Jump to content

Streetcar News


CLRV4037
 Share

Recommended Posts

In the winter, does the TTC have to deal with concerns of too many streetcars leaving the yard for service with the heating on straining the power supply to the yard? If so, how do they deal with this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

In the winter, does the TTC have to deal with concerns of too many streetcars leaving the yard for service with the heating on straining the power supply to the yard? If so, how do they deal with this?

Shouldn't you question the subway yards first? Think of those electric hungry TRs.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, PCC Guy said:

In the winter, does the TTC have to deal with concerns of too many streetcars leaving the yard for service with the heating on straining the power supply to the yard? If so, how do they deal with this?

The only time I have ever heard/read about power issues within the TTC's system in its history was shortly after the opening of the Yonge Subway - the Church streetcar was bustituted a couple of months after the opening of the subway, ostensibly in the name of trying to prevent brownouts/low voltage situations through the TTC's downtown power distribution network.

 

With all of the improvements and upgrades made to the power network over the past 20 years for all of the new fleets that have come online, I would hope that they had accounted for all eventualities. And indeed, I've never heard of a widespread low voltage issue during times of high draw. Hell, you almost never hear about bad grounds on the streetcar network anymore.

 

Dan

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 12:18 AM, PCC Guy said:

In the winter, does the TTC have to deal with concerns of too many streetcars leaving the yard for service with the heating on straining the power supply to the yard? If so, how do they deal with this?

With all the doors closed for many hours on end? The hvac would draw fewer amps than in service.

I’m willing to bet there’s also an adjustable thermostat setting when the cars go into “sleep” mode, that’ll keep the interior above freezing, but below the usual standard of 68-69 Fahrenheit for efficiency’s sake.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something important to keep in mind is how the power feeds are sectionalized within the yard plus the actual load drawn by the vehicles.  It's relatively easy to distribute power via feeders within a yard at minimal cost.  Also note the cars are moving at low speeds, so combine the two factors in a traction power analysis and everything works out.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

With all the doors closed for many hours on end? The hvac would draw fewer amps than in service.

I have heard of some systems in post communist central Europe having to implement a ban on using heating while the cars are getting ready for service in the mornings because the combination of power draw + all the cars accelerating in a short time frame strains the power distribution infrastructure. Unlike us they power down their cars when in storage at the yard so the heating system has to do more work. But I guess they don't have the resources to upgrade their equipment that we do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/23/2021 at 9:59 AM, smallspy said:

The only time I have ever heard/read about power issues within the TTC's system in its history was shortly after the opening of the Yonge Subway - the Church streetcar was bustituted a couple of months after the opening of the subway, ostensibly in the name of trying to prevent brownouts/low voltage situations through the TTC's downtown power distribution network.

<snip>

Dan

The original G cars, being steel, were heavy and pigs on power - which didn't help anyone or anything. From the start TTC integrated its subway and surface power systems, both using 600V. Subway rectifier stations also fed streetcar and/or trolleybus routes in the vicinity, and presumably have enough reserve capacity that any one station can pick up at least part of the load of a failed station.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

The original G cars, being steel, were heavy and pigs on power - which didn't help anyone or anything. From the start TTC integrated its subway and surface power systems, both using 600V. Subway rectifier stations also fed streetcar and/or trolleybus routes in the vicinity, and presumably have enough reserve capacity that any one station can pick up at least part of the load of a failed station.

The reason why they were pigs on power wasn't because they were steel or heavy.


The reason was because there were 32 large traction motors pulling in all that juice on acceleration. It helped push the decision towards larger cars for the University and Bloor Line fleet purchases.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, smallspy said:

The reason why they were pigs on power wasn't because they were steel or heavy.


The reason was because there were 32 large traction motors pulling in all that juice on acceleration. It helped push the decision towards larger cars for the University and Bloor Line fleet purchases.

 

Dan

No, it was because they were heavy.  This is basic high school physics.  Each M and H car weighed far less than one Gloucester car.  Then, because they were larger in spite of weighing less, the TTC got a 25% reduction in car count per full train going from an 8 car G to a 6 car M or H.  That's a very serious, very significant weight reduction for a full consist between having cars that each weighed less than a Gloucester on a 1:1 basis and then by having fewer of them per train on top of that.

The traction motor count doesn't matter so much overall since you need enough installed power to do the job regardless of how you divide it up, and that job is defined by how much the train weighs.

The big argument the TTC had in favour of larger cars, and it's covered in the TTC's own literature including the G and H car fact sheet brochures, was that it translates into fewer maintainable units and lower parts counts.  Remember, the original plan was 10 car PCC type trains and Gloucester proposed bumping the car length up to 57 feet and 8 cars per full train and the same logic was used again as the basis for evaluating the "pro" side of going from 57 to 75 feet with six cars per train.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

No, it was because they were heavy.  This is basic high school physics.  Each M and H car weighed far less than one Gloucester car.  Then, because they were larger in spite of weighing less, the TTC got a 25% reduction in car count per full train going from an 8 car G to a 6 car M or H.  That's a very serious, very significant weight reduction for a full consist between having cars that each weighed less than a Gloucester on a 1:1 basis and then by having fewer of them per train on top of that.

Except that weight doesn't have nearly as much of a bearing when it comes to railway equipment due to its low rolling resistance. It's not like a plane, where each additional percentage of weight requires 2 percent of lift (or something like that - I can't remember what the approximate equation is).

 

Aerodynamic forces are far more important, especially when its operating in a tube. The piston effect is a mean bitch.

 

Think about how a single freight loco can pull 10,000 tons of trailing weight.

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, smallspy said:

Except that weight doesn't have nearly as much of a bearing when it comes to railway equipment due to its low rolling resistance. It's not like a plane, where each additional percentage of weight requires 2 percent of lift (or something like that - I can't remember what the approximate equation is).

 

Aerodynamic forces are far more important, especially when its operating in a tube. The piston effect is a mean bitch.

 

Think about how a single freight loco can pull 10,000 tons of trailing weight.

 

Dan

Yes it does.  Newtownian physics applies to railway equipment.  Force=mass*acceleration doesn't vanish just because you're running steel wheels on steel rails.

You want to run rapid transit?  Decent acceleration to get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time?  You either lose some of that mass and cut vehicle weight down or increase the amount of force being applied to bring your train up to speed, that force is being delivered by traction motors which will consume more power as loading increases.

This means any increase in vehicle tare weight translates into a baseline energy consumption increase since traction motor loading will never be lighter than that.  Add passenger loads, add uphill gradients, add piston effect, add basically the North Yonge extension in rush hour and energy consumption goes up further.  But if you start out with something that's a huge amount of weight like an eight car Gloucester, you're spinning the hydro meter a hell of a lot more to move it than a six car of M or H cars that weigh less before adding anything else, and it only gets worse from there.

Between drastically lower energy consumption, fewer maintainable units, less beating on the permanent way, that's why the TTC made a big deal out of longer, lighter subway cars when they did the 75 footers.  Also, that Gloucster information sheet talks extensively about cutting the weight of the balance of the order after the first pair got weighed at GRCW.  That's why they built the G2s to evaluate aluminum to lose even more weight.  Weight was a huge concern once they found out what that first pair of Gloucesters tipped the scales at and it wasn't for no reason, it's because it matters a lot.

Yes, steel wheel on rail is a lot more energy efficient in terms of lower rolling losses compared to rubber tires on pavement so yes, you'll use less energy to keep the same weight moving if it's on rails than if it's on the road, but that's a separate issue from the fact moving something heavier requires more energy, period, no matter what it's riding on.

As I said earlier, to a degree beyond practical considerations it doesn't matter how you divide that power up, you need adequate power installed to do the job.  That single locomotive you said pulling 10,000 tons of trailing weight is a very powerful single locomotive.  Or it's several less powerful locomotives.  Either way, you need adequate horsepower to do it and if you don't have it, you're going to take a serious performance hit (can you say overweight Gloucester cars?) or stall out on uphills or not be able to overcome all the coefficients of friction involved to get the train moving in the first place in the worst case.   You either need to have enough installed power to do the job or cut some cars (weight) to fit it within the available power.  If your power doesn't matter because it's on rails was valid, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could use ridearound lawnmowers to move freight trains, but they aren't.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Oc4526 said:

That’s the AIr conditioning unit. (To my knowledge, only the one Clrv was retrofitted)

I was not highlighting the air-conditioning unit - there is a red box around the item in question if you open the photo. I am very much aware of 4041's history.

As for A/C, 4041 was the only one so fitted permanently. 4089 and 4238 were equipped circa 1995, but later had their respective units removed.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, PCC Guy said:

I was not highlighting the air-conditioning unit - there is a red box around the item in question if you open the photo. I am very much aware of 4041's history.

As for A/C, 4041 was the only one so fitted permanently. 4089 and 4238 were equipped circa 1995, but later had their respective units removed.

Thanks for clarification 🙂 Could be wrong but it looks like a relay box for the control stand (drivers controls) . 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 1:13 PM, Wayside Observer said:

Yes it does.  Newtownian physics applies to railway equipment.  Force=mass*acceleration doesn't vanish just because you're running steel wheels on steel rails.

You want to run rapid transit?  Decent acceleration to get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time?  You either lose some of that mass and cut vehicle weight down or increase the amount of force being applied to bring your train up to speed, that force is being delivered by traction motors which will consume more power as loading increases.

This means any increase in vehicle tare weight translates into a baseline energy consumption increase since traction motor loading will never be lighter than that.  Add passenger loads, add uphill gradients, add piston effect, add basically the North Yonge extension in rush hour and energy consumption goes up further.  But if you start out with something that's a huge amount of weight like an eight car Gloucester, you're spinning the hydro meter a hell of a lot more to move it than a six car of M or H cars that weigh less before adding anything else, and it only gets worse from there.

Between drastically lower energy consumption, fewer maintainable units, less beating on the permanent way, that's why the TTC made a big deal out of longer, lighter subway cars when they did the 75 footers.  Also, that Gloucster information sheet talks extensively about cutting the weight of the balance of the order after the first pair got weighed at GRCW.  That's why they built the G2s to evaluate aluminum to lose even more weight.  Weight was a huge concern once they found out what that first pair of Gloucesters tipped the scales at and it wasn't for no reason, it's because it matters a lot.

Yes, steel wheel on rail is a lot more energy efficient in terms of lower rolling losses compared to rubber tires on pavement so yes, you'll use less energy to keep the same weight moving if it's on rails than if it's on the road, but that's a separate issue from the fact moving something heavier requires more energy, period, no matter what it's riding on.

As I said earlier, to a degree beyond practical considerations it doesn't matter how you divide that power up, you need adequate power installed to do the job.  That single locomotive you said pulling 10,000 tons of trailing weight is a very powerful single locomotive.  Or it's several less powerful locomotives.  Either way, you need adequate horsepower to do it and if you don't have it, you're going to take a serious performance hit (can you say overweight Gloucester cars?) or stall out on uphills or not be able to overcome all the coefficients of friction involved to get the train moving in the first place in the worst case.   You either need to have enough installed power to do the job or cut some cars (weight) to fit it within the available power.  If your power doesn't matter because it's on rails was valid, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could use ridearound lawnmowers to move freight trains, but they aren't.

But southbound cars don't use as much power so isn't that an offset? But I guess they didn't have chopper control so there was no regen of power going downhill.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/29/2021 at 1:13 PM, Wayside Observer said:

Yes it does.  Newtownian physics applies to railway equipment.  Force=mass*acceleration doesn't vanish just because you're running steel wheels on steel rails.

You want to run rapid transit?  Decent acceleration to get up to speed in a reasonable amount of time?  You either lose some of that mass and cut vehicle weight down or increase the amount of force being applied to bring your train up to speed, that force is being delivered by traction motors which will consume more power as loading increases.

This means any increase in vehicle tare weight translates into a baseline energy consumption increase since traction motor loading will never be lighter than that.  Add passenger loads, add uphill gradients, add piston effect, add basically the North Yonge extension in rush hour and energy consumption goes up further.  But if you start out with something that's a huge amount of weight like an eight car Gloucester, you're spinning the hydro meter a hell of a lot more to move it than a six car of M or H cars that weigh less before adding anything else, and it only gets worse from there.

Between drastically lower energy consumption, fewer maintainable units, less beating on the permanent way, that's why the TTC made a big deal out of longer, lighter subway cars when they did the 75 footers.  Also, that Gloucster information sheet talks extensively about cutting the weight of the balance of the order after the first pair got weighed at GRCW.  That's why they built the G2s to evaluate aluminum to lose even more weight.  Weight was a huge concern once they found out what that first pair of Gloucesters tipped the scales at and it wasn't for no reason, it's because it matters a lot.

Yes, steel wheel on rail is a lot more energy efficient in terms of lower rolling losses compared to rubber tires on pavement so yes, you'll use less energy to keep the same weight moving if it's on rails than if it's on the road, but that's a separate issue from the fact moving something heavier requires more energy, period, no matter what it's riding on.

As I said earlier, to a degree beyond practical considerations it doesn't matter how you divide that power up, you need adequate power installed to do the job.  That single locomotive you said pulling 10,000 tons of trailing weight is a very powerful single locomotive.  Or it's several less powerful locomotives.  Either way, you need adequate horsepower to do it and if you don't have it, you're going to take a serious performance hit (can you say overweight Gloucester cars?) or stall out on uphills or not be able to overcome all the coefficients of friction involved to get the train moving in the first place in the worst case.   You either need to have enough installed power to do the job or cut some cars (weight) to fit it within the available power.  If your power doesn't matter because it's on rails was valid, Canadian Pacific and Canadian National could use ridearound lawnmowers to move freight trains, but they aren't.

I didn't say that weight had no effect. That would be silly.

 

I stand by my original point - it has less of an effect than people think. There's a reason why you or I could push a 30 ton freight car around with our hands, despite neither of us weigh 30 tons (I hope).

 

Dan

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 9:51 AM, smallspy said:

I didn't say that weight had no effect. That would be silly.

 

I stand by my original point - it has less of an effect than people think. There's a reason why you or I could push a 30 ton freight car around with our hands, despite neither of us weigh 30 tons (I hope).

 

Dan

You're wrong, Dan.

Kinetic energy scales as the mass (and the square of the velocity).

Potential energy scales as the mass.

Since the G cars did not have any regenerative braking system, all the energy used to get them going was wasted as heat when they stopped. Also, the energy they used to climb uphill from Union to Eglinton would have mostly been wasted as braking heat coming back down.

Since they weighed more than similarly non-regenerative M and early H cars, the energy expended to move them uphill was greater, and the energy to get them up to the same speed was greater.

You could easily push a bicycle up the Summerhill hill. Because a bicycle doesn't weigh much. The power at your disposal will also get a bicycle moving quickly in a short time.

Try pushing a G car up the Summerhill hill--good luck. Or try pushing a freight car up to 30 km/h (a decent bicycle speed).

ETA: and whether you can get a boxcar moving by pushing it is irrelevant in a rapid transit context, where you have to get up to speed quickly, and then after a short time at speed stop, then start again, etc. It's easy for a decent rider to ride a bike at 30 km/h. Coming to a dead stop every block, then getting up to 30 km/h, then stopping at the next cross street, is exhausting. Because it takes energy to get you going, and that energy is lost when stopping, unless you have regenerative braking. And the heavier the bike and what's in the saddle bags, the harder it is to stop and start--even if you could pedal the heavier bike at a steady 30 km/h about as easily as a lighter bike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/31/2021 at 9:51 AM, smallspy said:

I didn't say that weight had no effect. That would be silly.

 

I stand by my original point - it has less of an effect than people think. There's a reason why you or I could push a 30 ton freight car around with our hands, despite neither of us weigh 30 tons (I hope).

 

Dan

Let's put some figures on it and add in the math that Ed got out.

Now, it's almost 11 PM, I've got a ton of stuff going on and I don't have the vehicle fact sheets close at hand so I'm pulling figures from transcribed copies on the internet so I'm hoping there's no typos there vs. going from the original hard copies.  Working from barebones tare vehicle weights:

Gloucester:  85,525 lb average of the A and B car, so 684,200 lb for an 8 car train.  That's 341,348 KG of subway train.

H1:  56,515 lb average of the A and B car, so that's 339,090 lb for a 6 car train.  That's 153,809 KG of subway train.

Dividing the numbers, a full consist of Gloucesters weighs 2.22 times a full consist of H1 cars.  That's more than double.

Let's start substituting into the classic Ek=1/2mv^2 equation that Ed mentioned to calculate kinetic energy:

Ek(Gloucester train) = (341,348v^2)/2 =  170,674v^2

Ek(H1 train) = (153,809v^2)/2 = 76,904.5v^2

Right off the top start solving these and we can see the kinetic energy of the train of H1 cars is going to be much lower for any given velocity due to the smaller mass figure going into it.  For kicks and giggles, let's divide the numbers and see what kind of a ratio we get for kinetic energy for any given speed:  2.22v^2.  Interesting, that's the same 2.22x we got when comparing weights.  Let's continue and use a sample speed of 50 km/hr which works out to 13.9 m/s and finish it out:

Ek(Gloucester train, 50 km/hr):  32,975,924 J.

Ek(H1 train, 50 km/hr):  14,858,718 J

Dividing the number, I get 2.22x more energy there for that train of Gloucesters compared to a train of H1s at that sample speed of 50 km/hr we calculated final values for, and that 2.22 ratio held again.

Ed mentioned climbing hills so let's look at the vertical component of that.  Eg=mgh.  The g is that 9.81 m/s^2 gravitational constant, h is going to be the unchanged for the same hill, which leaves energy due to gravity entirely proportional to mass when comparing so that 2.22 factor is going to pop up again in terms of energy overcoming gravity to climb uphill.  It's almost midnight, I'm tired, and I really don't feel like working out full blown vectors or trying to find an elevation diagram to determine how much higher Eglinton or Finch stations are than Union but it's pretty clear from the basic numbers I've run comparing a full G1 against full H1 consist that weight makes a big, serious difference.  That 2.22 ratio that checks out across the board there is pretty severe - more than double, almost two and a quarter times the energy for Gloucesters involved compared a train of H1, that's electricity out of the third rail to make it happen.  Speaking of which, STM down the road in Montreal had the opposite problem with the Azure trains because those weighed more than the MR-63s they replaced and STM had to upgrade power infrastructure to handle the fleet deployment.   Low rolling resistance is great, it is a real world consideration so the lower, the better for sure, but mass matters a lot.  The physics and the math are pretty ruthless, even in this basic assessment of Gloucsters vs. H1s.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Wayside Observer said:

Let's put some figures on it and add in the math that Ed got out.

Now, it's almost 11 PM, I've got a ton of stuff going on and I don't have the vehicle fact sheets close at hand so I'm pulling figures from transcribed copies on the internet so I'm hoping there's no typos there vs. going from the original hard copies.  Working from barebones tare vehicle weights:

Gloucester:  85,525 lb average of the A and B car, so 684,200 lb for an 8 car train.  That's 341,348 KG of subway train.

H1:  56,515 lb average of the A and B car, so that's 339,090 lb for a 6 car train.  That's 153,809 KG of subway train.

Dividing the numbers, a full consist of Gloucesters weighs 2.22 times a full consist of H1 cars.  That's more than double.

Let's start substituting into the classic Ek=1/2mv^2 equation that Ed mentioned to calculate kinetic energy:

Ek(Gloucester train) = (341,348v^2)/2 =  170,674v^2

Ek(H1 train) = (153,809v^2)/2 = 76,904.5v^2

Right off the top start solving these and we can see the kinetic energy of the train of H1 cars is going to be much lower for any given velocity due to the smaller mass figure going into it.  For kicks and giggles, let's divide the numbers and see what kind of a ratio we get for kinetic energy for any given speed:  2.22v^2.  Interesting, that's the same 2.22x we got when comparing weights.  Let's continue and use a sample speed of 50 km/hr which works out to 13.9 m/s and finish it out:

Ek(Gloucester train, 50 km/hr):  32,975,924 J.

Ek(H1 train, 50 km/hr):  14,858,718 J

Dividing the number, I get 2.22x more energy there for that train of Gloucesters compared to a train of H1s at that sample speed of 50 km/hr we calculated final values for, and that 2.22 ratio held again.

Ed mentioned climbing hills so let's look at the vertical component of that.  Eg=mgh.  The g is that 9.81 m/s^2 gravitational constant, h is going to be the unchanged for the same hill, which leaves energy due to gravity entirely proportional to mass when comparing so that 2.22 factor is going to pop up again in terms of energy overcoming gravity to climb uphill.  It's almost midnight, I'm tired, and I really don't feel like working out full blown vectors or trying to find an elevation diagram to determine how much higher Eglinton or Finch stations are than Union but it's pretty clear from the basic numbers I've run comparing a full G1 against full H1 consist that weight makes a big, serious difference.  That 2.22 ratio that checks out across the board there is pretty severe - more than double, almost two and a quarter times the energy for Gloucesters involved compared a train of H1, that's electricity out of the third rail to make it happen.  Speaking of which, STM down the road in Montreal had the opposite problem with the Azure trains because those weighed more than the MR-63s they replaced and STM had to upgrade power infrastructure to handle the fleet deployment.   Low rolling resistance is great, it is a real world consideration so the lower, the better for sure, but mass matters a lot.  The physics and the math are pretty ruthless, even in this basic assessment of Gloucsters vs. H1s.

The actual per-car weights, per Rapid Transit in Canada (© J.W. Boorse Jr.; Almo Press, Philadelphia, 1968) in pounds, were: G car steel, 85,000, aluminum, 73,500; M car, 60,000; H1 car, 56,000. Traction motor ratings: G car, steel and aluminum, 68 HP each; M and H1 cars, 125 HP each. Not only were the G cars heavier, the weaker motors had to work harder to move all that weight. That can't help but drive up power consumption. Plus only the 6 "Sputnik" G cars had dynamic braking; the rest had only air brakes. That means more wear on the brake shoes and wheels when stopping.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

The actual per-car weights, per Rapid Transit in Canada (© J.W. Boorse Jr.; Almo Press, Philadelphia, 1968) in pounds, were: G car steel, 85,000, aluminum, 73,500; M car, 60,000; H1 car, 56,000. Traction motor ratings: G car, steel and aluminum, 68 HP each; M and H1 cars, 125 HP each. Not only were the G cars heavier, the weaker motors had to work harder to move all that weight. That can't help but drive up power consumption. Plus only the 6 "Sputnik" G cars had dynamic braking; the rest had only air brakes. That means more wear on the brake shoes and wheels when stopping.

I'd never heard of that book.  I'm going to have to go hunting for a copy.  Yes, heavily loading down an electric motor like that spikes power consumption pretty badly.  The other part of specifying higher horsepower motors on the M and H cars besides correcting the power to weight ratio imbalance was to facilitate high rate operation.  The other thing to remember about the G4 cars was the experimental equipment got removed and they lost their dynamic braking when that happened.

More wear on brake shoes.  Definitely.  The difference between a southbound G train and a southbound H train stopping at Sheppard was huge especially before North York Centre opened.  The additional wear on the Gloucester's brake shoes came floating down into the station behind the train suspended in the air!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

While doing some digging on 4041, I uncovered a TTC report from 2006 to the city outlining possible options for the installation of a wheelchair lift on the CLRVs, and why they never ended up doing so. Pretty interesting reading.

https://www.toronto.ca/legdocs/2006/agendas/committees/pof/pof060411/it022.pdf

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/3/2021 at 8:35 PM, Wayside Observer said:

I'd never heard of that book.  I'm going to have to go hunting for a copy.

Toronto Public Library has it as a reference book.

York U had a copy in Scott Library, may still have it. That's where I read it.  I imagine that U of T might have a copy as well.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...