dowlingm
Senior Member
Crosstown LRVs are single cab?
|
|
|
Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs
- Thread starter W. K. Lis
- Start date
TOareaFan
Superstar
that's what it says.
nfitz
Superstar
I don't know how anyone thought it would be any different. In front of a judge, quite clear both sides have had issues. And Metrolinx refused to follow dispute resolution procedure in contract. What on earth did they think the outcome would be?
I don't know where Metrolinx is getting their legal advise from - but it's clearly terrible. If it's in-house, they should be terminated. Is the ruling anywhere? It would list who the counsel is. Edit - ah someone posted above. https://www.scribd.com/document/345648982/Bombardier-v-Metrolinx-Reasons-for-Decision
Chrid G. Paliare, Kris Borg-Olivier and Denise Cooney. Now, I suppose they might have told Metrollinx the same thing, and been told to do it anyway ... but that just seems dumb.
TOareaFan
Superstar
likely the normally publicly vocal, somewhat twitter happy, public body has issued a very simple statement and stated they will take no questions today.
dowlingm
Senior Member
The moving party was Bombardier, seeking the injunction. Paliere et al were instructed by Metrolinx to seek that it not be granted. Counsel would likely have given MLX some sense of the likely outcomes.
Metrolinx could have chosen not to defend based on that advice, but that would have given Bombardier an uncontested outcome. Instead, the judge refused to declare the Engineer was biased, and provided that (at para 78, a) Metrolinx could come back to the judge if Bombardier did not "take all reasonable steps to expedite the dispute resolution process".
rbt
Senior Member
Makes sense to me. Trains are made of multiple LRVs and Finch, Sheppard, Eglinton etc. are all running multiple LRV trains. If you link them back to back then the train has multiple cabs while any given LRV has a single cab.
Most Toronto Rocket cars have zero cabs.
Allandale25
Senior Member
So would the next update be sometime after May 12th?
TOareaFan
Superstar
Well, he refused to declare the engineer biased because he thinks that is the job of the dispute resolution body......and from the statements of facts, it certainly does not seem like BBD is the one that has been delaying/avoiding the dispute resolution process.
steveintoronto
Superstar
There's an awkward aspect to this all beyond the obvious.
[Last fall Alstom, a French manufacturer that is building LRVs for Ottawa, told the Star it wanted to take part in the bidding process if Metrolinx sought other vendors for Toronto’s LRT lines. At the time a spokesperson for the company said Alstom was capable of meeting required Canadian content standards, and was “considering an assembly facility in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area if there is a volume to support such an investment.”]
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...wn-vehicles-amid-bombardier-legal-battle.html
Not unlike a marriage in turmoil, the court ruling that counselling and separation be hashed out before granting a divorce, but meantime the aggrieved shacking up with someone new, prior to having a divorce granted.
Although they won't, and the details of the negotiations just being another ploy by Metrolinx (as reinforced by the Justice' statement), Alstom might be in a position to sue for negotiations in bad faith. Alstom is already up against the wall if Siemens and BBD rail divisions merge.
[Last fall Alstom, a French manufacturer that is building LRVs for Ottawa, told the Star it wanted to take part in the bidding process if Metrolinx sought other vendors for Toronto’s LRT lines. At the time a spokesperson for the company said Alstom was capable of meeting required Canadian content standards, and was “considering an assembly facility in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area if there is a volume to support such an investment.”]
https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/20...wn-vehicles-amid-bombardier-legal-battle.html
Not unlike a marriage in turmoil, the court ruling that counselling and separation be hashed out before granting a divorce, but meantime the aggrieved shacking up with someone new, prior to having a divorce granted.
Although they won't, and the details of the negotiations just being another ploy by Metrolinx (as reinforced by the Justice' statement), Alstom might be in a position to sue for negotiations in bad faith. Alstom is already up against the wall if Siemens and BBD rail divisions merge.
nfitz
Superstar
True ... but it was clear from the hearing (if it wasn't already) that Bombardier was indeed seeking to completely terminate the contract (they'd already served notice). Perhaps the hearing wasn't winnable, but surely Metrolinx would have had their legal counsel provide a lot of advise before they started the process internally to start terminating the contract, and start discussions with other vendors? Did they really expect Bombardier to just walk away after spending millions of dollars building a brand new assembly line in Ernestown primarily for this contract?
Steve X
Senior Member
That would provide more capacity with more seats instead of a useless cab in the way. Calgary has these new S200's with cabs on both ends and they run them as 3 or 4 train consists. They are shorter than these LRVs making them such a waste of space.
The crosstown LRVs will have ATO equipment making them line specific. They won't be used anywhere else as a single LRV train. The ION LRVs won't run as multi-unit in the next decade so they'll need cabs at both ends. The extra cars bought for Sheppard and the SRT however might end up somewhere else. We know TO has committed with a Crosstown West extension so ~30 of them can be allocated there. If Crosstown East and Sheppard gets built, ML will be fine.
TOareaFan
Superstar
I think the minister of transportation certainly thought BBD would just throw there hands up and walk away....otherwise why would he issue a statement that says BBD chose to litigate?
Attachments
Markster
Senior Member
For anyone else who is saying "whaaaaaaaaaaaaat???" to this, see paragraph [21]
https://www.scribd.com/document/345648982/Bombardier-v-Metrolinx-Reasons-for-Decision
44 North
Senior Member
I had no idea Crosstown was to use single-ended cars. So will these be what are called 'married pairs'; and/or will there be an open gangway between the two vehicles (seeing that there will be no driver's cab where the two are connected)? Also, since Crosstown is designed for 90m (i.e a three-car Flexity LRV train), would that mean in the future we could see the middle car have no driver's cab whatsoever? Seems good because then it could bump the capacity by a dozen or so.
Markster
Senior Member
At this point, until we get a corroborating piece of evidence, I'm leaning toward this being a minor technical error that is conflating the TTC vehicles and the Metrolinx vehicles.