News   Jan 15, 2021
 4.4K     11 
News   Jan 15, 2021
 767     0 
News   Jan 15, 2021
 978     1 

Metrolinx: Bombardier Flexity Freedom & Alstom Citadis Spirit LRVs

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,560
Reaction score
8,497
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.

It does seem odd that there would be any focus on Finch at this point.

I'm curious about point c) in para 22 which refers to quality control and "serious welding issues". That can only refer to the TTC order, as at the time of the injunction only the one test vehicle had been produced (the second has since shipped). It does seem MTX's Engineer was relying on the TTC's experience in his evaluation.

So, perhaps it is an error....but I think the judge may be onto something. Crosstown does not need vehicles with 2 cabs.

- Paul
 

muller877

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jun 14, 2011
Messages
1,689
Reaction score
760
For anyone else who is saying "whaaaaaaaaaaaaat???" to this, see paragraph [21]

https://www.scribd.com/document/345648982/Bombardier-v-Metrolinx-Reasons-for-Decision

Love para 50... Metrolinx is not "consistent with sound commercial practice or good business sense"

It's a pretty strong win for BBD. Plus a second win that may impact Metrolinx in the future...the dispute panel can determine if the engineer is impartial or not. Wearing two hats is always hard especially if you have to wear one that may be in conflict with the person that puts food on your table.

By not accepting to even look at the prototype Metrolinx may be shooting themselves in the foot with the dispute panel. They are not acting in good faith right now.
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
9,156
Reaction score
2,967
Love para 50... Metrolinx is not "consistent with sound commercial practice or good business sense"

It's a pretty strong win for BBD. Plus a second win that may impact Metrolinx in the future...the dispute panel can determine if the engineer is impartial or not. Wearing two hats is always hard especially if you have to wear one that may be in conflict with the person that puts food on your table.

By not accepting to even look at the prototype Metrolinx may be shooting themselves in the foot with the dispute panel. They are not acting in good faith right now.
Agreed.

I have to think that Metrolinx may write their next contracts more carefully.

I'd also like to see bids designed so that non-BBR suppliers have a better shot by excluding both legacy status and local employment from consideration. IIRC, that's what Ottawa did with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Line

Let's just get the best transit vehicles we can afford, on time and on budget.
 

cplchanb

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 15, 2010
Messages
1,951
Reaction score
960
Agreed.

I have to think that Metrolinx may write their next contracts more carefully.

I'd also like to see bids designed so that non-BBR suppliers have a better shot by excluding both legacy status and local employment from consideration. IIRC, that's what Ottawa did with the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation_Line

Let's just get the best transit vehicles we can afford, on time and on budget.

I absolutely hate that term especially when spewed by our politicians. 95% of our major infrastructure projects are always LATE and OVER budget... :mad:
 

dowlingm

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 7, 2007
Messages
3,704
Reaction score
1,528
I suspect the Crosstown LRVs might have a similar control unit arrangement like the downtown Flexities do to facilitate reversal movements within the yard. The issue here is that Crosstown vehicles cannot be transferred to Finch or other LRT lines to work alone. Not a showstopper or anything but worth knowing.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,560
Reaction score
8,497
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.

Shades of the Gloucester 5200's! There would still need to be a cab area with a 'hostler control' station so that shop workers could move the middle cars around the yard. As with the old G cars, it likely would require the same cab compartment, even if the controls were minimal. There would be enough buttons and switches just to couple, uncouple, drop the pan, open and close doors, control the HVAC, etc that you would need a substantial panel. It's hard to say whether that variation would save much money over having one production run and just equipping the cab with everything.

- Paul
 

jordanmkasla2009

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Feb 18, 2017
Messages
277
Reaction score
307
Shades of the Gloucester 5200's! There would still need to be a cab area with a 'hostler control' station so that shop workers could move the middle cars around the yard. As with the old G cars, it likely would require the same cab compartment, even if the controls were minimal. There would be enough buttons and switches just to couple, uncouple, drop the pan, open and close doors, control the HVAC, etc that you would need a substantial panel. It's hard to say whether that variation would save much money over having one production run and just equipping the cab with everything.

- Paul

I hate the idea of having only single cab vehicles though. it would mean having to build a turntable to rotate a vehicle the right orientation in order to couple a replacement if one breaks down. By building only double cab vehicles you save on the costs of building and maintaining a turntable in the yard. the capacity gains from single cab vehicles are minimal at best. I mean "woohoo we can fit 5 more people into one vehicle."
 

georgevicbell

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
220
Reaction score
43
I suspect the Crosstown LRVs might have a similar control unit arrangement like the downtown Flexities do to facilitate reversal movements within the yard. The issue here is that Crosstown vehicles cannot be transferred to Finch or other LRT lines to work alone. Not a showstopper or anything but worth knowing.

I wonder how this will affect Finch...it seems like MLX wanted to cancel the finch vehicles and focus on the Eglinton ones...but now it looks like we will be getting both from BBD...since the contract is out for Finch and was to include vehicles, I wonder if that will have to go back out a second time...could delay things a few months at the least I would imagine...
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,560
Reaction score
8,497
I hate the idea of having only single cab vehicles though. it would mean having to build a turntable to rotate a vehicle the right orientation in order to couple a replacement if one breaks down. By building only double cab vehicles you save on the costs of building and maintaining a turntable in the yard. the capacity gains from single cab vehicles are minimal at best. I mean "woohoo we can fit 5 more people into one vehicle."

The track diagram in the EA Report from 2013 doesn't appear to show any route for turning a car within the shop complex..... but one could easily add one to the loops.

But a turntable would be pretty cool, actually ;-)

- Paul
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
9,156
Reaction score
2,967
I absolutely hate that term especially when spewed by our politicians. 95% of our major infrastructure projects are always LATE and OVER budget... :mad:
Well, sure, we hate it, IMO because it represents our communal failure to either accurately plan and/or get things done.

But in this case, it's not an infrastructure issue, but a vehicle procurement failure. If we were buying buses or bikes for Bikeshare, police cars, etc. and the supplier failed to meet their deadlines, we wouldn't call it an instructure issue.

Of course if the merger happens, they'll be less supply options, and the suppliers will know their customers have even higher switching costs, meaning they'll shaft us even more, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...ier-said-in-talks-to-combine-train-operations
 

drum118

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 24, 2007
Messages
15,936
Reaction score
9,971
Location
Mississauga, where cars rule city growth
If the Crosstown cars are to be single end control like TTC and to be 3 cars set all the time, why not scrap that plan and go to a TR design for 3 cars??

Its the first I have heard that Crosstown cars are to be like TTC, except having doors on both sides. Why are they different from the other lines since the other lines will be one or two cars on day ones??

The cost to go to a single 3 car TR train is good, but what is the cost saving pulling a whole train out of service that just pulling a single car out??

Not surprise at the out come since ML marches to their own beat and hell to any other beat.
 

crs1026

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Oct 16, 2014
Messages
6,560
Reaction score
8,497
I would be curious to know how many times ML has changed its mind on the car flavours and variants and priorities, and how many times it has instructed Bombardier to change the spec and delivery priority. This is the sort of thing that leads to change order cost pressure, and frustrates the heck out of the vendor.

I have no information that would suggest this has happened - but ML is just the kind of left hand/right hand/politics govern organization that this kind of thing is all too plausible. If it happened, it may not explain or excuse Bombardier's tardiness, but it is this kind of thing that Bombardier would have seized on to say "this isn't one sided".

- Paul
 

Admiral Beez

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
Messages
9,156
Reaction score
2,967
If the Crosstown cars are to be single end control like TTC and to be 3 cars set all the time, why not scrap that plan and go to a TR design for 3 cars??
Toronto gauge I suppose? The Crosstown cars use a more commonly found gauge, while the TR use Toronto gauge - unique just to us. Our city fathers just had to be different (and design such tight turning radii), and now we're forever stuck needing custom cars.

That said, it can't be an impossibly complicated and costly task to put wider axles on the TR for this use. But it's too late.... the ECT stations have doors on both sides, so we need custom cars, or to be specific we needed custom TRs that the more traditional ECT format can't use.
 
Last edited:

Steve X

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 16, 2016
Messages
1,939
Reaction score
1,305
I hate the idea of having only single cab vehicles though. it would mean having to build a turntable to rotate a vehicle the right orientation in order to couple a replacement if one breaks down. By building only double cab vehicles you save on the costs of building and maintaining a turntable in the yard. the capacity gains from single cab vehicles are minimal at best. I mean "woohoo we can fit 5 more people into one vehicle."
I'm pretty sure if one breaks down in a three car train, the whole train will go back to the yard. The other cars will just tow it back or simply have one out of service. They wouldn't decouple it and shunt it somewhere and have to someone drive another car to that location. It's too much work and hassle. TTC doesn't decouple T1's on the BD line. They just tow the whole train or stuff it in a pocket track. You're over thinking it.

I wonder how this will affect Finch...it seems like MLX wanted to cancel the finch vehicles and focus on the Eglinton ones...but now it looks like we will be getting both from BBD...since the contract is out for Finch and was to include vehicles, I wonder if that will have to go back out a second time...could delay things a few months at the least I would imagine...
The RFQ (which is absolutely not contract) "can include" a vehicle supplier. ML didn't sign anything! They will simply pick the consortium, negotiate and inform them they don't need the vehicle supplier. It's probably written in the RFQ that it's conditional. At least I hope so. Companies are trying to please ML and not the other way around.

If the Crosstown cars are to be single end control like TTC and to be 3 cars set all the time, why not scrap that plan and go to a TR design for 3 cars??

Its the first I have heard that Crosstown cars are to be like TTC, except having doors on both sides. Why are they different from the other lines since the other lines will be one or two cars on day ones??

The cost to go to a single 3 car TR train is good, but what is the cost saving pulling a whole train out of service that just pulling a single car out??

Not surprise at the out come since ML marches to their own beat and hell to any other beat.
I think you imply a super long 90m LRV not a TR train. TRs are heavy rail wider high floor vehicles not designed for grades and curvatures of LRT systems. Definitely not designed to be T-boned either. I don't think the carhouse is designed to maintain 90m trains unless ML change that specs too.

Toronto gauge I suppose? The Crosstown cars use a more commonly found gauge, while the TR use Toronto gauge - unique just to us. Our city fathers just had to be different (and design such tight turning radii), and now we're forever stuck needing custom cars.

That said, it can't be an impossibly complicated and costly task to put wider axles on the TR for this use. But it's too late.... the ECT stations have doors on both sides, so we need custom cars, or to be specific we needed custom TRs that the more traditional ECT format can't use.
Every metro system customizes their vehicles. The tube has narrower vehicles. NYC MTA don't like long ones. HK MTR trains have 5 doors. Again, I believe drum118 implies a 90m open gangway LRV, not a TR.
 

EnviroTO

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
3,954
Reaction score
69
Location
Yonge & Mt.Pleasant
Crosstown LRVs are single cab?

Wow. I didn't know that. Designed to go both ways at the same speed but with only one cab. Makes sense if they will only ever operate them in sets of two or more. Although, I wonder why they didn't just get longer trains if they would never operate them small singles, as that would give them greater capacity.
 

Top