Following up on the comment thread about new Transit City LRVs, John F. Bromley sent along two photos showing MU operation of the “legacy” fleet.
Here is a two-car train consisting of ALRV demonstrator 4900 plus CLRV 4152 eastbound on Kingston Roat at Hannaford on November 28, 1982. Note the electronic destination sign on the 4900.
This is a six-car train (!) of CLRVs on test at St. Clair Carhouse looking south on Wychwood from Benson on March 21, 1982. The cars involved are 4191, 4063, 4011, 4095, 4055 and 4186. Photo by Raymond F. Corley. (Click on the thumbnail for the larger version which includes the sixth car.)
Note: I will move all of the comments related to MU operations of the legacy fleet to this post.
Steve Munro 
Why does the Metrolinx brochure show that the LRV AND ALRV are not capable of running as a train set when they were origionally designed to do so and the LRV actually ran as a train sets before the ALRV’s were delivered?
Steve: They lost their couplers and so strictly speaking cannot run in trains, but I rode a three-car train of CLRVs in Boston on the Riverside line.
LikeLike
ALRVs were never equipped with gear to run MU (the only one that was equipped for MU was the demo, number 4900). It ran trials on Kingston Road with 4152 in Toronto (I photographed the operation) but not in passenger service. One of the objects of the trial was to see if a CLRV could push a half-dead ALRV up the hill.
The CLRV was technically capable of operation in 6-car trains and did so on one single occasion with a trip or two around St Clair Carhouse under the guidance of the late Ray Corley, who also photographed the 300+ foot long train (which I also have).
Steve: The photos John refers to are posted in this article.
LikeLike
ALRVs were never designed to be MU’d together. When the Scarborough LRT was converted to ICTS it was decided that the then future articulated streetcars would not need to be MU’d, and so the ALRVs have no wiring or ability to have couplers mounted.
The CLRVs are still able to be MU’d provided the TTC found some new couplers for them – and the required circuitry didn’t blow up the first time the cars were connected.
Dan
Toronto, Ont.
LikeLike
When I talk about something being capable to run in trains. I mean to say that during the engineering and design stage of the ALRV or CLRV’s a decision would have had to be made to design it and constructed it to allow for such a possibility. Based on the fact that the demonstrator could be run as train set means coupling was a design and engineered eliment of the ALRV units. Although not needed for Toronto if another city would have bought the units they could have had the ability to couple the cars for their own use. Another question I had about the coupling was it always necessary to have a operator in each unit or could the system especially on a system like Boston be automated to have one operator controlling all 3 cars.
Steve: The Riverside line in Boston is an LRT line with onboard fare collection. There was an operator on each car.
LikeLike
6 car trains in service would be very interesting not only for itself but what it would do to the overhead! The Rogers road line north of St Clair received its power through a single feeder cable from the Winona power station south of st. Clair. When the Rogers Rd route was extended to Yonge subway the cars could bunch up on the line north of St. Clair. When the number of cars north of St Clair exceeded 10 the feeder cable going north would run cherry red! Soon after they installed second parallel cable up as far as Rogers Rd.
Such a lineup within the yard would not be an issue since the cars would be run only at minimum speed.
LikeLike
“Based on the fact that the demonstrator could be run as train set means coupling was a design and engineered element of the ALRV units. Although not needed for Toronto if another city would have bought the units they could have had the ability to couple the cars for their own use.”
San Jose bought ALRV derived cars, could and did run them in MU trains and later sold some (all?) to Salt Lake City.
LikeLike
Re: Dwight’s comment — UTDC built 50 ALRVs for San Jose, all MU and they ran that way frequently in two-car trains. San Jose eventually replaced them with new Japanese-built units and flogged off the UTDC cars to Salt Lake City and Sacramento, where they continue to provide rush hour service. Both cities run their ORIGINAL equipment (Siemens U series) in trains of up to four cars – whether or not they do the same with their UTDC cars is unknown (to me).
LikeLike
Question – if the CLRVs are capable of running as a multiple-unit set, why does the TTC not do so on so of its lines? King, for example, comes to mind.
While more frequent service is a plus of the TTC not using the CLRVs in MU operation (i.e. two cars in operation instead of one long car), on some routes, it may allow for extra capacity.
Steve: Two problems. First, the TTC has no spare cars, at least once all of the various construction projects around town finish. Second, the couplers were taken off of the CLRVs years ago, and there’s no guarantee the MY circuitry still works. In three years, there will be new cars the equivalent length of two CLRVs, more or less. We can wait. Better the TTC concentrates on getting as much of its existing fleet working to provide service somewhere, never mind running in trains.
LikeLike
Just wondering, why would that safety yellow-black-striped alternating band have disappeared from the Streetcar doors?
Steve: In looking at the colour schemes, neither the TTC nor the design panel has incorporated any of the safety add-ons. This is a good point.
LikeLike
If the readers care and would like to see a fine example of streetcar/LRT operation, I have included a set of pictures from Dresden (Germany).
The two vehicle set is always an MU. Three vehicle sets consist of two motor vehicles plus a trailer (same size, but no motors).
LikeLike
I’ve noticed that the CLRV’s and PCC’s back in the 80’s had the safety stripe to line their doors (I’m not sure if the ALRV’s had them though). Why would the TTC have removed the stripes?
With regards to the new Streetcars and LRV’s, wouldn’t the doors be “sliding-open”? They wouldn’t be protruding out onto the street like the current streetcar fleet’s doors, right?
Steve: That is correct, the doors will open sideways, and this removes the option of putting “Stop” signs or any other sort of warning markings on them.
LikeLike
Hmm … if the new doors are sliding, how will the motorists on the right-hand side know whether they can drive past the streetcar or not; they’ll not really have a clear indication of whether the door is open or not.
Unless there is some kind of signal that springs out from the streetcar, there could be serious health and safety concerns operating that type of door at most of the stops.
Perhaps we need school-bus style flashing lights (and some new laws). Hmm, the obvious colour scheme for the new streetcars then is schoolbus yellow.
LikeLike
Remember a couple of years ago the TTC floated the idea of using semipermanently coupled pairs of CLRVs on King street? They went as far as ordering the drawbar assembly and hooking two cars together to do testing but the idea got dropped. The test cars were only mechanically coupled from what I was told. TTC didn’t make a jumper cable and run some air hose between the cars to get them talking to each other so the question about how much work it would take to make them run MU again is open. It’s possible that when the couplers were removed, other equipment like trainline switches etc. were removed as well. If that’s the case, it’s not so much a question of whether the MU circuits are working, but if they’re still intact to begin with. Anybody know? Better yet, a set of wiring diagrams?
One other question I’ve had was about the story about MU CLRV cars being troublesome because if problems disabled one car, phantom replication of the problems would occur on the others until the trainline was broken. Anybody know what types of problems were involved and what design issues were involved/how the equipment actually caused the false copies of the problem to appear on the other cars in the train?
I forgot to mention in my first post – I love the “Nature Trail” sign in the first picture. Doesn’t it just scream, “tacky 1970s basement rec room?!?!”
LikeLike
Most articulated LRVs that I know of around the continent have their middle truck unpowered. Is this also the case with Toronto’s ALRVs?
LikeLike
nfitz says:
June 17, 2010 at 5:57 pm
“Hmm … if the new doors are sliding, how will the motorists on the right-hand side know whether they can drive past the streetcar or not; they’ll not really have a clear indication of whether the door is open or not.
“Unless there is some kind of signal that springs out from the streetcar, there could be serious health and safety concerns operating that type of door at most of the stops.
“Perhaps we need school-bus style flashing lights (and some new laws). Hmm, the obvious colour scheme for the new streetcars then is schoolbus yellow.”
I have been flogging the idea of having the “School bus law” apply to streetcars stopping in mixed traffic for autos going in the same direction. Some where I have seen cars that stop in mixed traffic that light up like Victoria day when the cars stop in mixed traffic to load or unload. That plus a few of the swing stop signs, with something heavy attached to scratch wayward would be helpful. autos or a 7.62 mm MG,
LikeLike
I would like to see the return of the old cobblestones between the streetcar tracks. If an automobile has to drive on the streetcar tracks, they would get a bouncy ride. Too bad the automobile lobby was so strong as to get rid of them, and replace them with asphalt or concrete, to make their car ride smoother. Making the area between the tracks rougher could make the streetcars faster.
LikeLike
Yes, David, the ALRV has an un-powered middle truck. It does have brakes however. This arrangement has mysteriously caused very poor performance even though other such LRVs drive like sportscars. (Despite all the negatives of the Boeing cars, I have ridden them in San Francisco and marveled at their smooth and sporty performance on grades that would have TTC engineers hiding under their desks.) On slopes and turns it often results in wheel-slip. Somehow having a full set of brakes hasn’t allowed them to stop properly either. I watched one slide half-way into the intersection of Sherbourne and Queen on a red light and this was even with the magnetic track brakes kicking in.
I’ve often wondered if the ALRV prototype, based as it was on CLRV systems, performed better and without as much noise. What we ended up with in the production model was ugly by comparison and badly engineered in many ways. The only thing I cared for was the improved HVAC. Everyone loves to hate the CLRVs, but compare the two and tell me which you think looks and feels more refined?
LikeLike
Looking at “Wrong way at Russell” again made me wonder something about MU operation: Could the CLRVs be coupled back-to-back to give a double-ended combined pair, or did they have to couple back-to-front? Obviously this wouldn’t be useful on Toronto’s track network but a line with crossovers could use such an arrangement.
Steve: You would have to add left side doors to the cars, and that could be difficult depending on what equipment is mounted under the floor on the offside of the vehicles. Given their age and the fact they are high floor cars, it’s better we start with new vehicles for the Transit City lines.
LikeLike
I honestly couldn’t say about 4900 but I did hear that a lot of the performance problems with the production ALRVs was attributed to the weight distribution throughout the car. I never heard any details beyond that though. I can see how that could introduce problems with wheel slip etc. though given how it can make a mess out of automobile handling…
I did have a very interesting conversation five years ago with a couple of guys from the MBTA who were involved with the Boeing LRV project and consulted with Ray Corley while the CLRV was being designed. This would’ve been while the Boeings were having their bad teething pains and the guys involved could rapid fire off a whole list of “don’t do this on the CLRV” items since they used a very similar (identical?) electronics package from Garrett to the one used on the Boeings. Very interesting conversation. Having the Boeing experience to learn from certainly benefited the CLRV design though. I also got to spend some time with circuit boards and manuals from the Boeings too. I wish I had more time to peruse that stuff though – it was quite interesting but too brief.
LikeLike
I remember looking at some old promotional material from UTDC that detailed the ‘flexability’ of the CLRV design. There was a depiction of a permanently coupled back-to-back pair with centre-doors on the left-hand side of each car much like Boston PCCs and buses had. This was meant to make a bi-directional pair. Obviously it was a customization that never went into production, but it does suggest that the modification might be rather easy on the existing cars.
This indirectly raises the question though of whether any of the CLRVs or ALRVs will be sold for operation elsewhere in the world. I realise a significant investment might have to be made in electronics. Sadly I predict they will be unceremoniously scrapped save for a lucky few heritage cars.
Steve: The electronics are obsolete, and the cost of replacing them was a major factor in the decision not to undertake a major rejuvenation of the vehicles.
LikeLike
Well, electronics seems to be the bane of any modern day vehicle these days. The way electronics and computer technology gets obsolete so quickly, I’ve read that many post-PCC cars will likely never be anything more than static displays after retirement.
LikeLike