedicated to your field, especially in engineering, so getting some practical knowledge outside your field is very useful. 

But back to Halton, they generally have 3 cars powered at any given time, of which, 2 are idle, and one is running. Obviously an idle car is going to use significantly less power than a running one, but it's still important to note this. It would make sense that replacing a legacy streetcar with a much heavier and larger ALRV under these operating conditions might require surplus power which the museum may not have available. It's unlikely, but certainly possible. Eventually I'll inquire further but that will have to wait a few months. 

Share this post


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

In terms of actually saving vehicles and donating to Halton, my general assumption is that people tend to have more of a disdain for the CLRV/ALRV family than previous generations of streetcars, likely fueled by the Ford fiasco, the age of the cars, the lack of AC, the overhaul program failure, the lack of unique characteristics distinguished by the public (compared to the wooden nature of the Peter Witts, or the historical significance of the PCC in Toronto) and the whole bombardier fiasco. If people see something that they believe is worth saving, they'll save it. The lighthouse preservation societies in the US are a great example of this. 

I doubt people were any more charitable to the PCCs, especially considering that there were 750 of the things in operation at their peak. No air-conditioning, wildly energy inefficient... not sure why they'd be any more or less of a hard sell than the CLRVs.

The CLRV has been a part of Toronto heritage for 40 years. They've earned a historical reputation.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


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

I doubt people were any more charitable to the PCCs, especially considering that there were 750 of the things in operation at their peak. No air-conditioning, wildly energy inefficient... not sure why they'd be any more or less of a hard sell than the CLRVs.

The CLRV has been a part of Toronto heritage for 40 years. They've earned a historical reputation.

Definitely don't disagree with you with regards to the CLRVs and ALRVs, but we are living in times that are a little different. Sure, the PCCs were plentiful, but they were in operation for like 70 years, and there were many iterations of the car. During their run, I don't believe subway cars or buses had air conditioning either (except as they aged, but even then, AC was still a new concept overall for public transit). The CLRVs were very similar to the layout of the PCCs from a passenger's perspective, and therefore, I think it's safe to say that there wasn't the same resentment for the PCCs as there is now for the CLRVs. Even avid railfans/transit fans, and transit enthusiasts I know that may foam at the mouth to ride an H6 are writing the CLRVs and ALRVs off as garbage. To me, that's just very sad. 

 

We also have to consider the fact that streetcar systems were dying out throughout North America during their run. With the PCCs leaving at around the same time the TTC was considering abandoning parts of the network, it makes sense that people were more nostalgic for the cars back then and would want to preserve some pieces of history. With the streetcar network being an integral part of our public transit network, we don't really see that nostalgia these days. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

I was bored this morning and had some time on my hands so I decided to have a bit of fun.  In other words, I was being a sarcastic jerk.  I really hope at this point, after 10 long years, that rumour is debunked.

It's pretty amazing to me how long these rumours manage to persist. I can't count on all of my hands and feet how many times myself or any one of a number of people who actually know about these things have had to tell people this calendar year that there is no issue with running CLRVs at the museum, and that their substation and overhead is capable of dealing with them.

 

So yeah, despite it being 10 long years, it still happens to be around. And I bet you that it will come up again on this forum, nevermind anywhere else, before the end of the year.

 

Humans are silly, aren't they?

 

Dan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

There are a few senior members I talked to, and they were the ones that noted that they were receiving cars, and would likely store them outside or in temporary barns until a more permanent structure is built. More of the part time volunteers claimed that they wouldn't receive any cars because of the lack of storage. 

 

However, I do not know for certain if the senior members are main contributors to the museum, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or two were. What's certain is that if they get an ALRV, they will not be running an ALRV along the current line, and that barn space is at a premium with funds being needed to store future vehicles. Currently, they do not know where they are going to construct a barn, or whether they're going to reconstruct barn 1.

 

What's also pretty certain is that the public will not really go out of their way to "save" any CLRVs by funding barn space like they did in saving one of the Witts. 

It's relatively flat but you have to remember that this is a museum line, with limited available power to the vehicles, and really bad track/ties. Apparently the PCCs are power hogs compared to the Witts so they generally don't run those because they use too much electricity. While the power systems may provide enough current to supply an ALRV going at a flat grade, they likely do not supply enough to run one going up even a 0.5% incline. 

Again, just speculation, please take with a grain of salt. 

HCRR's line is not flat. Going from east to west, the line is downhill. I know because I did a little training there and going west from the loop, cars pretty much coast a lot of the way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tom1122 said:

HCRR's line is not flat. Going from east to west, the line is downhill. I know because I did a little training there and going west from the loop, cars pretty much coast a lot of the way.

It's relatively flat. Looking at an old 1:50,000 topo, the elevation is about 1115 ft (339.8 m) above mean sea level (AMSL) at Fourth Line (just past the loop) and drops to about 1090 ft (332.2) AMSL where the station is. A drop of about 25 feet. Let's call it 8 metres over a distance of 1,250 metres. That's a 0.6% slope, and I think I'm being generous (wish I could find better online topography for Milton or Region of Halton).

Compare to the hill up Coxwell Avenue between Queen Street and Lower Gerrard. According to http://map.toronto.ca/maps/map.jsp?app=TorontoMaps_v2 the elevation at Queen is about 78.6 m AMSL compared to 89.3 m AMSL at Lower Gerrard and Coxwell. That's about 10.7 metres over a distance 760 metres. A 1.4% slope.

It's only about 81.8 m AMSL at Dundas and Coxwell - much of the slope is in the 350 metres from Robbins Avenue (83.1 m) to Lower Gerrard - 1.8% slope. The slope from Dundas to Gerrard at Broadview is about the same.

Of course, sections where the ALRV weren't in frequent service have some steeper slopes - Bathurst averages about 3.6% from Davenport (131.5 m AMSL) to St. Clair (157.5 m AMSL) - and of course pieces are steeper than that!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the Bathurst hill closer to 8%? During the TTS PCC charter in 2016 attendees were given a facts package of the streetcar network with some of the steepest grades outlined. I don't have the sheet to hand but I recall Bathurst was in the neighbourhood of 8%.

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

×
×
  • Create New...