TheTigerMaster
Superstar
Care to expand?
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
Care to expand?
EastYorkTTCFan
Senior Member
I think the real problem is Metrolix is trying to argue about this in public and get the sympathy of the general public that doesn't understand all of the issues at hand on ther side. Wher as the TTC is keeping as much as they can out of the public eye except what they chose to give out like for example when they get asked for a statement about the streetcars they say they are confident in the new delivery pan and nothing more. That's smart Legal practices trying to trash a company you are dealing with isn't.
dowlingm
Senior Member
Toronto Star's Ben Spurr is in Millhaven today, getting the PR tour (organised by Navigator PR) from Bombardier.
https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/with_replies
https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/status/834438609470124033
https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/with_replies
https://twitter.com/BenSpurr/status/834438609470124033
salsa
Senior Member
TOareaFan
Superstar
salsa
Senior Member
I did. But now it makes me question why is it difficult to get a straight answer from Bombardier. Meanwhile Metrolinx says that the vehicle does not have "full functionality", while Bombardier claims "it's ready".
steveintoronto
Superstar
And compared to many agencies, the TTC is not especially good at PR, but compared to Metrolinx, they're magnitudes ahead. I can't see BBD coming out of this unscathed, they've already had a spotty record with many other clients, but they will survive in some form or other, even if the rail division is hived off completely to do it. Metrolinx executive? They may survive, but only because QP is wiping their azzes for them each time they shid themselves, and that's exactly what they're doing right now.
I note that McQuaig lists his background as (gist) "career government mandarin". No-one in private practice would hire him, save to sell to Metrolinx as an in with his buddies.
TOareaFan
Superstar
Again...if we go back a few pages.....we are all speculating and being led down paths of logic by media reports and press events when none of us have read the contract. The contract would define what state the vehicle has to be in as a pilot for BBD to consider it ready for acceptance by ML.
The two entities are involved in a media battle which (IMO) is fruitless.....courts are very good at reading and ruling on contracts....it is sorta what they do.
crs1026
Senior Member
Totally agree we are speculating. But Ben Spurr's details does fill in a few bits beyond the silly ML-Bomb public debate.
This actually sounds like a pretty typical "how things fall apart" scenario. Test protocols don't happen at the original contract signing. They get developed later, in the back-and-forth as the product takes shape. Until you know a lot about the product design, you may not know what to test or what sequence you will test in. Both parties may amend things.
At the end of the day, the vendor may want you to take the product at the almost-ready point (especially if they are behind - they will be under the spotlight and desperate to tell their upper management that the product has shipped). You might even be eager to take what's available, but you will still be telling your own management that it isn't complete yet. Add some political or business pressure, as has happened via the controversy over the TTC order, and the top levels start bickering based on differing reports from below.
Some may relate to the dilemma of whether to pay the contractor and hope they come back to finish the last bit of moulding, versus get sticky and not occupy the new house, with family pressure and rent mounting. It's never black and white.
Stuff happens. But letting it happen in public is truly disfunctional.
- Paul
This actually sounds like a pretty typical "how things fall apart" scenario. Test protocols don't happen at the original contract signing. They get developed later, in the back-and-forth as the product takes shape. Until you know a lot about the product design, you may not know what to test or what sequence you will test in. Both parties may amend things.
At the end of the day, the vendor may want you to take the product at the almost-ready point (especially if they are behind - they will be under the spotlight and desperate to tell their upper management that the product has shipped). You might even be eager to take what's available, but you will still be telling your own management that it isn't complete yet. Add some political or business pressure, as has happened via the controversy over the TTC order, and the top levels start bickering based on differing reports from below.
Some may relate to the dilemma of whether to pay the contractor and hope they come back to finish the last bit of moulding, versus get sticky and not occupy the new house, with family pressure and rent mounting. It's never black and white.
Stuff happens. But letting it happen in public is truly disfunctional.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
At present, we're reading "He said/She said" and little more. It's the signed engineers' reports and other professional testimony that will make or break the case. And since both parties (esp Metrolinx) have made scurrilous statements, watch for an attempt to have a publication ban imposed on this,
Remember, this is going to Superior Court, and:
We may not get to hear or read the dirty little details....that said, logic will allow us to read between the actions following the case.
Remember, this is going to Superior Court, and:
http://www.ontariocourts.ca/scj/publication-ban-requests/
We may not get to hear or read the dirty little details....that said, logic will allow us to read between the actions following the case.
jordanmkasla2009
Active Member
Here's the problem. Bombardier can't really develop the software for Metrolinx's LRVs without access to their selected Train Control and Signal Control systems. An off the shelf LRV comes with a basic "operating system" that has the capabilities to operate the LRV but without integration with Train Control and Signal Control systems the onboard computer locks out all controls by default. Bombardier can override the computer to test the train (which it did before shipping to test the traction motors) it's not a solution.
jordanmkasla2009
Active Member
Speaking of which the first LRV for the ION LRT will be delivered either today or tomorrow, where Bombardier engineers will assist Grandlinq LP in testing and integrating the LRV with the train control and signalling systems
steveintoronto
Superstar
That's a *very* good point! The analogy would be testing a computer using just the BIOS and some basic code run utilities. Without the OS, how can you test the peripherals beyond their hardware status?
Semantics: More than just an operating system (pun fully intended).
Steve X
Senior Member
Trams and LRVs existed way before computers. It all worked mechanically. Now in year 2017, we're saying we need a software to move it and it's not developed? I final that hard to believe considering how many Flexity trams are in service around the world including TTC's streetcars build in the same plants. They might not be optimized for the Freedom LRVs but obviously it should be able to perform basic operations.
The term "operating system" (OS) is very vague. Some embedded hardware company calls it a firmware. Anyways it doesn't make much difference what you call it. It's not a PC and it doesn't do much of the operating system tasks that's in Windows or Android. The whole point of the software is to control the mechanics instead of multitasking photos and music. There should be multiple systems onboard for fail-safe operation. You can't have the whole baking system fail cause the screen failed. All those system communicates to the user system (touch screen) so the operator can control the vehicle. The fundamental systems like breaking and acceleration should be developed. I don't see why the LRV can't move. They didn't start from scratch.
The Flexity trains don't have signalling system onboard. It's not a requirement to test the train. TTC streetcars and most of the trams in the world are like automobiles. The operator drives the vehicle. There's no need to override the system. It should just be driven. A separated ATO system would control to the controllers to get the signal and determine how the LRV will proceed. The operator just haves to flip a switch to change the operating mode from manual to ATO. I suspect the ATO software isn't ported to the Freedom LRVs but it's in use on other BBD vehicles.
crs1026
Senior Member
As an observer in the bleachers with no engineering expertise it's easy to offer superficial second guesses (e.g. wouldn't there be a "safe mode" or "yard mode" setting? where on earth is the required control/signal infrastructure available as a test site, anyways?).
Common sense says that you don't test drive a car from the passenger seat. Or by revving the motor in the parking lot. That may be kicking the tires, but it's not a true test drive.
ML may have contributed to this whole schmozzle, but I would put the onus on Bombardier to provide the car in true 'driveable' condition or it really isn't ready for testing.
- Paul