Streetcar News

[T3G]

So it's been almost 10 years now since the first Flexity arrived. If we ignore obvious problems like the deferred delivery dates and the construction issues on the first 67 cars, has the TTC overall been satisfied with the Flexity as a product? Are they reliable enough? I know that the TRs were something of a lemon but I haven't heard anything about this being the case with the Flexitys, the various and unending construction problems seem to have been the key thing that have been kneecapping them.

How do they compare to something like the CLRV, which took ~10 or so years to iron out and get working reliably?

[Xtrazsteve]

7 hours ago, T3G said:

So it's been almost 10 years now since the first Flexity arrived. If we ignore obvious problems like the deferred delivery dates and the construction issues on the first 67 cars, has the TTC overall been satisfied with the Flexity as a product? Are they reliable enough? I know that the TRs were something of a lemon but I haven't heard anything about this being the case with the Flexitys, the various and unending construction problems seem to have been the key thing that have been kneecapping them.

How do they compare to something like the CLRV, which took ~10 or so years to iron out and get working reliably?

You can't really compare Flexity's with CLRVs. This is a fully computerized product unlike those mechanical workhorses. There is so much more things that can go wrong with the Flexitys. Wheelchair ramp, internal computer problems cause by loose wires and faulty electronics which didn't exist with CLRVs. Plus it's twice as long meaning more places to go wrong.

A decade or so ago, wasn't the MDBF for buses like 5,000 kilometres? Cause they are stretch thin with a 10% spare ratio and inadequate maintenance. Compare that to the Nova HEVs were are at 70,000 km right now, 14 times longer till it breaks down. If they TTC operated like that back then, those CLRVs MDBF would be much lower than if they were kept in better condition.

 

[T3G]

The frame of comparison for Flexity vs. CLRV was as the replaced vs replacing generation, not as equivalent machines. No different than comparing the troubled H6s with the cars that they replaced, the Gloucesters, which were in comparison to the H6s relatively trouble free. You can acknowledge that they are different machines while trying to compare the circumstances around their debut in service and perception, etc.

I'm not sure it's accurate to say that computers (or crude versions of them, anyway) and the capacity for faulty electronics etc didn't exist on a CLRV. I am no expert on them by any means, but stuff like the equipment control unit, the semi-automatic couplers, the thermostatically operated ventilation system, spin/slide protection, jerk limit control, load weighing, no-motion relay, are all pretty foreign concepts to a PCC.

[Bus_Medic]

14 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

You can't really compare Flexity's with CLRVs. This is a fully computerized product unlike those mechanical workhorses. There is so much more things that can go wrong with the Flexitys. Wheelchair ramp, internal computer problems cause by loose wires and faulty electronics which didn't exist with CLRVs. Plus it's twice as long meaning more places to go wrong.

A decade or so ago, wasn't the MDBF for buses like 5,000 kilometres? Cause they are stretch thin with a 10% spare ratio and inadequate maintenance. Compare that to the Nova HEVs were are at 70,000 km right now, 14 times longer till it breaks down. If they TTC operated like that back then, those CLRVs MDBF would be much lower than if they were kept in better condition.

 

I would hardly describe the CLRV as devoid of electronics, or their related headaches. Add to that the liabilities of pneumatics, which the in the flexities are conspicuously absent. 
 

The MDBF of old was below 10 000 km, largely due to the GMs being outshopped and flogged down the road for the umpeenth time. Notice a common theme there?

[smallspy]

17 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

You can't really compare Flexity's with CLRVs. This is a fully computerized product unlike those mechanical workhorses. There is so much more things that can go wrong with the Flexitys. Wheelchair ramp, internal computer problems cause by loose wires and faulty electronics which didn't exist with CLRVs. Plus it's twice as long meaning more places to go wrong.

And yet the MTBF for the Flexities is something like 8 or 12 times higher now than it was for the Cs at the end.

 

Not that it means anything. A more accurate measure would be compare the two fleets at the same points of their lives. I don't have numbers for the CLRVs at that time, but I've been led to believe that the Flexities are doing much better.

 

Dan

[MK78]

3 hours ago, smallspy said:

And yet the MTBF for the Flexities is something like 8 or 12 times higher now than it was for the Cs at the end.

Yeah but it took YEARS for the Flexity to be decently reliable.

[T3G]

54 minutes ago, MK78 said:

Yeah but it took YEARS for the Flexity to be decently reliable.

The same was true of the CLRV. I don't have the exact articles to hand right now but in 1981 or thereabouts there was a discussion about the TTC not accepting some of the cars which had been delivered - something about a wiring defect which posed a safety issue - and in 1989 during a round of trouble with gearboxes a TTC board member called them an Edsel and said they should never have been purchased.

It's hard to tell how much of this was political grandstanding vs an objective evaluation of the vehicle, but what's clear is that they were troubled for years. I doubt anyone can look back now and call them a failure, they managed to last for 40 years in service out of sheer necessity, but the journey to get there was arduous. 

[IRT_BMT_IND]

1 hour ago, MK78 said:

Yeah but it took YEARS for the Flexity to be decently reliable.

The Cs (and the As were worse IIRC) had some terrible problems, like issues with road salt getting into the electrical system, and derailments with the (European designed I think) trucks not cooperating with the street trackage (some of which was in pretty rough shape in the early 80s) and the single point switches. Remember there was no internet and no real 24 hour news cycle in the 70s and 80s though so there would have been less discussion in the media, though you can find old newspaper articles about the problems online through the Toronto Public Library.

[nfitz]

1 hour ago, MK78 said:

Yeah but it took YEARS for the Flexity to be decently reliable.

In what way? It's only been 2 years since deliveries ended. I've certainly had less breakdowns while riding than in CLRV days.

[Mike]

2 hours ago, nfitz said:

In what way? It's only been 2 years since deliveries ended. I've certainly had less breakdowns while riding than in CLRV days.

Are you comparing first 2 year of Flexities to last 2 years of CLRVs?

[T3G]

Here are the relevant CLRV headlines:

https://cptdb.ca/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=80887

and the three images attached below. The Globe article is dated to Oct 1 1983.

Sound familiar?

[Tom1122]

2 hours ago, T3G said:

Here are the relevant CLRV headlines:

https://cptdb.ca/applications/core/interface/file/attachment.php?id=80887 199.9 kB · 42 downloads

and the three images attached below. The Globe article is dated to Oct 1 1983.

Sound familiar?

It makes me wonder what they'd say if they would have been asked if they thought the cars would be in service for 40 years?

[Xtrazsteve]

I'm guessing the 80 more CLRVs they were planning to order became the 52 ALRVs?

[smallspy]

9 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

I'm guessing the 80 more CLRVs they were planning to order became the 52 ALRVs?

I'm sure that more CLRVs were thought about at the time, but I've never seen any hard reference to it. In fact thinking about it, there must have been additional options not taken for the Scarborough and Etobicoke LRT systems.

 

By the time the ALRVs were in the picture - and remember, they started design work on the articulated version almost in parallel with the CLRV - they were only going to be buying ALRVs, but to replace the PCCs then still in service. The original plan was for 75, which eventually got whittled down to 52.

 

Dan

[nfitz]

On 4/19/2022 at 4:59 PM, Mike said:

Are you comparing first 2 year of Flexities to last 2 years of CLRVs?

I suppose; CLRV deliveries ended in 1981 (with about 78 delivered that year), so say compare 1982 and 1983 to, say, 2020 and 2021 (ignoring that the 4 final cars weren't delivered until January 2020).

I really can't remember any horror stories with the Flexities, other than the welding issue, which is all warrantee work. And that didn't seem to have an impact to riders.

[Xtrazsteve]

4 hours ago, nfitz said:

I suppose; CLRV deliveries ended in 1981 (with about 78 delivered that year), so say compare 1982 and 1983 to, say, 2020 and 2021 (ignoring that the 4 final cars weren't delivered until January 2020).

I really can't remember any horror stories with the Flexities, other than the welding issue, which is all warrantee work. And that didn't seem to have an impact to riders.

Well a portion of the routes are busituted for the last decade. 

[nfitz]

19 hours ago, Xtrazsteve said:

Well a portion of the routes are busituted for the last decade. 

Mostly for construction. Partially because of the shortage. The rebuild itself hasn't had a lot of impact, given Covid started weeks after the last delivery.

Had they ordered the new cars earlier, fixed the ALRVs properly (which indeed likely wasn't worth it), or signed the option for 60 more cars back when staff said it was necessary (not to mention cheaper), then it wouldn't be the same type of issue.

As for the day-to-day performance - even for cars that the welding issues have yet to be resolved - I think it's very good. Anyone got the 1982 faults/km data?

[Shaun]

The bustitution is not because the streetcars are not reliable, it's because we dont have enough of them to go around.  

[MK78]

I read somewhere recently that had a list of upcoming TTC construction, and I remember seeing something mentioned that they will be doing overhead upgrades on Kingston road to Bingham loop for panto operation this year, I just don't remember the timeframe. That will of course mean bus substitution again for the 503.

Has anyone seen this document and perhaps can post a link or provide a timeline? Thanks.

 

[nfitz]

On 4/19/2022 at 4:59 PM, Mike said:

Are you comparing first 2 year of Flexities to last 2 years of CLRVs?

We all know that CLRV had issues in the early 1980s after deliveries were complete. I was thinking more about the last couple of decades, than 2018 and 2019.

[drum118]

TTC has started to string KQQR intersection, Tracks are installed west of Sunnyside loop waiting for more roadbed to be pour as well rail before concrete can be pour to anchor them.

TTC will be using the poles of the carhouse to help with the stringing of Sunnyside Loop.

[Mark Walton]

On 4/19/2022 at 2:32 PM, IRT_BMT_IND said:

The Cs (and the As were worse IIRC) had some terrible problems, like issues with road salt getting into the electrical system, and derailments with the (European designed I think) trucks not cooperating with the street trackage (some of which was in pretty rough shape in the early 80s) and the single point switches. Remember there was no internet and no real 24 hour news cycle in the 70s and 80s though so there would have been less discussion in the media, though you can find old newspaper articles about the problems online through the Toronto Public Library.

As I recall, the L1 series CLRVs, 4000-4005, had their water tests done in Switzerland with fresh water; Toronto's briny slush sprang the surprise. A few years later, Vancouver's then-new E902 trolleybuses had much the same problem. One of the clippings posted mentioned the Hawker-Siddeley worker whose concerns about holes drilled into the power cables were dismissed. He was vindicated when TTC found holes in those cables on 9/35 newly-delivered cars.

[T15111]

4542 is complete with bus fabric, (old style fabric)

4440 4542 now

[smallspy]

On 4/14/2022 at 6:03 AM, Turtle said:

The streetcars ride up on their flanges through the trackwork, risk of derailment is higher even when going through straight. A derailment at less than 10km/h is a lot less serious.

I need to circle back onto this point.....

 

Riding on the flange of the wheel does absolutely nothing to the likelihood of a derailment. If it did, flange-bearing trackwork wouldn't exist. While it does is alter the point of contact between the rail and wheel interface, it still (in concert with the solid axles on the equipment) provides more than enough security against derailment. It's no less safe than a traditional diamond, where one of the two wheels completely loses contact with the rail for a brief moment.

 

Dan

[Turtle]

19 hours ago, smallspy said:

I need to circle back onto this point.....

 

Riding on the flange of the wheel does absolutely nothing to the likelihood of a derailment. If it did, flange-bearing trackwork wouldn't exist. While it does is alter the point of contact between the rail and wheel interface, it still (in concert with the solid axles on the equipment) provides more than enough security against derailment. It's no less safe than a traditional diamond, where one of the two wheels completely loses contact with the rail for a brief moment.

 

Dan

So why the rules to go through that trackwork slowly then?