Talk:Canadian Light Rail Vehicle

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Impact and legacy[edit]

The previous attempt made in the United States to design a standard light rail car design was unsuccessful, and the resulting cars proved troublesome to both transit systems that had purchased them.

This line is incorrect. The two "light Rail vehicles" used by the TTC immediately prior to the CLRV were designed by committee. Peter Witt, and PCC were both designed as a standard light rail car, some are still in use today. Not so troublesome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.233.13.0 (talk) 03:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are taking this out of context. The Boeing LRV cannot be considered as successful as the CLRV, what with Boston starting to look for a replacement within a decade and San Francisco initiating a replacement program after about 20 years of service. On the other hand, the CLRV in Toronto has had just as long a service life as its predecessors (the Witt car and the PCC), and also spawned a reasonably successful spin-off. Useddenim (talk) 13:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Refurbishment and Retirement and future are contradictory and confusing and should be rewritten as not to confuse those unfamiliar with the subject matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14E:C000:F470:DC2C:CABE:A9E2:E9E4 (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canadian Light Rail Vehicle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:06, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The three CLRVs on last run[edit]

@Joeyconnick: The numbers of the CLRVs used on the last run were deleted as "unsourced". The photo in the Star REF had a photo identifying 4051 as the lead car, the TTC REF identified 4001 as being the last car. The third car was 4178. The Star reporter mentioned the "the multicoloured seats" of one of the three CLRVs; only 4178 has multicoloured seats. Perhaps I was stretching the REF for 4178. I personally saw the parade; so that helped me to identify the cars. There are a few videos on YouTube showing the parade, if another REF is required. TheTrolleyPole (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The vehicle numbers are a stretch but ultimately are also unnecessary. It's not information we need to include in a general topic encyclopedia. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALRV's sidelined between February and April 2019[edit]

User:Joeyconnick tagged the statement "The ALRV fleet was sidelined between February and April 2019." with {{Why|date=March 2020}} in a March 8 2020 edit. The cited TTC CEO report said: "The MDBF of the ALRV fleet in May was 926 kilometres. This was a decrease of 1,730 kilometres from the same period last year. ALRV vehicles were not placed in service during February, March and April. The MDBF was below the target of 6,000 kilometres." Thus, it did not give the reason. However, the previous sentence in the article stated that the ALRVs had deteriorated thus implying the reason. Perhaps, I could also repeat the point about the old streetcars failing in the winter cold of January 2019 to imply that cold weather was also the reason. Would you prefer that? TheTrolleyPole (talk) 01:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure we can assume that as while February and March are certainly winter months, my recollection of April is that it's not very wintry in Toronto. Unless it was in 2019. But even then, that's edging pretty close to WP:SYNTH. Maybe we just remove the why and leave it free-floating... but if so we def need a citation for the statement. Or is it included in the three citations that follow? —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the other 2 REFs do not address why. I will remove the {{Why}} tag.TheTrolleyPole (talk) 18:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canadian_Light_Rail_Vehicle&oldid=1205478191"