Posts: 670
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
24
(01-27-2019, 10:39 PM)taylortbb Wrote: (01-27-2019, 08:14 PM)Square Wrote: Just had a thought. Does any one know, when they installed the FIE, was it installed in both cabs? Thank you.
The in-cab signalling and other displays certainly have to be. We don't have turnaround loops at the line ends, just crossovers, so the trains will run both directions on the line. The equipment is more than just the in-cab part though, so there would be components like computers that are in neither cab.
Thank you for the reply. Just occurred to me that when the photos were shown here with the empty hole in the cab, was the empty hole in both A and B cab?
Posts: 670
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
24
(01-27-2019, 11:04 PM)Canard Wrote: I might have used the word "could" instead of "would" - in order to minimize the rework required for the installation, the clever thing to do would be to put the majority of the equipment in one cab (you have to tear it apart, anyway) and make the other cab HMI a "slave" to it, rather than have a whole third area of the vehicle that needs to have the brains installed with equal installations at each cab.
...that being said, from what I understand, the entire train essentially needed to be torn apart to fit it all in and get it wired up, so...
Fun Reminder: "Free-Issued Equipment" is a generic, non-industry, non-Waterloo/ION specific term. It's a very common way for customers to take control of an aspect of a project and manage certain hardware aspects with a supplier or manufacturer. In this case, Bombardier is using the terminology more publicly I think in an attempt to make it very clearly known that this is the case - that the Region Free Issued this equipment to them, and so it's not their fault this time that things have pushed on so late.
Thank you for the details.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
(01-27-2019, 11:07 PM)Square Wrote: Thank you for the reply. Just occurred to me that when the photos were shown here with the empty hole in the cab, was the empty hole in both A and B cab?
Given that the cabs should appear identical to an operator, I would think it is safe to assume that both cabs were modified, and thus, were delivered with a hole in the right console.
(the final configuration has been re-designed where the additional equipment was installed in the centre console, with the display that was in the centre being moved to the right console.)
Posts: 10,286
Threads: 65
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
297
(01-27-2019, 11:23 PM)Canard Wrote: Given that the cabs should appear identical to an operator, I would think it is safe to assume that both cabs were modified, and thus, were delivered with a hole in the right console.
(the final configuration has been re-designed where the additional equipment was installed in the centre console, with the display that was in the centre being moved to the right console.)
So do some trains have the FIE on the right, then, and others in the centre?
Posts: 670
Threads: 2
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
24
(01-27-2019, 11:23 PM)Canard Wrote: (01-27-2019, 11:07 PM)Square Wrote: Thank you for the reply. Just occurred to me that when the photos were shown here with the empty hole in the cab, was the empty hole in both A and B cab?
Given that the cabs should appear identical to an operator, I would think it is safe to assume that both cabs were modified, and thus, were delivered with a hole in the right console.
(the final configuration has been re-designed where the additional equipment was installed in the centre console, with the display that was in the centre being moved to the right console.)
Thank you for the new detail in bold. Always want to check out the vehicle when it's on display, but not had a chance yet.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
01-28-2019, 08:08 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2019, 08:09 AM by Canard.)
(01-27-2019, 11:37 PM)tomh009 Wrote: So do some trains have the FIE on the right, then, and others in the centre?
N...no, they all are the same. Original HMI on the left, HMI that was delivered in the centre has been moved to the right, and the equipment which was Free-Issued to Bombardier by the Region is installed in the centre.
Posts: 4,338
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
179
(01-27-2019, 11:04 PM)Canard Wrote: ...that being said, from what I understand, the entire train essentially needed to be torn apart to fit it all in and get it wired up, so...
Does anybody else find this weird? While our equipment is somewhat specific to our system, it seems to me that most of the functions for which it is responsible will be common to most systems. Suppose it needs to tie in to the door sensors, for example. If so, this would be true of most such systems.
So why doesn’t the stock design include cables running from where the sensors or devices are to where the FIE goes? Installing specific FIE should just be a matter of plugging in within the console.
This leaves aside that in the Ontario context, proper design would have identical FIE used by all LRT systems, or at least all LRT systems in the GTA. It should be possible to take a vehicle from our system, pop it on a flatcar, deliver it to the Eglinton line OMSF, spend 5 minutes making a database entry, and have it in service an hour later. Is there any indication that our FIE is standardized for Ontario?
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
01-28-2019, 08:26 AM
(This post was last modified: 01-28-2019, 08:54 AM by Canard.)
It would have been standard, if Metrolinx had spec’d it in a timely manner.
They did not. This is the whole reason the project is so woefully delayed!
They dragged their heels so much with it that finally the Region had no choice but to strike it out on their own. And they did so a year after the system was originally supposed to be in revenue service.
But, the media and the public? “It’s all Bombardier’s fault.”
/rant
PS, Bombardier makes their own system called CITYFLO. Our trains could have been standard, as you say, but the choice was by others not to go this route.
Posts: 4,913
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
(01-27-2019, 05:00 PM)Canard Wrote: Loving this vibe.
Thanks for posting this! Love it!
Posts: 667
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
26
(01-28-2019, 08:26 AM)Canard Wrote: It would have been standard, if Metrolinx had spec’d it in a timely manner.
They did not. This is the whole reason the project is so woefully delayed!
They dragged their heels so much with it that finally the Region had no choice but to strike it out on their own. And they did so a year after the system was originally supposed to be in revenue service.
But, the media and the public? “It’s all Bombardier’s fault.”
/rant
PS, Bombardier makes their own system called CITYFLO. Our trains could have been standard, as you say, but the choice was by others not to go this route.
Not only just this, but the Region knew about the equipment requirement almost 5 years ago and waited to act on that knowledge until the vehicles were all assembled (which in my opinion makes no sense considering what kind of work needed to be done). It would have been faster and easier if the Region asked Bombardier to install the equipment during assembly of the vehicles.
Posts: 667
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
26
Mike Farwell let slip today on his show on 570 News that news of the Launch Date will be coming soon
Posts: 4,913
Threads: 155
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
118
Posts: 810
Threads: 5
Joined: Nov 2015
Reputation:
39
And make sure you include the year
Posts: 667
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2017
Reputation:
26
April 2019 seems pretty realistic to me.
Posts: 143
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
12
(01-28-2019, 01:36 PM)Spokes Wrote: Predictions?
June 1, 2019
|