News   Mar 31, 2020
 165     0 
News   Mar 31, 2020
 415     0 
News   Mar 31, 2020
 392     1 

TTC: Streetcar Network

thettctransitfanatic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
452
I am not suggesting that I like either diversions or short-turns but they WILL happen due to accidents, street closures or schedule problems and my point was that having a couple more options downtown would be good. For 99% of passengers a diversion is much preferred to no service at all!
Well, they could also get off the streetcar and walk, if their trips are within the downtown.
 

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,993
Reaction score
3,219
That's *EXACTLY* what an articulated bogie does. Call it Fred for all I care. It's steerable. *Even if it has no continuous axles*!

And a reminder as to where your nose got out of joint:

I posted a link to this, obviously you didn't access it, or if you did, you couldn't read it. The authors of this and many articles on the subject are not American, and thus use a different terminology to achieve *exactly as you yourself describe it*:

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-articulated-bogie_fig2_267830130

Even just the quoted text of the opening page sample mentions "steer" ten times.

Perhaps if you weren't so beholden to calling others out, you could see a world beyond your own, but alas...There's a lot more "steerable" in the world than just the EMD patented term. And in the case of the Transtech bogie, they use *continuous axles*. The bogie frame itself, as they aptly and repeatedly state, 'articulates like the carriages themselves'. As to how that 'articulation' 'pivoting' or 'steering' happens is unique in many cases. It's unique in the case of Transtech bogie, and an exact engineering discussion is proving difficult to find. Somehow they've achieved articulation in all planes with continuous ('solid' by your terminology) axles.

Just because it doesn't fit *YOUR* understanding doesn't mean it doesn't meet established and proven engineering terms and standards elsewhere.
You seem to have completely missed the point.

You claimed that the Artic cars have steerable axles. They don't. They're bog-standard in that case. The trucks rotate freely. The axles however don't move fore-and-aft in relation to the truck sideframes beyond the very little range of motion the suspension affords them. A steerable axle will have a linkage mechanism built into the truck to allow the ends of each axle to move fore-and-aft in response to curves.

As for the language, well, I guess that's up to you. I'll continue to use the industry-standard nomenclature so that those that actually do know what they're talking about understand the point that I am trying to get across. You're more than welcome to watch from the sidelines.

Dan
 

thettctransitfanatic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
452
Not all passengers can walk many blocks and if there are no diversionary routes and the ONLY route gets blocked, there will be no service for anyone.
That's a good point. But in the core if you are able bodied then you should be able to handle a walk of that nature
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
A steerable axle will have a linkage mechanism built into the truck to allow the ends of each axle to move fore-and-aft in response to curves.
Which is exactly what they have. And more. The question is whether the axle geometry compliance is passive or active.

Some enlightenment *might* be had here:
Posted by beaulieu on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 10:46 AM
artschlosser wrote:
Things often get named inappropriately. In this case 'self-aligning' might have been better than 'steerable'.

Depends upon whether or not the self-steering is passive or forced. The EMD HTCR and HTCR II are passive, and self-aligning would be an accurate description. But the "B" truck used under the ABB-SLM "Lok 2000" locomotives is a forced steer design. The axles assume a radial position because the truck is rotated from being aligned straight with the locomotive body. Examples of the "Lok 2000" are the Swiss SBB Re 460 locomotives, and the Finnish Vr2 locomotives.
The ABB design was from PROSE. They detail it in their literature.
As you were...
 
Last edited:

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,993
Reaction score
3,219
Which is exactly what they have. And more. The question is whether the axle geometry compliance is passive or active.
Once again.....

No, they don't. There needs to be a linkage between the axle ends of each truck, and the truck itself. These have none of that.

What you are looking at in those screengrabs is the truck sideframe, the "metalastic" primary suspension components, and the swing plank which connects the truck sideframe through the secondary suspension to the bolster of the car.

Dan
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
Once again.....

No, they don't. There needs to be a linkage between the axle ends of each truck, and the truck itself. These have none of that.

What you are looking at in those screengrabs is the truck sideframe, the "metalastic" primary suspension components, and the swing plank which connects the truck sideframe through the secondary suspension to the bolster of the car.

Dan
Keep trying. I think you'd best read the addendum I added to my last post before you dig yourself any deeper. The PMO is envious...

And just a reminder,:
Addendum: Took some time to find more detailed info on the bogies and the "steerable axles" (which is what I thought they meant, but it might be terminology used mostly in the West), and there's a number of really sensible engineering features to these vehicles. Excellent multi-page pdf:
https://www.hel.fi/static/hkl/artic.pdf
[...]
GE has by now come up with its own radial truck -- these things are heavily protected by patents so you have to come up with a different design.

I had asked about the two-axle truck on the Genesis Diesel on another thread. I was wondering 1) who makes that truck (the guesses were Deutz or someone German) and 2) whether that design is radial steer. I talked to some folks in town who were of the opinion that it wasn't.

The interesting thing about the Genesis truck is that it has these long bell crank-like pieces connecting the axle bearings to the bolster, and it looks like it could be a steering truck.

There are also two kinds of steering trucks -- self-steer and forced-steer. The self-steer truck has links to force the axles to either go straight or assume equal and opposite angles relative to the truck side frame, but the main steering force is the self-steer of the coned wheels -- the steering of a pair of axles is coordinated in an effort to prevent hunting. The forced-steer truck uses the pivot angle of the truck with the bolster to provide the steering input. The forced-steer design is more common for high-speed passenger equipment (I believe the Swiss company SIG has such a truck along with their being a Japanese design) while self-steer is more common for freight (the EMD radial truck, the self-steer freight truck of the South African Railway).
[...]
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/22695.aspx

Once again.....

No, they don't. There needs to be a linkage between the axle ends of each truck, and the truck itself. These have none of that.

What you are looking at in those screengrabs is the truck sideframe, the "metalastic" primary suspension components, and the swing plank which connects the truck sideframe through the secondary suspension to the bolster of the car.

Dan
I see. You know of only one method, and hold the rest of the world to your limited understanding. I'd have some sympathy for your understanding only North Am methods, save that GE (I presume you're familiar with them?) have this patented method.

I challenge you to indicate where "There needs to be a linkage between the axle ends of each truck, and the truck itself. These have none of that." are on this design:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4440094.pdf

Lots more detail exquisitely supplied at that link. Allow me to offer your next excuse: "Oh, but that's for a three axle bogie". There are separate patents for a two axle one.

Readers might find this interesting: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4285280.pdf Developed in Kingston and assigned to UTDC, albeit it's a simple mechanical actuation, somewhat as Smallspy describes.
 
Last edited:

smallspy

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Nov 27, 2009
Messages
3,993
Reaction score
3,219
Keep trying. I think you'd best read the addendum I added to my last post before you dig yourself any deeper. The PMO is envious...

And just a reminder,:


http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/22695.aspx


I see. You know of only one method, and hold the rest of the world to your limited understanding. I'd have some sympathy for your understanding only North Am methods, save that GE (I presume you're familiar with them?) have this patented method.

I challenge you to indicate where "There needs to be a linkage between the axle ends of each truck, and the truck itself. These have none of that." are on this design:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4440094.pdf

Lots more detail exquisitely supplied at that link. Allow me to offer your next excuse: "Oh, but that's for a three axle bogie". There are separate patents for a two axle one.

Readers might find this interesting: http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4285280.pdf Developed in Kingston and assigned to UTDC, albeit it's a simple mechanical actuation, somewhat as Smallspy describes.
For a guy who doesn't know a bolster from a pedestal liner, you seem to think you know a lot about trucks.

Dan
 
  • Like
Reactions: DSC

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
For a guy who doesn't know a bolster from a pedestal liner, you seem to think you know a lot about trucks.

Dan
I quoted ample reference, I quoted you, and I quoted my original statement that you took to issue. Here it is again:
steveintoronto said:
Addendum: Took some time to find more detailed info on the bogies and the "steerable axles" (which is what I thought they meant, but it might be terminology used mostly in the West), and there's a number of really sensible engineering features to these vehicles. Excellent multi-page pdf:
https://www.hel.fi/static/hkl/artic.pdf

I deferred to not exactly knowing, and so quoted from manufacturers, engineering papers and other sources.

You still haven't answered the question as to GE's trucks:
For a guy who doesn't know a bolster from a pedestal liner, you seem to think you know a lot about trucks.
As to how much I know or not is irrelevant to what the manufacturers state.
There needs to be a linkage between the axle ends of each truck, and the truck itself. These have none of that.
I'd say GE would have the answer, but you don't.

There's many 'steerable trucks' completely unlike what you state is required to make them so. Even completely mechanical with no hydrostatic actuation:
NIPPON STEEL & SUMITOMO METAL TECHNICAL REPORT No. 105 DECEMBER 2013
Development of the New Concept Steering Bogie Yoshiyuki SHIMOKAWA*
[...]
2.5 Steering mechanism
The steering mechanism used for the SC101 bogie and its movement are shown in Fig. 11: it is a link-type steering mechanism wherein the swing bolster, the truck frame, and the axle boxes are connected with rods and levers. When a vehicle enters a curve and the bogie truck changes its angle to the vehicle centerline, the linkage members change their positions such that the axle boxes change their positions in proportion to the curvature. Because of this passive actuation, the link-type steering is highly reliable. Since conventional steering bogies change the positions of both wheel sets, the mechanism tends to be bulky. In contrast, the developed new steering bogie manipulates only one wheel set, and therefore, the mechanism can be designed compact and light-weight, and fits into the space of an ordinary axle-box suspension.
3. Development of New Steering Bogie [...]
https://www.nipponsteel.com/en/tech/report/nssmc/pdf/105-08.pdf

It's already in use and proven.

The Helsinki Transtech ones are apparently hydraulic. That could still be passive (as in the BMC Hydrolastic suspension systems first pioneered on the Mini, albeit cross connected for a 'push-pull' arrangement with the alternate axle journals) or actively pumped and modulated with electronic sensing.

The point remains, the PROSE designed and Transtech built Helsinki tram bogies perform like no others. And Toronto would certainly benefit from such technology, which is where this whole discussion originates from.
Noticing that there were some discussions in the other threads about future streetcar orders. I ventured onto Finland's Skoda-Transtech site to take a look at the marketing material for the ArcticTram after seeing videos.

http://www.transtech.fi/railway/low-floor_tram

What really piqued my interests is whether Skoda-Transtech would be interested in participating in bidding for the future TTC order(s) now that Alstom-Siemens is establishing a base here. The ArticTram seems well suited for our network albeit with some modifications. And they incorporated a traditional free-turning bogie/truck unlike all the rigid trucks that modern low-floor trams use.
 
Last edited:

DSC

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
10,977
Reaction score
5,960
Location
St Lawrence Market Area
Normally these kind of tangential arguments are annoying, but I find it absolutely delicious to watch the two biggest know-it-alls on the forum go after each other like this 😄
Especially since one of them actually DOES know a lot (if not everything) and the other knows VERY little (if not nothing!) Go Dan!
 

steveintoronto

Superstar
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 14, 2016
Messages
10,167
Reaction score
4,336
lol...keep it coming:
https://www.mobt3ath.com/uplode/book/book-41708.pdf

Probably a bit steep for some. At least it's in English, might give some half a chance...well, maybe not. Some would claim the Earth is flat and think it clever to state so.

The principle used in the Transtech bogie is completely demonstrated and analysed. And it even has pictures for those that can't read.

Meantime, here's a vid of the Transtech Helsinki tram, going 80 km/h:

Text is in Finnish. Since it's a 'foreign language' it only goes to prove it can't be right.
 
Last edited:

thettctransitfanatic

Senior Member
Member Bio
Joined
Mar 7, 2017
Messages
1,521
Reaction score
452
The TTC have started installing the new (straight) overhead on KING STREET and appear to be working westwards from Sherbourne. (The 'junctions' of Parliament, Church, York etc have all (I think) been done as has much of the straight (tangent) wire elsewhere.
Why wouldn't they want the 504 Flexities running with pantos? King Street is gonna become pretty modern now with the permeant Pilot, so makes sense to convert it.
 

Top