cplchanb
Senior Member
isnt there supposed to be a ruling on the definition of "deliverable?" obviously bashing and rhetoric is flowing from both sides
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
isnt there supposed to be a ruling on the definition of "deliverable?" obviously bashing and rhetoric is flowing from both sides
TOareaFan
Superstar
it is in court this week (not sure what day)....so there is a bit of a social media war going on between them
I should say, I need to apologize for the above, it is not clear (on second reading) whether that 2nd pilot they are tweeting about is for KW or Crosstown......I was looking at something on Ion webpage and they are not actually expecting any more cars until June/July.....so it may actually be the shipping of a second pilot for Crosstown to Kingston (where the first one sits awaiting ML to take delivery for testing).....so your question about software may be much closer to the mark than I first credited.
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Hopefully, the software is compatible between Toronto's Outlook and Metrolinx's Freedom models.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Markster
Senior Member
It's currently undergoing stationary testing. From what I've heard, we're not expecting to see it running laps in the yard until late April or even May. So whether or not it can move is beside the point, as we're not yet expecting it to.
rbt
Senior Member
If it's vehicle system software then that's extremely unlikely; nor would it be particularly useful.
There will be common libraries in use behind the scenes but you won't take the firmware from one vehicle and flash another using it. Part tolerances, internal communication bus, and other things will be quite different.
Reminds me of a service call where someone replaced a 10,000 step stepper-motor with a 1,000,000 step stepper-motor then didn't understand why it wasn't turning. The software was designed for the old motor and those same directions on the new one was a fraction of a revolution. Of course, the time to complete a revolution and response times were also quite different so even if you did multiply the steps it still wasn't going to fire at exactly the right time to do the expected job (part of an assembly line).
When the software for driving a part consists of a couple hundred lines, and 50 of those change with the specifications of the hardware, it's overkill to make porting to other parts easy; in the worst case the overhead from the compatibility/configuration layer now requires a faster PLC to run it. Faster PLCs means more power (or less reliable operation) which may require bigger batteries/power supply, etc.
Last edited:
cplchanb
Senior Member
Given by the fact that software must be tailored to the individual order of cars and the fact that bbr still hasnt been able to finalise it, ml may actually have a case on them.
A car that cannot run from factory can technically be considered an unfinished product. all will be revealed tomorrow
W. K. Lis
Superstar
Guess they have to learn how to deactivate the ATC (Automatic Train Control) first before they activate it, first.
Steve X
Senior Member
The operator interface is not the difficulty but it's the tweaking for motors and subsystems that takes time. With different size mechanical equipment, they'll need to tweak it to the dedicated vehicle. The Metrolinx LRV have a different top speed and 2 powered bogie instead of 3. So the motors will have to be controlled differently.
From what BBD is saying, they fear Metrolinx will cancel the order so they are holding back and probably progress this order too far so they won't loose too much if the order does get cancel. How much effort they'll put in will depend on what happens in court. If the order does fall through, KW would have a bunch of lemons as I don't see why BBD would spend a lot of time tweaking the vehicles to perfection. Also note, none of the recent TTC streetcar or Metrolinx LRV tweets/media releases include the brand "Flexity".
From what BBD is saying, they fear Metrolinx will cancel the order so they are holding back and probably progress this order too far so they won't loose too much if the order does get cancel. How much effort they'll put in will depend on what happens in court. If the order does fall through, KW would have a bunch of lemons as I don't see why BBD would spend a lot of time tweaking the vehicles to perfection. Also note, none of the recent TTC streetcar or Metrolinx LRV tweets/media releases include the brand "Flexity".
dowlingm
Senior Member
Based on a Bombardier release, it looks like Waterloo #2 will move under its own power first, in Kingston. EDIT: Strike that, as Markster correctly points out that release referred to the Metrolinx vehicle.
Last edited:
Markster
Senior Member
The press release seem to be talking about the Metrolinx prototype 2.
Waterloo #2 is being built in Kingston, and doesn't need to be shipped.
That said, it is still entirely possible that Waterloo #2 will be moving before Waterloo #1!
steveintoronto
Superstar
There appears to be some confusion, as the press release clearly states:
As an aside to that, it would appear that Metrolinx' basis for invoking the failure to deliver clause has just hit the buffers.
The confusion as to "Metrolinx" v. "Waterloo" is furthered here:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thunder-bay/thunder-bay-bombardier-waterloo-1.3982937
Last edited:
TOareaFan
Superstar
Attachments
Megaton327
Senior Member
Is this comment from an actual judge, i.e. someone who went to law school? That's one of the stupidest statements I ever heard...does the contract say the vehicle needs to be in condition X and delivered at date Y, or does it not? Does the contract say all deadlines are void if "there isn't urgency since Metrolinx doesn't have tracks"?
TOareaFan
Superstar
based on Ben's tweets....we don't seem to be getting the clarity around what a "ready" pilot vehicle is and what the contract stipulates....this could just be because we are just in the phase where the two lawyers put forward their arguments and they both seem to be avoiding that (which does not send a good signal around there being clarity in the contract as hoped).
The comment above from the judge was, apparently his first direct question/comment and was likely a bad sign for ML but maybe just the judge clarifying the point.
ML responded that the urgency was around the need to start talks with alternate supplier in April if that was going to be the solution....then this happened (credit to Oliver Moore)
Judge: that's not in the materials
Paliare: well it's urgent