TTC: Flexity Streetcars Testing & Delivery (Bombardier)

[DSC]

If they had expedited the replacement of the overhead wire in Russell, it would've meant that one yard or the other would've had to be taken out of service and disrupted twice in order to do it. Seeing as the entirety of the initial 204 car order was equipped with poles, there was no urgent need to expedite the work at Russell.

That's fair, BUT they could surely have managed to assign any non-pole cars to Roncys or Leslie while Russell is being converted? Of course, this is an organisation that has a hard time managing routes so this might well be beyond them. It really has taken FAR too long to do the overhead conversion.

 

[nfitz]

That's fair, BUT they could surely have managed to assign any non-pole cars to Roncys or Leslie while Russell is being converted? Of course, this is an organisation that has a hard time managing routes so this might well be beyond them. It really has taken FAR too long to do the overhead conversion.

I don't see a rush for the conversion. And doing it slower allows them to take advantage of other scheduled work, so there's less shutdowns just for the overheard work.

I'd think the cost of putting on 60 extra poles would be relatively trivial. Perhaps even less than the cost of the redesign to remove them from the design. To some extent, it's simpler to go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

We talk about Roncesvalles and Russell. But what's the status of Hillcrest? I don't recall it going down for a period of time for new overhead - yet.

 

[drum118]

I don't see a rush for the conversion. And doing it slower allows them to take advantage of other scheduled work, so there's less shutdowns just for the overheard work.

I'd think the cost of putting on 60 extra poles would be relatively trivial. Perhaps even less than the cost of the redesign to remove them from the design. To some extent, it's simpler to go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

We talk about Roncesvalles and Russell. But what's the status of Hillcrest? I don't recall it going down for a period of time for new overhead - yet.

Since very few cars use the yard, its was a lot easier to converter the OS as section by section and not interfere with any of the fleet that may have been up there. It was one of the first area to be converted, as it allow TTC to do testing a car that was off loaded using poles and pans before heading to the Barns.

 

[nfitz]

Since very few cars use the yard, its was a lot easier to converter the OS as section by section and not interfere with any of the fleet that may have been up there. It was one of the first area to be converted, as it allow TTC to do testing a car that was off loaded using poles and pans before heading to the Barns.

What's an OS?

They did the whole yard? They'd only need that loop around the one building, near the offloading ramp, to test the pan.

 

[drum118]

What's an OS?

They did the whole yard? They'd only need that loop around the one building, near the offloading ramp, to test the pan.

OS = Overhead System

From what I have seen of the yard from my various visited to it, it been done. I have seen Pan testing on the outside tracks as well coming out of the north end of the building and looping west.

 

[cplchanb]

I don't see a rush for the conversion. And doing it slower allows them to take advantage of other scheduled work, so there's less shutdowns just for the overheard work.

I'd think the cost of putting on 60 extra poles would be relatively trivial. Perhaps even less than the cost of the redesign to remove them from the design. To some extent, it's simpler to go with "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".

We talk about Roncesvalles and Russell. But what's the status of Hillcrest? I don't recall it going down for a period of time for new overhead - yet.

The poles costs tens of thousands each if not more and to maintain them or remove them will cost millions potentially over the lifetime. its honestly a simple update to their drawings. hell its not even them designing. they just spec and Alstom does the design. they just tell them no pole and they will not supply it.

Its not a matter of if it aint broke. there simply will be no need for it and we are on the hook for maintenance of an obsolete system for decades. its the lack of foresight by TTC. remember we are billions short in our budget and things like this is an example of where money is simply wasted. the aint broke mentality needs to change to have more forethought.

 

[smallspy]

The poles costs tens of thousands each if not more and to maintain them or remove them will cost millions potentially over the lifetime. its honestly a simple update to their drawings. hell its not even them designing. they just spec and Alstom does the design. they just tell them no pole and they will not supply it.

Uhhhh, what?

There is one consumable component on the trolley pole - the shoe. And if it isn't being used, than it isn't being consumed.

The pole itself costs about $200. There's probably a similar amount again in the circuitry in the car that allows the operator to choose between which power collection method he/she wants to use.

So no, it is not costing them "tens of thousands" of each.

Its not a matter of if it aint broke. there simply will be no need for it and we are on the hook for maintenance of an obsolete system for decades. its the lack of foresight by TTC. remember we are billions short in our budget and things like this is an example of where money is simply wasted. the aint broke mentality needs to change to have more forethought.

Of course, the point that you are missing is that the TTC used the exact same spec for this because it was an option to the existing order.

What is cheaper - reusing an existing spec to allow for improved pricing on an existing order, or to rewrite the spec to save a couple of bucks, but potentially a significant cost escalation in the per-unit cost?

Dan

 

[DSC]

Uhhhh, what?

There is one consumable component on the trolley pole - the shoe. And if it isn't being used, than it isn't being consumed.

The pole itself costs about $200. There's probably a similar amount again in the circuitry in the car that allows the operator to choose between which power collection method he/she wants to use.

So no, it is not costing them "tens of thousands" of each.


Of course, the point that you are missing is that the TTC used the exact same spec for this because it was an option to the existing order.

What is cheaper - reusing an existing spec to allow for improved pricing on an existing order, or to rewrite the spec to save a couple of bucks, but potentially a significant cost escalation in the per-unit cost?

Dan

Dan: as usual you bring a healthy dose of knowledge and sense to a discussion - thank you!

 

[cplchanb]

Uhhhh, what?

There is one consumable component on the trolley pole - the shoe. And if it isn't being used, than it isn't being consumed.

The pole itself costs about $200. There's probably a similar amount again in the circuitry in the car that allows the operator to choose between which power collection method he/she wants to use.

So no, it is not costing them "tens of thousands" of each.


Of course, the point that you are missing is that the TTC used the exact same spec for this because it was an option to the existing order.

What is cheaper - reusing an existing spec to allow for improved pricing on an existing order, or to rewrite the spec to save a couple of bucks, but potentially a significant cost escalation in the per-unit cost?

Dan

source to show actual pricing to support your $200 claim?
obviously i dont have numbers on my end but judging from almost every govt contract, the price will be much higher than off the shelf.

you havent thought about soft costs, inspection, lubrication of the poles, testing the electrical system. those are all labour costs that add up.

so if they dont remove the poles now, when will they? next order in 30 years time? next next order? next next next order? meanwhile in a few years time (hopefully) they will be rendered obsolete and then either it will be stuck up there uselessly and paid to maintain or we will pay a team union labour rate to take 6months worth of hours to remove them....

significant price escalation? youre not adding anything, in fact youre removing components. if thats not going to save on parts at least its going to be awash.

 

[drum118]

Uhhhh, what?

There is one consumable component on the trolley pole - the shoe. And if it isn't being used, than it isn't being consumed.

The pole itself costs about $200. There's probably a similar amount again in the circuitry in the car that allows the operator to choose between which power collection method he/she wants to use.

So no, it is not costing them "tens of thousands" of each.


Of course, the point that you are missing is that the TTC used the exact same spec for this because it was an option to the existing order.

What is cheaper - reusing an existing spec to allow for improved pricing on an existing order, or to rewrite the spec to save a couple of bucks, but potentially a significant cost escalation in the per-unit cost?

Dan

There is a thing known as change order that could been used to removed the poles before production started. There would be no increase in unit cost to the point there would be a reduction cost to TTC, but not at 100% cost return to them.

The pole may cost $200, but what about the other cost to install it?? Then there is the cost to maintain it as long it is in service.

Then there is the cost to repaint the rear where the pole stain are after the poles are remove from the existing fleet, let alone the new 60 cars.

 

[drum118]

TTC 4605 was off loaded today

4604 was moved to track 24 at Russell yard early last night and the first time it been in the yard since it was sent over from the Barns 2+ weeks ago. It has been here 64 days so far and not in service compare to 4403 that took 61 days to entre.

Will be interesting to see if 4605 can match 4404 in service after 19 days.

May see 4606 in early Dec.

 

[drum118]

Currently 4605 is hidden behind buses at Hillcrest to hide the ghastly graffiti on it. Most likely will be move to Leslie in the wee hours so folks can't see the graffiti on it or TTC will tape something over it.

4604 is currenting in the barns and the area where cars are prep for service that we may see it entre service this weekend.

 

[smallspy]

Currently 4605 is hidden behind buses at Hillcrest to hide the ghastly graffiti on it. Most likely will be move to Leslie in the wee hours so folks can't see the graffiti on it or TTC will tape something over it.

Or they'll spend 10 minutes power washing it off. Which is what they've done in the past.

Dan

 

[drum118]

What's an OS?

They did the whole yard? They'd only need that loop around the one building, near the offloading ramp, to test the pan.

From the photo of 4605 arriving in Toronto, the graffiti had to be on the driver side

Came upond some photos from 2011 for Hillcrest while fixing some tags and it show the start of the complex OS being converted to Pans. It would be another 22 months before 4400 show up

Nov 12 2011

 

[drum118]

4604 is now at Roncesvalles and ready to entre service. Wonder if it will be still there when I am in the area in a few hours?

4605 was tow to the Barns last night.