(03-01-2023, 04:07 PM)Bytor Wrote: It could be a procurement issue, also, if the Region simply didn't buy enough (or any) catenary scrapers to go along with the 14 trams.

(03-01-2023, 04:32 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(03-01-2023, 04:07 PM)Bytor Wrote: It could be a procurement issue, also, if the Region simply didn't buy enough (or any) catenary scrapers to go along with the 14 trams.

Not region...the Grandlinq contractor...they were responsible for all this stuff.

This is why it's a P3 failure...

(03-01-2023, 09:51 PM)taylortbb Wrote: Were they though? Because the region purchased the trains separately. I doubt the agreement was that the region hands over trains and washes their hands of it, there was almost certainly specs about associated equipment. I can see ice scrapers falling through the cracks, with contract ambiguity about who's responsible.

(03-02-2023, 01:39 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: The contract provides that the system shall be capable of continuing to operate in conditions such as those we have. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, they have to buy whatever equipment is required in order to meet the contract.

(03-02-2023, 03:12 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(03-02-2023, 01:39 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: The contract provides that the system shall be capable of continuing to operate in conditions such as those we have. Therefore, as far as I’m concerned, they have to buy whatever equipment is required in order to meet the contract.

Those specs in the contract might only apply to things that GrandLinq designed/built/supplied. For example, if the region supplied trains that were totally incapable of operating freezing rain, I can't imagine GrandLinq would then be on the hook for the system not working. I think that's reasonable, that GrandLinq doesn't owe penalties if something they didn't supply doesn't meet requirements.

There's definitely issues with P3s, but this might be the fault of the region/Metrolinx. There's a reason these contracts normally include vehicles.

(03-02-2023, 04:57 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Grandlinq took the contract...if they didn't feel the equipment was capable of satisfying the contract, they shouldn't have taken the contract, but they did, so now it's on them to fulfill it.

(03-02-2023, 06:00 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(03-02-2023, 04:57 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Grandlinq took the contract...if they didn't feel the equipment was capable of satisfying the contract, they shouldn't have taken the contract, but they did, so now it's on them to fulfill it.

Grandlinq signed the contract years before the LRVs were delivered, before the LRVs were even finished being designed. Why on earth would they accept liability for a product they weren't supplying, and wasn't even finished being designed yet? If the Region asked for those terms no competent builder would have signed.

I'm certain the contract has exclusions related to the vehicles, it would be insane for Grandlinq to be responsible for them. Whether those exclusions are a factor in the freezing rain situation I don't know, all I'm saying is it's possible.

We'll know soon. The agenda is up for P&W committee next week, but it just says "7.3.3 Verbal Update: ION LRT Winter Operations" so we'll have to wait for the webcast.

(03-02-2023, 06:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The vehicles aren't the failing component though. Doors aren't freezing shut, motors aren't shutting down in the cold, this is an issue of operating an LRV in icy weather. No other vehicle would operate differently. They knew they were operating an LRV with an overhead power centenary system.

And others have read the Grandlinq contract, it sets explicit requirements for operations in acclimate weather, requirements that Grandlinq is not meeting.

(03-02-2023, 06:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, for their update, I'm placing a sizeable bet on the "Our contractor failed us..." line coming out.

(03-02-2023, 09:02 PM)taylortbb Wrote:

(03-02-2023, 06:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: The vehicles aren't the failing component though. Doors aren't freezing shut, motors aren't shutting down in the cold, this is an issue of operating an LRV in icy weather. No other vehicle would operate differently. They knew they were operating an LRV with an overhead power centenary system.

And others have read the Grandlinq contract, it sets explicit requirements for operations in acclimate weather, requirements that Grandlinq is not meeting.

Grandlinq could easily come back with "The OCS isn't failing under the weight of the ice, the substations are supplying power, we've met our requirements. The only reason this doesn't work is that the vehicles aren't suitable for freezing rain, as they lack a second pantograph. We can couple two vehicles and then things work, but you didn't supply us enough vehicles to operate the whole system under those conditions" . A second pantograph, sometimes without current pickup and just a scraper, is a common solution to freezing rain. Something our vehicles weren't designed with, and likely outside Grandlinq's scope of responsibility.

I definitely think it's possible for there to be a reasonable argument that this is a vehicle problem. The problem is occurring at the interface between the region-supplied vehicle, and the Grandlinq-supplied OCS. That leaves room for disputes.

It's quite possible that both second pantographs and advance  application of de-icing gel to the OCS are viable solutions. With both the region and Grandlinq preferring the solution that the other would have to pay for.

(03-02-2023, 06:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I mean, for their update, I'm placing a sizeable bet on the "Our contractor failed us..." line coming out.

That I agree with.