Jump to content
CLRV4037

Streetcar News

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, smallspy said:

It isn't a joint. The rail itself is fine.

 

The issue is with a concrete slab within the track allowance on the west side of the Don River Bridge. They found that it would move 2 to 3 inches as a car passed over it.
 

Dan

So how would they stop it from flexing so much to prevent further damage to cars that pass?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shaun said:

So how would they stop it from flexing so much to prevent further damage to cars that pass?

If it's right at the joint, looking at Streeview, modifying the bridge, in the way they modified the joint and abutment  just next to that for King, for the streetcar lanes would work (recall that streetcars didn't use that piece for months because of problems with the bridge). Looks like that's been an accident waiting to happen for many years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Shaun said:

So how would they stop it from flexing so much to prevent further damage to cars that pass?

It may not be an issue of flexing. Perhaps all they needed to do was drill and grout some anchors to prevent it from bouncing.

 

I don't have enough information to know exactly what the cause was, nor what the fix was, so frankly this may all just be idle speculation.

 

Dan

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the TTC 5 year service plan Held until further review is a extension of the 505 to Pape, Greenwood, Coxwell or Woodbine stations which would be a mini relief line and which means we could possibly see a Coxwell Streetcar eventually as well they’ve recommended a 512 extension to Jane and possibly to Jane subway Station. 
Also held for further review is the removal of the stop on the 504 and 505 on Broadview at Jack Layton Way
Not recommended was a 512 extension east via St.Clair and O’Connor to Warden Station (thought who ever came up with that is nuts) a reinstatement of the Parliament streetcar operating  from Castle Frank via King and terminating Downtown (ie:York Street) A direct route to YTZ a extension of the 506 up Parkside to Keele Station as well as a Front St streetcar from Dufferin to the future East Harbour Station 

New streetcars are projected to arrive between 2022 and 2024

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, John Oke said:

Looking at the TTC 5 year service plan Held until further review is a extension of the 505 to Pape, Greenwood, Coxwell or Woodbine stations which would be a mini relief 

 

So they said in the report that this would be a good idea to maximize surface connections at the Gerrard/Carlaw Ontario Line station. They do realize that there is already a 506 that goes there and sending the 505 to Pape/Gerrard instead of Broadview station doesn’t really do anyone any good. 

 

31 minutes ago, John Oke said:


Not recommended was a 512 extension east via St.Clair and O’Connor to Warden Station (thought who ever came up with that is nuts) 

 

Indeed it is nuts. The plan says to extend the 512 “across the Don Valley”. I’m not sure exactly what bridge they’d be using for that idea so good luck with that. If they took one look at Google Maps they’d see the large interruption of St. Clair across the valley. 
 

 

31 minutes ago, John Oke said:

New streetcars are projected to arrive between 2022 and 2024

 

I’ll believe it when I see it 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are so many things that are flawed in the report, it's just to numerous to list them all. However, the one i'll comment on are the new streetcars projections.

The fact that they are pretending like new streetcars will start ariving as early as 2022 is a joke in and of itself. Are they planning on sole-sourcing from Bombardier? Because that's the only way in hell they'll meet that deadline. Heck even if they did sole-source from Bombardier, good luck getting them to get their supply chains in order after the final Flexity has been delivered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, lip said:

There are so many things that are flawed in the report, it's just to numerous to list them all. However, the one i'll comment on are the new streetcars projections.

The fact that they are pretending like new streetcars will start ariving as early as 2022 is a joke in and of itself. Are they planning on sole-sourcing from Bombardier? Because that's the only way in hell they'll meet that deadline. Heck even if they did sole-source from Bombardier, good luck getting them to get their supply chains in order after the final Flexity has been delivered.

They will have to build it off the Kingston line. The Freedom for the crosstown and Edmonton will keep them busy for the next two years.

If the reliability goes up, it wouldn't be a bad a idea to sole source them. They won't have to train, modify the tracks or test them again which allows them to get them in service in 2022. A brand new car would never see service till 2025+.

Share this post


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

There are so many things that are flawed in the report, it's just to numerous to list them all. However, the one i'll comment on are the new streetcars projections.

The fact that they are pretending like new streetcars will start ariving as early as 2022 is a joke in and of itself. Are they planning on sole-sourcing from Bombardier? Because that's the only way in hell they'll meet that deadline. Heck even if they did sole-source from Bombardier, good luck getting them to get their supply chains in order after the final Flexity has been delivered.

I guess paying 2-4 times more for those sole source cars are cheaper than going out to tender??? BBD got to recover its loses on the current order

Will they be built in Kingston or Thunder Bay, as I get the feeling Thunder Bay is dead once all orders are complete??? The only thing on the books are GO cars come 2020 and nothing in 2021 at this time.

Then, if the Skytrain is to be built in Kingston for the Ontario Line, how will the streetcars fit in with that order?? Then going to Skytrain is a mistake like the SRT was for the Ontario Line, as it will never handle the ridership on day one.

Reading the service plan shows TTC can't think out side the box or more like it not in the City Official Plan. How hard is to go to the city and say we need to change the official plan to put transit where it should be now or down the road?? City Official Plan are updated from time to time.  SOS opposition to the 512 design and what was plan for it wasn't in the City Official Plan at the time of their legal action, but was under review by the OMB and approved the following year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, John Oke said:

a reinstatement of the Parliament streetcar operating  from Castle Frank via King and terminating Downtown (ie:York Street)

Why on earth is extending the 505 on the books but this is not? What is their rationale? 

Edit: read that the person who submitted the idea recommended numbering the line 508, it's kind of silly granted that the 508 is an active route in the city. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, drum118 said:

I guess paying 2-4 times more for those sole source cars are cheaper than going out to tender??? BBD got to recover its loses on the current order

Will they be built in Kingston or Thunder Bay, as I get the feeling Thunder Bay is dead once all orders are complete??? The only thing on the books are GO cars come 2020 and nothing in 2021 at this time.

Then, if the Skytrain is to be built in Kingston for the Ontario Line, how will the streetcars fit in with that order?? Then going to Skytrain is a mistake like the SRT was for the Ontario Line, as it will never handle the ridership on day one.

Reading the service plan shows TTC can't think out side the box or more like it not in the City Official Plan. How hard is to go to the city and say we need to change the official plan to put transit where it should be now or down the road?? City Official Plan are updated from time to time.  SOS opposition to the 512 design and what was plan for it wasn't in the City Official Plan at the time of their legal action, but was under review by the OMB and approved the following year.

There's more than one type of Skytrain in operation.

If they use the model for the Canada Line and use 6 cars (20m lengths each), it would only be slightly less capacity than the TRs we have (23m lengths each). They are even similar in width.
However, being not a rail expert, I'm not sure if the Canada Line models exceed the capacity Dougie claimed for the smaller gauge trains to be run on the Canada Line?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, CLRV4002 said:

So they said in the report that this would be a good idea to maximize surface connections at the Gerrard/Carlaw Ontario Line station. They do realize that there is already a 506 that goes there and sending the 505 to Pape/Gerrard instead of Broadview station doesn’t really do anyone any good. 

To the contrary, this is already something that the TTC is looking at for some time.


The idea is that moving the Dundas cars away from Broadview would help isolate them from any issues that may happen at the station (considering how busy the King car is), and also give platform space for any line travelling down Broadview to the Eastern Portlands.

 

6 hours ago, Streety McCarface said:

Why on earth is extending the 505 on the books but this is not? What is their rationale?

Simple. The Parliament bus only runs every 10 minutes because it was decided to make it part of the 10-minute service - if one were to follow the loading standards, it would only run every 15 minutes at best.

 

Thus, why would the TTC spend untold (and unallocated) millions of dollars on building new trackwork, buying more streetcars, and then millions more each year on operating the line when buses are more than adequate for the service required?

 

Dan

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


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

Edit: read that the person who submitted the idea recommended numbering the line 508, it's kind of silly granted that the 508 is an active route in the city. 

I read that as a reference to the existing 508 that goes up Parliament from King to Carlton - stopping short of Bloor. The problem with that, is the demand just hasn't been there for the 65 Parliament. And in many way it duplicates the 504 feeding up to the next station (Broadview).

If one was to build tracks on Parliament to Castle Frank, I'd think you'd want to run down to Queens Quay, not just to King. Still tossing out brainstorming ideas has value - nice to see some thinking outside the box.

 

12 minutes ago, Cityflyer said:

There's more than one type of Skytrain in operation.

If they use the model for the Canada Line and use 6 cars (20m lengths each), it would only be slightly less capacity than the TRs we have (23m lengths each). They are even similar in width.

Skytrain is merely a "brand" on the Canada Line. The same way the older Skytrain technology in Toronto on Line 3 is called RT or Subway. A 6-car Canada Line would be fine. But if they'd do that, why not make the lines compatible?

 

9 minutes ago, smallspy said:

The Parliament bus only runs every 10 minutes because it was decided to make it part of the 10-minute service - if one were to follow the loading standards, it would only run every 15 minutes at best.

They announced 65 Parliament as part of the 10-minute network, and did boost service, but they've never implemented close to 10-minute service, other than some seasonal early evening service for the Christmas Market. It was every 13 minutes in AM peak and mid-day and every 18 minutes in evenings!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

To the contrary, this is already something that the TTC is looking at for some time.


The idea is that moving the Dundas cars away from Broadview would help isolate them from any issues that may happen at the station (considering how busy the King car is), and also give platform space for any line travelling down Broadview to the Eastern Portlands.

So I suppose part of the reason this is held for further review is because it depends on large external factors such as the Ontario Line and the future of the Port Lands (i.e. the Sidewalk Labs project). These issues now ultimately are mostly out of the TTC’s control, but at least they are preparing for the possibilities associated with the projects. 

The big issue to me is that unfortunately nothing I saw in the plan does much to improve the current level of streetcar traffic and lack of space at Broadview Station in the meantime (meaning in the next 5 to 10 years, as in the actual scope of the plan). Page 13 of the report also outlines risks and contingencies which, although vague, look rather concerning. For example, the contingencies for not acquiring funding for new buses and streetcars is to just “forego service improvements for growth” or if the ATC projects on Line 1 isn’t complete by 2022, the contingency is to just “delay Line 1 service increase”. I’m curious to hear what Steve Munro says about the plan when he reviews it. I think the grand scope of the plan is quite solid, but many of the short term issues faced today seem somewhat neglected and aren't addressed in any other short-term planning documents. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I know, Broadview modifications are buried in the budget, along with other small projects. Wasn't there a mention of this at the board or something already?

Share this post


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

As far as I know, Broadview modifications are buried in the budget, along with other small projects. Wasn't there a mention of this at the board or something already?

According to Steve Munro there was, at least at one point, a scheme to redesign many of the streetcar routes. He mentioned it a few months ago. I’ll try and dig it up if I can. 
 

Edit: https://stevemunro.ca/2019/07/29/streetcar-network-changes-coming-in-september-2019/

If you scroll to the bottom of that post and look at the last comment by “Sam”, you’ll see Steve explain details of a plan that was maybe going to be included in this 5-10 year plan. It doesn’t really address the 505/504 space issue at Broadview, but it’s a plan nonetheless. If someone could find any plans that exist specifically for the issues at Broadview that would be great as I haven’t been able to. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CLRV4002 said:

So I suppose part of the reason this is held for further review is because it depends on large external factors such as the Ontario Line and the future of the Port Lands (i.e. the Sidewalk Labs project). These issues now ultimately are mostly out of the TTC’s control, but at least they are preparing for the possibilities associated with the projects. 

That's exactly it. The Port Lands redevelopment itself is still 5 or more years from completion. And who knows when the Ontario Line will actually open. Both of these projects will have huge knock-on effects to the shape and direction that any improvements will take, to say nothing about potential changes in ridership patterns.

 

1 hour ago, CLRV4002 said:

The big issue to me is that unfortunately nothing I saw in the plan does much to improve the current level of streetcar traffic and lack of space at Broadview Station in the meantime (meaning in the next 5 to 10 years, as in the actual scope of the plan). Page 13 of the report also outlines risks and contingencies which, although vague, look rather concerning. For example, the contingencies for not acquiring funding for new buses and streetcars is to just “forego service improvements for growth” or if the ATC projects on Line 1 isn’t complete by 2022, the contingency is to just “delay Line 1 service increase”. I’m curious to hear what Steve Munro says about the plan when he reviews it. I think the grand scope of the plan is quite solid, but many of the short term issues faced today seem somewhat neglected and aren't addressed in any other short-term planning documents. 

But what other options are there, if not to forego the improvements? There's no point in putting BRT lanes on Eglinton, for instance, if the Crosstown isn't open in 2021. And it doesn't make sense to realign all of the routes that would connect with it if the route itself isn't ready. There's simply no way to improve service on the YUS until the ATO/ATC is installed up to Finch, as the plant south of the station is one of the major choke points. The lead times necessary for a lot of these things also make it impossible for the TTC to say, purchase 100 extra buses in case the opening of the Crosstown is delayed, because they're just about to miss the window for that.

 

It sucks, but if the projects aren't ready, delaying the suite of improvements to go with them is really the only option.

 

Dan

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, CLRV4002 said:

According to Steve Munro there was, at least at one point, a scheme to redesign many of the streetcar routes. He mentioned it a few months ago. 

Hopefully the $414.5 million listed in the 2020-2024 capital costs for "Streetcars" is more than just buying the 60 streetcars they mention. That would be about $6.9 million per streetcar ... almost double the $3.5 million option price ($210 million) they turned down last year.

I believe the option did allow for some inflation on the option price - but no where near that much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, nfitz said:

Hopefully the $414.5 million listed in the 2020-2024 capital costs for "Streetcars" is more than just buying the 60 streetcars they mention. That would be about $6.9 million per streetcar ... almost double the $3.5 million option price ($210 million) they turned down last year.

I believe the option did allow for some inflation on the option price - but no where near that much.

I thought that maybe it was just a catch-all for everything streetcar related, but right below it there is a separate section for streetcar maintenance and facilities. Steve Munro released his post on the report and he remarks that the current Flexity order will cost about $5.8 million per car including training, warranties and spare parts. Even that seems inflated, but at least it is projected based on reality. Thinking about it that way, $6.9 million doesn’t sound unreasonable considering yes, the option price may be inflated on further orders. There’s also the storage issue which Steve says would cost an additional $85 million to retrofit Harvey Shops to store some vehicles. Bottom line, the costs really add up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CLRV4002 said:

I thought that maybe it was just a catch-all for everything streetcar related, but right below it there is a separate section for streetcar maintenance and facilities. Steve Munro released his post on the report and he remarks that the current Flexity order will cost about $5.8 million per car including training, warranties and spare parts. Even that seems inflated, but at least it is projected based on reality. Thinking about it that way, $6.9 million doesn’t sound unreasonable considering yes, the option price may be inflated on further orders. 

Though (if it goes to Bombardier), all the development of the design and assembly line was already done. Which is why the original (uninflated) value was $5 million for the first 204 cars, and $3.5 million for additional cars.

Though given the second lowest bidder was $7.5 million a car, and reports are that Bombardier bid too low - yeah, maybe. Though it just looks TTC look more foolish and incompetent for not triggering the optional cars back in 2018, for 2020 and 2021 delivery.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, nfitz said:

Though (if it goes to Bombardier), all the development of the design and assembly line was already done. Which is why the original (uninflated) value was $5 million for the first 204 cars, and $3.5 million for additional cars.

Though given the second lowest bidder was $7.5 million a car, and reports are that Bombardier bid too low - yeah, maybe. Though it just looks TTC look more foolish and incompetent for not triggering the optional cars back in 2018, for 2020 and 2021 delivery.

There was no money in the budget for them, hence why they didn't order them. 

Share this post


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

There was no money in the budget for them, hence why they didn't order them. 

There's no money for this new 60 car order yet either (or the 40-car option) - unless this latest budget get's approved (I assume it will show as funded in the budget numbers that should appear next week).

The money has been unfunded in the TTC budget for many years, but the line item has been there as unfunded, with various debates noting that the option deadline didn't expire yet, or with quality or delivery concerns. Reports in 2018 talked about having a vote to approve it in early 2019, that never came, in some kind of bait and switch that avoid the commisioners voting on it.

The Commission chose not to request city funding for the option - instead requesting funding for a new purchase. If I was a conspiracy theoriest, I'd think this was some favour to Bombardier - but I assume it's only bad management.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe bent frames rendering 50+ or so cars having to be stripped down completely, failure to meet production deadlines and a myriad of challenges we know nothing about made Bombardier less and less attractive.  Let's see what Alstom , Siemens or others have to offer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Tramguy said:

Maybe bent frames rendering 50+ or so cars having to be stripped down completely, failure to meet production deadlines and a myriad of challenges we know nothing about made Bombardier less and less attractive.  Let's see what Alstom , Siemens or others have to offer.

With production car deliveries starting in in 2022, only vendors who have a design sitting on the shelf, for Toronto's tight corners, steep grade, gauge, and power systems, have a chance. Or those, willing to throw a ton of $ at it, and lose a lot of money.

So it's down to Bombardier, or perhaps one of the Chinese government-owned vendors, if they want to buy the work.

With the initial talk of a new RFP in 2018, where there optional cars coming from Bombardier, and then a new tender, then Alstom or Siemens were in the running. But they have no chance now, unless they are prepared to litigate the RFP, on the basis that it's been rigged so only Bombardier can win. 

The frame issues are a problem with Bombardier, but they solved that early problem years ago - it's unfortunate that the warranty repairs will take so long. And the production deadline issue has been overstated - while some interim promises were missed, the contractual requirement for completion in 2019 is either going to be met, or it's going to only be days or weeks late.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, nfitz said:

So it's down to Bombardier, or perhaps one of the Chinese government-owned vendors, if they want to buy the work.

I was surprised that LACMTA Metro bought Chinese models for their heavy rail lines for delivery in 2020 despite what everyone thinks about Chinese products. So anything can happen.

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...