Agreed, but the upside of having stations that are nothing more than a sign on the side of the road is awesome too. Zero infrastructure stations, just not handicap accessible.

I stand corrected.

but both Buffalo and Edmonton figure they'll get 15-20 years out of their respective completely refurbished LRT cars, not just 10 years that the transit advocate member says.

Any chance the old U2's could be sold to Edmonton - even at scrap prices? It seems like we should at least support another Alberta/Canadian city rather than just scrap them.

I also think the best retired one should be saved and stored somewhere. It may seem silly now, but in 100 years heritage park / future generations might be interested. I think that's the reason so much old stuff is never saved - it's not that old at the time so people don't think about future generations. Some day people will want to look at how we lived back in the year 2000.

Funny I was just thinking that yesterday, it's cool to drop by one of the Toronto streetcar yards and see some individual examples of the old styles. I was thinking keep one or maybe 2 connected.

So Edmonton and Buffalo expect 15-20 years service after refurb, and Calgary only expects 10 yrs, so a 30 yr life new purchase seems better.

So who is incorrect? or is there something I'm missing from this? (probably)

I wonder if the lower life estimate has to do with the amount of use that our units see vs other systems

In addition to the cost factor, there are significant issues with blowing snow and the U2's drive units causing system wide delays, that likely wouldn't be solved with the refurbishment

Calgary's U2 LRVs have many more kms on them, plus are less sheltered. You can only stretch a lifespan so far.

The avg. Buffalo Metro Rail Tokyu car has 812k miles or 1.3M kms

But both Edmonton and Buffalo's systems are more sheltered due to underground stations where LRT acts more like a subway. Most of Buffalo's single 6.4mi/10.3km (never finished) line is like this and there are least a few underground stations of Edmonton's LRT.
It took me a while to realize that fact :haha:

So I'm convinced that new (SD160NG) is the way to go, but wish the U2's would get a second life somewhere.
still not sold on low floor LRV's though that can't be tied into the rest of the system

All right. Sorry for bumpin this up. Back when I posted this I was very immature and kinda idiotic, so I am sorry for this, and yes I should have included more options in the poll (dammit). Now I have kinda more intrested on low-level LRV's.

I like the S70 in San Diego and Salt Lake. Low platform stations are far more inviting.

What if you were to lower just the trackbed so that it was a couple feet below grade. Then you could have "low floor" stations with the tracks in a bit of a trench.?

Drainage would have to be addressed but this could work, no?

So, you have a high floor train, except it has to be grade separated, because there's a trench that nothing else can cross?

Or even if the trench only extended just a bit past each end of the station (admittedly feasible), now rather than building the platform up you now need to build possibly more expensive retaining walls to hold up the trench.

They are interesting.

Some technical information and background
 

Note that low floor LRVs were originally developed to overcome a constraint common to street based systems, both legacy and newbuild, in most city streets, especially in older, heavily developed cities where streets are often quite narrow. A very high design bar is needed to make Low floor trams work. First of all, they all require the electrical control gear to be moved to the roof, and also require radically different bogie design. The bogies frames first of all are different, suspension is different, a high floor motor doesn't fit in a low floor bogey, and even the very wheelsets need to be different in order to fit a floor lower than the wheel hubs, which would require different fabrication jigs. And the only (ongoing) gain in all this redesign and fabrication jigs replacement is, well, level boarding capability in locations where high platforms don't fit.
The Edmonton LRT, Calgary C-train, Pittsburgh light rail, St. Louis metrolink, Tyne-and-Wear metro, most German stadtbahns and the KCR light rail in Hong Kong don't have stops/stations in locations like here and thus able to avoid the constraints that low floor trams (and buses) were developed to address. Even on a completely new system where high platforms are possible in all locations, one would hope this advantage isn't squandered.
Nearly all high floor rail vehicles have standardised undercarriage designs, where the wheelbase of each bogey is at the absolute minimum length with a pivoting bogey under each end and articulated rolling stock having an additional bogey under each articulation.
But undercarriage designs vary widely among low floor trams, there are pivoting bogey designs with part high floor, fixed bogey designs with 95-100% low floor and a few 95-100% low floor designs with pivoting bogies, these still have raised aisles over the bogies, but with ramp access.
The Cobra trams in Zürich and the Viennese ULF have even more non-standard undercarriage designs, with an single wheelset under each end and joint.