Toronto Leslie Barns | ?m | ?s | TTC | SAI

Tuscani01 said:
How is it an extra expense when it is work that would have to be done regardless? We're saving money by doing it all at once.
Click to expand...
Yes, and no. Let's say you have to rebuild a road and the expected life is (say) 50 years; if you replace the gas pipes, conduits and water mains at the same time it clearly costs more. This is all very well if they are approaching the end of their expected life but if they have 20 years left then it is probably not worth replacing them. If they have 5 years left it probably is. It's a balancing act and the owner of the assets may not have budgeted $$ to do a replacement early so it throws off other projects.
 
Admiral Beez said:
Its all one city, one taxpayer, and the city's budget for the project should include everything that's being done, from tracks, hydro, sewers, landscaping, etc. Then we can truly hold the city to account when they blow the budget on overruns and delays. Otherwise this just a shell game, where the TTC gets a free pass everything claiming that other depts. and projects of the city caused the extra time and expense.
Click to expand...
It was the city that creeped the scope, not the TTC. So that's where the blame came.

The other thing that came out of the post-mortem, that having the city/TTC juggle multiple contractors (and one of them being Hydro) doesn't work. Best to have a single contractor responsible for the whole thing, and then deals with the subs. This has been a bit of a problem with some of the Spadina subway stations as well.
 
Tuscani01 said:
How is it an extra expense when it is work that would have to be done regardless? We're saving money by doing it all at once.
Click to expand...
It's not an extra expense, but it would be more transparent and measurable if the entire project was budgeted together. Otherwise each separate project can blame the other for any overruns, for example the TTC blaming hydro for the former's cost overruns and/or delays.
 
From October TTC CEO Report:

On a more positive note, we are finalizing discussions with the Leslie Barns contractor to achieve partial occupancy of this state-of-the-art new carhouse by the end of October.
 
DSC said:
From October TTC CEO Report:

On a more positive note, we are finalizing discussions with the Leslie Barns contractor to achieve partial occupancy of this state-of-the-art new carhouse by the end of October.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they will put all of them there or will they still keep some at Roncesvalle
 
TheTigerMaster said:
I hope this will be open for next Doors Open TO. I'd love to see what's so state-of-the-art about this facility in person :)
Click to expand...
I expect it will to show the public what took so long to built as well the cost over run.

There is to be an open house in Nov once TTC gain access to the site and that supposed to be the end of Oct.
 
Presumably TTC are still storing cars at Exhibition Loop? The plan was supposed to be that some C/ALRVs would be spending the summer at Leslie because of works at Russell...
 
dowlingm said:
Presumably TTC are still storing cars at Exhibition Loop? The plan was supposed to be that some C/ALRVs would be spending the summer at Leslie because of works at Russell...
Click to expand...

I think it's already in progress or maybe even done by now. Isn't Leslie barns supposed to be wired for pantographs only?
 
I wonder if Leslie was built so they could receive them there or are they all being sent to Hillcrest?
Click to expand...

The plans of the new yard that have been posted on line don't show a spur from the railway line (which is right across the street) - and the track layout makes it unlikely that there could be one. TTC rebuilt the spur at Hillcrest just for this order, and Hillcrest is a more direct delivery for CP - so my guess would be, they will continue to arrive at Hillcrest. Just speculating.

A related question would be - when the new yard opens, does any of the repair/refurb work traditionally done at Hillcrest move to the new facility?

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
A related question would be - when the new yard opens, does any of the repair/refurb work traditionally done at Hillcrest move to the new facility?
Click to expand...
Leslie is supposed to be where heavy maintenance for LFLRVs happens, so post 2024 Hillcrest streetcar work would notionally be limited to heritage work (the Witt, the PCCs and whatever C/ALRVs are retained) and maybe accident repair.

I suspect there will be continued calls from some quarters for Hillcrest to be vacated and developed for other uses (by some to reduce nuisance and by others as a "solution" to a future TTC budget crisis), with bus maintenance to be done in the suburbs and the heritage streetcars to be disposed (I am not unsympathetic to the latter, but I am a Philistine who never shed even one tear for the passing of the H series or the Fishbowls).

That said, even if Hillcrest was substantially less needed for maintenance and notwithstanding pressure on downtown land, I can't imagine the soil remediation challenges there, particularly for metals, are anything less that spectacular. As I have previously noted, the possibility of a division for 512/511/509 would take a lot of pressure for getting cars into/out of the service on east-west routes, especially in a scenario where LF cars above #204 are ordered.
 
dowlingm said:
Leslie is supposed to be where heavy maintenance for LFLRVs happens, so post 2024 Hillcrest streetcar work would notionally be limited to heritage work (the Witt, the PCCs and whatever C/ALRVs are retained) and maybe accident repair.
Click to expand...

Unless a whole bunch of ALRV/CLRV's stick around, it seems extravagant to have two heavy maintenance bases - it's the same labour skill set, and likely some of the same heavy equipment. One stockroom etc is cheaper than two.

I suspect there will be continued calls from some quarters for Hillcrest to be vacated and developed for other uses (by some to reduce nuisance and by others as a "solution" to a future TTC budget crisis), with bus maintenance to be done in the suburbs and the heritage streetcars to be disposed (I am not unsympathetic to the latter, but I am a Philistine who never shed even one tear for the passing of the H series or the Fishbowls).
Click to expand...

I shed my tears, but that doesn't mean I argued for the TTC retaining or maintaining any of this stuff. That's what museums are for. Given the operating measures required to safely operate the Witt on city streets, it should be divested. Likely the same is true for the PCC's going forward. With cost of transit having such political sensitivity, an admission that the TTC is rich enough to afford a heritage fleet is not in anyone's interests. (Normally I am in favour of corporate sponsorship of such programs - but the taxpayer is unforgiving). It would be absurd to argue for retaining a big-dollar facility at Hillcrest solely on the premise that it's needed for heritage fleet support.

That said, even if Hillcrest was substantially less needed for maintenance and notwithstanding pressure on downtown land, I can't imagine the soil remediation challenges there, particularly for metals, are anything less that spectacular.
Click to expand...

It will be nasty, but it's mostly a matter of money. Lots of equally noxious sites have been reclaimed. You would think there is a slam-dunk case for moving the maintenance facilities to less valuable real estate, but the price of building new garages or barns seems to be so high, that one might not get any money out of the transaction.

- Paul
 
crs1026 said:
Unless a whole bunch of ALRV/CLRV's stick around, it seems extravagant to have two heavy maintenance bases - it's the same labour skill set, and likely some of the same heavy equipment. One stockroom etc is cheaper than two.

I shed my tears, but that doesn't mean I argued for the TTC retaining or maintaining any of this stuff. That's what museums are for. Given the operating measures required to safely operate the Witt on city streets, it should be divested. Likely the same is true for the PCC's going forward. With cost of transit having such political sensitivity, an admission that the TTC is rich enough to afford a heritage fleet is not in anyone's interests. (Normally I am in favour of corporate sponsorship of such programs - but the taxpayer is unforgiving). It would be absurd to argue for retaining a big-dollar facility at Hillcrest solely on the premise that it's needed for heritage fleet support.

- Paul
Click to expand...

Hillcrest would still be the main base for bus overhaul and maintenance, and you can bet that Bombardier will make a play to outsource the maintenance of the new car fleet if there's a round of penny-pinching to cut costs at the TTC. The TTC's internal maintenance resources could be assumed by Bombardier and a minimal crew could remain within the TTC to work on the old fleet until it's gone. Harvey Shops could consolidate some of the maintenance work that's being done the garages.

Operating measures for the Witt car are TTC self-imposed, the cars ran with no issues from 1921-1963 and 1973-1988. The car is not unsafe, the TTC just wants to make sure that running it is the biggest pain in the ass possible, as recommended by that old curmudgeon Ray Corley before he died. As for the PCCs, what safety issues would be there be going forward?

Numerous tram systems in Europe have heritage fleets and operate the cars regularly on "historic car operating days" and such. They're operated in co-operation with a museum organization much like the F line in San Francisco in some places and fully supported by the tram system. It's only here in Toronto where we routinely treat heritage and history with disdain (not just for transit, but in general).
 
They could always return Hillcreast back to its original use, see link:
Hillcrest-racetrk-21aug1912s.jpg


...not.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top