>>739
>tfw never got to see Toronto full of CLRVs/ALRVs
life is suffering

>>748
Well what bugs me is seeing that streetcar smashed and off to the crusher / scrap yard when it looks pretty much complete with it's boogies and all.

Rather than MetroLinks the Provincial regional transit planner taking 40 or 50 of them and storing them away. So when Hamilton or Oshawa city council has the idea to bring back their street railway, they could say hey nice to hear it !! Split the cost, lay down some tracks on a street we will lend you the cars and try it out for a year or two.

The like it they can buy modern cars from Siemens and return the CLRV

Or in the same vein Oakville thinks it would like to try the San Fransisco thing of heritage cars. Build ridership with these first before they go all in with restoration and repair shops.

Or trace the old routes of the radial street car lines or old belt lines and put them on their own right of way

unfortunately City council has it's tongue firmly planted in bombardier's butthole and scraps them all as soon as they can.

>>749
These cars are not standard gauge so no real resale value or use on other lines.

>>749
>So when Hamilton or Oshawa city council has the idea to bring back their street railway, they could say hey nice to hear it !! Split the cost, lay down some tracks on a street we will lend you the cars and try it out for a year or two.
>Or trace the old routes of the radial street car lines or old belt lines and put them on their own right of way

There has to be the wow factor of improved service when a new system or a major extension opens. Hand me down rolling stock around 40 of age from the neighbouring municipalities doesn't quite cut it. Especially if the community has the closure of a previous tram system in its memory.

Joe [s]sixpack[/s] carboy: "getting them noisy and slow streetcars back for the darkies and the welfare queens to ride? On my tax dollars?? No thank you!"

Gubment: "we got rid of it once. If we were to rebuilt the streetcar, wouldn't that mean that we, the rulers, are not infallible? Unacceptable!"

There may even be accessibility (I hear it's called "ADA") issues, unless it was a pure heritage service or an extension to existing system with sufficient accessible service retained. Plus, the upfront cost of buying new rolling stock isn't even that pressing issue when all of it is debt anyway; interest payments of new vehicles vs. increased maintenance costs of the old. In any case the real commitment would be made in rebuilding the street infrastructure into 21st century light rail standards. Monetarily too, I recall in Helsinki's new extension the cost of 25 km of rail was 386 M€, 29 new LRVs were 110 M€ and depot was 70 M€.

>>750
Depends. The difference between gauges is just 30mm per side. It could well be these are slightly widened standard gauge bogies and the bearing placement is the same. It could have given UTDC an option to sell these cars to standard gauge systems with no redesign at all. This is pure speculation though, if someone from the same continent as these cars has better knowledge, I stand corrected.

I know many trams in the past have been designed to be convertible between standard and metre gauge with little more than axle and fender change. Also, wheel widths differ somewhat between different systems, depending if they cross points on treads or on flanges.

>>751
I stand corrected, before someone says it aloud: that underframe there is not multi-gauge ready, for the journal box dictating where the suspension must be and rigid frame being much simpler to widen. So if this happened at all, it would have needed to wait the roller bearing age.

Returning to CLVRs: they are basically 70s PCCs, with very similar capacity. If anything, if standard gauge capable, they could go to relief some acute shortage of rolling stock to any of the surviving American systems. Your new Flexity Outlooks are about the best Toronto can have with its decidedly 1st gen infrastructure. I bet you still turn points by drawing current!

>>750

Trucks can easily be changed to a standard gauge -- They were same ones used in San Diego fleet that was resold to Utah and else where

>>751

Both Hamilton and Kitchener lost their streetcars in the 1930's so no one would remember them, found out they are currently building them with Flexity Outlooks ( which are shite in my opinion)


The CLRV where over built, they were meant for both street running and as a light rail vehicle for the Scarborough Rapid Transit line but substituted shitty first generation ICTS Mark I trains.-- which cause cost overruns and shortened the route.

--originally was supposed the cross a number of streets ant grade then keep going to UofT Scarborough campus and the Toronto Zoo at 70 kph on a separated grade

but using ICTS would have meant more flyovers instead of grade crossing. thus they killed the idea.

I believe that 4000 was actually built by SIG in Switzerland.

Should have been saved even just for it's historical significance.

Hey did not realize I actually photographed it in service long ago