nfitz
Superstar
Rather late in the day for a delivery I'd have thought, given it arrived in the yard mid-morning. Car 4412.
|
|
|
crs1026
Superstar
If they wanted fast, they would have called Fedex. For a railway, 8 hours' dwell time is nothing.
I wonder if the transportation costs are invoiced directly to TTC, or if BBD pays them out of the fixed (kinda) contract terms. With the delays in the deliveries, the demurrage bill for those dedicated-service flat cars must be getting up there.
- Paul
nfitz
Superstar
Oh, I know ... it sat in Sudbury for about 40 hours. I'm just surprised that TTC would be offloading this late in the day. But perhaps it just sits on siding at Hillcrest until tomorrow - CP is probably happy to have it out of their yard before nightfall, given their lack of security.
drum118
Superstar
If TTC retender the current contract or tender the extra 60 cars, we should go for these cars that are being tested in Budapest and now the longest ones. Need 2 pans to move them when I saw the 54m cars in 2012 while there and theses 56m CAF Urbos 3 (Villamos) will fit nicely there.
You will notice it is in its own ROW with white painted strips next to traffic lanes, not the concrete we use.
You will notice it is in its own ROW with white painted strips next to traffic lanes, not the concrete we use.
Last edited:
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
That thing is bound to give some drivers a heart attack. Good luck driving around that thing. I love it
But in all seriousness, I don't think Toronto needs that kind of capacity. I'd much rather have smaller LFLRVs and more frequent service.
What is the capacity of that tram?
drum118
Superstar
56 metres can accommodate 345 people with 81 seated.That thing is bound to give some drivers a heart attack. Good luck driving around that thing. I love it
But in all seriousness, I don't think Toronto needs that kind of capacity. I'd much rather have smaller LFLRVs and more frequent service.
What is the capacity of that tram?
Once TTC "can" start putting cars out on other routes than 509 & 510, driver will be shaking when they see them coming at them or are in front of them. Need another 10 to do it.
Not sure if it will happen with this video, but the one I watched had a video of Melbourne come up next and you would think you were looking at Toronto, other than opposite hand running. We talk about narrow platforms here with Melbourne being smaller. Stop spacing is right and slightly better than ours.
I see the day where we will have the same headway or less with our current fleet. We may see 501 going back to the 60's when head ways where less than 3 minutes with mu PCC cars.
the lemur
Senior Member
They seem to do better with putting in platforms, enforcing the rules for drivers ('stop when the tram stops') and they have crossovers! Not sure why the TTC never thought to put those in instead of loops.
georgevicbell
Active Member
So from the sounds of it we are now in the position that Quebec is going to backstop bbd for their c-series. So does this make it harder for ttc to bail on bbd?
D
Duck
Guest
The CLRV and ALRV's (and the new LFLRV's, sadly) are unidirectional; they need turnaround loops instead of crossovers to change their direction of travel.
smallspy
Senior Member
You can run much more frequent service with loops than you can with crossovers.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
the lemur
Senior Member
How so? I'm referring to crossovers at the ends of lines.
dowlingm
Senior Member
There's nothing stopping a bidirectional car from using a loop though, right? Whereas if you have a service that there is land for a loop at one end but not the other you're screwed if you only have unidirectional. Crossovers also mean turnbacks in the median are feasible where a loop means either crossing opposing car traffic (St Clair) or a grade separation like St Clair West.
You do lose standing/seating room with the cabs/doors on the bi-dis, that said. But a bidi could use an island platform where there is room for it in an ROW but not room for two side platforms.
As for the long CAF tram, not sure what use that is to TTC - would overflow a bunch of loops and be space inefficient for the Barns which I'm guessing has had its trackage sized for multiples of 30m.
You do lose standing/seating room with the cabs/doors on the bi-dis, that said. But a bidi could use an island platform where there is room for it in an ROW but not room for two side platforms.
As for the long CAF tram, not sure what use that is to TTC - would overflow a bunch of loops and be space inefficient for the Barns which I'm guessing has had its trackage sized for multiples of 30m.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
With loops, the only thing limiting headways is how how safely your signalling system can run vehicles together.
With crossovers, the time it takes for vehicles to manoeuvre through the crossover is the limiting factor. Consider that when a train is using a crossover, it is occupying tracks in both directions. No trains on the line can pass that point until the train has moved though the crossover completely. And because crossover are speed restricted, it takes a non-neglible length of time to move through the crossover. In fact, crossovers are the reason why headways on Line 1 will be limited to about 115 seconds, rather than the 90 seconds that our ATO signalling system is capable of. We likely won't be able to achieve 90 seconds until Yonge is extended north.
With our streetcars, crossovers would probably be fine in spots where relatively few LRVs pass through (High Park loop, for example). It would be a disaster at spots where there are more streetcars, such as Dundas West, Spadina, St. Clair, St. Clair West or Union.
TheTigerMaster
Superstar
True in theory, but I can't think of any instance where this has been an issue.
Bi-directional do mean that we can replace loops between terminals with crossovers. I'd expect this to improve travel time on those lines. Anybody whose been through Charlotte Loop or Queens Quay Loop on the 510 Spadina knows how slow the setup is currently. However, this benefit would have to be weighted against the capacity loss. Furthermore, this could only be implemented on the 509, 510, 512 and East Bayfront LRT.
dowlingm
Senior Member
At this point I think it's more a question for other systems. Too much legacy cruft in the downtown system. If there was an area where crossovers might have helped I would argue it would have been Union but would also probably require ATC given no room for tail crossovers.