M II A II R II K
Senior Member
Surely the Halton museum would take at least one of them.
|
|
|
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Someone maybe able to create the software on a smartphone to run them, but it's the interface and the devices they connect to that is the problem. Would you be able to use the storage devices of the 1980's to interface with? Would you want to?
Richard White
Senior Member
It would be worth doing however as I said it would be a stationary piece.
ShonTron
Moderator
Member Bio
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 12,541
- Reaction score
- 9,541
- Location
- Ward 13 - Toronto Centre
At one time, Halton County did equip a Gloucester subway car with a trolley pole for operation, but it later ended up (wisely) in static display.
I definitely see a car sent to HCRY for static display – it won’t need much work to do so, apart from regauging the trucks. The trouble with HCRY is that there are many little projects going on all at once, along with the necessary maintenance of its plant and collection. If only they could focus on one or two restorations at a time, they’d get a lot more done.
I definitely see a car sent to HCRY for static display – it won’t need much work to do so, apart from regauging the trucks. The trouble with HCRY is that there are many little projects going on all at once, along with the necessary maintenance of its plant and collection. If only they could focus on one or two restorations at a time, they’d get a lot more done.
lenaitch
Senior Member
In terms of the mandate for what a museum or preservation society is supposed to be, that would come under the heading of 'travesty'.
crs1026
Superstar
The overriding imperative for any museum or preservation society is, Know the limits of your capabilities and only conserve what you can repurpose and maintain on a sustainable basis.
Museums are not junkyards, and nothing harms preservation more than acquiring more than the museum can maintain and having most of it sit in the weeds rusting away. Sadly sometimes museums dilute their own collection by allowing individuals to take on projects on their own initiative that they are unable to finish on their own, despite the museum's destiny depending on other projects that the individual isn't as keen on. Sometimes museums need to tell their volunteers, look - our priority is x and that's all we will allow you to work on right now, even if you have a lifelong passion for y. And sometimes museums need to refuse new artifacts - or cull their collection strategically.
Fitting a trolley pole to a G-car and running it as such is a historical aberration - and it's just plain impractical, especially given the incompatibility with the track and the rider amenities at HCRY.
I will be happy if HCRY (or any other museum) decides that a piece of SRT rolling stock fits within their mandate, and makes a strategic decision to add that exhibit to their program. But I would be disappointed if they don't properly work that into their strategic plan so that the conservation - be it static or otherwise - is sustained.
I don't think that my future grandchildren will be deprived if they never ride a SRT railcar in a museum. It would be something meaningful to interpret as part of our civic history - but rusting in the weeds isn't doing that..
- Paul
Richard White
Senior Member
This is my beef with HCRY. They have alot of rolling stock in various states with no focus on any one item. As the volunteers age, the restoration work is going to be harder to do.
I wonder if Exporail would want a SRT car? The TRHA sent the Peter Witt back to Exporail (who owned it) in 2008. It far better suited for a museum than sitting in the Roundhouse.
As a former TRHA Member who worked on the rolling stock, I saw how having too many projects on the go at once affects things. At one point we had 4803, 7020 and the TH&B Caboose on the go all at once.
It was not until we focused our efforts on Cape Race that things got rolling. We left 7020 half painted, 4803 still needed engine work but at least Cape Race was getting done.
See here for the removal of the Peter Witt from the Roundhouse: http://www.trha.ca/2008/06/ttcs-first-peter-witt-streetcar-leaves.html
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Wonder if Vancouver or Detroit would accept a SRT car "donation" for their "museum"? If they have one. What else would they do with their "retired" fleet cars?
Bureaucromancer
Active Member
In big picture terms, my view is that while a static unit at HCRY would be kinda nice, it might actually be better suited to the Toronto Railway Museum (maybe genuinely send one car to each, splitting a married pair). A unit to Science Center would also make a lot of sense to me, and fit really well with both their mandate and the technology development angle of it (honestly, I'd love to see them get the actual protype cars from Kingston); this is a bit of a nonstarter if they actually move to Ontario Place of course...
As far as an operating unit, it will be a shame if Vancouver doesn't keep a trains worth, but they really are the only place with anything like the capacity for it.
Bit of an aside, but there has been some talk from Detroit about how "futuristic" a fleet replacement looks, and noise from the City that suggests abandonment isn't terribly likely. My best guess is that they'll go with a single car variant of whatever Mk is being offered when they actuall make an order (think JFKs single unit Mk IIs)... I know that LA planned to use them, but I always thought it was a real shame that UTDC didn't more aggressively persue other people mover systems... However gadgety ICTS its a lot les so than the Westinghouse descended units that dominate peoplemover installs. If nothing else it would have been a much better VAL replacement in Jacksonville than the Von Roll monorails they went with.
Last edited:
Richard White
Senior Member
The TRM may not have space.
They have a weight limit because they are situated on top of a parking garage. They need to properely spread out the weight.
littlewill1166
Active Member
According to this, the wheel slip/flat issue comes from braking. The current SRT uses the reaction rail to help stop the train via regenerative braking. A train with conventional wheels would have to rely solely on the running wheels to stop the train.
SkyTrain High Technology Rapid Transit in Vancouver on JSTOR
Tom Parkinson, SkyTrain High Technology Rapid Transit in Vancouver, SAE Transactions, Vol. 98, Section 2: JOURNAL OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES (1989), pp. 177-187
www.jstor.org
This article says that the Mark 1 trains in Vancouver have design deficiencies in their wheel trucks—specifically, the train's small wheels. The vehicle's lightweight, vehicle control system dating from the 80s (lacking modern wheel slip protection), and above-ground operation don't help either.
It's definitely possible to modify the system to accommodate a version of the SRT with conventional propulsion. But, in 2006 when the TTC was considering what to do with the RT, Transit City was right around the corner. As probably already discussed many pages back, the SRT was supposed to be converted into a conventionally propelled system and act as a bridge between the Eglinton LRT and the Sheppard East LRT. This would have made transfers between the lines easier, added redundancy to the network, and enabled the possibility of interlining. But I think we all know what happened.
We probably are, there's definitely a way to mitigate it. But it definitely adds to the cost of upgrading the vehicles on the SRT, and as said above Transit City was just around the corner at the time.I thought we were discussing the "millions" in extra costs for using the shorter Mark I vehicle length, rather than the length that's now being used in the Mark II to Mark V vehicles. I think $170 million was a given.
Yes ... but I don't think there was ever any further design to mitigate this. For example, would heating the reaction rail solve this? Or switching to overhead catenary (which would be a challenge in the tunnel).
Either way, I think we are getting into faeries on pinhead territory.
lenaitch
Senior Member
It's a special challenge for museums/societys that deal in 'big things'; railway equipment, aircraft, etc. Facilities that enable inside storage and display are beyond the financial ability of most. In 'normal' museums, it's not unusual for only a portion of its holdings to be on public display. The rest is held for historical preservation, research, restoration, etc.
Creating a Franken-subway by putting a trolley pole on it is like the ROM putting antlers on a stuffed rabbit and displaying a Jackalope.
AlvinofDiaspar
Moderator
I am thinking of preserving one of the old stations (say STC) and putting one of the trainsets in it. You can seal the existing structure for weather protection.
AoD
AoD
Sandpit
Active Member
Any bets as to when Line 3 will be removed from TTC system maps/info? (I take it as a given that the 903 Kennedy-Scarborough Centre Express will appear as a thin green line much like the 900 Airport Express.)
T3G
Senior Member
I favour this approach above all. It's local to the original line's stomping grounds, it's accessible, and conveniently located. I fear greatly however that no one who can influence policy will think this a good idea and the entire system will be wiped from our collective minds and memories.
I don't think HCRR is on the table. They appear to have very limited interest in anything from the heavier rail side of things, considering they haven't saved anything in about 25 years, and I'm told they maxed out their space with the acquisition of the CLRVs in 2019. If they wanted to make value out of an addition and ensure it wouldn't rot out back like many of their PCCs have, they would have to build more storage space.