[T3G]

The cosmetic parts of a vehicle are usually pretty trivial in the big picture - it's what's underneath that matters.

Furthermore, when a group of vehicles is considered part of the same family, it means the designs all had one point of origin, but then divulged as the vehicles were customized for various customers, rather than being designed from scratch.

 

[81-717]

The cosmetic parts of a vehicle are usually pretty trivial in the big picture - it's what's underneath that matters.

So you admit that the T1, R110A and MRT C301 are all in fact, for all intents and purposes, the same vehicle (same with CLRV & H5, ALRV & H6, etc)?

Your assertion also contradicts your earlier premise that propulsion is "by far the weakest and least convincing argument" for or against the preservation of something. Or that an SRT car with a cab is fundamentally different than one without, despite being identical under the hood. Or you disagreeing that a PCC is a PCC.

Furthermore, when a group of vehicles is considered part of the same family, it means the designs all had one point of origin, but then divulged as the vehicles were customized for various customers, rather than being designed from scratch.

Most vehicles aren't designed from scratch (unless they came first like the G1s, and most "G1s" of the present day would probably just be something off the shelf), there is almost always a clear pattern of design evolution from one model to the next, even if different manufacturers are involved.

 

[T3G]

So you admit that the T1, R110A and MRT C301 are all in fact, for all intents and purposes, the same vehicle (same with CLRV & H5, ALRV & H6, etc)?

Your assertion also contradicts your earlier premise that propulsion is "by far the weakest and least convincing argument" for or against the preservation of something. Or that an SRT car with a cab is fundamentally different than one without, despite being identical under the hood. Or you disagreeing that a PCC is a PCC.

I don't admit anything, because you do realize the parameters of what makes a vehicle common with another are different in the areas of transit preservation compared to vehicle acquisition by a transit operator, yes?

Transit agencies are not usually run by transit fans. If a vehicle manufacturer offers a customer a model with a certain propulsion, but that is customizable to meet the customer's needs, the customer will be happy to have options. If you told a visitor to a transit museum that a box full of circuits and wires is the vehicle propulsion and at the heart of what makes the vehicle tick, so they should be glad that got saved even if nothing else did, you'll be lucky if the visitors don't spit at your feet.

Most vehicles aren't designed from scratch (unless they came first like the G1s, and most "G1s" of the present day would probably just be something off the shelf), there is almost always a clear pattern of design evolution from one model to the next, even if different manufacturers are involved.

Different manufacturers being involved are kind of a significant portion of the puzzle, don't you think? Do you really think BBD would get anywhere if, instead of offering a customizable option that works for the customer, instead said "We have this, but if you go to our competitor, they might give you something else, instead"?

Your assertion that the "G1s" of the present day are off the shelf is also a pretty unsafe one. I'm not sure if metro cars were ever built off the shelf historically, but I can't think of a single rail car order made in the last 30 years anywhere that wasn't a custom design except for the Bombardier BiLevels.

 

[81-717]

I don't admit anything, because you do realize the parameters of what makes a vehicle common with another are different in the areas of transit preservation compared to vehicle acquisition by a transit operator, yes?

And the T1 example pertains to transit operators as much as it does to preservation.

If you told a visitor to a transit museum that a box full of circuits and wires is the vehicle propulsion and at the heart of what makes the vehicle tick, so they should be glad that got saved even if nothing else did, you'll be lucky if the visitors don't spit at your feet.

How about a fully intact and functioning motor (especially one attached to the bogie) from said vehicle? I sure didn't spit at anyone's feet when I got to see the front end of H4 #5619, even though the rest of the car is long gone (the front end is the most notable component there anyway), or all the times I got to see 5707, even though its propulsion (the most notable component there) is unfortunately gone; at least the interior (the second most notable component) remains intact, unless the new black flooring & silver wrap around the doors/panels is permanent.

Different manufacturers being involved are kind of a significant portion of the puzzle, don't you think?

They can be, sure, but just look at how the R62 was built on the opposite side of the world in Japan by Kawasaki, while the nearly identical R62A was built right here in Quebec by BBD (obviously not from scratch and very obviously based on the R62).

Do you really think BBD would get anywhere if, instead of offering a customizable option that works for the customer, instead said "We have this, but if you go to our competitor, they might give you something else, instead"?

The point is that while something can be customized to a specific system, at some point it's no longer a customized version of the original but just something else.

Your assertion that the "G1s" of the present day are off the shelf is also a pretty unsafe one. I'm not sure if metro cars were ever built off the shelf historically, but I can't think of a single rail car order made in the last 30 years anywhere that wasn't a custom design except for the Bombardier BiLevels.

There are few systems being opened today compared to legacy systems, as you noted before, but I assume the ones being opened today are all about standardization, so it'd make sense they'd go with something modern that already exists elsewhere. Line 5 & 6 are both using stuff off the shelf, albeit not standardized with each other. And the OL is going to be a "customized" version of what some other cities have.

As I've previously said, the 81-717 can be considered an example of off the shelf legacy subway equipment, given its prevalence in several Eastern European cities, while the T3 or PCC are examples of off the shelf streetcars that also exist in multiple cities.

 

[T3G]

And the T1 example pertains to transit operators as much as it does to preservation.

No it doesn't, not remotely.

Not for the transit operator because the R110A is short, narrow bodied rolling stock designed to deal with the design of the IRT system, so you couldn't casually drop it into the TTC subway; and not for preservation, either, because if you went to a museum expecting to see a T1 and got an R110A, or vice versa, it wouldn't bloody fit the bill, now would it?

How about a fully intact and functioning motor (especially one attached to the bogie) from said vehicle?

Still no. How many transit museum goers do you think really care about the trucks and traction motors?

Imagine if the New York Transit Museum only had a collection of trucks. They'd be laughed out of existence.

I sure didn't spit at anyone's feet when I got to see the front end of H4 #5619, even though the rest of the car is long gone (the front end is the most notable component there anyway),

Not an example of preservation.

or all the times I got to see 5707, even though its propulsion (the most notable component there) is unfortunately gone.

Not an example of preservation.

They can be, sure, but just look at how the R62 was built on the opposite side of the world in Japan by Kawasaki, while the nearly identical R62A was built right here in Quebec by BBD (obviously not from scratch and very obviously based on the R62).

The R62A was specifically built under license from Kawasaki, BBD didn't casually evolve or copy the exact same design. In fact, the first 10 cars had their body shells built by Kawasaki, and shipped to BBD to act as production line patterns.

The point is that while something can be customized to a specific system, at some point it's no longer a customized version of the original but just something else.

You're missing a couple of fundamental points here. All modern rapid transit stock is bespoke, so they are all going to necessarily differ from one another. And grouping a group of trains together doesn't in any way suggest they are all the same - it means they have a basic starting point from where the design begins, and then it's changed to meet the requirements of the operator in question.

Or are the Flexitys used for the Crosstown completely separate from the legacy Flexitys, just cause they look different? How about Flexitys in Europe? It's the same as your circular argument about whether funiculars count as railway vehicles or not. It would be nice if you stopped trying to break through open doors just because you don't agree with the way something is classified. It is BBD's product: they said that X group of trains are all members of the Movia family, therefore they are, even if you feel they shouldn't be. If you don't like it, find someone involved in promoting the product line at BBD and tell them they're wrong.

And since you bring up the T3 and PCC, it's well worth pointing out that these are another example of the same phenomenon. The T3 is NOT distinct from a PCC, it IS a PCC because its trucks and propulsion system make it so, even though the car body was designed from scratch. Same goes for the previous Tatra T1 and T2.

 

[nfitz]

So, ignoring the TLDR techno-babble and the micro-sized font that I literally can't read (WTAF??)

Which system's vehicles are this essentially the same as. Can someone just link the Wikipedia page for the rolling stock, rather than geek out over the code-number of the rolling stock.

 

[Sauga89]

So, ignoring the TLDR techno-babble and the micro-sized font that I literally can't read (WTAF??)

Which system's vehicles are this essentially the same as. Can someone just link the Wikipedia page for the rolling stock, rather than geek out over the code-number of the rolling stock.

This is the Wikipedia page for the Hitachi Rail Italy Driverless Metro (formerly AnsaldoBreda Driverless Metro), which is the system used in Milan and Rome. I don't know exactly how similar or different the Ontario Line's rolling stock will be to this.

 

[JSF-1]

So, ignoring the TLDR techno-babble and the micro-sized font that I literally can't read (WTAF??)

Which system's vehicles are this essentially the same as. Can someone just link the Wikipedia page for the rolling stock, rather than geek out over the code-number of the rolling stock.

The closest to the Ontario Line trains would have to be the trains used on the Honolulu Skyline which are also made by Hitatchi since to me it would make sense that we would buy trains with similar specs to a pre-existing model already in use in the states. The biggest difference between ours and Hololulu's would be power system since there's is 3rd Rail powered while ours will be overhead powered. I would wage most other differences are cosmetic.
You can find out more about them here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitachi_Rail_Italy_Driverless_Metro

 

[81-717]

if you went to a museum expecting to see a T1 and got an R110A, or vice versa, it wouldn't bloody fit the bill, now would it?

And if you don't want to see a T1 or H5/H6 saved (hypothetical example), seeing an R110A or CLRV/ALRV would still count, wouldn't it?

Not an example of preservation.

Thanks for ruining my only remaining semblance of consolation

Neither is 9411, 9424 and 534 then.

At least 5619 was on display at a museum exhibit, albeit a temporary one, and both 5619 and 5707 are privately owned just like 9411, so long as their owners have no intention to dispose of them, 5619, 5707, 9411, 9424 and 534 can all be considered saved. Plus even "actual" preservation societies sometimes end up scrapping some of their possessions, as we saw recently.

Or are the Flexitys used for the Crosstown completely separate from the legacy Flexitys, just cause they look different?

They are similar in overall design but different enough to be considered a separate car class.

How about Flexitys in Europe?

Is every open gangway subway just a customized version of the TR?

It is BBD's product: they said that X group of trains are all members of the Movia family, therefore they are, even if you feel they shouldn't be. End of discussion.

So if the BM2 cars in Bucharest as well as the C20 in Stockholm are actually the same thing as the TRs because they all belong in the Movia family and were conceived from the same drawing board, why wouldn't the R110A being the same thing as the T1 fit the bill? The R110A and T1 probably have more in common than the TR and C20.

The T3 is NOT distinct from a PCC, it IS a PCC because its trucks and propulsion system make it so, even though the car body was designed from scratch.

Except that some (most?) T3s have chopper control which would make them more like CLRVs.

And again, if the T3 is a PCC because it has the same trucks and propulsion despite the body being designed from scratch, how is an R110A not a T1 if it also has the same propulsion?

Can someone just link the Wikipedia page for the rolling stock, rather than geek out over the code-number of the rolling stock.

Edit: others already linked the Hitachi Rail Italy Driverless Metro page before me. It includes Copenhagen as well as Honolulu, but it'd be a stretch to say the rolling stock in both systems is actually different versions of the same thing.

 

[APTA-2048]

This is the Wikipedia page for the Hitachi Rail Italy Driverless Metro (formerly AnsaldoBreda Driverless Metro), which is the system used in Milan and Rome. I don't know exactly how similar or different the Ontario Line's rolling stock will be to this.

AnsaldoBreda, geez. They’ve had a number of high profile product issues, particularly in the US. Hopefully this isn’t the case anymore with new ownership.

 

[hawc]

Looks like they're starting to drill the pilings for the main bridge supports.


What are these metal items? Is it scaffolding?

 

[YDS]

Winter views of the both sides of the Don Valley portal

 

[flonicky]

Dundas East bridge progress.

 

[toronto647]

If Ford wins the election next month, the Ontario Line is won't go through any alterations (particularly in leslieville) as by the time Fords term is done in 2029 this line will hopefully be close to finishing and we will likely see Ontario Line North discussions really heating up towards the end of his term.

 

[chrisw]

I don't see how it's relevant whether Ford wins the election. What would get changed last minute at Leslieville?