02-16-2017, 02:03 PM
Regarding train numbering, my assumption (and that's all it is), is that they will follow a similar nomenclature to GRT; year then unit number, such as "1701".
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
|
02-16-2017, 02:03 PM
Regarding train numbering, my assumption (and that's all it is), is that they will follow a similar nomenclature to GRT; year then unit number, such as "1701".
02-16-2017, 02:11 PM
(02-16-2017, 01:40 PM)Markster Wrote: Here's an excerpt: I think really we should compare the average (or median) trip length. But it's more difficult as we really don't know how many people are going from where to where.
02-16-2017, 02:31 PM
(02-16-2017, 12:42 AM)Elmira Guy Wrote: From article posted above. OK.
02-16-2017, 02:54 PM
(02-16-2017, 12:54 PM)Canard Wrote:(02-16-2017, 12:20 PM)JJTL Wrote: Since this train will be used for testing and then I assume retrofitted with any updates required, is that why there are no ION logos or other decals? Anyone have an idea of the numbering system for the trains? Interesting so far there is no way to track which train is which (at a glance anyways). Ah, that makes sense to fit the system specific stuff at the OMSF. As always appreciate the info and knowledge, Canard! Even double digit numbers seem a bit odd to me. If Chicopee's assumption turns out to be true (year + number), 1701 to 1714 would be neat.
02-16-2017, 02:58 PM
@ timc
Should I infer that you also think my doing so is unwarranted? Do you support Loblaws' legal action? I'm at a loss to understand what is wrong with what I wrote.
02-16-2017, 03:00 PM
(02-16-2017, 02:54 PM)JJTL Wrote: Ah, that makes sense to fit the system specific stuff at the OMSF. As always appreciate the info and knowledge, Canard! Even double digit numbers seem a bit odd to me. If Chicopee's assumption turns out to be true (year + number), 1701 to 1714 would be neat. Incrementing numbers is so passe. Should just stick with a batch number "01" and use a letter on the end instead. 1701-A 1701-B 1701-C 1701-D 1701-E ... (02-16-2017, 03:00 PM)Markster Wrote:(02-16-2017, 02:54 PM)JJTL Wrote: Ah, that makes sense to fit the system specific stuff at the OMSF. As always appreciate the info and knowledge, Canard! Even double digit numbers seem a bit odd to me. If Chicopee's assumption turns out to be true (year + number), 1701 to 1714 would be neat. So your saying we should just go to QR codes then?! Barcodes are what the cool kids use these days...
02-16-2017, 03:24 PM
02-16-2017, 03:36 PM
(02-15-2017, 09:49 PM)Canard Wrote: Legal notices filed over business losses during LRT construction - CTV Kitchener Can we expect these same businesses to offer up a share of the profits once they start to reap the rewards of LRT? I'm guessing not. The list of businesses should also be named, as the settlement proceeds are coming out of taxpayer pockets.
02-16-2017, 03:56 PM
We obviously need to use hex numbering.
0x6A50-0x6B2
02-16-2017, 04:02 PM
(02-16-2017, 03:42 PM)Chicopee Wrote: After looking more closely at GRT nomenclature, it appears to have changed again in the last 5 years. In the 70's/80's/90's, it was always year, then unit #. In the 2000's, it appears to have reversed to unit #, then year. Now it's a five character # like 21322. In this case I assume the 13 is still the year, and the first number may differentiate models, such as hybrid for example. I think we've gone over this before, and I remember Canard cringing: * I can't remember what numbers were like in the 1970s/1980s, but we also didn't have as many buses to deal with then * For Kitchener Transit, in the 1990s, it was year + unit #, like 9501 in 1995 * In the 2000s (except for 2008!), it was 2 + one digit year + unit #, like 2401 in 2004 * 2008 was special, and the numbers started with 80, like 8001; I believe this is because other regional vehicles were already using the numbers in the 28xx range * In the 2010s, numbers started with 2 + two digit year + unit #, like 21301 in 2013 Cambridge Transit numbers were different, although some of them were retronumbered after GRT was formed.
02-16-2017, 04:17 PM
Since the late 60s the Kitchener Transit (and before that, PUC) buses also had the year plus a unit number, but it was single digit: 731 for the first bus delivered in 1973. Before that, it was sequential numbering.
02-16-2017, 04:26 PM
(02-16-2017, 12:42 AM)Elmira Guy Wrote: From article posted above. I think involvement by Loblaw will benefit the smaller businesses seeking compensation.
02-16-2017, 04:29 PM
(02-16-2017, 04:26 PM)NotStan Wrote:(02-16-2017, 12:42 AM)Elmira Guy Wrote: From article posted above. Agree, one would have to think that their legal team will do a lot of the heavy lifting. |
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|