TTC: Other Items (catch all)

[Kyle Campbell]

If the T1s don't get replaced now they'll get replaced a few years later. I don't know why everyone is freaking out.

The doom and gloom around the line 2 replacement makes it seem like we've never had replacement equipment delayed in this city before. New York, who had to keep the R32s going for 57 years, would be laughing at us right now if they could find us on a map. Besides, didn't Steve Munro report late last year that the cars are going to get refurbished anyway?

It's the lead time involved. Think about what the CLRV experience what did to reliability for streetcars as they were kept alive past end of life, and it took a decade to replace them all from the time the contract was signed. Without getting started on Line 2 contracts soon, Line 2 on time performance will suffer greatly. Sure, NYC kept the R32s going forever, but Line 2 has 91% on time performance, whereas NYC has some lines down in the 68-70% range, so I wouldn't call that a success

 

[T3G]

It's the lead time involved. Think about what the CLRV experience what did to reliability for streetcars as they were kept alive past end of life, and it took a decade to replace them all from the time the contract was signed. Without getting started on Line 2 contracts soon, Line 2 on time performance will suffer greatly. Sure, NYC kept the R32s going forever, but Line 2 has 91% on time performance, whereas NYC has some lines down in the 68-70% range, so I wouldn't call that a success

The problem with what happened in the CLRV days was that BBD fed the TTC bad information and they were under the belief that the Flexitys would arrive sooner, so the CLRVs started to pall very quickly. I don't have the full timeline, but the ALRVs alone were supposed to be gone by 2014-15.

If the TTC has no reason to believe T1 replacements are imminent, it gives them an opportunity to secure the fleet before it gets to the level of the legacy streetcar fleet.

I didn't say NYC's on time performance has been a success, but there is a world of difference between lines having relatively poor on time performance, vs. having to shut down an entire line. NYC consistently has issues with replacing train cars when they meet their 40 year design limit, yet the only line to disappear from their map in the modern era, even amidst the chaos and decay of the 1970s and 80s, was the Culver shuttle. Why, therefore, would it happen here? It's very tiresome having discussions about fleet replacement in this city when one side of the aisle is running around like Chicken Little screaming that the world is going to end.

 

[turbanplanner]

View attachment 628226
Here's a peek at my unlawful, unruly, awful 504 trip tonight, brimming with the scum of the earth and truly terrifying people. What a miserable, terrible city we live in, filled with people I loathe because I view them as beneath me.

I'm just kidding of course, everything was fine and there wasn't any issue at all. Millions of people take the TTC every day without incident, like I did tonight.

I'm happy you had a pleasant trip!

Are we going to pretend the thousands of assaults yearly don't happen as well?
Shoving our heads in the sands has lead to a nearly 50% fare evasion rate and nearly 50% of people feeling unsafe.

I don't think at all every trip has a lunatic but too little is being done to help people when one shows up. Hence all the 6buzz videos.

Also for northern light, I'd appreciate an apology as I did back up my statements as best as possible.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

The problem with what happened in the CLRV days was that BBD fed the TTC bad information and they were under the belief that the Flexitys would arrive sooner, so the CLRVs started to pall very quickly. I don't have the full timeline, but the ALRVs alone were supposed to be gone by 2014-15.

If the TTC has no reason to believe T1 replacements are imminent, it gives them an opportunity to secure the fleet before it gets to the level of the legacy streetcar fleet.

I hope they make that assumption. Maybe I'm cynical, but given how transit procurement projects seem to go these days across North America, I could see the exact same scenario happening again with the T1 replacements. They sign a contract, assume trains show up in say 3-4 years, and it takes double that time.

 

[81-717]

Maybe TTC should create a Plan B: Line 2 shutdown plan.

In order to preserve to available trains for service, rush hour service would be prioritized.
They can initially cut the operating hours to 6am-10pm weekdays and 8am-7pm weekend with the remaining period using buses. Remove the bike lanes and create a bus lane instead.
As the trains continue to fail. Close off the outer end of the line leaving service between Keele and Woodbine. Other East-West routes will receive express and additional service to help relieve the Line 2 replacement buses.
The 3rd stage is to run the trains only in rush hour with full busitution at all other times. Hopefully the OL is running by now. Oh yeah, Eglinton and Finch LRT would be opening by then hopefully.
If they still don't receive money for new trains, shut down Line 2 permanently.

I present the future of the TTC!

Sounds good, except keep the bike lanes as it'll encourage more people to switch to biking (I already do when possible). Maybe remove cars from Bloor and make it a bike/bus-only route.

If the T1s don't get replaced now they'll get replaced a few years later.

I'd rather the above scenario than this. And they already ARE being replaced a few years later than they're supposed to – you already got your wish, what more do you want. And if the powers that be / will be are in on this conspiracy, what makes you think they wouldn't do the same thing "a few years decades later" when any refurbishment expires?

New York, who had to keep the R32s going for 57 years, would be laughing at us right now

This is a disingenuous argument and you know it as well as I do. New York is laughing at us (in the most depressing way possible) that we don't still have the Hawkers running like they have very similar R46s.

 

[Northern Light]

This is a disingenuous argument and you know it as well as I do. New York is laughing at us (in the most depressing way possible) that we don't still have the Hawkers running like they have R46s.

Ok, can we dial back the over the top stuff a bit?

The R46s are all being retired.

The NYT ran a piece a few years back (2016) declaring its love of the TTC's modern, open, Toronto Rockets and noting how NYC would finally get this type of rolling stock in the 2020s...

What’s Next for the New York Subway? Toronto Already Knows (Published 2016)

Nearly five years after Canada’s largest city introduced so-called open gangway trains, riders have given the trains a ringing endorsement. Now officials in New York are embracing the design.

www.nytimes.com

 

[T3G]

I hope they make that assumption. Maybe I'm cynical, but given how transit procurement projects seem to go these days across North America, I could see the exact same scenario happening again with the T1 replacements. They sign a contract, assume trains show up in say 3-4 years, and it takes double that time.

If they managed to secure the replacements, I would also expect this to happen, because no one learns any lessons anymore. But I'm referring to a scenario whereby no contract is signed to begin with.

ounds good, except keep the bike lanes as it'll encourage more people to switch to biking (I already do when possible). Maybe remove cars from Bloor and make it a bike/bus-only route.

I'd rather the above scenario than this.

So... just to clarify: you would rather Line 2 get shut down then have the T1s get replaced a few years later? Am I reading this statement correctly? Or is there something in between that you cut out prior to hitting post?

This is a disingenuous argument and you know it as well as I do. New York is laughing at us (in the most depressing way possible) that we don't still have the Hawkers running like they have very similar R46s.

What is your argument here, exactly? You're surely not arguing that NYC thinks that we are worse because we don't have rolling stock of R46 vintage in service, right?

 

[81-717]

Ok, can we dial back the over the top stuff a bit?

The R46s are all being retired.

I never said them having the R46s is a bad thing, the R46s are my favorite NYC cars as they strongly remind me of the Hawkers. I know they're being retired now, after 50 years, which is still much longer than any TTC cars (including, hopefully, the T1s).

The NYT ran a piece a few years back (2016) declaring its love of the TTC's modern, open, Toronto Rockets

One word: OVERRATED.

What is your argument here, exactly? You're surely not arguing that NYC thinks that we are worse because we don't have rolling stock of R46 vintage in service, right?

You're the one who originally said, "New York, who had to keep the R32s going for 57 years, would be laughing at us right now if they could find us on a map", implying that they think we're worse than them because we didn't keep R32 equivalent rolling stock (i.e. H1s) in service as long as they did.

Obviously that's what everyone thinks every time they parrot the line of argument that retiring rolling stock at 30 is too soon because other cities retire theirs at 50. Except that they only apply this argument to rolling stock that came at least 20 years after the R46s, which makes them hypocrites

 

[SubHuman]

... I don't think at all every trip has a lunatic ...

I find the talk of "feeling unsafe" to be exaggerated, but I also think it's disingenuous to pretend there are no problems caused by the mentally unsound individuals.
CBC.ca -
"people are still responsible for the majority of delays in the TTC system — about 60 per cent in all. That includes disorderly passengers and trespassing on tracks."

 

[Kyle Campbell]

If they managed to secure the replacements, I would also expect this to happen, because no one learns any lessons anymore. But I'm referring to a scenario whereby no contract is signed to begin with.

The doom and gloom might also be related to the whole RT debacle. A whole line did dissapear once already in Toronto due to dithering with its replacement years away. I doubt Line 2 train replacement is anywhere near that level of mismanagement, but I could understand that sour taste making people think the worst for Line 2 until trains are actually being built in the factory.

 

[81-717]

The doom and gloom might also be related to the whole RT debacle. A whole line did dissapear once already in Toronto due to dithering with its replacement years away. I doubt Line 2 train replacement is anywhere near that level of mismanagement, but I could understand that sour taste making people think the worst for Line 2 until trains are actually being built in the factory.

The fearmongering may be deliberately overexaggerated for effect, but the exaggeration is justifiable if that's what it takes to secure the deal.

 

[Richard White]

The doom and gloom around the line 2 replacement makes it seem like we've never had replacement equipment delayed in this city before. New York, who had to keep the R32s going for 57 years, would be laughing at us right now if they could find us on a map. Besides, didn't Steve Munro report late last year that the cars are going to get refurbished anyway?

TFL has 1972 stock on the Bakerloo Line and 1973 Stock on the Piccadilly at the moment. The Bakerloo is notorious for having reliability issues given the condition of the rolling stock while the Piccadilly is undergoing replacement as we speak.

Even the Gloucester's were only kept going for 36 years before full retirement. The first T1 cars started in service back in 1995 making them 30 years old this year. This is not like the 90s and early 2000s where you had the Montrealers and H-Series to fall back on. The T1 Trains are the only thing available for Line 2 at the moment so when they are no longer reliable, things will get bad in a hurry.

Trains take time to replace. You can't just go to a dealership, order 50 and have them delivered in a month.

 

[nfitz]

If the purchase of new equipment fails, you start a life-extension program. This isn't rocket science.

Even the CLRVs wouldn't have been a problem, had the ALRV life-extension have been as extensive as it should have been and done it's job and extended that fleet through 2025 or so as originally planned.

I don't understand the hand-wringing on this. Or why we do capital replacement of the fleet at only 30-years, rather than life extension out of operating funds.

 

[Kyle Campbell]

If the purchase of new equipment fails, you start a life-extension program. This isn't rocket science.

Even the CLRVs wouldn't have been a problem, had the ALRV life-extension have been as extensive as it should have been and done it's job and extended that fleet through 2025 or so as originally planned.

I don't understand the hand-wringing on this. Or why we do capital replacement of the fleet at only 30-years, rather than life extension out of operating funds.

There's a point of diminishing returns on life extension, where the capital replacement works out more cost effective. I mean you could keep anything going for a 100 years if you really wanted to, doesn't mean it's the best use of dollars.

Also, the maintenance challenges get harder. Old 60s and 70s era cars are purely anolog machines. But with the T1s besides the mechanical parts, you need to find 90s era computer equipment to keep them running longer, which makes it more costly.

The TTC had a blacksmith for the CLRVs and ALRVs to make long obsolete parts. Should they build a chip fab when the TRs reach end of life in 25 years or so?

 

[T3G]

That's why you, as the transit operator, would ideally want to procure new equipment, yes.

But if politicians are doing their thing and refusing to fund new equipment, your choices are either to sit there and cry, or to nut up and do a life extension program. It's not about what is ideal, it's about making the best of a bad situation. It's not like this is a new problem we've just discovered, there have been rumblings about T1 replacements since at least 2019. Did no one at any point in those 6 years at the TTC ask themselves what they were going to do, if the funds didn't come, or if the new trains were garbage and they had to keep the T1s going longer?

Side note: how often does a life extension come up at a comparable price point to new equipment, anyway? If a LE was done that cost the same as new equipment, it poses the question of why the agency doesn't just use that money to procure the new equipment themselves, rather than begging at the feet of bigger government. I can't imagine it's a very common occurrence, or no one would be refurbishing their equipment out of their own pockets at all.