A Debut Party for Car 4400

The TTC unveiled the real car 4400 — not the imitation, half-car mockup seen on an earlier occasion — at its Hillcrest Shops today to a crowd of press, politicians and staff.

Representatives of all governments were present.  Councillor Karen Stintz as TTC Chair, Ontario Minister of Transportation Bob Chiarelli, Metrolinx CEO Bruce McCuaig, and Peter Van Loan representing the Federal Government.

Van Loan’s inclusion was rather odd considering that his government famously told Mayor David Miller to get lost (in somewhat earthier terms) when Miller asked for a 1/3 federal share in funding these cars.  Now we learn than some of the federal gas tax transit revenue in Toronto has been earmarked for the streetcar project.

  • City of Toronto share: $662m (55.8%)
  • Ontario share: $416.3m (35.1%)
  • Ottawa share:  $108m (9.1%)
  • Total $1,186.3m

In fact, Toronto gets a flat annual allocation from the federal gas tax that now runs at $154m.  In 2012, the total TTC capital spending (not including projects with their own accounts such as the Spadina extension) will be $1,034m.  This puts the federal gas tax at about 15% of current spending although the proportion rises in future years when the currently planned rate of spending tails off.

I have asked the TTC to explain how they came up with the $108m figure, and as I write this (2:20 pm, November 15), I have not received a reply.  Federal capital grants go into the general pot of capital funding (see pdf page 36 of the TTC Capital Budget).

During her remarks, TTC Chair Karen Stintz joked that she hopes to see Van Loan back soon with a big cheque for the Downtown Relief Line.

This is a fully working car, although we won’t see it out on the street for several months, and even then only for test runs, not in passenger service.  Cars 4401 and 4402 will arrive over coming months to add to the test fleet.

The 4400 sat among representatives of three earlier generations of streetcars each of which represented the technological pride of its age — the Peter Witt (1920s), the PCC (1930/40s), the CLRV (1970s).  That CLRV (and its relative, the articulated ALRV) is odd man out, in a way, because it was, in part, the product of an era when Ontario thought it needed to reinvent the streetcar.  Only one other buyer was ever found for these vehicles as compared with Witts, PCCs and now Bombardier Flexities running all over the world.

The car’s interior is divided into sections, each with its own door very much like a subway car.  All-door loading will spread out the demand through the interior.  Space dedicated for large objects such as shopping buggies, baby carriages, wheelchairs and bicycles will allow them to be carried without plugging circulation.

Although the cars are “low floor”, there is still one step up from the ground into them unless one boards from a platform or widened sidewalk (as on Roncesvalles).  However, that’s the only step, and riders will be able to flow into and out of the cars quicker than they do on the earlier models.

Presto readers are mounted on either side of the entryways.  The rules for Presto use on TTC are not yet decided including whether there will be any need to “tap in” for transfer connections or to “tap out” when leaving a vehicle.  [That’s a separate debate and I would prefer that the comment thread on this article not fill up with a discussion on that topic.]

Visible in the photo below is a small pedestal (left side, just ahead of the articulation) which will hold the fare equipment.  This will be used by passengers who need to pay a cash or token fare while the system is in co-existence mode between current practices and Presto.  Machines will also be provided at busy stops along the routes as the new cars roll out.

The box under the pedestal is a heater/blower (another is located under the seat just inside the door) whose purpose is to keep the vestibule warm even in the winter and an attempt to dry out the floor.

Stop displays hang from the ceiling through the length of the car, not just at the front as on the retrofitted CLRV/ALRV fleets.

Notable by their absence is any provision for advertising on either the interior or exterior of the car.  Something may be fitted in the coves between the top of the windows and the lighting strip, but there is nothing on the 4400.  This would change the look of the cars inside and out.

Here is another view through the articulation showing the fare machine pedestal.  Note that the window has a separate panel at the top.  This is a “flip in” window similar to those on the CLRVs intended for situations where the AC fails and some ventillation is required.  The flip-up seating in the area beyond keeps it clear for use by wheelchairs in a similar format to that already used on the subway.

At the doors, there is a red button for passengers to open them when they are activated by the operator.  Actual operation will likely vary from stop to stop and car to car just as it does today with the CLRVs.  At some stops, the operator will simply open all doors; at others, only doors passengers want to use will open.  This is a common practice elsewhere to which Torontonians will, I am sure, adapt.

This door is also the wheelchair location, and the blue button is intended for a request to deploy the wheelchair ramp.  That ramp has two levels — one is a short bridge to get from a car to a nearby platform, the other is a longer ramp to get down to pavement level.  The operator controls which version is deployed.

Not visible in these photos is an LED strip mounted on the trailing edge of each door.  This will be brightly lit when the doors are open as a warning to passing motorists and cyclists that they should stop.  I hope to get a photo or video of this in operation from the TTC and will add it here when available.

Low-floor design brings seating above the wheel sets, and a mixture of forward and rear facing seats.

The front of the new car, in profile, can be read as a face, here in contemplation of a human.  The paint treatment at this end is different from the rear (see the next photo) with the white stripes swinging down.

The rear end of 4400 seen from the transfer table.  The white stripes at this end simply wrap around the car.

Finally, a view along the runway for the transfer table that moves cars and buses between the shop entrance and the various repair bays.  The mockup version of 4400 is visible in the middle distance.

I must say that having a genuinely new streetcar in Toronto, one that is based on a proven international design, gives me good feelings.  All the same, there remain questions of how the vehicle will perform in service, how riders will adapt to the new layout and fare collection tactics, and whether the TTC will actually improve service capacity (as implied in the Fleet Plan that I reviewed recently) and improve line management so that expected wider headways are not compounded by ragged service and short turns.

The fight for better streetcar service is far from over.

Postscript: What The Design Panel Did

I was one of the members of design review panel recruited by the TTC to tweak the new car design.  The physical layout of the cars was more-or-less settled by the time we came on board, and our opportunity for influence was limited.  The factors we affected were mainly aesthetic including:

  • The use of a different, patterned seat fabric rather than the standard TTC red.
  • The use of a darker red than the bright cherry found on the CLRVs.  It is not as dark as the colour used with cream trim on the PCCs and Witts, but not as bright as the CLRVs.
  • The presentation of a distinct “front” and “back” to the cars by bringing the white stripes down at the front of the car.
  • The presentation of a uniform black stripe down the side of the car (the original version made the doors look like a mouth with missing teeth).

One thing we hoped to see was interior surfaces that had some texture and variation from lighter off-white on the ceiling to a darker gray on the floor.  That idea did not become part of the final version probably for a combination of cost and maintenance issues.

Eventually the cars will go into service and we will see how their layout works in practice and whether it can be improved.

An idea I would particularly like to see would be a subset of the fleet as “art cars”.  We came up with this idea before GO Transit started its own program, but given the state of transit funding and municipal attitudes to non-essential “gravy”, this was an idea that has gone into a deep sleep.  Could we find a sponsor to underwrite a competition for, say, ten cars each with its own “total wrap”, a set of “one of” cars whose designs would change from season to season, year to year?

96 thoughts on “A Debut Party for Car 4400

  1. Steve wrote

    “Simpson is one of those Sunday stops on Broadview I mentioned in an earlier comment. It actually is in front of a church. It contributes no delays to weekday service.”

    I meant Simpson southbound, not northbound. It’s right across the street, and literally there are only two streetlight poles between the two stops.

    I know the argument will be that it’s the stop for Bridgepoint Health, but the regular Broadview/Gerrard southbound stop is far closer to Bridgepoint than any of the northbound 504, or east/west 506 stops, and that doesn’t seem to be a constraint … unless all the patients arrive southbound on 504 and never check out …

    Steve: Ah, the Don Jail Roadway stop. Yes, the stop further north serves (and is called for) Bridgepoint. The stop at the jail certainly is not needed.

    Like

  2. nfitz asked,

    Why are all the references to passing streetcars talking about “open doors”.

    Then quoted the Highway Traffic Act and stated,

    The test is whether the streetcar has stopped, not whether the doors are open.

    Ah, no. The test is not if the streetcar has stopped, otherwise it would be an infraction each time a vehicle passes a streetcar that is not moving. Such would be the case when a short turn streetcar waits on non-revenue track to re-enter service.

    The key in the Highway Traffic Act is the following words:

    on the side on which passengers are getting on or off

    The test is whether passengers are getting on or off the streetcar. Since it is rather difficult for passengers to get on or off a streetcar when the doors are closed, the doors being open are a good practical test.

    Vehicles may pass a stopped streetcar. Vehicles may even pass a stopped streetcar with its doors open, though it is not recommended for it IS in contravention of the HTA to pass a streetcar when passengers are getting on or off the streetcar which is a distinct possibility when the doors are open.

    Steve: But the distinction is that the car is in the process of taking on or discharging passengers under the HTA. The doors don’t have to be open, and in the situation of passenger activated doors (be it the buttons on the LFLRVs, the push bars on the buses, or the treadle steps on a CLRV), the doors are not open until triggered by a passenger. With the LFLRVs there is the added complexity that boarding passengers must walk out to a closed door simply to open it.

    If the fact that the door controls are active is signalled to motorists by lighting on the car (and to riders to show that they should step off the pavement), then the status of serving the stop should be clear. Whether motorists will behave properly is another matter.

    Like

  3. Motorist behaviour (or, rather, misbehaviour) could be detrimental to the road surface level accessibility features, because we all find ourselves walking around a car that is at least partially obstructing our path when getting off at the rear doors on a regular basis. They’re stopped, so they’re not a safety issue per se. These partial obstructions (or even full obstructions in really congested areas/times) are just a nuisance for the able-bodied on C/ALRVs, but this kind of thing, which is commonplace, would be detrimental to long ramp deployment.

    Like

  4. Steve wrote,

    The doors don’t have to be open, and in the situation of passenger activated doors (be it the buttons on the LFLRVs, the push bars on the buses, or the treadle steps on a CLRV), the doors are not open until triggered by a passenger. With the LFLRVs there is the added complexity that boarding passengers must walk out to a closed door simply to open it.

    This points out an important flaw in the current law. It is only illegal to pass a streetcar that is actively loading or unloading, yet there is no definition in the law as to what constitutes actively loading or unloading.

    In the past, open doors was a reasonable indication, even though there may be situations where doors are open when not actively loading or unloading. Treadle-operated rear doors could fly open at any moment when they are activated (a state that never was easily identified by other vehicles) and a person could come dashing out. The theory is that people tend to be ready for their stop, and perhaps are in a bit of a hurry. Thus, even when a streetcar is delayed while a hoard of passengers boards at the front door, the rear door’s period of actively unloading is usually completed once the doors have closed, even if they remain active.

    The trouble with that theory is that over the past decade or two, society has become, on average, a bunch of ass-draggers who sometimes act as though the entire universe will wait for them. Over the past few months, I have noticed that on practically every transit vehicle I was traveling on, there was at least one person who remained seated until the vehicle had come to a full stop and the driver had opened the front doors until they got up to get to the door to exit. In the case of the rear doors on the vehicle, this means they remain closed for a long enough period of time for a driver passing a streetcar to make the assumption that the rear door is not being used and will make the judgement call to pass it.

    I believe that we need to have our Highway Traffic Act updated to disallow any passing of streetcars when they display flashing lights – then there is no interpretation regarding actively loading or unloading. Of course, LRVs would have to be equipped to flash lights, but given that many other jurisdictions around the world have this sort of regulation, I suspect it is a stock feature available for the new vehicles (and probably only requires a software update to enable).

    Like

  5. If I’m not mistaken, Simpson Avenue stop is an all-week stop, not just a Sunday stop.

    Steve: Southbound, a regular stop. Northbound, a Sunday stop.

    Also, Sunday stops did exist the last time we had 30 metre streetcar trains. I’m not convinced that length of train and stop spacing are necessarily related.

    Steve: You are wrong in part on that one. We had two-car trains of PCCs on Bloor and on Queen, but the lines ran with single cars on Sundays.

    Like

  6. Calvin Henry-Cotnam says:

    November 17, 2012 at 12:24 am

    “The key in the Highway Traffic Act is the following words:

    ‘ on the side on which passengers are getting on or off’.”

    I’ll bet that part hasn’t been needed since the TTC stopped running double end cars on single track to Richmond Hill and Weston.

    Like

  7. nfitz, I’m not trying to pick on any stop, as I noted, I feel that 350m is a better spacing ‘on average’, so yes some stops would have to be rearranged. By the sounds of it we could be neighbours, my point is that if we removed one stop, we would have an average spacing of around 317m.

    I don’t think the world would end, and that should still give good access from the residential street grid on either side of Gerrard. If that was applied (not slavishly) across the system, I feel we could gain some speed and reliability IF it were combined with a number of other things such as better route management and parking restrictions etc.

    Like

  8. Steve wrote:

    “The new cars have slightly less seating than their equivalent in CLRVs.”

    We get longer cars – which are supposed by twice the size of a CLRV, but it will have less seats? Who made that mistake?

    Steve: Less seats than two CLRVs. Partly this is due to some of the seats being a bit roomier, and partly due to expanded standee space.

    Richard L wrote:

    “When a tram reached a metro interchange station, there was a POP enforcement group waiting to greet passengers, with one inspector positioned per tram door. No passenger was missed. I could imagine something similar happening with the new TTC trams entering fare-paid areas at subway stations.”

    I don’t see that happening here in Toronto for three reasons:

    1) It would take too many inspectors to do this.

    2) During the rush hour it could get to backed up (and crowded) to do this.

    3) I don’t see the TTC, which is always going to have to watch its finances, having the money to spend on this – also the cost-benefit ratio may not be ideal enough. Essentially, for every dollar you spend on the inspectors, the TTC needs to recoup most (preferably all) of that money back to make it worthwhile.

    Steve: And that’s the kind of thinking that makes so much fail. It’s not a case of recouping the expense from the people you check today, but from all of the people who think twice tomorrow and the day after that about cheating.

    Like

  9. Robert Wightman said, in reference to the “on the side on which passengers are getting on or off” wording in the Highway Traffic Act,

    I’ll bet that part hasn’t been needed since the TTC stopped running double end cars on single track to Richmond Hill and Weston.

    I wouldn’t be too sure about that. The wording allows the passing of a streetcar on its left side while it is taking on or dropping off passengers. Granted, there are not too many places where this is possible (or, at least legal), but it is not unheard of. I am thinking of Queen Street eastbound at Kingston Road where a straight-through streetcar can be passed to its left – though the island at the intersection for the turning track sort of makes this moot, it is possible that a streetcar could stop west of the island to take on or drop off passengers and be passed on its left side at the same time.

    Steve: One way streets such as Wellington have stops where two lanes of traffic pass to the left of the streetcars.

    Like

  10. School buses have been designed in recent years to have little flip-out STOP signs when motorists are not supposed to pass them.

    This should probably have been ordered as a feature of the new streetcars. Well, I guess nobody thought of it at the time. I wonder if it could be retrofitted.

    Like

  11. Hamish,

    It is easy to design safe roads that remove the danger posed by streetcar tracks. Proper design guides people to cross the tracks at right angles so that they do not get a wheel caught and crash.

    For example, see this video.

    This is not a problem with streetcar tracks. It is an easily solved problem with road design and layout.

    Like

  12. Silly question: If the existing fleet of streetcars is retired, and the new fleet will be of a defined length, while the technology is antiquated, why not reinstate overhead contactors at switches. Unless they required substantial maintenance to keep operational (and they cannot be worse than the present system to restore switch position) is there really justification in using a more sophisticated technology to return switches to their home position? This wheel has been invented… (though I suppose it would need to be adapted to pantographs).

    Steve: By the time the last of the old cars is gone, the system will be running with pantographs. The real issue is that a new, reliable system for electric switches should have been installed years ago, but it just wasn’t a priority for the TTC.

    Like

  13. @(responding to no one in particular)

    RE: A longer streetcar, or streetcar-trains

    As many have pointed out in previous threads, trying to park a 60 metre streetcar train in Toronto’s smaller street-level loops would result in part of the road, sidewalk, or another track being blocked. This would occur at: Neville Park, Coxwell/Queen, McCaul, Wolseley, Sunnyside, Kipling, Broadview Station.

    Regarding underground loops, Union probably won’t be a problem, since it’s being expanded anyhow. Spadina Station might not be able to accommodate 60 metre trains, and I don’t know of any plans to expand it.

    As someone who would admittedly like to see streetcar trains anyhow, a few ideas, and thoughts about them, crossed my mind:

    1) I think the only way to make 60-metre long trains work would be to allow layovers on-street, rather than in the loop, and expand the no-parking zones. Motorists won’t like this at all, but it would still be possible to pass a stopped streetcar. Sidewalks also won’t be blocked either. This probably won’t work for Broadview Station, since there could be no stopping in the existing 505 loop without blocking the sidewalk, and forcing passengers to transfer outside of the station defeats the entire purpose of the Broadview station double-tracking.

    2) I wonder what the feasibility is for rerouting some loops to be more square-shaped, such as Neville Park, so that it can fit a 60 metre train.

    Steve: I know of no plans to run trains of LFLRVs, and you may have noticed the absence of couplers. This is a non-issue.

    Like

  14. I hope I don’t look too horrifically ignorant in asking this after reading what you just now said about there not being any lflrv trains but does that apply only to the legacy lines to also the new lines (Eglinton, Sheppard East, etc.) as well?

    Steve: Only to the legacy system.

    Like

  15. TTC still has time to fret over how it will enforce fare payment, but what are staffing levels now? And is the transit-specific contingent of Toronto Police officers still active…?

    Steve: The “Special Constables” lost their status about a year ago, and there was some cutback in staffing. The TPS transit contingent still exists, but Chief Blair is threatening to withdraw it as part of budget negotiations.

    Like

  16. M Briganti wrote:

    “There is so much fare evasion on Viva, they had to increase the fares recently to compensate, and it’s jokingly now known as Free-va”.

    As cited in the references provided by Calvin Henry-Cotham, fare evasion on VIVA seems to be an urban myth. About 400,000 passenger inspections were conducted on VIVA in 2011 (5% of VIVA riders) and determined a fare evasion rate of 1.38%. Hardly an epidemic!

    Of course, the fact that there are about 25 YRT/VIVA special constables and 4 Fare Media Inspectors, both of whose “main function is revenue protection”, helps with compliance!

    Like

  17. Steve wrote:

    “Less seats than two CLRVs. Partly this is due to some of the seats being a bit roomier, and partly due to expanded standee space.”

    Thanks TTC for telling me to stand. Why should I take a new streetcar if I have to stand because the TTC does not want to place enough seats on their streetcars. This is potentially going to go against the new cars – but as they are not in operation yet, I will make my final decision once I see the cars in operation – but certainly based on the pictures above, the TTC could have placed a couple more seats in at certain points if they wanted to.

    Like

  18. It appears as though the prototype’s trolleypole wasn’t engaged during the media conference (although it’s not very clear in your photograph). Do the new streetcars have a battery onboard to keep its lights on?

    Steve: I believe that the car was running on an auxiliary power feed.

    Like

  19. While this streetcar certainly looks attractive and modern, it is somewhat disappointing that Bombardier still went with the conventional Flexity Outlook model based on the classical “two-rooms and a bath” scheme with five sections and three (semi)-fixed bogies. The only reason such trams have succeeded in some European venues is because the track was built from the start (or in some cases, modified) with very generous curvatures. This is not the case in Toronto. One need not go any further than Melbourne – another “legacy” system, similar in many respects to ours – to see how inferior such designs are when running on traditional layouts.

    Any idea by how much the bogies can actually pivot? Given the very tight curve radii on the TTC’s system, it would be interesting to see how these cars will negotiate curves around the city and if there will be any visible spike in track wear once they hit the streets in consistent numbers.

    Although this is a moot discussion now, I wish we had gotten a truly state of the art streetcar with pivoting bogies, such as the fully low-floor Skoda 15T tram the Alstom Citadis X04. Or for that matter, a Bombardier Flexity Classic with conventional wheel-set bogies, even if it is not 100% low floor.

    Steve: The wheels can pivot, but not much, relative to the carbodies. As for other cars, Skoda was not allowed to bid, Alstom chose not to bid, and the TTC which had originally looked at the Minneapolis Bombardier car, decided instead to go for 100% low floor in what was at least partly a political, not a technical, decision. Ontario is very much Bombardier country, and that plus the peculiarities of the Toronto system made it less of an open bid than it might have been. That said, the bid from Siemens was 50% higher than Bombardier’s.

    Like

  20. Calvin said

    “Ah, no. The test is not if the streetcar has stopped, otherwise it would be an infraction each time a vehicle passes a streetcar that is not moving.”

    The discussion was about when passengers are getting on and off streetcars. Obviously if there’s no one planning to get off or on the streetcar, there would be no infraction.

    Let me rephrase what I said then for those who choose to be pedantic.

    The test is whether the streetcar has stopped for passengers to get on/off at a location where there isn’t a safety island, not whether the doors are open for passengers to get on/off at a location where there isn’t a safety island.

    Calvin said

    “Since it is rather difficult for passengers to get on or off a streetcar when the doors are closed, the doors being open are a good practical test.”

    It’s a lousy test. It’s highly dangerous to pass a streetcar just as it’s arrived at a stop, before it’s opened it’s doors. The door can open and someone can step out before the vehicle has stopped. And a pedestrian might err and step off the curb in front of a moving vehicle, as they would expect that the car would stop. Trying to turn it into a question of whether the doors are open, rather than whether the streetcar has stopped for passengers to get on/off at a location where there isn’t a safety island puts people’s lives in danger.

    Like

  21. I predict these new streetcars will be a disaster. Not only are they many months behind schedule the main order is a long way off. These are a catalog item in use in many other cities. Some modifications for TTC as regards tight radius curves etc. Nevertheless they should be ready to roll much sooner.

    Let us hope the three cars work out in trials and that meaningful attention is paid to customer reaction to such things as facing quad seats that few will appreciate.

    Why is it everything the TTC gets new is worse than what they already have? The present streetcars were obsolete the day they hit the streets. The steep and high entrance steps are far worse than the then existing PCC cars as was the electrical system. I recall when they first went into service the rough/jerky accelerator and apparent lack of training in their proper use. It took a long time to work that out if ever. Lack of opening windows in a non-air conditioned car was just plain stupid.

    These new cars are another step backwards. Their extreme length (double that of the present cars) will cause traffic problems but worse will result in inferior service since we just know the TTC will cut service by dispatching fewer cars.

    We should go back to PCC trains!

    Like

  22. I noticed that the trolley pole rope is tied to a fixed eyelet at the bumper level. Does it really not have a retriever spool? Does this mean the pole is only meant for carhouse moves where there are no major differences in wire height and therefore all street testing will require the pantograph?

    Steve: Interesting. I will ask about this.

    Like

  23. Assuming the spare factor in the streetcar fleet rollout plan is correct, the new streetcars would mean a total reduction of four fewer vehicles running on the system. This is almost a 1:1 replacement ratio.

    I really don’t understand what the concern is with the impact on service frequency.

    Steve: Look at page two of the table you linked. It is not a 1:1 replacement and on some routes there is quite a drop in total vehicles assigned — Dundas goes from 19 to 12, St. Clair from 25 to 16. What we don’t see here is the effect on off-peak service which is already ragged on many lines.

    As for the planned total cars in service, it is 157 LFLRVs, versus 165 CLRVs and 38 ALRVs. From a fleet size perspective, we would have 204 new cars replace an existing fleet of 247 of which 52 are ALRVs. None of these are 1:1 ratios.

    You need new batteries in your calculator.

    Like

  24. nfitz wrote,

    The discussion was about when passengers are getting on and off streetcars.

    Precisely, which is why I was pointing out some of the ambiguities of the current law.

    Let me repeat what my whole point was, for those who appear to have missed it in all the minutiae:

    I believe that we need to have our Highway Traffic Act updated to disallow any passing of streetcars when they display flashing lights.

    Like

  25. Steve wrote:

    “Look at page two of the table you linked. It is not a 1:1 replacement and on some routes there is quite a drop in total vehicles assigned — Dundas goes from 19 to 12, St. Clair from 25 to 16. What we don’t see here is the effect on off-peak service which is already ragged on many lines.”

    It’s not just off-peak service, it’s peak service too. Both are going to be affected, and peak service (i.e. rush hour) is a lot longer than in the past. I do fear a huge decrease in service along the entire streetcar system. I said it before, and I’ll say it again, the cars should have been shorter and more cars ordered. That way service levels might have been maintained or at least not [altered] to the same degree.

    Like

  26. The calculations of replacement ratios leave me very sad. The arrival of new vehicles looks like a situation where a group of people try to push a square peg into a circle, where passengers are talked about but almost immediately forgotten.

    George Webster said to Feds that streetcars in T.O. carry daily 300K passengers. Is that number accepted by TTC management and TTC commission? Is that number surprising, politically (in)correct or does it belong into some sort of secret envelope, which is too hot to handle?

    Convenience of passengers (that is their decision to use the streetcar plus their time spent waiting for its arrival) has been left out. Gradual increase of people who live in old TO has been left out. My conclusion is that politicians have prepared for general public nice and tidy political/capacity trap which will have to be resolved again post-2020 — that is where to get additional space for new carhouses, where to get more electricity for the system, how to beat the famous gridlock and how to educate and retain more drivers.

    Steve: The most recently published counts for daily ridership by route for 2011 are:

    Bathurst                  17,600Carlton                   40,900Downtowner & Kingston Rd.  7,800Dundas                    31,900King & Lake Shore         57,300Queen                     43,500Spadina & Harbourfront    55,400St. Clair                 32,400Total                    286,800
    
    

    Like

  27. TorontoStreetcars wrote:

    based on the pictures above, the TTC could have placed a couple more seats in at certain points if they wanted to.

    But they did not want to.

    I haven’t been able to see the new car, but I did check out the mock-up and there seems to be little difference, so my comments are based on the mockup.

    The aisle seemed to be narrower than the one on the current cars, although that may be in part because the seat backs are taller and the side of the seats is solid. This will make the aisle effectively narrower, as buggies’ wheels will not be able to slide under the seat, and because the high solid ‘wall’ of the back-to back seats will make it more difficult to squeeze by.

    There are two relatively large ’empty’ areas, but these have been created with specific purposes. One is for wheelchairs and large buggies that need the ramp to get on and off, the other is for bicycles (since the cars won’t have bike racks like the buses) and other large items that don’t require the ramp.

    Having the buggies in these areas will make it easier to get to empty seats, so they will probably effectively increase the available seating.

    Like

  28. I’m looking at the pictures of the interior and I see that the stanchions by the doors bend toward the walls and away from the aisle as they go up, making them harder to reach at shoulder height for people standing in the aisle. Placing the stanchions farther out of reach as you go up has not worked out well on the Toronto Rocket subway cars hasn’t worked out well for people stuck in the aisle near the doors compared to all of the older cars where they were straight vertical bars that didn’t become more difficult to reach with height, so I’m disappointed that this design issue has been repeated with the new streetcars. I’m even more disappointed that obviously the TTC didn’t learn and avoid some of the known pitfalls of the Toronto Rockets. It makes me wonder what other problems have been repeated on the new streetcars that aren’t visible in the pictures but are still waiting to be discovered.

    Like

  29. My blunder on the fleet count. I’m afraid I don’t understand what the “Procurements” and “contingencies” row mean, and what the difference is from the “LFLRV total” and “spares” rows.

    If decrease in service frequency is a big concern, why didn’t the commissioners opt for a larger number of streetcars? Also, the length of these streetcars does not preclude us from purchasing more in the future.

    Steve: I will walk through the buildup of the rows of the tables:

    LFLRV Total: This is the running total of LFLRVs in service as per the plan. For 2014, 33 is the sum of the cars assigned to routes 510, 511, 509 and 505. In following years, this is the sum of vehicles added plus the previous year’s total to give a running count of total requirement for service. Note that this hits 157 in 2018 at the end of the rollout. (There is some provision for increased service on a few lines in the out years, but by 2018 everything has been converted to LFLRV operation in the plan.

    Spares at 20%: The value is 20% of the row above, and represents the number of vehicles required in addition to the scheduled service for ongoing maintenance and, in the short term, warranty repairs and retrofits of design changes. This percentage should be lower once the fleet is established, but the TTC is being conservative until they see how the cars actually perform.

    Total required: The schedule service plus the spares.

    Procurements: Vehicles purchased in each year. Three are shown for this year – the prototypes 4400 to 4402.

    Available: The running total of the procurements. The total LFLRVs delivered by the end of each year.

    Contingency: The difference between total requirements and the actual fleet. If, for example, the TTC has an unforeseen need for more service than the fleet plan calls for, this is how many cars are available. Note that this is a small number right out to the end of the plan. One thing not shown here is the effect of any Waterfront Toronto projects which have money in their respective budgets for additional cars that would be added to the end of the order. One that will come into operation in the timeframe we are looking at is Cherry Street. It won’t require many cars, and will likely operate as a service overlaid on the King car. When it starts operation in spring 2016, there will still be spare CLRVs to tide the TTC over as rush hour extras if push comes to shove, or by then the TTC may be able to shave the spare ratio a bit.

    The sections below for CLRVs and ALRVs work the same way in reverse with retirements gradually depleting the fleet. A huge issue for service quality will be that if an LFLRV is not available, it should not be replaced by only one CLRV as this car would be hopelessly overloaded (it’s bad enough now when CLRVs substitute for ALRVs. It will probably take a very big stick to beat this concept into TTC management who seem to regard one streetcar as more or less the same as another for service purposes.

    Like

  30. @Deborah Brown

    I remember Skoda creating a page dedicated to Toronto’s future streetcars, although it looks to me that the model they were proposing would not have bogies that could pivot as much as the 15T. Either that, or the bogies could pivot but the vehicle wouldn’t be 100% low floor.

    If the TTC realises a need to have pivoting bogies, I’m sure that technology will get its chance.

    Like

  31. As another commenter pointed out, the fleet number at the front should be white-on-red like the current streetcars and not the invisible black-on-red.

    Here’s an article from the Star that was put out last year that has a diagram of the internal layout. That should make it easier to visualize I hope.

    Like

  32. The comment about the dropping of the naming contest and another referring to the last successful naming contest – The Toronto Rocket – made me think maybe we should unofficially adopt the name Toronto Rockettes.

    Like

  33. Push button opening of the doors, both inside and out, is going to cause a lot of annoyance at first, in my estimation. It’s standard in Europe, and I still find it disconcerting, having become so accustomed to Toronto’s treadles and automatic (or operator-instigated) door opening.

    Like

  34. Could it have been motorists’ complaints that influenced the decision not to replace the current fleet on a 1:1 basis?

    Steve: No. Originally, the TTC was going to get rid of all of the ALRVs and half of the CLRVs. Half of the CLRVs would go through a major overhaul including replacement of their aged electronics. This was when they were looking at cars with a mixed low/high floor configuration about the same length as an ALRV. After the decision to go for longer, entirely low-floor cars, the need to keep the CLRVs was eliminated. The only part motorists play in this is that on very close headways, streetcars tend to take over the road, but also bunch badly because of interaction with the cycle time of traffic signals.

    Considering that new fleet is equivalent to about 400 CLRVs on a capacity basis, and it is replacing a fleet of 195 CLRVs and 52 ALRVs, there is a substantial increase in fleet capacity. Remember that the order was placed at a time when motorists’ concerns were not first priority in the Mayor’s office.

    Like

  35. I’m concerned about the push button doors from an accessibility standpoint. Are blind and vision impaired passengers expected to just feel around for these little buttons?

    Steve: The short answer, probably, is “yes” although it is not uncommon for such riders to get assistance from other passengers. This will be an issue at lightly used stops and times of day when a helping hand may be harder to come by.

    Like

  36. Steve wrote:

    “After the decision to go for longer, entirely low-floor cars, the need to keep the CLRVs was eliminated. “

    In the opinion of someone at the TTC who wanted reduced service – which is exactly what is going to happen. Why couldn’t the TTC see this? Without a 1:1 ratio there WILL be less service and that is a given. I don’t care about capacity be the same, or whatever, there will be a longer wait between streetcars.

    Like

  37. @Torontostreetcars

    The problem is NOT the length of the new streetcars, but the low number of vehicles purchased. Long streetcars are a good thing, but the small order is an unfortunate coincidence and misconception among those who thought that the streetcar system faces solely a volume-capacity problem, rather than a service reliability problem.

    Like

  38. Transity Cyclist wrote:

    “The problem is NOT the length of the new streetcars, but the low number of vehicles purchased. Long streetcars are a good thing, but the small order is an unfortunate coincidence and misconception among those who thought that the streetcar system faces solely a volume-capacity problem, rather than a service reliability problem.”

    My point exactly – it is a mistake. While I concur it is better to go all low-floor rather than a combined fleet, the TTC needs more streetcars to meet demand and increase service in the future. This won’t be happening now. The longer waits will simply drive people away from the TTC (excuse the pun.)

    Like

  39. Regarding the number of Flexitys ordered and maintaining service levels, does the Flexity Outlook design allow for the creation of a “stubby” Flexity (3 sections rather than all five) if the city wanted to order some in the future to add service flexibility?

    Steve: Yes, there is a 20m version of the Flexity Freedom, the version now being marketed in the USA. Like its 30m cousin, it would have to be adapted to Toronto’s track geometry. This option was likely not available when the TTC placed its order — the Flexity 2 had not even been announced at that time, although some of its features were, I understand, incorporated in the Toronto car.

    Like

Comments are closed.