UD2
Active Member
TTC cars have custom Toronto only track gauge where as metorlinx tram are off the shelf world standard. A price premium for anything custom designed is expected.
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
nfitz
Superstar
The Metrolinx cars are also wider, and require two complete cockpits, instead of just one. They require more material, electronics, etc.
Both are custom designed.
This is the largest streetcar order in the history of the planet, as far as I know. We're not talking a 10-car order for Stittsvile. It has it's own economies of scale, no matter the design.
junior43
Active Member
So in total, that's an additional 330 Million to make them more flexible, able to get up steeper inclines, and different track gauge - and handi ramps.
Still a little mixed on what I think about that price tag for those engineering accommodations. But it's hard to put a price on the engineering of it and safety (and reliability) for it all as well. Doesn't really matter now anyways since they're here and the contracts are signed. I was just curious because the price per car jumped out at me. I would hope the options we have for additional cars (as well as ML) are at a lower price point - but I guess if you factor in inflation they could stay the same. I dunno.
Thanks for the info though.
nfitz
Superstar
If you do an apples-to-apples comparison, compare the 2009 announcement from Bombardier for the original 204 TTC vehicles - http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-...oronto.bombardiercom.html?filter-bu=transport
to the 2010 announcemnt for Metrolinx exercising the option for 182 vehicles - http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-...&f-month=all&f-type=pr&show-by-page=50&page=1
TTC's 204 vehicles were for CDN$851 million ($4.17 million each) while the Metrolinx ones were $770 million ($4.23 million each).
Yes, there are other numbers floating around. Who knows what year $ each number is in, whether it includes spare parts, maintenance, or whatever extras have since been added. But in terms of what Bombardier told their shareholders, the pricing was very similar for the original orders.
I can't think of a better apples-to-apples comparison.
to the 2010 announcemnt for Metrolinx exercising the option for 182 vehicles - http://www.bombardier.com/en/media-...&f-month=all&f-type=pr&show-by-page=50&page=1
TTC's 204 vehicles were for CDN$851 million ($4.17 million each) while the Metrolinx ones were $770 million ($4.23 million each).
Yes, there are other numbers floating around. Who knows what year $ each number is in, whether it includes spare parts, maintenance, or whatever extras have since been added. But in terms of what Bombardier told their shareholders, the pricing was very similar for the original orders.
I can't think of a better apples-to-apples comparison.
Fred.S
Active Member
Well the R&D for the Outlooks has to be added to the price, whereas the Freedoms are "off-the-shelf". Yes, the Freedoms are customized to an extent for each order, but it's generally cosmetic. My understanding is that the Outlooks are much more powerful than the Freedoms, and have 3 powered bogies instead of the 2 in the Freedoms. I'd imagine the extra motors have a significant cost, as well as extra/more flexible frame components.
Aside from their load-leveling ability, the Freedoms are a basically a much simpler version of the Outlook.
Aside from their load-leveling ability, the Freedoms are a basically a much simpler version of the Outlook.
nfitz
Superstar
And yet the Outlooks are cheaper. Not sure your point.
Fred.S
Active Member
I thought the cost of the Outlook order was $1.2 billion, which is the number normally seen in the media (such as http://www.thestar.com/news/city_hall/2012/11/15/ttc_unveils_torontos_new_streetcars.html), which therefore makes them more expensive. I could be wrong, so any better sources would be welcome, but I was always under the impression that they were more expensive.
nfitz
Superstar
What does that include though. Which year $? If you go through the TTC budget numbers, you can get much higher costs for those vehicles too. I'd assume that what Bombardier would have reported to shareholders would have been roughly equivalent for each order.
UD2
Active Member
Metorlinx trams are not customized to the same degree as the TTC streetcars. The basic infrastructure and engineering of the transit city trams are fairly standard bombardier offerings, where as the changes they are made to the TTC streetcars required its own design process.
The TTC order has its economies of scale, however the R&D cost still has to be added onto the sticker price.
nfitz
Superstar
44 North
Senior Member
If let's say a Flexity Freedom or Outlook was to run on a completely grade-separated route, could there be customizations done that would lower costs substantially? So the vehicle and its interior may look identical to what's being built now (and w/ similar components), but it could have driverless capability and I guess not require the same crash standards as its street-running counterpart.
Could Bombardier make such a thing, and would it have possibly been worthwhile to use on the SRT corridor (or Ford's Crosstown-SLRT)?
Could Bombardier make such a thing, and would it have possibly been worthwhile to use on the SRT corridor (or Ford's Crosstown-SLRT)?
ehlow
Senior Member
Why not just use regular subway cars in that case? Possibly with shorter trains.
44 North
Senior Member
Because subways are not as optimal in many instances. They can't handle steep grades, or tight turns, and they're mammoth. Half a metre wider. If we were to build a new metro line (or rebuild the SRT), it may make sense to use light rail. But rather than ordering a whole new batch of LRVs with different components, or something proprietary, or the existing exorbitantly expensive Flexity LRVs - we use a more affordable and stripped-down version of the current vehicles.
This light metro line could use a version of Flexity vehicles that share parts and shops with the street-running vehicles, and they'll look identical. But they'd be, say, half the weight and 1/3 the cost.
UD2
Active Member
In addition to everything that's said in the post above, putting a third rail at street level would be an interesting experience.
Recalling the recent Toronto star article on senior citizen vs St Clair row, imagine if you added another layer of possibilities for electrocution.
44 North
Senior Member
To be fair, I was talking about having the LRV so that it'd be unable to travel in the street. So even though it could (theoretically) use 3rd rail power, the main issue is that the vehicle would lack certain safety requirements to be able run at-grade.
I recall something like this being discussed in another thread concerning London's DRL. Basically that some of the rolling stock was bought by other cities, but retrofitted to run in-median. But in the scenario I'd want to see, our Flexity rolling stock would be stripped-down so that it could no longer run in traffic.