Recent comments by Adam Giambrone, Chair of the TTC, suggest that 30 to 40 percent of the streetcar fleet is out of service in the shops, and that bus substitution will be required on some routes come the fall.
Those of us who follow the TTC have been waiting for a definitive fleet plan for some time, and hope to see one, finally, in the July Commission Meeting Agenda. Meanwhile, I thought that I would set the stage by reviewing the current scheduled service to see how it may evolve over coming months.
The fleet contains 195 CLRVs (one of the original 196 has been scrapped) and 52 ALRVs. The scheduled service beginning June 21 is 123 CLRVs and 38 ALRVs. This is 63% of the CLRV fleet and 73% of the ALRV fleet.
Peak AM requirements by route are: Bathurst (9), Carlton (32), Dundas (14), Queen (31 ALRV), Lake Shore (3), Downtowner and Kingston Road (11), King (27 CLRV + 7 ALRV), Spadina (15), Harbourfront (6), St. Clair (6).
What we don’t know is the number of cars that are permanently out of service with problems that cannot be or are too expensive to fix. In effect, we don’t know what the true size of the available fleet might be. A CLRV overhaul program is in progress (the affected cars are those with the new entrance layout and revised rear seating), but this is not as extensive as the original plans to replace major subsystems such as the electronics package. This program takes some number of cars out of the pool, but should gradually replenish the fleet. We don’t know how quickly this is happening, nor how reliable the “new” cars are.
In August, peak requirements will drop by another 11 cars when the 502/503 routes are converted to bus operation, although this will be offset in the fall when the 505/506 routes revert to their standard arrangement in the west end. The May schedules for these routes required 53 cars in the AM peak compared to 46 today. A further 9 cars will be needed to restore the 504 King line to its May schedule.
Late in 2009, the 512 St. Clair line’s service will be restored at least to Oakwood, later to Lansdowne. However, this route is now using a captive pool of cars trapped north of the underpass work at Dupont and Bathurst, and there are, I believe, enough cars in that pool to handle this extension (combined with appropriate schedules where cars spend more time in motion than laying over at terminals).
The TTC needs to explain how it plans to manage streetcar service over the next three years, not to mention service improvements for capacity and the commencement of service in the eastern waterfront. How long will new streetcars simply make up for failing CLRVs and ALRVs rather than contributing net new capacity to the network?
Steve Munro 
I’m itching to see the first time a new LFLRV has to push a disabled C/ALRV out of service. Service disruptions from this sort of manouver will have a significantly higher impact due to the increased loss of passenger capacity per vehicle and the predicted wider headways. It will only get worse when all the cars are the new length. It’ll be quite the sight to see a block-long train creeping it’s way to the carhouse.
It occurred to me that the Bombardier design has no anti-climber. Collisions may become catastrophic! I suppose it’s built with a energy-absorbing crumple zone – try repairing THAT quickly. Reliability is irrelevant when you crash into something.
LikeLike
It occurred to me that the Bombardier design has no anti-climber. Collisions may become catastrophic! I suppose it’s built with a energy-absorbing crumple zone – try repairing THAT quickly. Reliability is irrelevant when you crash into something.
My question is simple. For all those countries whom are now using the technology how do the address the problem of repair and collisions. We go on as if we are operting in a vacuum for the first time in a long time we will have a fleet that mirrors others in the world. Follow the best practices that are used elswere to address these issues. Will Bombardier be providing us with converted work cars to address service issue or is the order only for passanger carrying public?
Steve: If I understand the design correctly, the end section is a separate unit that can be removed and replaced in the event of a serious collision. A few of them may even be part of the “spare parts” list built into the contract.
LikeLike
I have another issue with the new legacy fleet.
They are assuming that 204 will be enough for current service (with modest improvements), in part because the new cars will be more reliable than the old fleet.
While this may be true at the beginning, what about in 30 years when the legacy cars are aged and their replacements are planned? Does the TTC plan on doing the same then as they are now?
If I’m not mistaken, this argument was also put forth in the 1980s, when the TTC decided to purchase 52 ALRVs to replace about 100 PCCs, again on the basis of being larger and more reliable – and look where that’s gotten us today.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
Steve: The real problem is that we bought one batch of new cars and then stopped. If the system had been actively expanding sooner, we could (as we once did) have generations of cars and an ongoing supply to deal with declining reliability of older equipment. Also, bluntly, notwithstanding issues of accessibility, we would have started to repair the existing fleet many years ago before the problems became so bad.
LikeLike
Hey Steve,
Do you know anything about the TTC’s long-term plans for the 502 and 503 routes?
Thanks!
Steve: No. This is an ongoing issue I have raised as part of discussions of the Queen corridor, but the TTC does not address it.
LikeLike
Where will those buses come from?
They better take a couple of buses from 29 Dufferin and couple from other FS routes and NOT the routes that are every 30 minutes.
Buses have to come from somewhere…
LikeLike
Regarding the eastern waterfront, wouldn’t the first of the new LRVs be arriving in time for the opening of this line?
Or, considering how short the route would be, maybe those 2 PCCs could be used in the interim… except on Sundays.
Steve: The route is longer than it looks, particularly if the connection through to Cherry is resolved before the line opens. The two PCCs would have to work reliably (grin), and the headway they would offer wouldn’t be very impressive.
A related issue is that the waterfront line’s budget is supposed to include money for cars. It’s not clear whether these would be an add-on to the 204, of if the money would go into the pot as part of the $1.2-billion for the base order.
LikeLike
No anticlimbers? I hadn’t noticed that, but I can’t say I’m impressed. Not only did they certainly save lives at Russell Hill, we just saw in Washington what happens without them. I doubt it really matters for the city fleet, since they really aren’t going to do anything in a rail/road collision, but I wouldn’t be thrilled by subway style operation on Eglinton without them.
In any case, I wonder if this might be taking the European approach to collision avoidance too far, I can accept that North American strength requirements are unneccesary, but the results of telescoping are so brutal and the inclusion of anticlimbers so inconsequential that I really don’t get a decision not to have them.
LikeLike
Steve: For the trivial minded – such as me – please tell us why one of the original CLRVs was scrapped. (Was it the one that crashed on Harbourfront?)
Steve: I’m not sure what specific event did 4063 in, but am confident that someone reading this will know.
I am not a huge supporter of low floor. Over time I guess I am accepting the new (awful) Orions, but I still reward the odd GM Diesel, as it passes my kitchen (where nobody can hear me) with a cry of “real bus”. I also call the next couple of Orions “fake bus”. I am baffled by the rush to full commitment to low floor streetcars and was an advocate of rebuilding the CLRVs to a greater extent. I fear that, as you have hinted, the grudging rebuild of a few CLRVs may be done “on the cheap” and we may still see regular breakdowns. It does seem, however, that the broken cars can limp their way to non revenue track most of the time. From my kitchen window look at Shaw just north of King I see “broken” cars (King and Queen) that got there on their own on frequent occasions. (Sometimes two times in a week). Later a car that should be in revenue service (actually the broken one should be too) shows up to give the broken car a push.
The TTC – home of my favourites – the ancient GM Diesels – used to be famous for its maintenance and its rebuild ability. The PCCs also ran many years after their normal retirement. I was a grown adult when the first CLRV ran on the 508 (and my friends and I went to the Humber loop to ride on one) and by TTC standards these cars should be in their infancy. To see them failing due to lack of maintenance is a disgrace.
(I was present for one of the first CLRV failures. The Operator was showing my friends and me – in the Humber loop – various characteristics of this spiffy new car – things it could do. The Operator was showing us how it shut down and theoretically restarted – except it didn’t. There were some TTC Maintenance people in the loop and together with the Operator they couldn’t restart it either. Eventually the Operator had to phone for help – I don’t remember but I think he must have used a landline in those days.. I do remember that he eventually said – “perhaps you boys should get out of here! We did.
LikeLike
What I don’t understand is this: notwithstanding 50 ALRVs making up for about 75 regular cars, what happened to the concept of “always a car in sight”? By the time all the CLRVs -196- were in service by 1981, there were still somewhere around 350-plus PCCs still in service. So, there was approx. 550 streetcars available. With only 9 routes operating. Today, well under 250 streetcars, and 11 routes. Wha’ happen?
Steve: I refer you to my post “Always A Car In Sight (2)” from 2007. In it you will find a link to a table showing the decline in streetcar service over the years. Notable changes from 1980 to 2006 included:
Bathurst peak headway widened from 2’30” to 5’00”
Carlton peak headway widened from 3’00” to 3’30”
Dundas peak headway west of Yonge widened from 2’13” to 5’15”
Queen peak headway widened from 2’27” (CLRV) to 5’00” (ALRV)
Kingston Road peak headway (combined) widened from 3’51” to 7’00”
Long Branch peak headway widened from 6’45” (CLRV) to 10’00” (ALRV)
St. Clair peak headway widened from under 2 minutes east of Lansdowne to over 5 minutes
Spadina and Harbourfront lines added
All those service cuts had a huge impact on the required fleet size, and constantly gave the TTC elbow room to deal with an unreliable fleet. The last time they ran with a spare factor under 10% was before the Bloor-Danforth subway opened. PCCs were a lot simpler to maintain. We had the bad luck to buy the CLRVs during the early days of solid state control technology. Couple that with a “one-of” design and you have a recipe for high maintenance costs.
People have every right to complain that service on streetcar lines used to be better. It was. Even with congestion, if there is frequent service and some excess capacity, a line can absorb the usual small disruptions any transit route will see. Then the TTC got the bright idea of “tailoring service to meet demand” in the deathless words of a former head of Planning who is best forgotten. Trim out the “excess”, leave route managers to handle lines without the extra resources, watch the ridership drop. This was compounded on ALRV routes where the headways were widened even though, particularly today, CLRVs often are found trying to handle demand on ALRV headways.
LikeLike
Michael Greason Says:
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm
“I am not a huge supporter of low floor. Over time I guess I am accepting the new (awful) Orions, but I still reward the odd GM Diesel, as it passes my kitchen (where nobody can hear me) with a cry of “real bus”. I also call the next couple of Orions “fake bus”. I am baffled by the rush to full commitment to low floor streetcars and was an advocate of rebuilding the CLRVs to a greater extent.”
The rush to low floor is to meet the requirements of the Ontario Disability Act. To be fair to the LFLRV they have a much cleaner interior than the low floor buses. There is usually a longitudinal seat over the wheels that is usable rather than that disaster over the front wheels of the buses. The new vehicles are very nice to ride and have a very modern appearance. I do not like the low floor bus interior because the front wheels are an impediment to smooth passenger flow. This does not happen in the LFLRV’s because of all door loading and the smaller intrusion of wheels into the passenger compartment.
LikeLike
Re: aparent lack of anti-climbers. Two possible reasons come to mind:
Firstly, Bombardier’s Flexity streetcars have a max speed of 80km/hr (50mph), and their max speed in Toronto may be lower. By contrast, the Washington Metro’s stock has a max speed of 75mph (120 km/hr), so any collisions between Metro vehicles have more than twice the energy than those between Flexity vehicles.
Given this, I suspect that simulation/tests showed that the vehicles would not rise up over one another, and hence no need for anti-climbers.
The second possible reason is that anti-climbers are present, but are covered over by a thin plastic shell. Many UK trains do the same thing because it reduces damage to cars (as in automobiles) in low-speed collisions. (In high-speed collisions, the car is just squished).
Also, anti-climbers do *not* prevent telescoping – they prevent climbing/over-riding. Telescoping is prevented by a strong body shell. The damaged Washington Metro car was built in 1976, more than 30 years ago. Rolling stock construction has come on a long way since then.
Steve: It’s also worth remembering that Rohr got that contract as the war in SE Asia was winding down and the aircraft industry was looking for work. The car designers didn’t understand the concept of a vehicle that would be loaded well beyond its design capacity, and of course airframes are not built to withstand collisions in the way that railway cars must be.
LikeLike
@miroslavglavic I would rather them take a bus from Finch or another route. I was riding the 29 Dufferin from the Dufferin Gates in rush hour not too long ago. We were packed in there tighter than sardines with what looked like at least 100- 125 people on your typical 6800 series bus. People were down crammed down the stairs and in the back of the bus there was no room to breathe and people were still being left at stops as people were unable to get off the bus due to the number of people. If anything they need to increase service on this route, not decrease it.
LikeLike
The PCCs should be given equal maintenance funding as the CLRVs which will give the TTC two more vehicles to work with. Unlike at least some of the CLRVs they are in operable condition. That would mean two more vehicles providing service that other wouldn’t be there or save the cost of repairing two CLRVs. Their service could be limited to the morning rush when streetcars are needed most and the chance of vandalism is lowest.
If that works out, the TTC could rent a couple more PCCs from the Halton Redial Railway during their off season (which corresponds to when the TTC needs them most).
LikeLike
@Miroslav
They (the TTC) are mixing things up in order to find enough buses for streetcar replacements and to keep “normal” service running.
Three steps:
1. Cut 35E, 96E, 53D (Finch-Steeles rush hour service), and remove 1-4 buses from certain routes (if you read the service summary [I think that’s what its called], you see alot of minor cuts here and there.)
2. Remove a few spares.
3. Shuffle some services (Ex. move some of the Queensway and Wilson buses from 512 and other routes to 504 and 505, add more Arrow Rd buses to fill in for 512).
With regards to the future legacy fleet, they should (and probably will be) 100% low floor (think Orion VI 92xx) rather than 60% low-floor (Orion VII).
One thing that is bothering me: The deadline for anyone (Baird, Miller, or McGuinty) to cough up the remaining 1/3 of the price of the contract for the new legacy cars is Saturday. Yet no one has stepped up and stated they will pay for it. As much as we talk about the headways of the new cars, their safety features, and their accessibility, if no one pays for them, we might as well be talking about how Toronto will manage without streetcars.
LikeLike
The widen headway isn’t attractive transit at all. But placing more cars doesn’t help with bunching either. The budget cut in the 90s also brought the ticket cost way higher than before. I’m sure people would prefer to walk a bit instead of taking the streetcar for a couple of blocks. Less riders equal to less demand equal to less streetcars.
We need a system, maybe with POP that riders could pay less and not be allow to transfer to other routes. This will attract more people and potentially decrease the headways.
Current issue is to get the new streetcars in Toronto and continue to place small orders every 5 years. Not place a huge order and wait till they stop functioning. TTC is doing well with bus orders. Hence better bus services.
LikeLike
I hope when the new generation of vehicles arrives, that a new philosophy of fleet management will accompany it. It sounds to me like the TTC Streetcar fleet management is a lot like the Toronto Maple Leafs where as the brass have no clue what they’re doing (or they are, in privately operated way) and seem to only care about the bottom line or god knows what else.
LikeLike
4063 was the prototype in the rebuild program and had all sorts of non standard equipment installed and was quite incomplete when the program was cancelled. TTC considered it almost impossible to restore to original condition so they junked it.
On Feb 24 2005 I just happened by just after the Manitoba Drive-Strachan Av accident occurred between CLRV 4043 on 511 and a cement (I think) truck and photographed it. The car was severely damaged yet was rebuilt and returned to service.
LikeLike
This could be a blessing for the 502/503 service to have buses. If the TTC does this right, they could run a bus service on the 502/503 routes that goes down Kingston Road, to Queen, then onto Lakeshore and express to downtown bypassing the mess on Queen East.
That kind of route is sure to attract way more people to transit from the east end and probably be a hit with commuters from the Upper Beach and Southwest Scarborough.
Jsut an idea, but it is one that can only be done if the 502/503 are switched to buses.
So you never know, this could work.
If the TTC wanted to free up more streetcars, I would end service for now on all streetcar service west of Humber Loop on the 501. Instead a bus should operate from Long Branch to Humber Loop, then express to downtown Toronto. Such a route would benefit people much better along the western lakeshore than the current milk run of the 501. I do not know one person who lives along Lakeshore that likes the 501. But they all love the idea of a bus going right to downtown and bypassing the mess of traffic on Queen West.
Steve: Actually this may not save as many cars as you think. The “507” part of the “501” accounts for about 5 ALRVs — about 50 minutes round trip time at a 10 minute headway. The 502/503 don’t exist just to serve Kingston Road but also provide service on Queen and King, albeit infrequently (one of the reasons why these routes should be consolidated). The unique part of the routes accounts for maybe 4 CLRVs.
LikeLike
Speaking of PCCs, I saw one today make a right turn from Spadina eastbound onto College Street… It wasn’t in revenue service.
The old shiny dark red and gold TTC livery was so much richer than the stark red, white and black of the newer streetcars. I wonder how TTC will paint the new Bombardier cars…
LikeLike
Perhaps if the Bombardier deal falls through on the weekend then it will be just what we need to force the TTC’s hand to reconsider the full rebuild. With a bit of confusion over what to do next they might have to make a decision to ensure that they can cover the service.
LikeLike
William: “Speaking of PCCs, I saw one today make a right turn from Spadina eastbound onto College Street… It wasn’t in revenue service.”
Probably one of Mike Filey’s tour charters – not sure how often these run but I’ve seen a PCC out weekday mornings on several occasions.
LikeLike
Call me a pessimist (go ahead! I can take it!), but 63% of the operating fleet reminds me of the bad-old-days of the end of the trolley buses. If it were not for the fact that the streetcar infrastructure has been heavily rebuilt (unlike the trolley bus infrastructure, where work was prevented in what can only be called a sabotage maintenance policy), I would swear that this was the end-times for streetcars in Toronto.
LikeLike
Steve said: “Trim out the “excess”, leave route managers to handle lines without the extra resources, watch the ridership drop.”
You seem to say there are actually specific people assigned to manage individual routes. This would seem like a good idea but does appear to run counter to the TTCs normal way of assigning responsibility – involve so many people that nobody is really responsible. (The lack of identifiable subway Station Managers – as exist in London and elsewhere – being another example.) Can you explain sometime?
Steve: For want of a better explanation, I would call this “TTC Culture”, phrase that has actually been used by senior staff of the TTC in public meetings. It’s an even worse excuse than “congestion”.
LikeLike
Steven said, “We need a system, maybe with POP that riders could pay less and not be allow to transfer to other routes. This will attract more people and potentially decrease the headways.”
While this is not the discussion about GTA fare integration (see http://lrt.daxack.ca/FareSystems/index.html and comment there), I have advocated an idea that would include a lower cost “city saver” fare for short trips with some restrictions (in this case, this fare would only have 60-minute transfers and could not be upgraded to continue a trip into another zone).
Some cities have a “city saver” fare with no transfers (Melbourne comes to mind), but given the grid nature of our transit network and that few of us have source/destinations that lie along the same axis of the grid, a short-trip fare should have transfer capabilities. In Melbourne’s case, most streets in the CBD with tram service are serviced by two or more routes that branch near the edge of the CBD, giving easy access without the need for transfers.
LikeLike
@ Mike: “I would end service for now on all streetcar service west of Humber Loop on the 501. Instead a bus should operate from Long Branch to Humber Loop, then express to downtown Toronto. Such a route would benefit people much better along the western lakeshore than the current milk run of the 501. I do not know one person who lives along Lakeshore that likes the 501. But they all love the idea of a bus going right to downtown and bypassing the mess of traffic on Queen West.”
This is not true. At a meeting of the Lakeshore Planning Council 2 weeks ago, a resolution was unanimously passed to ask the TTC to revive the 507 Lakeshore streetcar line, between Long Branch loop & at least Roncesvalles. (I’m awaiting the official wording of the request). The prefered east terminus of the route is Dundas West station, but this is problematic due to the construction currently starting on Roncies.
In this meeting there were 1-2 attendees who wanted an express bus from Lakeshore downtown, but the consensus was we wanted our old reliable 507 streetcar route back.
There was little discussion of the Waterfront West LRT (WWLRT) to Long Branch, as in the Lakeshore Transportion Workshop exercise and follow on meetings it was felt that until reliable and regular streetcar service returned to Lakeshore, there would be far too little ridership to warrant such an investment.
I and alot of my friends on Lakeshore love riding the streetcar into town, but hate the mess that the TTC’s made with the route and their service management.
LikeLike
Can you rent the Peter Witt the TTC has in its possession for charters like you can with the PCC’s?
Steve: The Peter Witt generally goes out only by special arrangement, usually for a TTC or City sponsored event.
LikeLike
I also saw aforementioned PCC streetcar yesterday evening at Spadina & Harbord. I eagerly climbed aboard, token in hand, only to be told that I’d need to wait for the next one. Needless to say, all of the people on the streetcar laughed at me.
LikeLike
Should this Bombardier order be official, Toronto will have one of the largest light rail/streetcar/tram orders so for in the 21st century.
Berlin has options for 206 with Bombardier,
Toronto will have 204 + 364 options from Bombardier.
Prague (Praha) has 250 from Skoda.
Salt Lake City has 77 + 180 options from Siemens.
LikeLike
So given that we aren’t going to be getting funding for streetcars from the feds, what transit projects could qualify? I think they want us to put a bunch of bridges and highways in instead. It would be great for Miller to request a TC line or two instead. Are any far enough along to qualify? Would electrifying lakeshore GO qualify? How about subway station reno’s? Track maintenance? Electronic fare card investment? What would be a good place to move the money to?
Steve: The problem is that the stimulus program is only supposed to be available for work that can be completed in a few years. Many of the items you list have not even gotten into design, let alone construction.
LikeLike
John Bromley said: “4063 was the prototype in the rebuild program and had all sorts of non standard equipment installed and was quite incomplete when the program was cancelled. TTC considered it almost impossible to restore to original condition so they junked it.”
In the medical profession that would be referred to as “mal-practice” 😉
So what you’re saying is that they took a perfectly good car, butchered it, and then threw out the mess? Who’s supposed to be on the hook for this kind of expense and mis-management? I don’t quite understand the justification when the CLRV with the air-conditioning unit is still in service.
Steve: And the air conditioning doesn’t work very well — I have been on this car a few times recently and many of the windows were open because the AC couldn’t put out enough cool air.
LikeLike
Mike writes:
“I do not know one person who lives along Lakeshore that likes the 501. But they all love the idea of a bus going right to downtown and bypassing the mess of traffic on Queen West.”
I’m pretty sure that a lot less than “everyone” loves the idea of a bus, express to downtown or not.
This beautiful idea also falls down on the reality that the bus has to handle Gardiner traffic. I would really be surprised if the “express” bus routing would get you from New Toronto to Queen and John or King and Bay hugely much faster than the present streetcar, especially during morning rush hour or any Blue Jays or Maple Leafs event.
LikeLike
Ed wrote:
“I’m pretty sure that a lot less than “everyone” loves the idea of a bus, express to downtown or not.
This beautiful idea also falls down on the reality that the bus has to handle Gardiner traffic. I would really be surprised if the “express” bus routing would get you from New Toronto to Queen and John or King and Bay hugely much faster than the present streetcar, especially during morning rush hour or any Blue Jays or Maple Leafs event.”
I concur – I don’t think the bus will improve the situation all that much – which is why I prefer to take GO. It is still more reliable then the 501 to begin with and is only a 19 minute trip from Long Branch – much faster then the bus is likely to be.
LikeLike
In the discussion about GO electrification, the point is made that if the vehicle moves faster over the course of its route, you get more capacity with the same units of equipment. This is equally true of road transit. If we have fewer streetcars available we need to look at clearing the way for them on the road and Proof Of Purchase – right now, not when the LRVs come.
This will involve political calls which will make the bike lane on Jarvis look like a tea party – do we have the guts to do that in this town? When the towtrucks are hauling away their prizes and super-tickets for illegal turns in a streetcar zone are flying, will it be stopped at the first negative National Post editorial?
Steve: More to the point, we have to decide that traffic bylaws need enforcement with the same vigour we reserve for ticketing people throwing their trash in the wrong place. We have a Catch-22 where only police are allowed to ticket motorists or order tows, and yet they are too busy with real policing and nothing gets done.
LikeLike
RE: Lakeshore West Express Service:
I recall that attempts to get express service along Lakeshore west to downtown have been failures. Right now the only such service is from the Palace Pier and Palace Place condominiums. Even with the rapid growth of condos on the Etobicoke motel strip there doesn’t seem to be the demand for an express service.
RE: Cutting back bus routes – how about letting the suburban operators take over some of the TTC routes that go deep into the 905 region (Eglinton 32, Jane 35D come to mind immediately)… allowing TTC to free up some buses for use on other routes?
Cheers, Moaz
Steve: It’s not a question of letting suburban operators take over routes. The TTC only operates into the 905 because they are contracted to do so by the region. York Region does not have the buses to take over TTC operations, especially if they would have to handle service well into the 416, not just the north-of-Steeles service.
LikeLike
I would really like to know how many ALRVs & CLRVs other than 4063 are also considered impossible to return to working order. As many people have stated the TTC has really shot themselves in the foot with poor maintenance on this batch of streetcars; what were they thinking? I was on 4002 last week and the rain was pouring in so much at the back that the rear seats were unusable. Do you think maintenance will improve with the new batch, as they will probably be expected to last longer/be rebuilt?
Steve: I hope to see an updated on fleet availability at the next TTC meeting in late July, but sometimes “hope” and reality don’t quite line up. Also, it’s interesting that 4002 was working well enough to be in service even with the indoor shower.
LikeLike