Regional Fast Rail project

The Regional Fast Rail project (or RFR project) was a rail transport project undertaken by the State Government of Victoria, Australia, between 2000 and 2006 aimed at improving rail services on the Victorian regional railway network (operated by V/Line), specifically to reduce travel times, enhance service frequency and safety.
With delays, the project was finally completed in 2009. Record passenger numbers and a substantial contribution to the growth of regional Victorian economies have both been attributed to the project with several substantial spin-off projects and subsequent calls for further upgrades and investment. The cost of the project to the government was estimated at A$750 million.
History.
Background and 1999 state election.
At the 1996 Victorian election, a Liberal Party government led by Jeff Kennett was re-elected on a platform of continued rationalisation of the state's public services. This program of service reduction and privatisation, later described as one of the Kennett government's most significant legacies, included breaking up the Public Transport Corporation and selling or franchising nearly all of its assets and operations, as well as cancelling or reducing train services to regional areas. During 1999, the state's V/Line rail freight operations were sold outright to Freight Victoria, a consortium led by American company RailAmerica. At the company's insistence, the government also decided to lease the majority of the intrastate network itself to the winning bidder, on the basis that the control of both track and trains would enable Freight Victoria to implement greater efficiencies. However, open access was mandated for the network under Freight Victoria's control, for other freight operators and passenger services. Later in the year, country passenger train operations under the V/Line brand were franchised to National Express, a British transport multinational, under a 15-year contract which included a commitment by the company to invest in infrastructure upgrades as well as 58 "high speed trains".
In the lead up to the 1999 election, it became imperative for the Labor Party under Steve Bracks to focus on country towns most affected by the cuts to services over the previous decade, as the Liberal government appeared to be a strong chance for re-election in the suburbs of Melbourne.
On 8 September, in addition to promising a Melbourne Airport rail link, Bracks announced a new commitment to invest $80 million in the Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo and Traralgon country rail lines, enabling new private infrastructure manager Freight Victoria to increase speed limits from to and therefore reduce travel times to main regional centres. The following day, the government promised $100,000 in funding to investigate the possibility of upgrading the Ballarat line alone.
By the beginning of October, Bracks had indicated that he expected private rail operators would be heavily involved in the project, and promised to begin discussions by the end of that year should he be elected.
The election of 18 September 1999, resulted in a hung parliament with both major parties attempting to secure a deal with three independent representatives in order to form government. Having secured a deal, the Bracks government was elected on 16 October, shocking political commentators and election analysts, who had expected Kennett to comfortably retain power for a third term.
Planning and pre-construction.
In accordance with his pre-election promise, Bracks announced in December 1999 that feasibility studies and community consultation were underway and would be completed by the following April. At the same time, the government's travel time targets began to emerge, with the promise of 60- and 80-minute journeys to Ballarat and Bendigo respectively met with lukewarm support from city councils.
In early 2000, Bracks committed the government to a major redevelopment of Spencer Street station, the main Melbourne country rail terminal, to bring it up to modern standards in line with the fast rail project and proposed airport link. Then, in March, the government announced that the findings of the feasibility studies supported commencement of the project, and suggested that the upgrades could be completed within four years.
On 5 September of that year, the government revealed full details of the Regional Fast Rail plan for the first time. Announcing that the government's contribution would be $550 million instead of the originally promised $80 million, Bracks told media that the government had not fully understood the decrepitude of the existing network, and that while the government's payments would cover the costs of upgrading infrastructure, the private sector would fund the purchase of new rollingstock for the improved lines. The announcement also detailed that the maximum speed of the improved services would be , enabling travel times of 45 minutes to Geelong and 90 minutes to Traralgon in addition to the previously mooted targets for Ballarat and Bendigo.
At the start of October, the government's ability to work with the still-new private operators of the transport system was called into question when Freight Australia (FA) – a renamed Freight Victoria, lessor of the country rail network infrastructure – threatened to withdraw its cooperation if the government continued to insist that it provide equitable access to other freight operators on the network. The company's argument, that the proposed pricing arrangement did not adequately reimburse FA for capital investment in the network, was supported by academics from Melbourne Business School. As an alternative, FA offered to take on accountability and project management of the RFR program in exchange for alterations to the open access scheme, an arrangement which it argued would minimise the risk to the government and encourage the private sector to invest additional funds in the project. However, the government rejected this approach, pointing out that the term of the rail network lease enabled the state to proceed with upgrade works regardless of FA's willingness to cooperate, and arguing that FA had access to the details of the proposed open access regime at the time it purchased the V/Line Freight business. In response, FA suspended further capital investment in the state's rail network, but ultimately did not rule out cooperating with the fast rail scheme.
By the end of March 2001, the Liberal state opposition had begun to claim that there was little private sector interest in the project, and that the government would be forced to contribute its full cost should it go ahead. Bracks and transport minister Peter Batchelor denied the rumours, saying that formal expressions of interest would be called later in the year. A launch was held in June, where the government hoped to find investment support, but Bracks and Batchelor conceded they would fully fund the project if no additional finance could be found. Meanwhile, the government agreed to assist National Express with its purchase of new trains, as the government had demanded they be built to faster specifications than the original franchise documents envisaged. Later that month, the government suggested that the fibre optic cabling required to upgrade signalling could encourage internet service providers to join the project in order to offer connectivity to towns along the upgraded lines.
A shortlist of consortiums bidding to construct the project was announced in September. The leading companies for the five bids – Alstom, Baulderstone, John Holland, Leighton Contractors and Downer EDI Rail – agreed to attempt to meet the government's target travel times, investigate electrifying the line to Geelong as part of the project, and finalise the requirements for property acquisition and additional costs. A separate tender was let in October for the fibre-optic cabling, with three bidders shortlisted.
Bombardier Transportation was contracted as the builder of the new fast trains in late November. The VLocity trains, with a top speed of 210 km/h, were to be constructed at Bombardier's Dandenong factory at a cost of $410 million, including a 30-year maintenance agreement. Meanwhile, the government suffered sustained criticism of the project following the release of research commissioned by the National Party and carried out by ACIL Consulting, which claimed that the economic benefits of fast rail had been massively overestimated. However, the government denied the report's findings, and the Liberal Party refused to support the Nationals' stark opposition to the project, though it agreed the episode showed the plan had not been sufficiently scrutinised.
Project scope.
Because the state government's agencies did not have sufficient resources or experience to successfully procure a major rail project, the Department of Infrastructure chose to offer bidding consortia substantial freedom to submit a scope of works that would meet the government's objectives. In order to do this, the tenders for each of the four routes to be upgraded were offered separately, and civil engineering firms were encouraged to bid in partnership with signalling providers.
The state's objectives included improving journey times "to the maximum extent possible on a value-for-money basis", maintaining a suitable standard of safety, achieving sustained patronage growth, minimising cost to the taxpayer and transferring risk to the private sector, and meeting ambitious deadlines for completion. Tendering firms were asked to design their bids to serve two peak services and one counter-peak on each of the Ballarat, Bendigo and Gippsland corridors.
The project had five key components:
The delivery of these objectives entailed upgrading 500 km of rail lines from the track bed up, installing 400 new and upgraded railway signals, installing more than 460,000 concrete sleepers, upgrading 170 level crossings, introducing new rail safety systems (later including the Train Protection & Warning System), developing new train timetables with improved services, and the laying of new fibre optic cable along the rail corridors to allow for better signalling and also provide enhanced broadband facilities in regional area
The VLocity trains began running at increased speeds from December 2005, with regular 160 km/h services beginning on the Geelong, Ballarat, and Bendigo lines on 3 September 2006.
As well as reduced journey times, new timetables also increased the frequency of services, with off-peak trains arriving up to once per hour. Additional trains, with varying consist lengths to suit demand, were scheduled to operate during the peak, with one service on each line in the morning and evening peaks designated as the "flagship" service, which was scheduled to run at the journey time which had been promised.
Ballarat line.
Ballarat was the first line to see V/Line's new VLocity in service on 22 December 2005.
Track and signalling were upgraded to allow VLocity trains to run at 160 km/h between Deer Park West Junction and Ballarat. In addition, some deviations were built to ease curves and, in one case, to provide a considerably shorter route (the original route was retained, however, to provide a passing loop).
Geelong line.
Fast Rail services were officially launched on the Geelong line on 3 February 2006.
The double-track Geelong line had the track and signalling upgraded to allow VLocity trains to run at 160 km/h between Werribee and Geelong. These works were carried out in various stages between 2004 and 2006. The Geelong line already comprised two bi-directional tracks between Newport and North Geelong. 160 km/h operation is only provided for on the East track for down trains and the West track for up trains.
Bendigo line.
Track and signalling was upgraded on the Bendigo line to allow VLocity trains to run at 160 km/h between Sunbury and Bendigo. Bidirectional signalling was provided between Sunbury and Kyneton. Between Kyneton and Bendigo the double-track line was singled to allow for better clearances past heritage structures, although retaining some sections of double track to form long crossing loops. The crossing loops were provided with bidirectional signalling, but only one of the two tracks was upgraded for 160 km/h running.
Traralgon line.
Track and signalling on the Traralgon line was upgraded to allow VLocity trains to run at 160 km/h between Pakenham and Traralgon. Bidirectional signalling was provided on the double-track sections between Pakenham and Bunyip, and between Longwarry and Moe. 160 km/h services began on 15 October 2006, although a few selected services ran to slightly faster schedules for a week or so beforehand. However, only the former up track (now called the South track) was upgraded for 160 km/h running; VLocity trains are limited to 130 km/h on the former down track (now North track).
Analysis and reception.
Despite being described as "the most ambitious reworking of country passenger train services not just in Victoria's but in Australia's history", the RFR project was widely and consistently criticised throughout the development, implementation and service introduction stages, with media, transport experts and Opposition politicians attacking governance failures, cost blowouts, and the project's failure to achieve its original headline promises in any meaningful way. Public reception was initially lukewarm, and broader service benefits – that is, beyond the geographical extent of the project and its "flagship" express services – did not immediately materialise due to the project's limitations.
However, in the years following completion of the RFR project, patronage on V/Line services began to increase at an unprecedented rate, stimulating continued investment in rollingstock and infrastructure. Consequently, a decade after the project's completion, the RFR program had been identified as the beginning of a radical transformation of the role and nature of regional rail services in Victoria.
Costs.
The Government originally hoped that most of the cost of the project would be borne by the private sector with a taxpayer investment of A$80 million. However, when this support failed to materialise, the Government decided to pay for the entire A$550 million project. In addition, the project ran overtime and over budget with the eventual cost estimated at A$750 million.
Time savings.
The original promise was for trains to run to Geelong in 45 minutes, Ballarat in 60 minutes, Bendigo in 80 minutes, and Traralgon in 90 minutes. However, this was soon changed to add four minutes to each journey. In the 2007 V/Line timetables, it takes the Traralgon service 111 minutes to the city.
However, even these times were only for a few trains each day that would run express between Melbourne and the respective regional cities. Furthermore, the number of trains that would run to these schedules was cut to one each way each day. Even though most journey times are now faster than before the project, the public impression is that time savings are minimal.
By 2011, successive timetable changes had drastically slowed services. The Ballarat line alone at least 10 minutes has been added to the average journey following the decision to remove "flagship" express services by the Baillieu Ministry.
Bendigo line singling.
Although the early plans were altered to allow for longer crossing loops on the single track sections, the removal of one of the existing two tracks from much of the Bendigo line reduced its capacity and timekeeping of train services. The resulting delays were added to by delays affecting trains on the metropolitan section of the line between Watergardens and Southern Cross (Melbourne) stations. The installation of broad gauge sleepers, rather than gauge-convertible sleepers which would allow later conversion to standard gauge, was also the source of criticism.
A spokesman for the Better Rail Action Group has claimed that the reason for eliminating the double track was to save maintenance costs, rather than for technical reasons.
Broadband access.
The promised spin-off, broadband access to communities such as Ballan and VLine commuters, did not eventuate due to the government's unwillingness to fund breakout points.
A further criticism is the lack of provision for Wi-Fi on the trains themselves for business travellers.
Patronage.
Despite some initial setbacks, by 2009 the project was being hailed as an unexpected success, spurring record passenger numbers and substantially contributing to the growth of regional Victorian economies.
Legacy.
In the years following the completion of the RFR program, a number of further large-scale investments in the regional rail network were proposed and completed. Some of these projects are directly attributable to the problems of the patronage growth which resulted from the RFR upgrades; others focus on similar aims to those of the original project, such as improving travel times and reliability.
Additional VLocity purchases.
Further orders for VLocity trains were placed regularly following the completion of the RFR. Additionally, from 2008, intermediate carriages were ordered, creating a fleet of 3-car sets in place of the original 2-car trains. As of 2018, a total of 261 carriages in 87 sets are in service or on order, compared to the original order of 76 carriages in 38 sets.
Regional Rail Link.
Another legacy of the Regional Fast Rail project is the A$4 billion Regional Rail Link project which aims to separate regional trains on the Geelong, Ballarat, and Bendigo lines from suburban rail movements in the Melbourne metropolitan area. This is designed to increase the reliability and frequency of trains to and from Melbourne on the regional rail network.
Passenger Information Display Systems.
In 2015 a project was completed to provide realtime Passenger Information Display Systems (PIDS) to 33 stations in the RFR service area. This included the provision of LCD screens on platforms and in waiting rooms, and new public announcement and customer help points (push button information speakers) on platforms. The project was managed by VicTrack, with contract work completed by 4Tel, Axent, and Metromatics. The project was nominated in the Control Systems, Networks, Information Processing and Telecommunications category of the 2016 Engineers Australia (Victoria) Engineering Excellence Awards and received a High Commendation.


Lancia Ardea

The Lancia Ardea was a small family car produced by Italian car manufacturer Lancia between 1939 and 1953. Its unusually short bonnet reportedly contained the smallest V4 engine ever commercialized in a small family car
Nearly 23,000 of the Ardeas produced were standard bodied saloons but between 1940 and 1942 approximately 500 Ardeas were manufactured with lengthened bodies and a squared off rear cabin for use in Rome as taxis. After the war more than 8,500 commercial adaptations of the Ardea known as 'furgoncini' (light van versions) and the 'camioncini' (car based light trucks) were also produced.
The third series Ardea, produced from 1948, was the first mass-produced car with a 5-speed manual transmission. Ardea was named either after Ardea town (Lazio), or Via Ardeatina, Roman road leading from Rome to that town.
The cabin.
Instrumentation included a centrally mounted speedometer, the fuel level and the oil pressure. A third dial directly below the driver's sight line was a clock, unusually on this size of car. The three floor pedals followed the pattern still 'conventional' for a manual transmission car (clutch, brake, gas) but to the left of the clutch pedal was a small foot-operated dipper switch for the headlights. Control knobs lined up along the base of the fascia included a hand throttle.
Early Italian images of Ardea interiors confirm that Lancias of the period were still right hand drive, a position elsewhere taken to imply driving on the left side of the road. However, right-hand drive is practical even where drivers drive on the right-hand side of the road as it allows a better view of the edge of the road, which is useful when driving on rough roads in mountainous districts. This did mean that drivers of cars with centrally located floor mounted gear shifts, such as the Ardea, needed to learn how to shift with the left hand. During the 1920s Italian leader Benito Mussolini required all Italian drivers to drive on the right, but Lancia would continue, through the 1950s, to supply right hand drive cars in areas viewed by other automakers as left hand drive markets.
History.
Four versions of the Ardea were built:
Variants.
Alongside the type 250 4-door saloon other body variants of the Ardea were offered.
Chassis.
The Ardea was offered as bare chassis (type 350) between 1939–1941 to be bodied by independent coachbuilders. The chassis had the 2440 mm wheelbase of the saloon.
Ardea furgoncino and camioncino.
The Aurelia chassis type 550 van (furgoncino, literally "small van") was built in 9 examples already in 1941, but regular production begun only in 1945. The Ardea chassis type 650 pick-up (camioncino, literally "small pickup") was introduced in 1948. In 1949 they were upgraded to fourth series specifications (5-speed gearbox and more powerful 101B engine), and continued to be built until they were superseded by equivalent versions of the Appia in 1954.
Unlike on the earlier Augusta, whose commercial variants were bodied by third-party coachbuilders, these Ardeas were factory-built by Lancia.
Tassì Roma.
The Tassì Roma, chassis type 450, was an Ardea derivative with special 6-window saloon body, intended for use as a taxicab. It paired the Ardea's running gear with a larger chassis (longer wheelbase and wider tracks) which allowed for better passenger accommodation. From 1939 to 1941 about 500 were made—501 or 511 depending on the source.


Trolleybuses in Huddersfield

Huddersfield.
The Huddersfield trolleybus system once served the market town of Huddersfield, in West Yorkshire, England. Opened on , it gradually replaced the Huddersfield tramway network, which closed on Saturday, 29 June 1940.
By the standards of the various now-defunct trolleybus systems in the United Kingdom, the Huddersfield system was a medium-sized one, with a total of 15 routes and a maximum fleet of 140 trolleybuses. It was closed on .
A notable feature of the system was the Longwood trolleybus turntable, which was one of only four such turntables ever to have been constructed in the UK. The turntable was manually operated, and was in use only in 1939–1940 until wartime conditions forced the introduction of other arrangements. However, it remained "in situ" until demolished in the 1980s.
Three of the former Huddersfield trolleybuses are now preserved, at the Trolleybus Museum at Sandtoft, Lincolnshire.
History.
The first conversion was the Almondbury tramway. It was converted in sections with a temporary motor bus link as the road was resealed and electrified.
Six different 6-wheel buses were bought to trial on the route with Karrier, Ransomes and Sunbeam chassis and bodies by several builders. Most later buses were Karrier, though the local factory had closed.
The Almondbury route closed on 14 July 1965. The dates of the rest were:-
In 1958 Edgar Dyson became general manager. The council then agreed to a closure programme, ending with 5 crowded Outlane buses on 13 July 1968. Rates paid to the county council were among reasons for early closure of the West Vale and Marsden routes.


Trolleybuses in Glasgow

The Glasgow trolleybus system operated in the City of Glasgow, Scotland, between 1949 and 1967, with the network reaching its largest extent in 1959. It was the only British system to open after World War II.
The trolleybuses were owned and operated by Glasgow Corporation's Transport Department (along with the city's buses, trams and the Subway).
Routes.
All Glasgow's trolleybus routes were numbered from 101 onwards. Summary of services:
Vehicles.
The majority of Glasgow's trolleybuses were double-deck vehicles, painted in Glasgow Corporation's orange, green and cream livery (though in a different style from the buses and trams). The destination blinds on the trolleybuses used white letters on a green background (unlike the trams and buses, with more conventional white lettering on a black background).
Glasgow's first trolleybuses were a fleet of 34 three axle (six-wheeled), double-deck B.U.T. vehicles with bodywork by Metro-Cammell of Birmingham. They were almost identical to those built for London Transport, even briefly including London's distinctive trolleybus symbol (a "T" over the London Transport roundel). In 1950 Glasgow bought 30 Daimler trolleybuses.
Between 1957 and 1959, a fleet of 90 B.U.T. type 9613T trolleybuses with Crossley double-deck bodywork were built. Unlike the earlier vehicles, these trolleybuses had two axles.
There were three of the former Glasgow trolleybuses saved from scrap: TB78, TBS13, and TBS21.
TB78 is fully restored and in operation at the British Trolleybus Society museum, Sandtoft. It remains the only Scottish double-decker trolleybus in existence.
TBS13 was displayed at the original Glasgow Museum of Transport in Albert Drive, Pollokshields, and moved with the museum to the Kelvin Hall. When that museum closed and some its collection was transferred to the new Riverside Museum in 2011, TBS13 was not one of the exhibits fortunate enough to be granted a place there; it resided at the Glasgow Museums Resource Centre at South Nitshill where it was not on public view except by arrangement at the Glasgow Transport Museum. However, to mark the 50th Anniversary of the end of the Glasgow system, TBS13 was returned to public display at the Glasgow Riverside Museum in May. It is now the only Scottish single-decker trolleybus in existence.
TBS21 was eventually scrapped in 2015. TBS21 was almost the last trolleybus to run on the streets of Glasgow. It had been repainted inside and out by GCT at Larkfield Works and, having been purchased by the NTA, it was allowed to tour the system on the final evening and ran behind the final service trolley (TB105) on the last 105 from Queen's Cross to Hampden Garage, for which it displayed a specially made 'Scotland’s Last Trolleybus' blind. It was, however, trumped by TB123, (the last trolleybus built for the city) which made a final trip under power the following morning (Sunday 28 May 1967) from Hampden to Gorbals Cross; from there it was towed by CUS807 to Ibrox bus garage where, as a final show of independence, it reversed into line on its batteries.
It was also the only preserved trolleybus to run under wire in Scotland, England, and Wales - it completed tours of Cardiff in September 1967 and Bournemouth in May 1968. In the years since then, it has led a peripatetic existence, often stored outside, its condition deteriorating all the while until, eventually, it wound up at the ill-fated Beith Transport Museum in North Ayrshire. It was subsequently offered for sale again and there was a real chance that it might have been acquired by Sandtoft although its restoration would have been a long and expensive business. Unfortunately, its eventual purchaser, who apparently tried very hard to find a suitable home for it, had to accept the inevitable and TBS21 was scrapped in late 2016.
Closure.
The trolleybuses (as well as the city's much larger tram fleet) used electricity generated at the Pinkston power station, later sold to the South of Scotland Electricity Board. Following the closure of the tram system in 1962, the maintenance of the electrical supply system solely for the trolleybuses became impractically expensive.
Construction of approach roads to the Clyde Tunnel led to the abandonment of trolleybus services to Linthouse and Shieldhall in 1964. In 1965, Glasgow Corporation agreed to purchase 150 new Leyland Atlantean diesel buses to replace the remaining trolleybuses. Glasgow's last trolleybuses ran on 27 May 1967.


Madison Street Bridge disaster

The Madison Street bridge disaster occurred on November 1, 1893, in Portland, Oregon, United States, when a westbound streetcar drove off the open draw of the first Madison Street Bridge (since replaced by the Hawthorne Bridge). Seven people died. This remains the worst streetcar accident ever to occur in the city of Portland and also the worst bridge disaster in Portland history.
The first Madison Street Bridge.
Opened in January 1891, the first Madison Street Bridge was a swing bridge which pivoted on a large central trunnion mounted on a piling structure in the river. The bridge was poorly designed. At the time of the accident, the bridge was owned by the City of Portland.
The disaster.
Opening the draw.
On November 1, 1893, in foggy weather after dawn, the sternwheeler "Elwood" approached the bridge, and gave the signal to open the draw, one long and three short blasts on the steam whistle. To allow the steamer to pass, the bridge operator swung open the swinging draw section of the bridge. The bridge tender closed the wooden gates on each side of the draw and hung a red signal light as a warning.
The streetcar approaches.
At about 6:45 a.m. on November 1, 1893, the streetcar "Inez", owned by the East Side Railway Company, arrived at the Madison Street Bridge, running westbound into the city with 18 to 20 passengers on board, as well as the motorman and the conductor. All the streetcars were named in those times. "Inez" was coming from Milwaukie. Some passengers got off, and one witness said there were about 15 passengers on board when the car reached the bridge. The night before had been cold and frost covered the rails. The car had departed from Oak Grove at about 5:55 a.m. that morning.
Policeman J. J. Flynn, whose post was on the east side of the bridge, stated that he had seen the streetcar pass and had thought it was running somewhat fast, but he paid not too much attention to it. His job was to make sure that carts and horse-drawn vehicles slowed to a walking pace when crossing the bridge. However, he had received no instructions as to speeds of the trolleys. His statement concluded, however: "I think the car was running too fast."
Captain Lee, on "Elwood", said to a reporter on November 1 that he could see the light on the car, and from the sound, he thought it was moving fast across the bridge, and the motorman might not realize that the draw was open.
Shouted and whistled warnings.
An 18-year-old man, Joe Kutcher, saw the streetcar move onto the bridge and thought nothing of it, until he heard someone behind him shout "Stop that car!"
A messenger boy for a local brewery, W. B. Crabtree, also walking across the bridge, heard someone shout: "Stop the car! The bridge is open!". On the steamer "Elwood", Captain Lee sounded the "Elwood" whistle hard, hoping the motorman would hear it and realize the danger.
Brakes fail to stop the car.
The motorman, Edward F. Terry, gave a sworn statement before Portland Mayor William S. Mason (1832–1899) and chief of police Hunt. According to the motorman, he had not seen the red light indicating the draw was open until one bridge span (about 80 feet) away. He tried applying the brakes, but the car slid along the track. He jumped from the car onto the bridge before it went over the gap into the river.
The conductor, W. C. Powers, also gave a statement. He said the car was not going very fast as it started across the bridge. As soon as he saw the red light, he opened the trolley's door and alerted the passengers to jump from the car. The conductor then jumped himself, just before the car struck the wooden gate before the open draw. He saw a number people jump off the car.
The car goes into the river.
In 1893, Kutcher stated that he had turned and saw the car about from the gate, and coming very fast. According to Kutcher's statement:
Kutcher saw the car teeter briefly on the brink, and then fall into the water. He saw a man's head, wearing a black hat, appear above the surface, just before the steamer passed over him.
Two passengers on the car, G. W. Hoover and William Kenner, who had both leapt from the car, both agreed there were only three people on the car when it went off the bridge. This proved to be inaccurate.
On "Elwood", Captain Lee saw the car go into the river. Lee said at the time that had the "Elwood" been just about a boat length ahead, the car would have struck the steamer.
Attempted rescue of people in the water.
Passenger G. W. Hoover said that he had been riding on the car, and had to push a woman, who he said was paralyzed with fear, out of the car ahead of him. Hoover also said he saw the steamer "Elwood" pass through the draw, and run over two men who were struggling in the water. Hoover said the steamer made no attempt to slow down.
Hoover's account of "Elwood" actions was disputed by the boat's captain, James Lee, and the mate and the fireman. They stated that the steamer stopped before reaching the draw, tied up at the pivot pier, and did everything possible to help the people in the water, throwing over life-preservers, planks and staging. They said they had launched a boat to try to save people. Using the boat, they rescued the only man who survived the car's plunge into the river, who was found floating on the "Elwood"'s gangplank.
The "Morning Oregonian" reported that right after "Elwood" passed through the draw, the steamer had lowered a boat to attempt to save two men who were still struggling to stay afloat in the water. One man sank before they could reach him, and the other was dead when the boat picked him up.
G. W. Hoover and Captain Lee later composed their differences. Lee and Hoover came together to "The Oregonian" on the evening of November 7, 1893. Hoover said that he was now satisfied, from the testimony of the other witnesses, that Lee had done everything he could have to save the people in the accident. Hoover also said that he had obtained the dismissal of the criminal charges which Hoover had brought against Lee. Lee denied that he had dragged Hoover to the morgue, and said that Hoover had gone willingly.
Recovery of bodies and salvage.
Thousands of people gathered on the bridge and the docks in the area, and exaggerated rumors of the scale of the accident spread through the city. An hour after the accident, drag lines were being used to find bodies, and at 9:30 the first one was recovered, and immediately identified as that of John P. Anderson, a cabinet maker from Milwaukie. By 11:00 a.m. the bodies of Alexander Campbell, a saloon keeper from Midway and Jasper Stadler, a laborer from Oak Grove, were recovered. At that time the tug "C.M. Belshaw" brought two construction barges to the wreck site, to use their hoisting equipment to recover the streetcar.
A diver, George A. Tilden, brought his equipment out to one of the barges, and at 1:15 p.m. he made his first dive. Tilden found the streetcar on the bottom of the river, in water about deep, tipped slightly to one side and lying nearly parallel to the bridge. The car had come off the trucks, and the roof was completely crushed. The platform had been separated from the car body, and half of one side of the car had been smashed. The car interior was so jammed with wreckage that Tilden could neither enter the interior nor determine whether there were any bodies inside.
At 2:00 p.m. Tilden was able to secure heavy chains to each end of the car, and when he returned to the barge, the chains were cranked up slowly to raise the car. When the car broke the surface, people in rowboats, who had come out to watch, slipped under the ropes placed around the area, impeding the operation.
Before the car was completely raised, the hoist was stopped while the police, under Captain Holmberg, searched the car. They found one body inside, that of Theodore Bennick, also a cabinet maker from Milwaukie, who was identified by a memo book found in a pocket. Tilden went down again to search for more bodies, but none were found, and concluded his diving work at 4:30 p.m. that day.
The two missing persons, whose bodies were not found, were Paul Oder, bottling department foreman at the Gambrinus brewery, and a boy, Charles S. Albee, aged 14, who worked as a paper hanger. Their bodies were initially presumed to have washed downstream, but were later recovered, Oder's on the evening of November 2 and Albee's on the morning of November 3, 1893. As of Thursday, November 3, a man named Peterson was still missing, who would be the eighth victim.
The coroner's jury.
A coroner's jury was convened on the evening November 2. The motorman and the conductor testified, giving statements similar to what they had told the police on the day of the accident.
J. C. Cooper, a motorman with two years' experience on the Washington Street streetcar line, testified that a major factor in causing the accident was frost on the rails, and that even the use of sand (which the "Inez" did not have) would not have prevented the wheels from slipping on the rail.
George A. Steel, president of the East Side Railway Company, also testified before the coroner's jury. Steel's evidence was that the company had no control over the Madison Street bridge, the gates, or the draw. The city had purchased the bridge some time before, and the company only paid the city rent for use of the bridge for the streetcar line.
The coroner's jury continued to take evidence on Friday morning, November 3. W. A. Burkholder, assistant superintendent of the Portland General Electric Light Company, testified that on the morning of the accident, that the ice on the rails "acted like grease" and that sand would have slowed the car. An electrical warning system could be set up on the Morrison bridge at a small cost.
W. B. Chase, engineer of the Portland bridge commission, testified that the only safety warning devices on the Madison Street bridge were the gates at the draw and a red warning light, although in foggy weather a gong was kept sounding when the draw was open. When the draw was open early in the morning, no one was placed at the east side of bridge to caution traffic, although during the day and the evening, two men were placed on duty. The gates were not placed to stop streetcars. A gate that could wreck a streetcar could be built, but these were not ordinarily placed on bridges.
Chase testified further that the bridge commission had considered the speed of streetcars across the bridge, but had been unable to control it. He had issued an order to have motormen cross the bridge very slowly, but this order had been violated, and he had to have President Steel issue new orders. Chase agreed with Burkholder that an electric signal system could be established.
Chase testified that the means of stopping cars on the bridge was not within the responsibility of the bridge commission.
On the evening of Friday, November 3, 1893, the coroner's jury completed its investigation and returned its findings and recommendations. The jury found that the motorman was grossly negligent, by running the car at excessive speed across the bridge when the rails were slippery from ice and the weather was foggy. The jury recommended that a better system of warning signals be installed on the bridge. The jury commended Captain Lee and the crew of the "Elwood" for their work in attempting to rescue the people in the water.
Witness brings charges against steamer captain.
G. W. Hoover, the passenger who said "Elwood" had run down two passengers in the water, swore out an affidavit in support of a warrant for the arrest of Captain Lee, claiming that Lee had threatened to kill him. According to Hoover, "Captain Lee called at my place of business and demanded to see me, but was so excited that they would not permit him to do so. He threatened to kill me, and kept his hand on his hip pocket. He wanted me to go aboard his boat, where he said he had twenty-five men to testify that he had not run down any men in the water."
Criminal charges against the motorman.
Criminal charges were brought against the motorman of "Inez", Edward F. Terry. On Friday, February 2, 1894, Judge Manley sustained Terry's demurrer to the indictment filed against him, and ordered the case resubmitted to the grand jury. This was the second time that the indictment had been resubmitted to the grand jury.
Company ruined.
The lawsuits associated with the accident ruined the East Side Railway, which was forced into receivership on December 9, 1893.


Fallowfield station (PAAC)

Fallowfield is a station on the Port Authority of Allegheny County's light rail network, located in the Beechview neighborhood of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. The high level stop is located at the end of Broadway Avenue, built where the tracks transition from a street to a private right-of-way. The station serves a densely populated residential area through which bus service is limited because of the hilly terrain. Although a high level stop there is no fare booth, as such passengers must board or alight from the first car of a two car train.


Summer Street Bridge disaster

The Summer Street Bridge disaster occurred on November 7, 1916, when a streetcar loaded with passengers ran off an open drawbridge into Fort Point Channel near downtown Boston, Massachusetts, United States. Forty-six passengers were killed, making it the deadliest disaster in Boston until surpassed by the Cocoanut Grove fire in 1942.
Background.
By 1916, the Boston Elevated Railway (BERy) operated all streetcar and rapid transit lines in Boston. Original plans had called for an elevated rapid transit loop line through South Boston; however, that line was never constructed. Instead, South Boston was served by a network of surface streetcar lines that connected to the rapid transit lines at South Station, Broadway, and Andrew Square.
The line from City Point to Washington Street served many industrial workers who worked along East First Street and Summer Street in South Boston. It ran along Summer Street for most of its length, crossing the 1899-built Summer Street Bridge over Fort Point Channel to cross into downtown Boston. The retractable bridge has two sliding sections of roadway – one for inbound lanes, one for outbound – that can move away from the bridge at a 45-degree angle to create a channel for ships to pass.
Incident.
At 5:13 pm on November 7, 1916, streetcar #393 began an inbound run from City Point with motorman Gerald Walsh at the controls. The car was an extra, operated to fill a gap between scheduled service. Walsh had not worked that route before, nor had the conductor George McKeon, but both were familiar with the area. Car #393 was a typical 1900-built streetcar, a workhorse of the BERy fleet of the day. As it approached the Summer Street Bridge, it was full with around 60 passengers on board.
The bridge was in the midst of opening to allow a ship to pass; the inbound roadway was already slid to its furthest position. Walsh failed to obey a small stop sign located at Melcher Street, though he slowed for a boarding passenger. Walsh noticed the open bridge too late to stop; the wheels locked and the streetcar crashed through a set of metal gates and into the channel. Heavy with passengers, it sank quickly into the cold waters of the channel, some deep.
Walsh, McKeon, and around 15 passengers manage to escape the car and were rescued by tugboats and passing pedestrians. Forty-six passengers drowned, many still inside the crowded streetcar.
Aftermath.
Divers from the Hugh Nawn company began work at 9 pm; bodies were removed from the wreckage from 10 pm to 12:40 am. Forty-five bodies were discovered in the channel and the sunken streetcar; the forty-sixth victim did not wash ashore until May 1917. The Boston newspapers, each vying for the best story, reported body counts as high as 60. The streetcar was removed from the channel at 3:30 am by a crane on the wrecking lighter "Admiral".
The Public Service Commission ruled the accident to be the fault of Walsh for failing to stop at the posted sign, but noted that such signs were hard to notice and that many drawbridges lacked them entirely. Walsh went to trial for manslaughter in October 1917, with witnesses differing on many aspects of the accident. The bridge tenders claimed the required red lantern had been hung on the gate to warn streetcars of the open bridge, but Walsh claimed he saw no such lantern. Some questioned how the glass lantern had survived the impact of the trolley with the gates, which broke a iron post in two; they alleged that the bridge tenders may have actually hung it after the accident. Walsh was declared not guilty, but he never ran a streetcar again and died around 1932 at age 41. McKoen died in combat in France in July 1918.
The disaster was the first major accident involving the BERy. It remained the worst in Boston for many years; the more famous Boston Molasses Disaster in 1919 had less than half the fatalities. It was only surpassed in 1942, when the Cocoanut Grove fire killed nearly 500 people.
Car #393 was returned to service but most operators refused to run it; it was converted to a work car and later scrapped. The streetcar route was converted to bus on June 20, 1953. After several reroutings between 1968 and 2005, the modern MBTA route 7 bus follows largely the same route as the streetcar involved in the disaster.


Trolleybuses in Cape Town

The Cape Town trolleybus system was part of the public transport network in Cape Town, South Africa, for nearly 30 years in the mid-twentieth century. The trolleybuses on the system were always referred to by English-speaking locals as "Trackless trams", and even the systems's stops were marked "Trackless Tram Stop".


Cadrecha Plaza station

Cadrecha Plaza is a TECO Line station located in Ybor City, Florida. It is located at 13th Street and 7th Avenue.


United Electric Railways

The United Electric Railways Company (UER) was the Providence-based operator of the system of interurban streetcars, trolleybuses, and trolley freight in the state of Rhode Island in the early- to mid-twentieth century.
The UER was chartered in 1919, after the previous operator of the streetcar, the Rhode Island Company, went into temporary receivership. The company was placed under the control of the Rhode Island Public Utilities Commission upon inception, in an effort to limit the impact to service in the event of financial difficulties. UER began operations of the consolidated network in 1921, and achieved an all-time high ridership annual of 154 million people in 1923. UER was purchased by the New England Power Company in 1926, and was operated under the UER brand by the Rhode Island Service Company until the system was again reorganized as the United Transit Company in 1951.
The transportation system in Rhode Island was deprivatized in 1966 when the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) began operations.
History.
Rhode Island Rail Transit before UER (1865 - 1918).
The first iteration of rail-based transit in Rhode Island was the Union Railroad of Providence, a privately-owned horsecar company which began operation in 1865. The first electrified trolleys in the state were introduced in Woonsocket in September 1887. The line was not long enough to be a practical means of transportation, and largely served as an amusement ride. Regular electric trolley service began in August 1889 in Newport, and in January 1892 in Providence. The technology quickly spread to the rest of the existing lines, and sparked the creation of several new railway companies, several of which were not separately owned. In 1894, The United Traction and Electric Company (the Traction Company) was formed as a holding company of the different railways by Marsden Perry, Nelson Aldrich and William Roelker. The Traction Company acquired many of the suburban lines, including those running through Cumberland, Pawtuxet Valley, and Barrington and Warren.
By 1902, all lines were electrified. At this point, the Traction Company created the Rhode Island Company (RICo), which subsequently leased the system, still partially operating with the original Union Railroad of Providence name. Due to financial underperformance in its first few years of operations, the stock of RICo was traded frequently, until it was controlled, through a series of intermediaries, by the New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad by 1907. In addition to providing passenger service, the trolley system also carried trolley freight.
The Providence Cable Tramway Company, which operated cable cars up the steep grade of College Hill, was also operated by the RICo series of holding companies at this time. The cable car was rendered obsolete with the 1914 opening of the trolley-accessible East Side Trolley Tunnel, connecting North Main Street to Thayer Street.
Antitrust laws passed over the next few years forced the New Haven to pull out of the state, leaving RICo. lacking the financial support of the larger railroad, RICo was unable to pay off debts, At this time, streetcars began seeing increased competition from jitneys and automobiles. The Rhode Island Company continued operations until 1918, when its debt became too burdensome and the Rhode Island Supreme Court terminated its leases.
The United Electric Railways Company (1918 - 1951).
UER was chartered in 1919, as many of the prior streetcar systems were consolidated. These included:
To prevent future interruption to service for financial reasons, the charter placed the UER under the control of the Public Utilities Commission. The charter was amended on May 5, 1920, stipulating the composition of the board of directors, specifically that two would be appointed by the Governor of Rhode Island and one would be appointed by the Mayor of Providence. The amendment also required the company to pay $1 million for the improvements of its new consolidated system, and set its debt ceiling at $22 million. Measures were proposed to reclassify jitneys as common carriers at this time, but this measure ultimately failed. The unrestricted operation of jitneys rendered several trolley line unprofitable.
Tracks first installed in Kennedy Plaza in 1914, then known as Exchange Place, were expanded, forming a major interchange with connections to Union Station by 1920. The UER fully took over operations of the railways in 1921. In 1922, the first trolleybus ran using the trolley's overhead lines. Despite competition from jitneys, the UER saw all-time peak annual ridership of 154 million in 1923.
In 1926, the UER was acquired by the New England Power Company. The Rhode Island Service Company then took over UER operations, but the system retained its name and branding. With the arrival of the Great Depression, the system suffered from a lack of improvements and service reductions. Busses were further introduced into the system.
Ridership recovered during World War II, due to rations on gasoline, and nearly returned to its 1923 high. By 1948, trolleys had been completely replaced by trolleybuses. Tracks were removed from city streets, and the East Side Trolley Tunnel was reformatted for busses. However, by the early 1950s, ongoing financial difficulties were exacerbated by the commuting public's preference for automobiles over the trolleybuses. As a result, UER was purchased by the United Transit Company (UTC) in 1951, with service was entirely converted by 1952.
The end of Rhode Island Streetcars, replacement of UER, Modern day (mid 1940s - today).
The relaunch of transit in Rhode Island under the UTC garnered an increase in ridership to 100 million annual riders. The further developments of the highway system, however, slowly eroded this slight recovery. By 1955, all electric busses had been replaced with diesel and gasoline vehicles. The Rhode Island General Assembly created the Rhode Island Public Transit Authority (RIPTA) in 1964, allowing the state to take control of any system whose imminent failure would harm the public good. This function was fulfilled as RIPTA took over UTC operation on July 1, 1966.
All of the tracks and most of the infrastructure associated with the trolley/trolleybus network has since been removed. Several of the former trolleys have been preserved by the Shore Line Trolley Museum. Kennedy Plaza remains a central transit hub, and the East Side Trolley Tunnel continues to be used by RIPTA busses. Some infrastructure for the cable tramway remains under Benefit Street.
Many current RIPTA routes mimic those of original interurban network.
In 2014, the City of Providence and RIPTA were awarded a $13 million TIGER VI grant for the construction of a streetcar linking Rhode Island Hospital to downtown Providence and College Street via the East Side Trolley Tunnel. However, due to concerns that the such a line would be useful to a relatively small population and a lack of public support, the project was cancelled. In 2016, the grant was approved for reallocation to the construction of RIPTA's Downtown Connector.
Equipment.
The UER inherited the rolling stock used by the Rhode Island Company, but also purchased new trolleys and trolleybuses. Rail cars were manufactured by Wason, Laconia, Brill, American Car & Foundry, Newburyport, and Jackson & Sharp, amongst others. Cars were painted green and cream until 1928, at which point the color scheme was changed to yellow and cream. In 1940, 50 cars were sold to Capital Transit.
Several of the trolleybuses and busses purchased by the UER were made by Pullman and GMC, which were inherited by the UTC. Some were later taken out of service, and some were converted to diesel. In the early- and mid-1950s, several UER busses were sold to transit agencies in Cleveland, Halifax, Boston, and Winnipeg.


Leyland Leopard

The Leyland Leopard was a mid-engined single-decker bus and single-decker coach chassis manufactured by Leyland between 1959 and 1982.
History.
The Leyland Leopard was introduced in 1959. It was developed from the Leyland Tiger Cub, one of the most important changes being the introduction of the larger and more powerful O.600 engine (later-built Leopards were fitted with the 11.1-litre O.680 engine). The Leopard was superseded by the Leyland Tiger.
Designation.
The original 30 ft bus version was coded L1, it was right hand drive with a 16 ft 2in wheelbase and an overall length of 29 ft 4in. The 30 ft coach was the L2 which had the same wheelbase but was an inch shorter overall, the left-hand-drive LHL1 shared the wheelbase but the overall length was 29 ft 2in. All had a swept turning circle of 68 ft.
The initial 36 ft models launched at the 1961 Scottish Motor Show at Kelvin Hall all shared an 18 ft 6in wheelbase, the PSU3.1R PSU3.1L PSU3.2R and PSU3.2L bus versions had a chassis length of 35 ft 1 1/2in with a swept turning circle of 71 ft and the coaches, PSU3.3R PSU3.3L PSU3.4R and PSU3.4L had a chassis length of 31 ft and a swept turning circle of 68 ft. standard Gross Vehicle Weight of the PSU3 was 11 1/4 tons but a 13-ton GVW was optional.
As at May 1964 all Leopards had the O:600 engine and only the longer versions (.2 and .4) could be had with Pneumocyclic transmission.
Later Variants.
In 1966 the LHL1, L1 and L2 models (and the Royal Tiger Cub) were replaced by the Leopard PSU4 series which had a similar chassis and axles to the PSU3, the coach versions having a shorter frame rather than the drop frame extension of the L2. They were preceded by C-class buses for Córas Iompair Éireann which were to the same length as the PSU4 but coded PSU3.4R
From 1968 Leyland introduced the A suffix across all existing passenger models, this denoted the rationalised Pnuemocyclic gearbox when fitted: this replaced various AEC and Leyland epicyclic transmissions and included a ten-speed splitter version offered in the Super Beaver articulated lorry this was built in a new extension to the Farington works. All PSU4A and PSU3A Leopards had the larger O.680 engine.
New passenger models did not get the suffix so the 20 ft wheelbase version announced in 1968 was the PSU5.4R. The first was delivered to Córas Iompair Éireann. Differences from the PSU3A and 4A included the option of a ten-speed splitter gearbox with wide ratio five speed standard, a Worldmaster front axle and a Maudslay rear axle.
From December 1970, shorter Leopards were altered to conform with the PSU5, resulting in a change to the B-suffix, these changes also applied to the last Panthers.
Scottish Bus Group continued to take the manual-gearbox Leopard with O.600 engine until that was discontinued in 1972/3, the O.680 powered Leopards with the Leyland part-synchromesh gearbox were still coded PSU3.3R
Late in 1974 spring-operated parking brakes, automatic brake adjusters, a water-cooled air compressor and a revised engine mounting resulted in a change to PSU3C, PSU4C and PSU5A. Leyland ceased making a manual gearbox for the Leopard and a version with ZFS4:60 gearbox and otherwise up to date chassis specification was sold to Scottish Bus Group as the PSU3C.3R, there was by this time no generally available manual option.
During 1976 springs and axles were uprated and the close-ratio version of the five speed Pneumocyclic became standard this applied to the PSU3D, PSU4D and PSU5B.
A forthcoming change in crashworthiness regulations caused the air-brake chambers to be re-sited during 1977, leading to the PSU3E, 4E and 5C.
In 1979 the twentieth year of Leopard production, the tyre equipment and coolant warning system were revised, the wide ratio Pneumocyclic with direct air operation again became standard and the ZF S6-80 six-speed synchromesh became a general sale option on coach chassis designated by .5 these were the PSU4F, PSU3F and PSU5D
In 1982 with the TL11-powered Tiger already launched, the PSU4G, 3G and 5E had a rationalised O.680 which shared TL11 components.
Operators.
In England, sizeable Leopard fleets were built up by various National Bus Company subsidiaries including
Birmingham & Midland Omnibus Company. BET Group subsidiaries were major customers for Leopards. For buses and dual-purpose vehicles, a BET standard design of bodywork was produced, primarily by Marshall and Willowbrook but also to a lesser extent by Weymann and Metro-Cammell. Another major English customer for the Leyland Leopard was Barton Transport of Chilwell near Nottingham, which built up a fleet of 200 with Plaxton Elite and Supreme coach bodywork. Unusually for a large operator, Barton standardised on this type of vehicle for all types of work including local stage carriage services; for this reason, all were fitted with a wide two-piece door, known as an "express" or a "grant" door. The latter term refers to the New Bus Grant, whereby the British Government paid part of the cost of a new bus providing it met certain specifications and spent a prescribed proportion of its time on local service work. Many other operators took advantage of this and bought Leopards built to the grant specification.
In Scotland, many were bought by subsidiaries of the Scottish Bus Group and were mostly bodied by Alexander with the Y type body, as both buses and coaches. The Irish company CIÉ also bought a substantial fleet, mainly with bodywork built in its own workshops, as did its Northern Irish counterpart the UTA and its successor Ulsterbus, which bought the Alexander (Belfast) X type body. The Leopard was extremely common on Northern Irish roads for over 40 years, with the first one arriving in 1965 and the last one in 1984. During this period a total of 1,500 Leopards were built. During the 30 years of The Troubles in Northern Ireland, a total of 228 Leopards were stolen from their depots and maliciously destroyed in public streets. In 2006, all Leopards were withdrawn from public service, with some even clocking up an incredible 28 years of service. In the 1980s, Ulsterbus shortened a few of its Leopards for use as towbuses.
Leyland Leopards also saw use with the British Military, and were exported to many other countries. Although the vast majority were used as buses or coaches, a few were bodied as pantechnicons, and at least one as a car transporter. The Leopard was popular with National Express operators.
Exports.
The Leopard was also popular with Australian operators. The Public Transport Commission purchased 745 for use in Sydney and Newcastle between 1967 and 1976 giving it the world's largest Leopard fleet.
Long standing Leopards purchasers into the 1980s included North & Western Bus Lines, Punchbowl Bus Company and Ventura Bus Lines. In the early 1990s, a number of Leopards were rebodied. This was to take advantage of a loophole that allowed rebodied buses in New South Wales to be classified as new buses for fleet average purposes, the loophole was later closed and the practice ceased.
New Zealand operator Wellington Transport Authority ordered 94 Leopards. In 1980, Auckland tour operator Bonnici Coachlines purchased ten 12.5 metre three-axle Leopard coaches.
In 1979, Leyland delivered a single Leyland Leopard diverted from an order by Jones Omnibus Services in Aberbeeg to Singapore Bus Service (SBS) in hopes for large-scale orders from SBS. Bodied by Walter Alexander Coachbuilders and registered as SBS6791L, it was an early example of the mid-engine bus in Singapore, preceding even the much larger orders of the Volvo B10M in the 1990s. Despite favourable reviews from SBS, no further units were purchased and SBS6791L was returned to the UK and sold to Woods of Mirfield, West Yorkshire.
Competitors.
The Leyland Leopard's major direct competitor throughout most of its life was the AEC Reliance, even though AEC was a subsidiary of Leyland for a large proportion of that time. In the 1970s, the Volvo B58 became a serious competitor. There was also some competition for the Leopard from lighter weight chassis such as the Bedford VAL and Y-series.


UD Quester

The UD Quester is a line of heavy-duty commercial vehicle produced by UD Trucks with Volvo Group.It is also linked with the new generation of the UD quon series made in Japan.
About.
UD Trucks introduced Quester Project with Volvo at Bangkok on August 27, 2013. It is not sold in Japan. "The best of three worlds" Concept was adopted.
The Quester has Two engine options, the 8-litre GH8 or 11-litre GH11E with either 6 or 9-speed Gearbox for the 8-litre engine and 9 or 12-speed gearbox for the 11-litre engine.
The Side Rail Section is made of strong and durable rolling form steel and is available in thickness of 7.0 or 8.0 mm.
History.
In 2013, this project was started at Bangkok.
In 2017, it was started sold in Ecuador　etc.
Name.
It's named by "quest".
In China, this model is named as KuTeng (), and is sold by Dongvo.


Belkommunmash

OJSC "Holding Management Company "Belkommunmash" (), is a Belarusian manufacturer of electric public transport vehicles. The enterprise was based on a tram and trolleybus repair facility which was opened in 1973. Today it is the leading industrial enterprise in Belarus in the field of manufacture and major overhaul of rolling stock for electric transportation in cities. Trolleybuses manufactured by Belkommunmash are operated in 7 cities in Belarus and over 40 cities in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Latvia, Mongolia, Moldova, Argentina, and Serbia.


Toyota Limo

The Toyota Limo is an automobile offered by Toyota in Southeast Asian markets designed for taxicab use, primarily in Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. It is a robust low cost, low maintenance variant designed specifically for taxi fleet, with longer service intervals that may be yearly or every . It is essentially a scaled-down variant of the base model Vios and Corolla that lacks any extra equipment. It still retains the same engine of either the Vios or Corolla, but with a specially tuned ECU for more fuel efficient and economical use and softer suspension for comfort.
Vios-based Limo.
The Vios-based Limo is commonly used as a regular taxi by various taxi firms in Indonesia. Like the Vios for private use, the Limo is also powered by the 1.5-liter "1NZ-FE" petrol engine.
Prior to the introduction of the Vios in 2003, most taxicabs in Indonesia use a scaled-down version of the Soluna, the Southeast Asian variant of the Tercel. Other cars used of its time includes the second generation Ford Laser, first generation Hyundai Accent and Kia Sephia (known in Indonesia as Bimantara Cakra and Timor S5).
The Vios-based Limo's order had stopped in 2016, in favour to the Avanza-based Transmover.
Corolla-based Limo.
Toyota also manufactures the Corolla-based Limo for use as a taxi in Thailand.


Bombardier Innovia Metro

Innovia Metro (stylized as INNOVIA Metro) is the current name given to an automated rapid transit system manufactured by Bombardier Transportation. Innovia Metro systems run on conventional metal rails and pull power from a third rail, but are powered by a linear induction motor that provides traction by pulling on a "fourth rail" placed between the running rails. A new version of the technology being marketed by Bombardier is compatible with standard electric rotary propulsion.
The design was originally developed in the 1970s by the Urban Transportation Development Corporation (UTDC), a Crown corporation owned by the government of Ontario, Canada. It was designed as a system that would provide economic rapid transit service in the suburbs, which would have ridership levels between what a bus could serve at the low-end, or a subway at the high-end. During development the system was known as the ICTS (Intermediate Capacity Transit System). Sales of the ICTS were made for metro lines in Vancouver, Toronto and Detroit. Further sales were not forthcoming and the Ontario government lost interest in the company, selling it to Lavalin of Quebec in 1986. Lavalin ran into serious financial difficulties and the UTDC returned to Ontario control, only to be immediately sold to Bombardier.
Bombardier used the name Advanced Rapid Transit (ART) after its acquisition of the technology. Bombardier has been much more active in developing and promoting this system, introducing a major new revision and winning several additional sales in New York City, Beijing, Kuala Lumpur and Yongin, near Seoul. The latest version of the technology is being marketed as the Innovia Metro, while previous models are retroactively branded as Innovia ART. The largest Innovia Metro system today is part of the Vancouver SkyTrain metro network, which has seen several major expansions over its lifetime, with several more being planned. It operates just under of track compatible with Innovia Metro trains. Vancouver was the first to order INNOVIA Metro 300 vehicles. Since then vehicle orders for the latest INNOVIA Metro technology has been made by transit authorities in Kuala Lumpur and Riyadh.
History.
Development stage.
During the 1950s, Toronto experienced the same sort of urban sprawl that was sweeping through the United States. This caused enormous traffic problems within the city, and a network of new highways to address the problem became part of the Official Plan in 1959. By the mid-1960s, there was a growing awareness that the growth of the suburbs led to a flight of capital from the city cores, resulting in the urban decay being seen throughout the US leading to a Freeway Revolts across North America. Activists such as Jane Jacobs successfully rallied local groups to oppose development of the Spadina Expressway project. The government reconsidered and cancelled the construction of the Spadina Expressway and other planned expressways.
Instead of expressways, Bill Davis and his new Minister of Transport, Charles MacNaughton, outlined the "GO-Urban" plan. GO-Urban called for a system of three advanced mass transit lines that would be run by the newly formed GO Transit. The idea was to select a system with low capital costs, one that would be cost effective in low-density areas where a traditional subway would be too expensive to build and operate. Designed to have a design capacity half-way between buses and subways, the new system was referred to as the Intermediate Capacity Transit System or ICTS. The space age automated guideway transit (AGT) systems being designed in the late 1960s seemed like the right solution.
Toronto was not the only city looking for such a solution, and there appeared to be a large market for automated transit systems in the 1970s and 80s. As GO-Urban was larger than most networks being considered, practically every company working on an AGT, or hoping to, submitted a proposal. The first cut reduced the field to a still-large fourteen proposals. After a year-long selection process, GO selected the Krauss-Maffei Transurban maglev as the preferred solution. As a maglev, the system would be silent, addressing concerns about noise on elevated portions of the track. Additionally, the system's linear induction motor did not require physical contact for traction, which meant it would run with equal capacity in snow or icy conditions. Krauss-Maffei agreed to do all vehicle construction in Ontario, and allow the local office to handle all sales efforts in North America – a stipulation most US companies were not willing to agree to. Local testing, construction and sales were centralized in the newly created "Ontario Transportation Development Corporation" (OTDC).
Construction of a test track on the grounds of the Canadian National Exhibition started in late 1975, but shortly after this Krauss-Maffei announced that development funding provided by the German government was ending. Ontario was not willing to continue funding development of the system on their own, and cancelled the maglev plans.
Rebirth.
Instead of returning to their earlier submissions, the OTDC decided to press ahead with many portions of the existing ICTS design. On April 14, 1975, the Ministry of Transportation arranged financing for Phase I and II studies to develop the new version. In June 1975, OTDC announced that it had arranged a consortium to continue the development of the ICTS, changing their name to "Urban Transportation Development Corporation" (UTDC) to avoid any "provinciality" during their efforts to market the design to other cities.
The result was essentially a larger, rubber-wheeled version of the original maglev vehicle. The consortium included of SPAR Aerospace for the linear induction motor, Standard Elektrik Lorenz (SEL) for the automatic control system, Dofasco for the bogies, Alcan and Canadair for the design of the car bodies and a set of prototypes, and Canadair as the overall prime contractor. The arrangements, funding and final system definitions were in place by 1976.
Between 1976 and 1980, three prototype cars were built. The first immediately demonstrated a problem with the rubber-wheeled bogies. The linear induction motor required very accurate positioning about above its "reaction rail" in order to work efficiently and the slight give in the wheels was enough to make this a problem. The obvious solution to this would be to use steel wheels instead, but that would re-introduce the noise problem as the trains rounded curves in the tracks. A new solution was selected, using steel wheels with an articulated bogie that would steer each wheel set into the direction of the track and thereby avoid the rubbing between the flange and track that caused the screeching noise. UTDC bought two modern articulated bogie patents from a private developer in the United States, which were further developed by Dofasco.
A dedicated test facility was desired; modelled after the similar Transit Testing Center set up in the US as part of their own mass transit developments, the site would be open to use for any company that wanted to test new technologies without the need to build out their own testing sites. A site in Millhaven, outside of Kingston, Ontario, was selected for the new test centre. Kingston had been home to the Canadian Locomotive Company that closed its doors in 1969, and the city lobbied hard for the new company to locate to their city.
The site was officially opened on September 29, 1978 by James Snow, the Minister of Transportation and Communications. The site included a oval test track that included at-grade, elevated and ramped sections, switches, and the automatic control centre. Phase III of the ICTS program ended on January 31, 1980, when testing on the prototype was completed at the Millhaven site, by this point the government had invested about $57.2 million, of a total $63 million spent on the product by the government and its industrial partners.
Initial sales.
By the late 1970s, it appeared there were no more technology issues to overcome and efforts turned to debugging the system and developing methods for mass production. As this process started, UTDC started its own efforts to market the design. Toronto, the inspiration for the system, was an obvious target, but the company also found interest in the system in Ottawa, Hamilton, Vancouver, Detroit and Los Angeles.
A test system in Toronto was the primary concern. With the GO-Urban concept having since been cancelled, and GO Transit having turned to conventional heavy rail systems, the only suitable local market was the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC). The TTC had recently extended the east-west Bloor-Danforth subway line with the addition of another station on each end of the line, and had planned to further extend the line with streetcars running from those stations into the suburbs. Construction had already started on the streetcar system at the eastern end of the line at Kennedy station.
The provincial government asked the TTC to switch the streetcar line to the ICTS. The TTC was uninterested until the government threatened to pull their financing, which accounted for 75% of its capital budget. In exchange, the government agreed to pay for any cost overruns above the original streetcar budget. Construction of the internal streetcar platform and a turn-around loop had already been completed at the station. The platform had to be raised to the higher floor height of the ICTS, but UTDC claimed the vehicle would be able to make its way around the existing radius loop at without additional modification.
Vancouver proved very interested in the system on its own merits. As early as 1978, the city had been planning a transportation-themed event for its centennial in 1986, and in 1980 they won the rights to host the Expo '86 World's Fair, giving it the theme "Transportation and Communications". The city is newer than Toronto and more spread out, making a traditional subway unattractive – precisely the problem that the ICTS had been designed to solve. The ICTS vehicle design, with shorter vehicle heights, was also ideal, as the old heavy-rail Dunsmuir Tunnel in downtown Vancouver could be easily modified and split into two stacked tunnels. With UTDC interested in showcasing the system at the Expo, and the Expo backers interested in a transit solution that could be open in time for the show, a deal was quickly arranged that was attractive to both parties. At the time, it was a somewhat controversial project and had its detractors.
Detroit had been one of six cities selected for rapid development under the United States Urban Mass Transportation Administration (UMTA) Downtown People Mover (DPM) program. After ten years, little actual development had taken place and UMTA was mandated to install systems with all possible speed. None of the high-tech developments funded by UMTA had been installed, nor developed to the point where they were ready for service. Instead, the Detroit system was favouring the Cabinentaxi system from Germany, but that company decided to pull out of the contest in order to focus on a larger development in Hamburg. The UTDC responded to a "buy American" clause in UMTA by opening a branch office in Detroit, and that immediately swung the decision in their favour. However, with the Ronald Reagan administration taking office in 1981, DPM was rapidly de-funded. Four of the five cities ended their development plans, but Detroit and Miami (using a different design) decided to press ahead with their deployments.
Construction of the Toronto and Vancouver systems proceeded apace, with the Scarborough RT opening for service on March 22, 1985, followed by the SkyTrain on December 11, 1985, with passenger service starting in January.
Hiatus.
Sales of additional ICTS systems went nowhere, and the government began to worry about UTDC's continued successes. The government pushed any potential deployment to buy from UTDC, but with only one product, and that product having many problems in Toronto, there was little interest from other cities. At the same time, the buy-UTDC clause locked Hawker Siddeley Canada out of many local projects, and they had formerly been a major supplier in the local market. The solution was to form a 50–50 combined company, Can-Car Rail, who marketed the combined product line. Hawker had a number of successful products, notably their Bombardier BiLevel Coach, and as these other products were selling well through this period, interest in actively selling ICTS waned.
In spite of Can-Car's success in other markets, as early as 1981 the government had considered selling UTDC to the private sector. Their concern was that without a manufacturing business, UTDC would find it difficult to make enough income to justify its Kingston operations. If the company did start a manufacturing side, it would be inappropriate for the company to remain government owned. The Can-Car deal put this on hold for a time.
In 1986 the new Ontario government announced their intention to sell UTDC to Lavalin, a large engineering company in Montreal. Lavalin purchased the company for only CAD$50 million, less than the $70 million spent on the UTDC by the government up to 1981. The sale was highly controversial at the time, due to several non-performance payments due to the early problems on the ICTS that had to be paid out by the government, to the tune of $39 million. Soon after, Hawker Siddeley announced that they were selling their remaining interest in Can-Car to Lavalin as well.
Innovia ART.
A series of financial difficulties caused by Lavalin's rapid expansion led to its bankruptcy. A clause in the original sales contract returned UTDC to Ontario crown control, and they quickly sold it to Bombardier in 1991. Bombardier started a redesign effort for the ICTS, resulting in the larger, advanced rapid transit (ART) Mark II vehicle. Compared to the original ICTS (retroactively named Mark I), the newer ART cars are longer with more seating, and have a more open layout inside.
ART technology was selected for the AirTrain JFK project, which is widely considered a great success in spite of predictions to the contrary. After winning the SkyTrain Millennium Line contract in Vancouver, Bombardier further improved the design by introducing an articulating section between adjacent cars, replacing the coupling and doors of the older Mark I design. The articulation allows passengers to move freely between the cars, as well as adding more internal space for passenger seating. These versions of the Mark II design won several more contracts, and are currently operating on the Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, the Airport Express, Beijing Subway in China (in four-car trains), and the YongIn EverLine near Seoul in South Korea. When Bombardier started marketing ART as part of its Bombardier Innovia family of automated transit systems, the technology was rebranded as the Innovia ART 100 for the Mark I and Innovia ART 200 for the Mark II.
Vancouver continues to be the largest operator of an Innovia ART system, with of operational lines in its SkyTrain network (Expo Line and Millennium Line). This network increased in 2016 with the opening of a extension of the Millennium Line, named the Evergreen Extension. The SkyTrain system uses a mixed fleet of Innovia ART 100 and 200 cars, with new Innovia Metro 300 cars (the latest model of ART technology) rolling out on the system.
Innovia Metro.
The latest version of the technology uses the name "Innovia Metro" and is marketed as a mid-size metro system. Innovia Metro is compatible with Bombardier's own CITYFLO 650 integrated transit automation system and is offered in variants compatible with both linear motor and electric rotary propulsion. Bombardier now markets the Innovia Metro alongside the larger Movia Metro and has touted its system versatility.
The first rotary-powered Innovia Metro 300 vehicles were ordered by Riyadh Metro in Saudi Arabia for Line 3 of its new rapid transit network. Those 47 vehicles will be equipped with Bombardier's MITRAC propulsion drives.
Design.
Control and signalling.
The ICTS was the original platform for the SelTrac automated control system by Standard Elektrik Lorenz. This system has changed hands several times since then and is currently owned by Thales. SelTrac is a completely automated system, with centralized control. The system originally used a current loop in the track bed to signal to and from the vehicles, but this has been replaced in more modern versions with a variety of radio systems.
In the original system, the current loop also provided positioning by crossing the lines every metre, with an onboard sensor counting the number of times the polarity changed. Additional fine-tuning was available via a wheel rotation counter, which was used for positioning in stations.
The Toronto Transit Commission union, ATU Local 113, rejected automated control as they felt this was the start of a switch to automating the entire fleet, thereby cutting some of the highest paid jobs in the TTC. This led to the Scarborough Rapid Transit vehicles being modified at a high cost to include operator cabins and conventional controls. No other Innovia Metro system uses manual control.
The Innovia Metro 300 systems are marketed to use Bombardier's own CITYFLO 650 automation system, but can also use other automation systems, such as SelTrac.
Linear motor.
The original versions of Innovia Metro were based on a linear induction motor (LIM) using vehicle-mounted windings and a track-mounted stator consisting of a thin aluminum plate mounted flat between the rails. The small size and flat shape of the motor, and its lack of a transmission connected to the bogies, allows the ART to be much closer to the ground than a traditional subway car. The motor is used for all control with the exception of emergency braking using conventional shoes onto the wheel rim.
The new Innovia Metro still offers linear motor propulsion as the advantageous option but an electric rotary propulsion version is also an option. The first rotary-powered Innovia Metro 300 system is being implemented in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Vehicle.
The Innovia Metro vehicle was built using a lightweight aluminum frame riding on two sets of articulated trucks using small steel wheels. The original Innovia ART 100 cars are long. The second generation Innovia ART 200 cars are long each and come in articulated pairs.
By 2011, the Innovia ART 200 design has been updated and Bombardier is currently marketing the third generation as Innovia Metro 300 (retiring the ART branding). While three vehicle orders have been placed, new vehicles are still in the production stage. Vehicle dimensions are similar to the Innovia ART 200 vehicle, but passenger capacity has been increased through redesigned car layout. The vehicles appear sleeker, with larger windows on the sides of the train, and redesigned windows and headlights on the ends of the cars.
Similar designs.
The linear motors and steerable axles used in Innovia Metro trains are relatively rare, although similar Japanese designed linear motor propulsion technologies are also used on a number of subway lines in East Asia, such as the Nagahori Tsurumi-ryokuchi Line, Toei Ōedo Line and Guangzhou Metro Line 5. However, the Innovia Metro system has a number of competitors in the field of automated light metros, including the VAL technology developed by Matra for the Lille Metro in France (and now owned by Siemens) and the "Meteor" technology used by Paris Métro Line 14 (which is built to high-capacity, full metro standards). Furthermore, the CITYFLO and SelTrac signaling technologies are not specific to the Innovia Metro, but can also equip most conventional railway lines regardless of propulsion technology or carrying capacity.
Innovia Metro lines are designed to run on elevated structures, and indeed the systems that use these trains include such sections, with most being predominantly elevated. Using a grade-separated guideway, though, allows them to perform equally well on ground level and in tunnels, as they in fact do for a portion of both Vancouver's Expo and Millennium Lines (using a converted freight tunnel for the Expo line, and a bored tunnel under Clarke Road for the Evergreen Extension), Kuala Lumpur's Kelana Jaya Line, and Beijing's Airport Express. (The Scarborough RT in Toronto also includes a short tunnelled section, though there are no stations within it.) The latter two systems, along with New York's Airtrain JFK, also incorporate platform screen doors commonly found in automated people movers around the world.
Prior to a change in approach to marketing and the introduction of the "Metro" branding, Innovia ART 100 and 200 technologies were sometimes referred to as "light rail", especially in Asia. Because of their use of automated operation and third-rail power, however, they are unsuitable for the unprotected, street-level trams that the term usually indicates in Europe and North America.
Metros using Innovia Metro technology.
Beijing.
The Airport Express of the Beijing Subway, opened in July 2008, uses Innovia ART 200 technology, with a fleet of 40 locally manufactured vehicles. The route is long and has four stations.
Detroit.
The thirteen-station Detroit People Mover is a fully automated system, using the same Innovia ART 100 trains as Toronto and Vancouver. The system had originally been part of UMTA's buildout, which included lines radiating outward from a central circle into the suburbs. However, UMTA was dramatically "downfunded" in the early 1980s, and the Detroit system lost the majority of the funding. Although most other cities on the UMTA list simply gave up on their plans, Detroit decided to press ahead with the portion they could build with the funds they already had, and completed the downtown loop.
The resulting system offers service to a limited area of the downtown core along a loop. The point-to-point distances are easily walkable, so the system sees low ridership levels on the order of 7,500 passengers a day. Originally designed to act as the hub of a system with 15 million riders a year, the 2 million riders it currently serves results in a very high cost-per-passenger. According to "The Detroit News", this was about $3 per ride, against a fare of only 50 cents.
Kuala Lumpur.
The Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia is fully automated, and opened in 1998. It introduced the longer, articulated version of the Innovia ART 200 technology. The alignment starts from the Putra Heights interchange station, through Kelana Jaya, and ends in Gombak totaling to in length with a total of 37 stations.
Its first operation commenced on September 1, 1998 between the Lembah Subang Depot-Kelana Jaya to Pasar Seni and section two, between Pasar Seni to Gombak in June 1999. In 2002, the system carried its 150 millionth passenger, with an average of 160,000 passengers riding the system daily. Today, it carries over 170,000 passengers a day and over 350,000 a day during national events. A extension of the line was completed in 2016.
In 2006, an order was placed with Bombardier for 22 new four-car units, with an optional 13 to be ordered if necessary. In 2007, the 2006 order was extended with additional purchase of 52 train sets (13 trains of four cars). The first new trains entered service from December 2009. As of 2014, all 35 train sets have been delivered.
With an extension of the line opened in 2016, an additional order for 14 new four-car units was placed. These new sets are of the Innovia Metro 300 design, and like the KL Innovia ART 200, are supported by braking as well as monitoring and diagnostic equipment developed by Quester Tangent. They began entering service at the end of 2016.
New York.
AirTrain JFK, opened in December 2003, is an automated ART service with Innovia ART 200 rolling stock. Its two branches connect the New York City Subway and Long Island Rail Road to John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York City. This service uses non-articulated Innovia ART 200 cars in trains of one or two cars.
Toronto.
In 1981, the Toronto Transit Commission (TTC) was planning to build a streetcar line serving the city's eastern district of Scarborough, but the Ontario provincial government convinced it, by threatening to withhold funding, to switch to the Innovia ART 100 technology. This would act as a demonstration system for other transit operators considering buying the trains. In exchange, the government agreed to pay for any cost overruns over the original LRT costs. The six-station Scarborough RT line opened in March 1985.
Although its Innovia ART 100 trains are capable of driving themselves, the TTC chose to run them semi-automatically with operators on board in order to keep peace with their main union. This conversion proved much more difficult than imagined; the small confines of the Innovia ART 100 car meant that the traditional Toronto solution of taking up the front-right corner of the cab left too little room for the operator to work in, and the entire front of the car had to be used up, reducing seating. Additionally, the Innovia ART 100 control system was based on "dumb" cars and "smart" control centres, so there was no system on the train itself for control or presenting information. These systems had to be retrofitted and were the cause of considerable expense and confusion.
Entering operation, the problems continued. The braking system had been designed to be fully automated, but was now being operated by manual control, and the brakes were being over-applied. This led to problems with the wheels being rubbed flat in spots when the brakes were applied too strongly, producing buzzing noises when running at speed. Since the vehicles were brand-new, the TTC did not have a machine capable of grinding the small-diameter wheels, and one had to be purchased for $1.5 million. Another $250,000 was needed for a rail grinder to remove "totally unexpected rail corrugations". Additionally, the cars were found to be incapable of turning the short radius 18 m turning loop at one end of the line, in spite of UTDC's claims it could, which was going to have to be re-built at a cost of about $6 million. Instead, this portion of the track was simply abandoned.
Over a million was originally budgeted to heat the third rail to prevent ice buildup, but later removed as a cost-cutting move. It was believed that the rapid operation (short headways) would keep the rail free of snow as the passing cars heated the rail. This proved not to work, and in operations at just the wrong conditions close to freezing the opposite occurred; when the train passed and heated the rail, microscopically thin layers of snow would be melted, and if the rail was below zero as a whole, the water would freeze to the rail and cause ice buildup. Another retrofit was required to solve this problem, by adding wooden covers over the rail, a system used throughout Toronto's subway system. Even with these covers in place, the line can be shut down with any heavy snowfall that covers the fourth rail to a depth that fills the distance between the rail and the linear motor.
Only two of the SRT's stations have ridership comparable to those of the TTC's conventional subway lines, and most passengers see it merely as an extra transfer they must make in order to get onto a subway line running downtown. Its Innovia ART 100 fleet will soon be due for replacement, and it would be expensive to either resume production of the old models, or upgrade the line to handle the longer Innovia ART 200 trains.
Although there have been many proposals to extend the SRT line, none of these gained traction until recently. The line was planned to be converted to use either conventional light rail vehicles and be extended west by , but council voted to ask for provincial and federal funding to extend the Bloor-Danforth line from Kennedy Station along a new route in Scarborough. The federal portion is still pending and could be rejected if federal funding is not acquired.
Vancouver.
The SkyTrain metro network has the largest Innovia Metro system in operation, and currently has two such lines: the Expo Line and the Millennium Line. Vancouver's SkyTrain network continues to maintain on-time reliability over 95%. The Expo Line opened in late 1985, in time for Expo '86. With the opening of the Millennium Line in 2002, Vancouver added to its original Innovia ART 100 fleet the longer, articulated Innovia ART 200 trains first used in Kuala Lumpur, which allow for significantly greater rider capacities.
In 2012, Vancouver began construction of the Evergreen Extension, a extension from Burnaby to Coquitlam in the north-east, which the Millennium Line now re-routes to. Although at one point the extension was proposed to be a street-level LRT system that would not use Innovia ART technology, in 2008 plans were changed back by the provincial government to facilitate higher ridership from increased capacity, shortened travel times and to integrate seamlessly with the existing SkyTrain network. The extension opened on December 2, 2016.
The network of Innovia ART 100, Innovia ART 200, and Innovia Metro 300 are supported by Quester Tangent products, including braking as well as monitoring and diagnostic equipment.
Plans may see the Expo Line being extended further into Surrey, as well as a westward extension of the Millennium Line from VCC–Clark station under the Broadway corridor to UBC, pending the outcome of local public consultations.
Yongin.
The EverLine is an ART line, located in Yongin, a major city in the Seoul Capital Area. The line connects the city to Everland, South Korea's most popular theme park offering a transfer to the Bundang Line of the Seoul Metropolitan Subway at Giheung Station.
Demo cars.
Two demonstrator/prototype INNOVIA ART 100 cars were built and used for testing at the UTDC urban transit facility Millhaven, Ontario. Unlike the production cars, the demo cars lacked doors at either end of the vehicle. Test Vehicle 1 had windows in the centre and on the driver cab, while Test Vehicle 2 is a trailer car only had a centre window and no driver's cab. The paint scheme on the lead car was orange and white, while the trailer was grey and orange. The interior of the vehicle was unfinished (no seats, incomplete floor/ceiling and plywood panelling covering wiring). Only Test Vehicle 2 remained at the facility and in 2011 it was donated to the Canada Science and Technology Museum in Ottawa.
A mock-up of an Innovia ART 100 car was stored at the Toronto Transit Commission St. Clair Carhouse by Disney Displays. This car was unpainted and non-operational. The fate of this vehicle is unknown.
BC Rail had an Innovia ART 200 test car delivered to test clearance in stations and tunnels for the Millennium Line. It was donated by BC Rapid Transit Company to the West Coast Railway Heritage Park in Squamish, BC in 2012.
ALRT car.
The ALRT car was a proposed rapid-transit vehicle for Greater Toronto's GO ALRT in the early 1980s. The car was longer, used a pantograph and was an articulated version of the Scarborough RT car. The ALRT car was capable of high speeds needed for interurban operation. As the required capacity of the ALRT system rose, it eventually approached the size of conventional heavy rail, and ALRT was cancelled in favour of additional diesel units pulling Bombardier BiLevel Coaches, which have since gone on to be one of Bombardier's best-selling products.
The original ALRT design was never produced, as the ALRT program was cancelled in 1985.
Appearances in TV and film.
A scene in the 2003 movie "Paycheck," filmed in Vancouver, shows Ben Affleck running in front of a mockup of a Vancouver SkyTrain Innovia ART 200 train. SkyTrain cars can also be seen in the opening credits of "21 Jump Street" and variously in "Smallville", "The X-Files" and in numerous other filmed productions shot in Vancouver.


Shelby House (Botkins, Ohio)

The Shelby House is a historic building in Botkins, Ohio, United States. Built in 1864, it was constructed by local businessman Philip Sheets as a hotel for railroad passengers originating from or destined for northern Shelby County and southern Auglaize County. By the early twentieth century, railroad traffic had declined with the advent of the automobile, and the house was converted into an apartment building. It remained in operation until abandonment in the 1940s; for periods of time, it housed businesses or was used as a storage building, but it never reopened as a hotel or apartment building. Eventually, the house was purchased by the Botkins Historical Society, which converted it into a museum.
The Shelby House was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1978; at this time, it was seen as significant both for its architecture and for its contribution to broad patterns of American history.