Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs

[Duck]

Somewhere a decision has to be made - is it better to buy 7 module to start, or go with 10-module platforms and buy 5 module trains that you can later pair up.

 

[drum118]

Somewhere a decision has to be made - is it better to buy 7 module to start, or go with 10-module platforms and buy 5 module trains that you can later pair up.

It boils down to ridership projection and vehicle cost. Then there is the headway.

The longer the cars are, less it will cost going to duel cars. I believe its about 45m that you can go on one power source and need to have 2 longer than that. I need to check my 2012 photos to see what had 2 power units on them. I know Budapest ones had 2 and that before they got the current ones.

I know Berlin 40m 7 sections only had 1 power

Budapest BKV Siemens 54m Combino Supra NF12B Tram 2004

Vienna [Wien] Austria Transit (Simmering-Graz-Pauker "B" 7 section ULF tram #657)

 

[Platform 27]

You make it sound like they're two different products. They're not.

That said, you are most certainly right that the tooling and supply chain will already exist in North America. While it wouldn't stop them from building them in Europe, it is, if nothing else, a check mark in the box for constructing them at Thunder Bay.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I defer to your knowledge on this because you know better than anyone in this forum, but my understanding was BBD Europe basically went "here" and sent NA all the files on F2. Them Flexity Freedom was developed and modified from that.

The Flexity Freedom is virtually identical to the Flexity 2 and they could easily have been branded as a single product line if Bombardier had wanted to.

The main difference between the Transit City fleet and the Flexity 2 vehicles (already in late stage development for Blackpool and the Australian Gold Coast when the order was placed in 2010) was that in order to cope with winter road salt, Bombardier subbed in a steel underframe instead of aluminum. As its been explained to me, the systems are virtually identical, and aside from the cosmetics of the outer carshells (which are already customized heavily even within common product line), they're all more or less the same vehicle. Hence, the Metrolinx cars did not need as lengthy a design period as the Flexity Outlooks, and I'm quite certain that whatever Bombardier plant is currently assembling Flexity 2s could start making Flexity Freedoms for Edmonton without breaking a sweat. Indeed, perhaps they will do exactly that: Alberta doesn't have a Buy Canadian rule the same way Ontario or Quebec do, so depending on what's cheapest and easiest for Bombardier, final assembly of the Edmonton LRVs might be in Thunder Bay, or in Germany somewhere, or maybe all down in Sahagun.

As to why they have a separate name, I don't know for sure, but it's no secret that despite seeing a huge amount of LRT expansion across the continent in the past 15 years, Bombardier had been having its lunch eaten in the North American LRV market (with only the Minneapolis vehicles and Toronto's legacy Outlooks landed in the post-Adtranz merger era). I think some bright light in the business development department had this idea to spin off the Toronto-spec Flexity 2 as a "North American-customized" LRV platform and play up the winterization. Hence they cooked up "Freedom" sub-brand, which presumably would make a random city councilman in Baltimore more amenable to ordering it, and took the LRV mockup on a roadshow to bunch of cities, including Surrey, Calgary and Edmonton, IIRC. The strategy hasn't exactly paid off yet: with the exception of the Waterloo 18 LRV piggyback order (which doesn't really count as a big sales victory seeing as it kind of landed in their lap), Edmonton's been the only followup order. Still nada in the United States.

 

[Duck]

But what about the body frames? FLEXITY 2 has inset windows and 2 doors per side per "suspended" module, while FLEXITY Freedom has full-length glass panels, and only 1 door per side per suspended module... so doesn't that mean the actual frame itself underneath must be totally different?

FLEXITY 2 Tram for Gold Coast (G:Link), Australia - note the "roundd square" windows and 2 sets of doors on the second module.

FLEXITY Freedom concept. Notice the windows are complete solid panes of glass that run the full length of the module, and only one door on the second module.

When I watch the video showing Blackpool's F2 production, the frame looks completely different from the type of frames that are going into Outlook (and presumably Freedom) - ie, the Thunder-Bay produced models. They are more a traditional weldment fabrication.

...although now I am even more confused because I see that Blackpool's F2 has one door per suspended module, muddling this even further... I must have remembered it wrong. Drum I am not sure why you brought up the Siemens ULF tram? That is a really odd one - single wheels between each module, and each of them is essentially driven by a servo so it can properly articulate around curves.

I guess we can for sure say though that F2 and Freedom both use the same fixed-bogie, every-other module concept for articulation and it's a shared platform architecture.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Flexity Outlook and Flexity Freedom have about the same length. That length was also about the same length as the Peter Witt streetcar and trailer trains that ran on the Yonge streetcar line (and a other routes as well), and the two PCC streetcar trains that ran on the Bloor streetcar line and later the Queen streetcar line.

While Toronto (and Waterloo) went with the five segment vehicles, Edmonton is going with seven segments. There is no reason why Toronto couldn't go with seven (or more) segments in the later orders, after 30 years or more.

 

[Steve X]

Edmonton didn't choose seven themselves. Bombardier chosen it for them as part of the consortium. TTC had enough trouble trying to packing these long Flexity onto existing tracks at Roncy and Russell. Longer LRVs would be more trouble.

TTC streetcars also run in mix traffic. Having a super long streetcar isn't ideal on Queen or King. Even with the current Flexity's, we'll see a lot of them blocking intersections on the 501/504/514 in the near future. The 502/503 doesn't have demand to have longer cars. The 505 and 506 could use longer cars. 509/510 would have trouble with 7 segment cars in Union Station. 511 would only need it for busy days. 512 could make use of longer segment cars. If the city does get to turn King Street into a transit mall, then longer streetcars make sense. Eventually TTC will have to build another carhouse as 264 cars isn't enough to meet demands and service the port lands expansion. Maybe they can order longer cars in the 2030s.

TTC also doesn't like an unique fleet that becomes power-hog in the quiet hours. They just waste more power while carrying less people. They'll end up like the majority of the artics being keep at garages on weekends.

Edmonton's new LRT line probably won't see coupled LRVs so they went with a longer seven segment LRV to cut operation cost in the future. The problem with P3s is the city gives them that forecast numbers, they plan the line with that demand as maximum with no plans of a higher demand.

 

[Catenary]

But what about the body frames? FLEXITY 2 has inset windows and 2 doors per side per "suspended" module, while FLEXITY Freedom has full-length glass panels, and only 1 door per side per suspended module... so doesn't that mean the actual frame itself underneath must be totally different?

When I watch the video showing Blackpool's F2 production, the frame looks completely different from the type of frames that are going into Outlook (and presumably Freedom) - ie, the Thunder-Bay produced models. They are more a traditional weldment fabrication.

...although now I am even more confused because I see that Blackpool's F2 has one door per suspended module, muddling this even further... I must have remembered it wrong. Drum I am not sure why you brought up the Siemens ULF tram? That is a really odd one - single wheels between each module, and each of them is essentially driven by a servo so it can properly articulate around curves.

I guess we can for sure say though that F2 and Freedom both use the same fixed-bogie, every-other module concept for articulation and it's a shared platform architecture.

The type of windows doesn't matter much. Look at a bus, any brand. They're all available with either framed or frameless windows, and you can bet that they aren't designing two different frames just to support the windows.

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics. The location of the doors doesn't make a huge difference. Dan puts it nicely.

You make it sound like they're two different products. They're not.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

While they aren't different products, they also aren't the same. Unlike Siemens, which only ever offers a couple of different distinct vehicle types and we can easily see the progression over the years, Bombardier uses a more custom design. We can think of this a collection of parts. When a customer wants a certain specification of vehicle, Bombardier assembles these theoretical components in the cheapest manner possible to meet the requirements. Customer didn't spec 2 doors? Then 1 is all they get. The parts may be modified slightly to meet the specs of each order, with a slightly different frame here, and a modified component there, but if you looked at the CAD drawing revisions, you'd likely see a common lineage for many of the parts. This is why we struggle to define what's what, since the LRT product line is a lot more fluid and demands more flexibility than something like ICTS, where Bombardier only needs to market one vehicle type worldwide because all of the systems are largely compatible.

 

[dowlingm]

The thing about looking to add sections to existing trams/buy longer trams is... do you have yard tracks and maintenance bays long enough. Dublin has ordered 55m long Citadis for the CrossCity extension of line B (existing fleet is 43m) but it will be interesting to see if Sandymount depot can handle them or whether they will have to be stored and maintained at the new depot at the north end of the new track.

 

[crs1026]

TTC also doesn't like an unique fleet that becomes power-hog in the quiet hours. They just waste more power while carrying less people. They'll end up like the majority of the artics being keep at garages on weekends.

I don't suppose that the tail end of the existing order could be swapped out to produce, say, 25 7-segment cars and 25 3-segment cars?

- Paul

 

[Steve X]

I don't suppose that the tail end of the existing order could be swapped out to produce, say, 25 7-segment cars and 25 3-segment cars?

- Paul

Don't quote me on this one. I don't think you can take the streetcars apart like that. They'll have to be designed to be either 3 or 7 segments. Physical appearance shows that the middle section have to stay cause that's where the pantograph is located. The 2nd section is the accessibility ramp. So if TTC wants a longer car, they'll have to redesign them like the 4-car TRs.

 

[dowlingm]

Loop length would probably be an issue for extended Flexity downtown cars too. Can't have the tail sticking out into the street

 

[Duck]

(This is the FLEXITY Freedom thread, not Outlook/Streetcars)

 

[drum118]

Don't quote me on this one. I don't think you can take the streetcars apart like that. They'll have to be designed to be either 3 or 7 segments. Physical appearance shows that the middle section have to stay cause that's where the pantograph is located. The 2nd section is the accessibility ramp. So if TTC wants a longer car, they'll have to redesign them like the 4-car TRs.

I saw pans in various locations on 5 & 7 section trams and the above photos show some of that.

In talks with Alston back in 2005, they said you could added or removed sections based on your needs after they arrived. Can't speak for other suppliers.

Going to a 3 section will require redesign if you want more than 1 ramp per car.

 

[crs1026]

I expected the answer would be that they would likely place components in the middle sections on the assumption that the trams were not going to be 'shortened' later, but maybe on a pre-construction basis that would be designable. Even if its too late for current orders, it does beg the question whether a mixed-length fleet would provide flexibility and economics.

A transit guy once told me that the prevailing thinking is that you never mix up pieces of artics during rebuilds etc, because each set wears into a specific harmony over time and bad things happen if you mix and match. Just like you never repace just one tire on a car.

- Paul

 

[Duck]

Why are we talking about changing the length of the Crosstown's trains?