Updated September 5, 2014 at 3:00 pm:The Nextbus site now displays wheelchair symbols on route tags for the Flexities running on the 510 Spadina line.
Updated September 2, 2014 at 12:45 pm: Thanks to Darwin O’Connor for the URL that takes us to a page on his website showing where the new cars are located in real time.
Original article from August 31, 2014:
August 31, 2014 marked the reopening of the 511 (oops!) 510 Spadina streetcar between Bloor and Queens Quay, and the introduction of the first two of Toronto’s new fleet of Bombardier Flexity streetcars.
Regular service had been operating since 5:00 am, but the official ceremony took place at Spadina Station at 10:00 with the usual speechifying by sundry officials and politicians. Particularly gratifying were remarks by TTC CEO Andy Byford praising the people who had designed and built the new cars. Politicians show up for the ribbon cutting, but it’s the folks who have spent years to bring us these new cars who did the real work.
The countdown begins: After the last regular service car (for a while anyhow) ran through the loop, workers mounted a banner showing a PCC southbound on Broadview at Riverdale Park.
With suitably dramatic music, car 4403 breaks through the banner and enters Spadina Station.
I rode the first round trip to Queens Quay and back, a rather leisurely affair complete with “media opportunities” (a.k.a. “photo stops”). When we returned, the platform was awash with folks watching the new cars, lining up to have a ride in one, and, amazingly enough, a bunch of passengers who just wanted to go somewhere on Spadina.
This is a busy route on Sunday morning with a 2’00” headway (at least on paper).
Below, car 4400 (the first of three prototypes, but now retrofitted with “production” updates) unloads at the platform.
Car 4403 northbound at Nassau followed by PCC 4549 that was out on a charter timed to greet the new cars.
For the purists, car 4549 by itself. The destination “Lansdowne Harbord” is valid for the car and location. It’s good to see the PCC with proper roll signs again after years with a fixed destination for 509 Harbourfront.
Northbound at Nassau Street showing the warning light strips on doors for motorists.
Car 4400 northbound at St. Andrew Street which, just to confuse those familiar with subway stations on University, is north of Dundas Street, not King.
Car 4403 southbound at Richmond Street.
Car 4403 southbound at King. The new cars tended to run in fairly large gaps because so many riders would wait for one to show up, and they would spend an inordinate amount of time at each stop.
Car 4400 south of King. The overhead wiring partly visible here is compatible with pantograph and trolley pole. Two of Toronto’s three grand unions have been refitted with this type of overhead (the other is at Spadina & Queen). Much work remains to make the rest of the system pantograph compliant (notably at Roncesvalles Carhouse and its complex nearby intersection), and the new cars will operate with poles until the territory they will normally use has been completely converted.
Car 4400 northbound from the Bremner Boulevard stop. Although not visible in this photo, the traffic at this time was chaotic thanks to a baseball game at the nearby stadium, and the complete absence of any traffic cops to ensure motorists did not block busy intersections. Spadina streetcars spent an inordinate amount of time at the south end of the line thanks to traffic delays across their supposed “right-of-way”.
Car 4400 northbound from Front Street.
The Spadina route now uses Proof of Payment fare collection. Ticket machines are provided onboard for users of tokens, cash and tickets. To pay by token or cash, a rider buys a fare from the vending machine on the right. To use a ticket (seniors, students, children), they use the ticket canceller on the left. Either way, the rider gets a fare receipt.
Fare machines are also installed on platforms at major stops so that riders can conduct the transaction while awaiting a car.
An interesting side-effect of the move to POP is that riders transferring from the subway who previously simply stepped onto a waiting streetcar must now be sure to have a fare receipt (typically a transfer) in case they are inspected enroute on Spadina.
The provincial Presto system will be added to the mix in November, although the proposed method is rather cumbersome with first a Presto validation against a standard Presto reader, following by a tap onto a TTC fare machine to get a fare receipt that can be used as a transfer to non-Presto routes.
This is the vestibule at the third set of doors to the area intended for cyclists. Each vestibule includes blue-coloured seats indicating preferred access for those with mobility problems.
The wheelchair ramp in its fully-extended position as it would be used to load from the roadway rather than at a platform.
A wheelchair user boards 4400 at Spadina Station using the ramp which is extended in its platform height position, the mode that will be used at all stops on 510 Spadina.
Steve Munro 
I really do enjoy discussions about vehicle dynamics, the possible defects in the new design, alternative vehicle designs, etc. I learn a lot from these discussions, so keep them coming I say.
One question I have is although the “fixed”-truck design we’re getting now is not ideal for curves (Kristian, I think you pointed to a study about increased wear and some spike in forces with these designs), would it really translate to having to replace our curved tracks more often, given the replacement cycle for streetcar tracks is 30 years anyways? I.e. Is track wear at curves a critical item that causes this track to be replaced on this cycle, or will something else fail that will require replacement anyways?
Although the new streetcars may need to take curves slower, will this necessarily translate to increased fleet requirements or lower operating/round-trip speed?
A third way to pose my question is: With these new streetcars and increased wear on curves, will this cause the replacement cycle to shorten?
Steve: Curves are replaced more often than every 30 years now at locations with heavy traffic. As for slower operation, the TTC has so many slow orders, many of which are a direct result of either excessive caution or of a failure to keep parts of their infrastructure in good shape, that not speeding into curves is the least of our worries.
The situation will vary with location, and one must remember that most curves are parts of intersections where streetcars are not exactly flying anyhow.
LikeLike
The thing is, remember that the “standard” Flexity is designed to take curves that are broader than those found on some parts of Toronto’s legacy network and the 4400’s had to be customized as a result. So it should be no surprise that there might be some unique quirks with the Flexitys that show up only in Toronto.
Steve: There will also be variations across the network depending on how tight the curve might be. Spadina Circle, for example, is quite different from the curves on Lake Shore West.
LikeLike
@ Steve
Thanks for the link. Sorry, I should I have made myself clear, I never thought it was a practical thing to do in Toronto. I was just curious as to what the theoretical capacity of such a system would be. I could be mistaken here, but I am under the impression that it’s not merely 2x the capacity of a 2-lane LRT. We hear about multiple lane BRT systems in places such as Brazil, are there any examples of multiple lane LRTs?
Steve: The Green Line in Boston for starters, but the four-track section is short and underground, and is an historical artifact of a now obsolete route structure. LRT almost by definition is not intended to require the scale of infrastructure that four-track operation implies.
LikeLike
There are four streetcar tracks on Market Street on San Fransisco. Two on the surface for the historic F line and two underground for the regular LRT system. Below that are two tracks for the BART which is a cross between a subway and GO.
Before the tunnels where built there where four tracks on the surface of Market street, hence “the roar of the four”. This was from where there where two streetcar companies surving San Fransisco.
Of course, Market street is about as wide as Spadina.
Steve points out streetcars used to carry a lot more people then they do, now. However they where sharing the road with about half as many cars as there are now.
Steve: We have to be careful with “half as many cars” statements because this must be specific to the street in question, not to the fact that there are thousands of cars in what used to be farmland.
LikeLike
In some busy central stations in European systems, where multiple lines converge on a shared line station through the core, you may find four tracks just in the station area and then reverting to two tracks beyond the platforms. Gothenburg, Sweden, quite an old-but-well-modernized system, has an excellent example of this at its Centralstationen stop in the core by the intercity train station. For those that like really complex special trackwork, check out the layout just south of this stop, it’s pretty wild.
Gothenburg is a little less than half the size of Toronto by population, for reference, and there is no subway system there, although suburban parts of the streetcar system are often fully grade separated apart from pedestrian crossings at stops.
Steve: This is an example of the need for extra track and platform space at a busy terminal, as opposed to multiple tracks for higher line capacity. Stations are often a forgotten part of capacity calculations and this affects not just streetcars and LRT, but also BRT and subway schemes as we have discussed here before.
LikeLike
Our Flexities use the standard (and somewhat dated) “two-rooms-and-a-bath” design, which has been the norm for 100% low-floor trams/streetcars since the mid ’90s. To compensate for the unusually tight geometry of some curves, the suspended sections on our model are by necessity, shorter than on the more typical Flexity Outlooks. This is why in Europe, the suspended sections on most 100% low-floor trams (not just Bombardier) built using the same two-rooms-and-a-bath design are usually long enough to normally accommodate two double doors per section, compared to our car that has one double door per suspended section.
Curiously enough, even the Metrolinx cars, which are not designed for the tight track geometry of the downtown system, seem to use the same design, with only one double door per suspended section. I don’t understand why they did not choose the more common Flexity design, which for a ~30 m, double-ended car would give a total of six doors per side (of which four double doors), improving passenger flow throughout the cars.
Some of the more recent designs which are more technologically advanced, because they use pivoting trucks which minimize the sharp elastic oscillations unavoidable with earlier models, are the Skoda 15T (running in Prague and Riga), the Pesa Twist (running in Moscow and a couple of Polish cities) or the newer Bombardier Class E trams for Melbourne, Australia.
In terms of track wear, what really matters is the unsprung mass (that is, the mass not supported by a resilient suspension), which on our Flexities is actually 10% lower than on the ALRVs, despite the Flexities being longer and heavier, so premature track wear by the new cars is not that big a concern.
LikeLike
As I was organizing links to some photos I took on opening day, I noticed something I seem to have been too distracted to notice on the 31. I waited at King and Spadina, and my photos indicate that, at that intersection at least, the southbound platform was moved from the SW corner of the intersection to the NW corner — facing the northbound platform.
Hmmm. Won’t this make synchronizing the traffic lights to always give the streetcars the right of way less useful?
Here are some of my other photos:
one two fare robot
Steve: You really have been asleep since 1997 when the line opened. The southbound platform at King has always been a nearside stop.
LikeLike
I’ve seen pictures of some models of new low floor vehicles, approximately the same length and number of modules as our new vehicles — but where instead of having a single door in the middle of the central sections, those central sections have doors at either end. So they had a total of 6 doors, not 4 doors.
Our new vehicles have four doors, where the CLRV had just two doors, and the ALRV had three doors. But, it is really just the same number of doors per length of vehicle. I have seen pictures of the Flexity Freedom vehicles, and they have the same door layout.
The rear doors of our old, high-floor buses, and the PCC, CLRV and ALRV streetcars, were all designed so two riders could dismount, in parallel, at the same time. The doors on the Flexity vehicles are only designed for one patron to enter or exit at a time.
If the Flexity Freedom vehicles travel twice as far between stops, presumably twice as many people will be wanting to enter and exit the vehicles at each stop.
It is only in the last month or so that I have seen recognition that 250 riders per vehicle is a “crush” loading, rarely to be seen in practice. That is kind of a relief it would have two standees for every seated patron.
Still, I think I would sacrifice half a dozen seats, if it meant the vehicles had another pair of doors. Given that the Flexity outlooks are already in service I imagine it would cost half a billion dollars to equip them with doors wide enough for two patrons to use side by side, or to add more doors. Would it be too late to change the design of the Flexity Freedom vehicles?
Steve: See the preceding comment by Timor Urakov.
LikeLike
I rode from King and Spadina to Spadina Station, on the 31st, arriving around 1 pm. There were long line ups, but more than half or more of those people were waiting patiently to ride one of the new vehicles.
I wonder how many of the riders on the 31st had come just to ride the new vehicles on their first day in service. If there were till hundreds of people waiting three hours after the first trip, could the excitement have triggered thousands of tourists?
LikeLike
There is something I started noticing about the CLRVs and ALRVs during the last year or two. Rust. It may be that I only started to notice it now since I knew replacements are on the way. Or it may be that the TTC has decided that it rust in non-essential places can be overlooked on vehicles that will only be required to stay operational for a few more years.
The two vehicles in this photo shows bits of rust.
Are the new vehicles clad in steel — not aluminum, not stainless steel, not titanium? If so, how long before they too will start to rust?
Steve: The legend on your photo is highly misleading and, coupled with your earlier misinformed comment about King/Spadina, suggests that your powers of observation are a tad off. Yes there is rust on the CLRV/ALRV fleet, and it has been a problem for years.
LikeLike
I was really disappointed to learn when I looked into the Skoda 15T that it was not capable of a sufficient curve radius for Toronto. It’s a really classy-looking car, particularly in the red/silver scheme for Prague which is very reminiscent of the early Toronto scheme proposed. It also features rather novel engineering with the front truck mounted right under the nose and cab to completely eliminate the overhanging mass-sway issue. Further, it doesn’t suffer from the chaotic and wasteful five-section design over similar length. I suspect it could have easily been modified for our tight turns. It certainly virtually eliminated overhang clearance in turns.
LikeLike
Steve, with your indulgence, I will thank Kristian for mentioning the Skoda 15T vehicles.
I did a google image search on “Skoda 15T interior”. I can see that the trucks are shared between adjacent modules. Images like this one seem to show that this makes the passage through the articulated joint quite narrow.
Six doors is an extremely attractive feature
This youtube video shows one of the vehicles making several tight turns. Are they as close to as tight as the turns a TTC vehicle might have to navigate? Well, didn’t someone say “close only counts in horseshoes.”
Kristian suggests the Skoda vehicles might have been easily adapted to cope with TTC curves. Well the Skoda modules three modules seem to be about as long as the two modules on an ALRV. But Skoda vehicles have their wheels at the modules’ extreme ends and the ALRV modules had the wheels closer to the vehicle’s middle.
The TTC paints safety circles showing the very wide safety exclusion zone of turning vehicles. Wouldn’t a vehicle the same effective length of a TTC vehicle, but with its wheels even farther apart, have to have the inner edge of its exclusion zone for safe turning be even smaller than that of the old PCC, CLRV and ALRV?
I would like to suggest to Kristian that for Skoda vehicles to safely navigate TTC curves the modules would have to be shortened or redesigned, so the distance between its wheels were no more than the distance between the wheels on TTC vehicles.
Note: I tried submitting a version of this reply with four relevant URL links in it. A robot told me it was rejected because the robot thought it was spam. So I took out the URL links, and I am trying again.
Steve: It is likely that at least one of your URLs contains a word or phrase that triggers my spam filter.
LikeLike
It might have been the way it was being driven, but the acceleration (Not the braking) of the Flexity feels to me like the PCC. It gave me the feeling of a racehorse taking off from the gate. It will be interesting to see how they perform on a long right of way. Also (Probably because of smaller wheels) they are rougher on the specialwork at crossings.
The wheelchair ramp may be a long term problem if it has to be let out for each person with a stroller.
Steve: People with strollers should learn how to get on and off without the ramp. It was not intended for that type of service.
LikeLike
The LFLRV will exhibit more of that ‘sports car feel’ of acceleration performance because there are motors on every truck driving every axle, unlike on the sluggish ALRVs. They may actually end up behaving better than the Metrolinx cars because those were planned to have a non-powered centre-truck. I am most delighted with another fact of the drive system though – that virtually-silent AC propulsion is finally a reality. Contrast this with the first-gen Siemens Combino which literally ‘screamed’ during acceleration and braking.
In response to Geo Swan’s observations, the exclusion zone for the Skoda would be more a product of a revised design. (The base 15T model definitely can’t make a sharp-enough turn for Toronto.) Keep in mind however that the current exclusion zone is based off the CLRV (rather than the ALRV) because that has the single longest body section. I was more interested in lack of nose/tail-swing on the 15T. The narrow path through the articulations is a pretty minor issue considering that in a vehicle with more space and more doors per section the need for passengers to move between sections is significantly reduced. Cabin space is gained through the reduced number of articulations. Both are three-truck designs – which would you rather have all things considered, especially where maintenance is concerned?
LikeLike
Looking through images, I noticed a few differences between ALRV 4900 and the regular ALRV’s, including:
– No white box on top near the front for the ventillation air intake,
– A mesh in the back, like the CLRV’s,
– The bogies resembling more like those of the CLRV’s.
In fact, did ALRV 4900 sound more like a CLRV? By sound, I mean the hum the vehicles make, the acceleration noise, etc. Would you know where I can find footage with sound of ALRV 4900?
Steve: Not sure what this has to do with Flexities on Spadina. The 4900 was a completely different car, basically two CLRVs spliced together, whereas the ALRVs were a new design. They looked and sounded like CLRVs because they were CLRVs.
LikeLike
Yes, sorry. I wasn’t sure how far back I had to go into your archives to post this question so I figured I could get away with posting a question about a new vehicle type being introduced under this post.
LikeLike
Geo Swan: The minimum curve radius of the Prague system is 18 m (street running) and 15 m (inside carhouses). Clearly, the Skoda 15T which was specifically designed for Prague will not fit on our system. A three-section Skoda 15T is actually 31.5 m long, so about one and a half metres longer than our Flexities (the four-section vehicles made for Riga are 41 m long!). Having said that, a direct comparison of vehicle dynamics between the Skoda 15T and the ALRVs is impossible because the designs are totally different.
The beauty of the Skoda 15T is that, unlike most other 100% low-floor models, it has (almost) fully rotating trucks with off-centre bearings under the first and last segment and a standard, Jacobs truck under each articulation point. To put things in perspective, pivoting on the Skoda 15T bogie is limited to about 25 degrees compared to almost about 40 degrees on our conventional CLRV/ALRV fleet (but still a hell of a lot better than about 3-4 degrees which is the most our Flexities are capable of). No matter how Bombardier sugar-coats it, not having (freely) rotating bogies is a major compromise. Instead of the bogie rotating, the entire vehicle module must be turned. Damping systems are needed to straighten the vehicle body and absorb shocks from these movements. This inevitably changes running characteristics for the worse.
Since the bogies on the 15T are rotating, they need to be as small as possible to save space. That’s why Skoda 15T uses AC synchronous motors (one for each wheel, so 16 motors in total on the three-section version), unlike the vast majority of low-floor trams (including our Flexities) which use AC asynchronous motors.
A big advantage is that the synchronous AC motors are lighter than the asynchronous (induction) motors and thus they decrease the force on the track. This is important since the motor on the bogie is a unsprung weight. On the Skoda 15T, the wheels are driven individually by a synchronous motor through a short axle between the motor and the wheel, which saves additional weight and space by avoiding a gear box.
The main disadvantage of the synchronous motors is that they are trickier to use in in traction vehicles since the voltage in the overhead line fluctuates. As a result, the electronics for the drive train are more complex and expensive.
In any event, there was a design of a 100% low-floor streetcar jointly proposed by Skoda and another Czech tram manufacturer (Inekon Ostrava). More info about it, including technical drawings.
However, they were not allowed to take part in the bidding process. I guess the big manufacturers have their market turfs and nobody is allowed inside their square.
LikeLike
Curious to know, do the Skoda 15T use solid axles?
LikeLike
Is it that big of a deal if the car bodies sway while moving? Both halves of the ALRV’s noticeably sway up/down and left/right when the vehicle is moving at any decent speed. Will this give the Flexities shorter lifespans like the ALRV’s?
If my 20 year old memory serves me right I recall some of the old PCC’s having a hitch when accelerating but I suppose this isn’t what you’re talking about.
LikeLike
Thank-you to Timur for expanding on what I was trying to explain. The Flexity may have an independent bogie of sorts but the key thing you note is the dramatic reduction in degrees of rotation available relative to the carbody and all the unintended side-effects that result from the required dynamics dampening systems. It’s okay in a straight line but curves immediately amplify the design weaknesses. I’m thankful we twisted Bombardier’s arm enough to at least get solid axles so we weren’t plagued with derailments.
To L. Wall, what we’re talking about isn’t gentle sway – it’s the snapping and cyclical shaking at a much quicker rate that is a ‘feature’ of the new design, mostly at the nose of the car in the front overhang. This is sure to generate premature wear to components and body structure as has already been witnessed in slightly earlier designs in Europe and Australia. On the upside for the riders, the operator gets the worst of it.
Just to be completely clear, this movement is a flat swivel of the carbody left and right over the truck pivot point. Imagine planting your palm centred over the spindle of a record player and then, like a DJ scratching, using your other hand to quickly and repetitively jerk the platter back and forth. Your skin will stretch like an elastic against the platter’s surface for a split second and then your hand gets dragged along and violently snaps back each time you reverse direction repeatedly. Now imagine in your mind scaling up the mass, elasticity and forces involved to the size of the LRV. The platter is simulating the truck hitting a turn and your hand is the body section rotating over it. Your skin stretching is emulating the elastic coupling of the body section to the truck. (A ‘fleshier’ palm works best in this demonstration – if your skin isn’t elastic enough at least visualizing this experiment should get the point across.)
LikeLike
Hey, won’t be long before the couple of nearly complete cars find their way onto Spadina. Double the number of flexities in operation.
Tentative deal at Bombardier [Star]
In a couple of months should be enough so that they are 1/2 the operating fleet on Spadina. Should start to see the impact of them then.
LikeLike
Since AC motors can theoretically get up to 40% tractive effort versus 20 to 25% from DC motors, they can accelerate at their set maximum, about 1.1 m/s^2 for a lot longer. This is one reason why most AC motored EMUs only power every second car. It also saves on weight and maintenance requirements. The TTC’s LFLRVs probably could have gotten away without powering the centre truck and still pushed a dead car up Bathurst street but it is better to be safe than sorry. Besides, the acceleration is probably a good selling point if it can ever be put to use.
The one and only one data sheet I found on Bombardier’s Movia trains, which the TRs are, says they only power every second car. I have hear reports that they power four cars but then what is the difference between a B car and a C car if it is not the lack of motors? The cab cars are unpowered according to what I have read. An yes, silence is golden.
LikeLike
That could be the switching from the traction motors on each truck being wired in series to being wired in parallel. If I recall correctly the drum controller would go back to the beginning and start to wind up again. This could cause a “hitch” in the smoothness.
LikeLike
Was there more excitement for the new LFLRV’s then there was for the then-new CLRV’s back then? After all, I don’t think the CLRV’s had drastic changes over the PCC’s that passengers would appreciate. Both were high-floor, roughly the same size, used the same fare collection system, etc. To the average customer, just the look changed.
LikeLike
Last Sunday both LFLRVs were removed from service for most of the day. The ROW was found to be littered with bolts, and these were suspected to be from them. Turned out that the bolts were for holding the LFLRV body to the trucks. This would only be dangerous if it derailed or needed to be lifted (eg TFS) but still needed to be addressed quickly. Bombardier found a solution and the cars later returned to service.
The cause was found to be the constant rocking of the streetcar into switch curves. If the turn isn’t feathered properly it can be fairly harsh which adds strain. Teething pains, I’m sure there will be more.
LikeLike
Did the bolt issue show up in the prototypes?
Steve: Obviously not, or it would have been caught sooner. This begs the question of what is the difference between the type of operation these cars went through during testing vs operation under normal conditions on Spadina.
LikeLike
This issue with the bolts is very disturbing. I’m hardly surprised though given what I’ve read about the design history of this vehicle format and the limitations of its dynamics.
LikeLike
How much testing time was spent with enough mass aboard to simulate a full passenger load?
Steve: Not just a full load, but a full load making lots of turns.
LikeLike
On an unrelated note, a Development Proposal sign has popped up at Artscape Wychwood Barns. Finally, the area will receive a facelift and our property values will increase.
LikeLike
Mikey: Yes, the Skoda 15T uses solid axles.
Robert: On the TR trains, the first and last TRUCKS of the set are unpowered. In total, 20 axles are powered, for a total continuous rating of 20 X 155 KW = 3100 KW. This compares with a continuous power rating of 24 x 104.2 KW = 2500 KW on a six-car T1 trainset. The main difference between the “B” and the “C” cars on the TRs is that the B cars are equipped with air compressors, but the C cars aren’t.
LikeLike
Thanks Tim;
It has not been easy to find out this information. The one brochure that I found said that they (Movia trains) could be built is 4, 5, 6, etc. car sets. It stated that the cab cars were unpowered and some of the inner cars powered as long as half the cars or one extra for odd numbered sets had motors.
With AC motors mainly most sets are being built with only half of the axles powered. The TTC’s powering of 83% of the axles seems high compared to main outfits but perhaps they are scared of having to push one full train up one of the hills on Yonge Street with another train. Having 2500 kW of power seems to be higher than I remember on the H trains which I think had 4×100 hp motors per car for a total of 2400 hp or 1800 kW per train. How does the power to weight ratio for the TRs compare to the T1s and H series?
What is the power for the Flexities if you know it?
LikeLike
You’re welcome, Robert. The Movia is simply a platform, and technical specs of various vary from system to system. The most common Movia design is to have the end cars unpowered (acting as “driving trailers” essentially) and all of the middle cars powered, with one motor per axle, or four motors per car. Our TRs have more motors than usual for precisely the reason you mention. You are correct when stating that the motors on a 6-car T1 train have a higher power rating than those on a H1 train of equal length, but keep in mind that AC motors on the T1s (and TRs) can sustain a much higher tractive effort than the DC motors on the earlier Hawker models. Here are the specs for the various fleets (I have no info about the H1 and H2 series, as they were gone when I started, but their specs are probably in the same ballpark as those of the H4’s) :
H4 car: 26184 kg, power 4 X 86.5 KW = 346 KW DC (about 2080 KW DC per 6-car train)
H5 car: 30440 kg, power 4 X 94 KW = 376 KW DC (about 2260KW DC per 6-car train)
H6 car: 32660 kg, power 4 X 91.8 KW = 367 KW DC (or 2200 KW DC per 6-car train)
T1 car: 33095 kg, power 4 X 104.2 KW = 416.8 KW AC (or 2500 KW AC per 6-car train)
TR trainset: 205,000 kg per trainset, power 20 X 155 KW AC (or 3100 KW AC per trainset).
All weights above are tare weights. For the H and T1 series, the weights of the A and B cars within a married pair differ slightly. The ‘per-car’ weight above is the average between the A and B cars of a pair.
Back on topic, the Flexities are powered by six three-phase AC motors, each with a rating of 120 KW.
LikeLike
The one thing I have to admit that somewhat disappoints me is the lack of what about Scarborough complaints. I do believe that even a St Clair like LRT is something that should be strongly lusted after in Scarborough. South Scarborough could be greatly helped by such a Streetcar in closed ROW route running east from Kennedy, out beyond Morningside on Kingston Road. Does not need to be large, just a streetcar in its own right of way running along intercepting all the bus routes, running at a good frequency, and with its speed virtually immune to traffic.
LikeLike
I realise this is a total non-issue, but I just realised that if we had gone with another new streetcar like the Skoda 15T (where the bogies are placed right under the ends of the streetcar), the amount by which a trolleypole would swivel to the side about the streetcar body would be a lot less. Trolleypoles would stay near-centred even going through sharp turns.
LikeLike
It’s too bad about the Inekon. I like the interior layout even though it has fewer seats than the Flexity. It’s far too late now to do anything about it as I can’t see the TTC going with any sort of split vehicle fleet.
Was there ever any official reason given for ignoring Inekon’s proposal?
Steve: Nothing beyond vague implications that it was somehow non-compliant.
LikeLike
Having said that, I wonder about building another streetcar/light LRT network in the outer 416 eventually. While nobody is suggesting an LRT (or BRT) on Finch East or Steeles East, the current transit share is quite low. I wonder if we start to see something in Stouffville that actually had a reasonable headway, a good linking bus service/BRT in Markham to and across the business centre, whether it would start to make sense to be running light LRT/Streetcar, on more of these already substantial bus routes in Scarborough. If this was ever considered this would be a seperated order, operating in very different conditions, and could be notably different equipment. Improved bus service, the LRTs in SRT, Sheppard and Morningside, and good linking rail service all in place and operating, should increase the transit share and open further development.
Steve: In case you hadn’t noticed, Metrolinx is buying vehicles for any of the outlying systems, and they will be continuations of the Toronto order.
LikeLike
But these are for the already declared – LRT that already planned. I am suggesting the possibility of yet another layer of car, back in the TTC realm in the outer 416 after or rather in addition to Sheppard East, Finch West, Eglinton, hopefully Don Mills, and Scarborough. These would be for additional routes once these Metrolinx routes had been completed, and their impact seen. I do not have the impression they have committed to anything on Steeles, or Finch East.
Steve: Such an order (and the lines the cars would serve) are so far in the future that the whole question of a new model versus more of the same is only speculation today. As for concerns about “split fleets”, the TTC has been running multiple generations of subway cars concurrently for decades. This would hardly be a new situation.
LikeLike
Absolutely agreed, such an order would be different, and is unfortunately likely decades in the future. Long before then the TTC will have had to expand its fleet to serve the existing areas, and possibly (hopefully) a couple of adjoining routes. Such an outer set of routes presumes the success of proposed LRTs and considerable growth in transit use in these areas.
LikeLike
Steve, I was taking a closer look at some of the images I took on opening day. I found half a dozen images I took looking north, from Spadina and King that show a grey-haired man with a ponytail and beard who was also taking pictures of the new vehicles. I thought I may have accidentally captured your image. Here is one.
Steve: Yup, that’s me on the northbound island at Richmond.
LikeLike
I saw 4401 today, at King and Berkeley, with about a dozen uniformed TTC personnel aboard. Does this imply it has returned from Thunder Bay with its doors retrofitted to the new standard?
I’ve noticed that in September and October all news reports of the new vehicles seemed to feature either 4400 or 4403, the two vehicles available on 2014-08-31. Do you know whether any additional vehicles have entered the active fleet?
I read that Bombardier had promised to accelerate delivery of vehicles from one new vehicle every three weeks to three new vehicles per month, until they were back on schedule. If this promise were fulfilled they should have delivered six or seven new vehicles.
Steve: Now that 4404 has been delivered (today), I am going to follow up with the TTC on the status of other cars and deliveries. By the way, three vehicles per month was the original contract rate, not a “speed up”. They will never get back on schedule at that rate. No vehicles other than 4400 and 4403 are in the active fleet, and even 4400 will have to accumulate some acceptance mileage before it enters service.
LikeLike