Why I disagree with the SE LRT's Low-Level LRV's recommendation. [Archive]

View Full Version : Why I disagree with the SE LRT's Low-Level LRV's recommendation.

CalgaryTransit guy

Feb 4, 2012, 3:31 AM

Firstly, because its NOT traditional level LRV's.
Secondly, WHY PUT LOW-LEVEL LRV'S UNDERGROUND????! :hell:
Also, thirdly, I DON'T SEE LOW-LEVEL LRV's being that much of a option, other than the justification of the SE LRT being independent form other lines.

What about you? Do you like Low-Level LRV's or NOT?

Full Mountain

Feb 4, 2012, 3:55 AM

srperrycgy

Feb 4, 2012, 3:58 AM

:previous: Agreed.

This issue isn't worth blowing a blood vessel over. Relax. It's Friday.

Bassic Lab

Feb 4, 2012, 7:14 AM

1. The SELRT is only underground for a very short portion of its overall length (Eau Claire to 10th Ave)

2. Station costs are significantly reduced for low floor (a curb vs and raised platform, plus possible station head)

3. Low floor stations have better interactions with the surrounding communities, imagine 7th Ave without the massive stations instead just slightly raised curbs

4. Calgary Transit has the ability to use low floor for the SE/NLRT since there is no requirement/ability to tie into the existing system, why buy a camera phone when you can by a smart phone for less money?

P.S. Your arguments are weak and very poorly worded, oh and let up on the caps lock there!
P.P.S. You poll makes no sense, I can't figure out if I'm saying yes to low floor, or high floor

How exactly is low floor the smart phone to high floor's camera phone? Low floor LRVs tend to have all sorts of drawbacks when compared to high floor: capacity for a given train length is often reduced, there are issues with accessibility that can come up, many of the designs cause greater wear and tear to the tracks they run on. Being able to switch technologies isn't a reason to switch; it is merely an opportunity to do so if it is beneficial for other reasons.

There are very real negatives to running two non-compatible technologies. It would reduce opportunities for large LRV orders, where open bidding could seriously reduce costs. There is such a thing as economy of scale. We would also lose the opportunity to adjust capacity across the system by transferring LRVs across lines to where it is most needed. It is one thing to start a new system and choose to go all low floor instead of going for high floor; it is an entirely different proposition to have one system and choose to start an entirely different one.

With a tunnel on 2 St, even considering better station integration a given, there really aren't very many places where that matters along the SE LRT route. There is the 10 Ave Station, which really ought to be underground to avoid traffic interactions with Macleod Trail, and this amorphous concept that Seton will become an urban area. We don't integrate the C-Train into the street. We distinguish the ROW with barriers and fences at a minimum and use tunnels and elevated guideways elsewhere. We do it because we run multi-car consists with short headways that are only going to get shorter. The C-Train is a lot more like Toronto's subway running on the surface than it is like the St Clair Streetcar, let alone the streetcars that run in mixed traffic.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that low floor would be much cheaper than high floor for the SE LRT, which will have significant sections tunnelled or elevated.

I really think the idea to switch to low floor has more to do with following the current fad in LRT system design than a serious costs/benefits analysis of our choices. The only real benefit I've heard to switching technologies is the opportunity for vehicles with tighter turning radiuses. I have no idea what kind of savings that could give us or how that would ultimately affect track maintenance issues.

ByeByeBaby

Feb 4, 2012, 8:28 AM

How exactly is low floor the smart phone to high floor's camera phone? Low floor LRVs tend to have all sorts of drawbacks when compared to high floor: capacity for a given train length is often reduced, there are issues with accessibility that can come up, many of the designs cause greater wear and tear to the tracks they run on. Being able to switch technologies isn't a reason to switch; it is merely an opportunity to do so if it is beneficial for other reasons.

There are very real negatives to running two non-compatible technologies. It would reduce opportunities for large LRV orders, where open bidding could seriously reduce costs. There is such a thing as economy of scale. We would also lose the opportunity to adjust capacity across the system by transferring LRVs across lines to where it is most needed. It is one thing to start a new system and choose to go all low floor instead of going for high floor; it is an entirely different proposition to have one system and choose to start an entirely different one.

With a tunnel on 2 St, even considering better station integration a given, there really aren't very many places where that matters along the SE LRT route. There is the 10 Ave Station, which really ought to be underground to avoid traffic interactions with Macleod Trail, and this amorphous concept that Seton will become an urban area. We don't integrate the C-Train into the street. We distinguish the ROW with barriers and fences at a minimum and use tunnels and elevated guideways elsewhere. We do it because we run multi-car consists with short headways that are only going to get shorter. The C-Train is a lot more like Toronto's subway running on the surface than it is like the St Clair Streetcar, let alone the streetcars that run in mixed traffic.

I'm not entirely sold on the idea that low floor would be much cheaper than high floor for the SE LRT, which will have significant sections tunnelled or elevated.

I really think the idea to switch to low floor has more to do with following the current fad in LRT system design than a serious costs/benefits analysis of our choices. The only real benefit I've heard to switching technologies is the opportunity for vehicles with tighter turning radiuses. I have no idea what kind of savings that could give us or how that would ultimately affect track maintenance issues.

Siemens' page suggests S70s carry 220-236 passengers versus 150-180 for SD160s, although over a 91-96ft length rather than 81ft. And I'm not sure how one floor height would have different accessibility issues than the other, given that they can both have level boarding. Is it in areas where they didn't build platforms for the low-floor vehicles and that introduces a step?

The economy of scale argument (which I'm a little dubious on; these aren't exactly Big Macs, and they're all built to order) is an argument for low-floor, not against. LRVs are used in other cities besides Calgary; if there's an economy of scale, it's from a couple of dozen transit systems all using the same equipment, not because we also ordered 10 more for an extension on one of the high-floor lines. Looking globally, the most common LRV is (I believe) the Alstom Citadis. The S70/Avanto is approaching the SD160 in fleet size, and with all of the new LRT systems going low-floor, this trend will continue. 30 years from now, the high-floor customer base in North America will be replacement vehicles here, and in maybe three or four other cities. The low-floor market will be a lot bigger and more competitive. Besides, we've never ordered more than 50 LRVs in a single order, and the phased approach from the recent SETWay meetings will prevent a massive bulk order.

In terms of balancing loads on lines, how would that work? The SE line crosses the existing LRT in two places; once on 10th Ave, where the SE is at-grade and the 201 is in a tunnel, and again at 7th Ave, where the SE is in a tunnel and the existing LRT is at-grade. Additional track would be needed to connect the two lines together, which they only do downtown. Do we build a spiral tunnel under Banker's Hall? And for what benefit; do people from the SE only commute on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Flexibility is nice, but it's not free and not necessary. The 201 and 202 are doing fine right now; are there really a lot of cases where bringing in additional vehicles would be a big help? Excluding the rush hours, when the SELRT would be just as busy as the existing lines.

As far as underground and elevated sections, that's mostly between stations. For the two underground stations, sure, the costs are basically the same. (Although, if low floor vehicles can operate with lower catenary, they may be able to use a smaller tunnel, which could save costs, especially if a TBM is being used.) It doesn't matter whether the track between the stations is elevated or not, the floor height only affects station design. For the dozen plus non-underground stations, low floor vehicles should save money. The urban design component is something that will become more valuable as station areas develop, although that may be 40 years from now.

I know the turn from 10th to 2nd St is supposed to be pretty sharp; I don't know if it excludes high-floor vehicles, but it may well. In which case, the discussion is a moot point.

Additionally, if the SETWay plan goes forward, the transitway that is built will be a lot more compatible with low-floor vehicles; the boarding height of a New Flyer Xcelsior 60' is 356 mm, and a Siemens S70 is 350 mm. So the same stations work for both systems; a high floor train would require the stations to be demolished and rebuilt.

Bassic Lab

Feb 4, 2012, 10:21 AM

Siemens' page suggests S70s carry 220-236 passengers versus 150-180 for SD160s, although over a 91-96ft length rather than 81ft. And I'm not sure how one floor height would have different accessibility issues than the other, given that they can both have level boarding. Is it in areas where they didn't build platforms for the low-floor vehicles and that introduces a step?

The economy of scale argument (which I'm a little dubious on; these aren't exactly Big Macs, and they're all built to order) is an argument for low-floor, not against. LRVs are used in other cities besides Calgary; if there's an economy of scale, it's from a couple of dozen transit systems all using the same equipment, not because we also ordered 10 more for an extension on one of the high-floor lines. Looking globally, the most common LRV is (I believe) the Alstom Citadis. The S70/Avanto is approaching the SD160 in fleet size, and with all of the new LRT systems going low-floor, this trend will continue. 30 years from now, the high-floor customer base in North America will be replacement vehicles here, and in maybe three or four other cities. The low-floor market will be a lot bigger and more competitive. Besides, we've never ordered more than 50 LRVs in a single order, and the phased approach from the recent SETWay meetings will prevent a massive bulk order.

In terms of balancing loads on lines, how would that work? The SE line crosses the existing LRT in two places; once on 10th Ave, where the SE is at-grade and the 201 is in a tunnel, and again at 7th Ave, where the SE is in a tunnel and the existing LRT is at-grade. Additional track would be needed to connect the two lines together, which they only do downtown. Do we build a spiral tunnel under Banker's Hall? And for what benefit; do people from the SE only commute on Tuesdays and Thursdays? Flexibility is nice, but it's not free and not necessary. The 201 and 202 are doing fine right now; are there really a lot of cases where bringing in additional vehicles would be a big help? Excluding the rush hours, when the SELRT would be just as busy as the existing lines.

As far as underground and elevated sections, that's mostly between stations. For the two underground stations, sure, the costs are basically the same. (Although, if low floor vehicles can operate with lower catenary, they may be able to use a smaller tunnel, which could save costs, especially if a TBM is being used.) It doesn't matter whether the track between the stations is elevated or not, the floor height only affects station design. For the dozen plus non-underground stations, low floor vehicles should save money. The urban design component is something that will become more valuable as station areas develop, although that may be 40 years from now.

I know the turn from 10th to 2nd St is supposed to be pretty sharp; I don't know if it excludes high-floor vehicles, but it may well. In which case, the discussion is a moot point.

Additionally, if the SETWay plan goes forward, the transitway that is built will be a lot more compatible with low-floor vehicles; the boarding height of a New Flyer Xcelsior 60' is 356 mm, and a Siemens S70 is 350 mm. So the same stations work for both systems; a high floor train would require the stations to be demolished and rebuilt.

The accessibility issues with low floor designs depend on the specific vehicle. Some vehicles aren't level boarding, some aren't 100% low floor (there being a raised platform in the middle of the car over the bogies), or there is some other limitation. There are simply unavoidable tradeoffs when designing vehicles that low. The vehicles that avoid accessibility issues typically result in reduced bogie movement which carries its own share of issues.

The economy of scale issue is precisely because they are built to order. This isn't an issue of the number of cities using each system, except in the rare instance when orders can be piggybacked on each other (as Calgary and Edmonton did once). It is an issue of making orders that are large enough to generate multiple bids and some competition for the work. For instance, Bombardier has stated publicly that our past orders have been too small for them to put in the effort to build vehicles specific to our design needs. We have, until this point, been forced to sole source our orders from Siemens and pay what they ask.

Yes, so far, our orders have generally been small. That won't necessarily hold into the future. At some point in the short term, possibly around the same time that we build the SE LRT, we're going to need to replace the 80 U2s. That could be a very large order. Longer term we will have a fleet of hundreds of vehicles from the combination of longer consists, shorter planned headways, and more lines. Larger orders to replace existing stock will become the norm as opposed to the typical orders we have had for a handful of new vehicles to deal with a small extension. This is a system that will exist for decades if not centuries. Cities with large fleets often make large orders to replace stock being retired. These orders result in multiple bids for purpose built vehicles as opposed to buying off the rack vehicles offered to cities with smaller systems. Splitting our fleet into different, non-compatible batches will reduce our ability to get the same kind of economies of scale. That is without coming into the need to have technicians and drivers trained on different technology platforms.

Likewise the issue of diverting capacity to where it is needed is not a matter of building an active connection so that SE LRT trains can switch routes on Tuesday and Thursday. It is a longer term issue. Moving vehicles between lines would mean loading them on a freight train or truck and taking them over, in much the same way as they are shipped here. That wouldn't be a minor decision to do on a whim but if we found that we had an imbalance in capacity needs between lines we could do it relatively easily. It would simply allow more flexibility in scheduling long term without the need to order more vehicles.

Having a single design standard for all of our rail lines would also add flexibility in other ways. In the future lines could be rerouted into each other or connected in other ways. For instance, if we ever feel the need to build a line to the airport it could be built as a spur off of both the NC LRT and the NE LRT following Airport Trail. If the NC LRT is a continuation of a low floor SE LRT, that would be impossible. Hell, if we were going to build an airport line it would make sense to connect to both the NE and NC even if it operated as an independent line. It would be pretty cheap to have connecting tracks on both ends and it would allow for movement of vehicles between all lines. That and no transfer trains from downtown to the airport on either the NE or NC, whichever routing made more sense.

Again, the only stations that could really be integrated into an urban realm are 10 Ave, which should be grade separated anyway, and supposedly Seton. This is not a streetcar line that pulls up and lets people off on sidewalks. Most of the route is beside freight tracks or isolated on one side of a relatively major road. High platforms will not be an issue with integration in these areas, definitely no more than the acres devoted to parking and bus loops.

The SETWay wouldn't be compatible with any LRT, high floor or low: the roadway would need to be entirely rebuilt to make a trackbed, there likely won't be level boarding anyway but the loading areas won't be as long as train platforms. It is not a matter of laying rails on pavement and calling it a day because the existing infrastructure will handle it.

The two places where Calgary Transit has mentioned issues with turning the turning radius are from 10 Ave to 2 St and somewhere in Seton. Seton isn't built yet and designing the road network to disallow a choice in technology would be fundamentally stupid. The turn from 10 Ave to 2 St could easily be redesigned today away from the existing plans to allow for a wider turning radius. The property needed is currently a surface parking lot. Property acquisition followed by selling the air rights above the tunnel along with the rest of the property would result in little in the way of increased expenses.

CorporateWhore

Feb 4, 2012, 4:14 PM

I'm not sure how to vote on this. You put both like/hate in the question and then only give the user an option to choose from yes and no. Terrible.

kw5150

Feb 4, 2012, 5:37 PM

westendjack

Feb 5, 2012, 4:48 AM

Yes, so far, our orders have generally been small. That won't necessarily hold into the future. At some point in the short term, possibly around the same time that we build the SE LRT, we're going to need to replace the 80 U2s. That could be a very large order. Longer term we will have a fleet of hundreds of vehicles from the combination of longer consists, shorter planned headways, and more lines. Larger orders to replace existing stock will become the norm as opposed to the typical orders we have had for a handful of new vehicles to deal with a small extension. This is a system that will exist for decades if not centuries. Cities with large fleets often make large orders to replace stock being retired. These orders result in multiple bids for purpose built vehicles as opposed to buying off the rack vehicles offered to cities with smaller systems. Splitting our fleet into different, non-compatible batches will reduce our ability to get the same kind of economies of scale. That is without coming into the need to have technicians and drivers trained on different technology platforms.

On the supply side too, even though it seems likely the high floor LRVs will be a declining portion of market share for the foreseeable future, there are still a lot of places that will be using high floor LRVs equally far into the foreseeable future. Given that Calgary's LRVs have been pretty much "off the shelf" German equipment its hard to see a scenario where Calgary's LRVs become a special order item just because they are high floor. From what I hear, Bombardier is chomping at the bit to have a go at the contract to replace Calgary's U2s when the time comes.

I think maybe Cagary Transit guy is more worried that we would be using 2 separate systems. what are the drawbacks to 2 separate systems? I can think of a few but I am not involved in transit at all so I will reserve my comments.

I'm far from an expert, but what other people have told me (who are apparently knowledgeable in the field) is that in truly large scale systems, like say London's or Paris' or New York's its not unusual to have different line's running different technologies, usually a combination of newer built lines and older legacy ones. However, in cases like this we're talking about scenarios where one line is carrying more people daily than Calgary's entire system. A lot more people. So when it comes to training staff there's probably a marginal cost of training for different technologies but its on systems that are so big, that its not a significant cost. A lot of these lines have the same or greater economy of scale of entire systems like Calgary.

In cases like Vancouver where the Canada Line uses a different technology then the rest of the Skytrain network though, we may have an issue. The Canada Line has 20 trains made up of 40 vehicles right now (compared to the 250+ ART vehicles) and this was one of the issues that was raised about using a different supplier. Once the line is operating at full capacity it will probably have between 90 - 120 vehicles and theoretically training and maintenance are the concessionaire's responsibility till the contract ends. Given the way things run around here, the existing trains will be on their last legs and Translink will be replacing them and we'll see what kind of a deal (assuming I'm around of course) they actually get.

Certainly Canada's most famous orphan line, the Scarborough RT, can be a good example of the problems of using two incompatible technologies. Although its also a good example of a transit agency neglecting a line as well.

Personally I'm not sold on the idea of low floor LRVs for this particular usage in Calgary. I don't think it will be a disaster, but low floor vehicles strike me as being most appropriate used in more urban LRT settings and streetcars, whereas the SELRT strikes me as being pretty comparable to Calgary's existing suburban LRT and if it is connected to a Centre Street metro line, a lot of the advantages of low floor use would seem to evaporate.

Policy Wonk

Feb 5, 2012, 4:50 AM

The accessibility issues with low floor designs...

Excellent post, I never thought I could be in complete agreement with you on anything.

J-D

Feb 5, 2012, 9:10 PM

I'm curious as to how Low-level LRTs function during periods of heavy snowfall?

mersar

Feb 6, 2012, 12:14 AM

From what I hear, Bombardier is chomping at the bit to have a go at the contract to replace Calgary's U2s when the time comes.

And that time is in the next few months. CT is reportedly talking with companies other then Siemens about the next order of LRV's that was funded by GreenTRIP, partly due to the fact that Siemens and the City are involved in a lawsuit over these last LRV's at this point.

Full Mountain

Feb 6, 2012, 2:14 AM

mersar

Feb 6, 2012, 4:28 PM

Is the nature of this lawsuit public?

Not to my knowledge. Probably over some contractual element of the last order that one side didn't live up to.

Yahoo

Feb 6, 2012, 7:05 PM

As others have said the poll is worded in such a way that it doesn't make sense. "Like em or hate em", and you have to answer yes or no???

It seems like something to consider, but ultimately I would hope the LRT lines would eventually connect and become loops. That would be far off in the future, but rather than just a spoke design that we have now I would think wheel and spoke would be the ultimate goal (maybe in 100 years or so). That way you could say, go to the airport without heading downtown first.

If we are even going to consider switching designs we have to ensure that we will never need to connect the differing sections.

halifaxboyns

Feb 6, 2012, 7:27 PM

In cases like Vancouver where the Canada Line uses a different technology then the rest of the Skytrain network though, we may have an issue. The Canada Line has 20 trains made up of 40 vehicles right now (compared to the 250+ ART vehicles) and this was one of the issues that was raised about using a different supplier. Once the line is operating at full capacity it will probably have between 90 - 120 vehicles and theoretically training and maintenance are the concessionaire's responsibility till the contract ends. Given the way things run around here, the existing trains will be on their last legs and Translink will be replacing them and we'll see what kind of a deal (assuming I'm around of course) they actually get.

But part of the design of the Canada Line was to deal with people going to and coming from YVR. Bombardier couldn't really get their cars to work providing areas for baggage (from what I heard) and so they went with the Hyundai vehicles - which have areas to put baggage under the seats for benches and more room to accommodate standing passengers with luggage.

I can see the good and bad at having different vehicles types, specifically around the costs for maintenance. If you used one specific type or brand of vehicles, you save on costs for maintenance supplies and training.

But I also look at this much like some of the legacy air carriers operate a variety of aircraft in their fleet. This may be about trying to use a different model, to reduce costs to build the line. The number I've heard for each station along the 7th avenue line was around 30 million a station. If you have a low floor vehicle, I suspect the cost of the station would be 10% or less that cost.

Yahoo

Feb 6, 2012, 9:29 PM

But part of the design of the Canada Line was to deal with people going to and coming from YVR. Bombardier couldn't really get their cars to work providing areas for baggage (from what I heard) and so they went with the Hyundai vehicles - which have areas to put baggage under the seats for benches and more room to accommodate standing passengers with luggage.

I can see the good and bad at having different vehicles types, specifically around the costs for maintenance. If you used one specific type or brand of vehicles, you save on costs for maintenance supplies and training.

But I also look at this much like some of the legacy air carriers operate a variety of aircraft in their fleet. This may be about trying to use a different model, to reduce costs to build the line. The number I've heard for each station along the 7th avenue line was around 30 million a station. If you have a low floor vehicle, I suspect the cost of the station would be 10% or less that cost.

You bring up a good point about maintenance supplies and training. Spare parts is always a good way to save money.

Another consideration is buying power in the future. If you want to make a large purchase to replace/upgrade cars then you might get a way better deal if you could buy more of the same identical cars and use them on whatever line needs them the most. (instead of say buying 20 of each type from different manufacturers)

Wow, you mention 30 million a station downtown. Man, that seems high for an above ground outdoor platform. But then again what was it $250 million to extend the line to Crowfoot. I don't understand that high cost either, even with the overpass and even if it includes train cars. LRT may be nice but it sure doesn't come cheap.

freeweed

Feb 6, 2012, 10:12 PM

I've asked this before but no one's had much in the way of answers:

I find it hard to believe that the majority of the cost of and time to construct our stations is simply the elevated concrete apron. When 7th Ave was taking 6-8 months and millions of dollars per station, the justification was the complex utility routing, overhead canopies, shelters, etc. A low-floor station requires every single thing an elevated station does in that respect (in fact it could be more expensive due to not having extra "space" in the platform itself for utility lines).

I fail to see how what is essentially a 3' thick slab/box of concrete overtop of a low-floor station and ramps at either end can cost millions of dollars. Surely there's something I'm missing here.

halifaxboyns

Feb 6, 2012, 10:45 PM

This might help answer freeweed's question and address Yahoo's comment on station cost. When you look at what's been happening on 7th Avenue, the construction of the station hasn't been just about pouring a concrete box.

There also has to be moving and installation of power conduits, drainage from the roof canopy and dealing with any surface drainage around the concrete.

Add to this that in the case of the city hall stations, they also had to remove the former Olympic plaza station, all of it's former electrical conduits/drainage and then put back a new side walk with the new light standards that allow for banners.

Also add in that with the stations along the avenue, you now have the large glass canopies with the LED lights, the new digital signage then the furniture (shelters, signage, ad signage and ticket machines) it all ads up.

I think also factored into the overall cost for the avenue was the installation of a new switch track where the 3rd Avenue SE station used to be, but remained useless for months until the overhead wiring was installed. I believe there was also some electronics which had to be installed at each station to be able to deal with the real time information and know which train is arriving.

freeweed

Feb 6, 2012, 10:51 PM

MalcolmTucker

Feb 7, 2012, 1:13 AM

I think maybe Cagary Transit guy is more worried that we would be using 2 separate systems. what are the drawbacks to 2 separate systems? I can think of a few but I am not involved in transit at all so I will reserve my comments.
Well, once you get to a certain system fleet size for LRV maintenance, there is less economies of scale which comes in the maintenance department.

Would likely need a maintenance facility with the same variety of facilities, spare parts, and such for a high floor fleet vc a low floor fleet.

Easy solution =
P3 with 30 years of operations and maintenance with a techonologically neutral tender. Station locations, capacity requirements, and the ROW the city has secured. Should be done concurrently with NC LRT (even if it is built during a 2nd or 3rd phase).

I think it is very hard for the city to predict the outcome of the huge optimization problem without private bidders.

Heck, might even end up with automated trains out of it all!

Full Mountain

Feb 7, 2012, 2:49 AM

:previous: Maybe I'm not asking correctly, but my point was that I fail to see how low floor stations would be significantly cheaper given all of that.

Whether we're talking station rebuild or brand new stations (as is the case with the SELRT), those kind of costs are going to be the same. The "concrete box" is basically the only thing differentiating the station types - is it truly that expensive that low floor really saves that much money?

It's not just the concrete box it's also the interaction with the buildings, whether that makes a huge difference or not I'm not sure

I would imagine that much of the cost associated with the 7th ave stations has to do with removing the old stations and upgrading the utilities, rather than the actual construction of the new stations

freeweed

Feb 7, 2012, 3:30 AM

It's not just the concrete box it's also the interaction with the buildings, whether that makes a huge difference or not I'm not sure

Which shouldn't really be an issue on the SELRT except for a few downtown stations...

MalcolmTucker

Feb 7, 2012, 5:14 AM

An issue with the downtown stations (and potentially future NC LRT subway/elevated) in particular from a cost perspective is station box size. Low floor LRT will get you the longest station box for a particular capacity.

craner

Feb 7, 2012, 5:28 AM

I'm not sure how to answer the poll so I'll just state my opinion.

I don't understand why the City would introduce low floor trains that are different and non-compatible with the existing system?:shrug:

I've read a few weak arguments in favor of the low floor but I say let's stick to the existing high floor system for all the LRT lines.

My $0.02.

freeweed

Feb 7, 2012, 6:11 AM

I don't understand why the City would introduce low floor trains that are differen't

Random OT spelling/grammar nazi comment, but...

If this was short for "differ not", then it would in fact be the opposite of the intended meaning.

Policy Wonk

Feb 7, 2012, 10:02 PM

Low-floor LRV's are basically just a compromise for people who really, really wanted a streetcar.

In the post-ADA world there are really no intrinsic advantages to them.

Yahoo

Feb 8, 2012, 12:09 AM

westendjack

Feb 12, 2012, 5:51 AM

And that time is in the next few months. CT is reportedly talking with companies other then Siemens about the next order of LRV's that was funded by GreenTRIP, partly due to the fact that Siemens and the City are involved in a lawsuit over these last LRV's at this point.

I'm looking forward to seeing what Bombardier comes up with should they get the contract. The Flexity Outlooks that were here for the Olympic Line demonstration project were really sharp machines.

I hope Calgary Transit makes arrangements to hold onto some U2s for historic purposes.

But part of the design of the Canada Line was to deal with people going to and coming from YVR. Bombardier couldn't really get their cars to work providing areas for baggage (from what I heard) and so they went with the Hyundai vehicles - which have areas to put baggage under the seats for benches and more room to accommodate standing passengers with luggage.

I'm pretty that was as an after the fact rationale as to why the Rotem vehicles were superior for this application then Bombardier's ART trains. Although, as I understand it, had Bombardier won the bid for the Canada Line, the stations would have been somewhat longer from the outset with longer train sets.

Its worth noting that Beijing's Airport Line and JFK's AirTrain are both Bombardier ART systems using Mark 2 train sets, so I'm fairly confident that they could have also handled YVR's traffic.

MalcolmTucker

Feb 12, 2012, 7:12 PM

I'm pretty that was as an after the fact rationale as to why the Rotem vehicles were superior for this application then Bombardier's ART trains. Although, as I understand it, had Bombardier won the bid for the Canada Line, the stations would have been somewhat longer from the outset with longer train sets.

Its worth noting that Beijing's Airport Line and JFK's AirTrain are both Bombardier ART systems using Mark 2 train sets, so I'm fairly confident that they could have also handled YVR's traffic.
Yeah, longer stations but small diameter tunnels. The tender solely had requirements for eventual capabilities up to 15,000 ppdph.

When all the variables were calculated by the bidders, the proposal as is built won. ART/ Skytrain lovers/ protectionists like to believe ART failed because the contracts couldn't account for economies of scale in maintenance with the existing Skytrain, but ART has its own eccentricities which drives up cost. (needing more maintenance shutdown time for rail grinding but one example).

Technology neutral tendering is something politicians don't really like, it removes control from them, but it should lead to the best balance of performance vs construction cost vs maintenance cost as opposed to a consultant report on technology options.

fusili

Feb 13, 2012, 5:41 PM

I guess it's off topic or perhaps is another thread (sorry), but instead of going lower (which seems like the only advantage is lower platforms - which I can't see saving that much in construction costs - I mean it's only dropping a foundation wall a few feet), what about going higher - as in an elevated system? Not super high, and even dipping to ground level where there is room.

Decades ago a group offered the city a free, yes free, monorail system from the airport to downtown. It was a prototype and all the city had to do was provide the land. But the city rejected it outright (perhaps they saw The Simpson's monorail episode and it scared them - but I think the proposal predates it).

I remember watching something on The Discovery Channel about an overhead type system in India that was relatively cheap. It took very little room because the system was hung off of piers, so it could hug or hang over existing roads without a whole lot of modification to the roadway. I think in that case they hung the passenger cars off of a rail track, but I wonder if hanging cars off of a single rail per side would work.

I guess the "ugliness" factor is always a big deal for some people when talking about raised trains, but it does seem to be an easy cheap way to do things. There are big advantages too since it avoids most utilities and it doesn't require overpasses or interchanges with roadways which has to be very expensive.

Monorails are the absolute worst form of transit. Other than Disneyland, they should never be used. Here is why:

1. Difficult to branch. Monorails "hug" the rails, so it is very difficult to have them branch from one line to another (i.e. the switches are not easy to implement). This causes huge issues with moving cars off for maintenance, turning around at the terminus of the line, etc. Typically, monorails run in a loop (meaning expansion of the system is impossible), and so you limit the number of trains running at any one time.
2. Impossible to run at grade. Again, hugging the rails means that there are two large depressions created if the monorail ever runs at grade, which is a hazard.

I think what you really mean is elevated rail, which is very different from monorails.

fusili

Feb 13, 2012, 5:43 PM

Low-floor LRV's are basically just a compromise for people who really, really wanted a streetcar.

In the post-ADA world there are really no intrinsic advantages to them.

I agree. The only disadvantage I see to highfloor is at-grade stations, which cause issues with existing building entrances. If you are not running at grade for most of the route, I don't see the point of Low-Floor, unless there are cost savings in other places. That being said, if the costs of the trains are rights of way are comparable, there really isn't a reason to go with low-floor.

Dado

Feb 13, 2012, 7:59 PM

If you're going to go through the palaver of building a busway first and then converting it to light rail later on (I recently wrote a letter to the Calgary Herald on the topic), then this is one area where low-floor designs have some advantage over high-floor because you can take steps to ensure that a station's platforms are suitable for both low-floor LRVs and buses, but for high-floor LRVs and buses that would be pretty challenging.

nname

Feb 13, 2012, 10:41 PM

Yeah, longer stations but small diameter tunnels. The tender solely had requirements for eventual capabilities up to 15,000 ppdph.

When all the variables were calculated by the bidders, the proposal as is built won. ART/ Skytrain lovers/ protectionists like to believe ART failed because the contracts couldn't account for economies of scale in maintenance with the existing Skytrain, but ART has its own eccentricities which drives up cost. (needing more maintenance shutdown time for rail grinding but one example).

I think Bombardier lost because their bid:
- Have tunnel in the center of street instead of under nothbound lane - less distruption but higher cost for tree/utility relocation.
- The station are 80m long instead of 40/50m... thus providing more ultimate capacity than 15,000 pphpd.
- There are no single track section in Richmond and Airport end.
- Have a trench for about 1.5km instead of completely underground, which is less desirable.
- The bid is about 300M higher I think.

Wigs

Feb 14, 2012, 12:21 AM

you can get high floor trains with no platform
example: Buffalo's Metro Rail (with the original colours, soon all will be rehabbed with new blue/silver scheme)

you still need a small ramp for the disabled though (at the front can't be seen in video)
gotta love early 1980's Japanese technology! :tup: :cool:
and yes the Metro Rail goes under Buffalo's only true skyscraper, the 1.2M SF One HSBC Center
qeMVmrquCL0

Calgary Transit should completely rehab the old U2's ala Buffalo to get an extra 10-15 years out of them for much cheaper than buying new cars. just my $0.02

MalcolmTucker

Feb 14, 2012, 12:36 AM

They aren't even refurbing them for the main lines, as the number of $s/year of service is higher for refurb.

Wigs

Feb 14, 2012, 12:57 AM

really? in Buffalo's case it was $3.5M for each new car or ~$1.1-$1.5M to completely rehab each existing Tokyu car and the NFTA figures once the rehab is complete they won't need to readdress the situation until 2030

MalcolmTucker

Feb 14, 2012, 1:34 AM

From Open File http://calgary.openfile.ca/file/2011/03/newest-ctrains-japanese-solution-calgary-problem:
Meanwhile, the majority of cars in Calgary's system, U2 models (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens%E2%80%93Duewag_U2%3Cbr%20/%3E) — which also feature transverse seating — are starting to show their age. Since the C-Train's inception in 1981, the cars have traveled over a million miles each. While San Diego (http://calgary.openfile.ca/file/2011/03/%E2%80%9Dhttp://www.sdmts.com/trolley/trolley.asp), who operates an almost-identical model of transit car, has sold some of their old cars to Mendoza, Argentina (http://www.metro-magazine.com/News/Story/2011/03/Argentina-recycles-San-Diego-transit-trolleys.aspx%3Cbr%20/%3E%20/), Edmonton chose to refurbish theirs.

Despite the relative age of the three cities’ cars, Calgary’s U2s work under the toughest conditions. Calgary’s harsh winters put the cars under more duress than those in Edmonton, where the LRT does not run fully above the streets, and San Diego’s, where weather conditions are milder.

Edmonton is refurbishing its 37 cars at a cost of $1.4 million each, to make the cars last for another 10 years. But here in Calgary, William Hamilton (http://www.twitter.com/beltliner403/), of the advocacy group TransitCamp, (https://groups.google.com/forum/#%21forum/calgary-transitcamp) says the cost of refurbishing Calgary's cars (http://agendaminutes.calgary.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=41945/) wouldn't be worth it.

“Once [the city] realized that firstly, to bring [the U2 cars] up to a reasonable standard as the SD160s, the cost of the cars would be to the order of $2.2 million, and when they realized at the same time at that expense would extend the cars lifespan 10 years, as opposed to 30 years running time you can get out of a new vehicle, the numbers simply didn’t add up,” says Hamilton, adding that Calgary deserves reliable cars for its growing system.

Even if Calgary had chosen to refurbish the cars, Calgary’s passenger loads mean only very few cars could be sent away for repairs. Edmonton, who chose Bombardier to refurbish their vehicles, sends them to a shop in New York state since there are no facilities in Alberta, or even Canada, which could complete the work. According to Edmonton Transit’s (http://www.twitter.com/yegtransit%20/) LRT director Dave Geake, it’s a slow process.
“
We had to limit the number of cars…to three at any time at Bombardier’s plant. We have about 10 vehicles back [so far],” Geake says, noting some of the cars have come back with issues that they are still addressing.

With this in mind, council rejected a plan to refurbish Calgary’s cars in May, instead purchasing more of the newer car SD-160s. It was a defeat for Alderman Shane Keating (http://www.twitter.com/councillorkeats%20/), who had championed refurbishment in hopes that a large portion of funding from the provincial government would be allocated to a southeast transit way if refurbishment had been accepted as an option.

hulkrogan

Feb 14, 2012, 4:29 PM

SF MUNI Metro:

Raised platorm, stairs in the car raise to match the platform and car interior heights:
http://www.globalride-sf.org/images/0608/images/8_Rail_MetroWGapFiller.jpg

Street level station, stairs drop down from car interior height to allow access:
http://www.anthonynachor.com/uploads/3/4/6/6/3466466/481401146_orig.jpg?221

Tada!

fusili

Feb 14, 2012, 4:42 PM

SF MUNI Metro:

Raised platorm, stairs in the car raise to match the platform and car interior heights:
Tada!

I rode the MUNI when in San Fran. The one downside is the huge wheelchair ramps on the side walk to get a level boarding on the front door. It is a cool concept though.

hulkrogan

Feb 14, 2012, 8:44 PM

I rode the MUNI when in San Fran. The one downside is the huge wheelchair ramps on the side walk to get a level boarding on the front door. It is a cool concept though.

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

Wigs

Feb 15, 2012, 3:43 AM

From Open File http://calgary.openfile.ca/file/2011/03/newest-ctrains-japanese-solution-calgary-problem:

I stand corrected.

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

Yahoo

Feb 15, 2012, 10:12 PM

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

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

DizzyEdge

Feb 15, 2012, 11:06 PM

DizzyEdge

Feb 15, 2012, 11:07 PM

Full Mountain

Feb 15, 2012, 11:10 PM

I stand corrected.

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

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

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

You Need A Thneed

Feb 16, 2012, 4:04 AM

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

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

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

Wigs

Feb 18, 2012, 1:38 AM

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

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

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

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

CalgaryTransit guy

Aug 28, 2013, 5:08 PM

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

Doug

Aug 29, 2013, 2:54 AM

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

yyc_engineer

Sep 16, 2013, 2:28 PM

You Need A Thneed

Sep 16, 2013, 2:41 PM

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

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

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

mersar

Sep 16, 2013, 3:00 PM

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

CalgaryTransit guy

Jul 14, 2014, 8:25 PM

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

They are interesting.

Myrtonos

Sep 9, 2014, 8:51 AM

Note that low floor LRVs were originally developed to overcome a constraint common to street based systems, both legacy and newbuild, in most city streets, especially in older, heavily developed cities where streets are often quite narrow. A very high design bar is needed to make Low floor trams work. First of all, they all require the electrical control gear to be moved to the roof, and also require radically different bogie design. The bogies frames first of all are different, suspension is different, a high floor motor doesn't fit in a low floor bogey, and even the very wheelsets need to be different in order to fit a floor lower than the wheel hubs, which would require different fabrication jigs. And the only (ongoing) gain in all this redesign and fabrication jigs replacement is, well, level boarding capability in locations where high platforms don't fit.
The Edmonton LRT, Calgary C-train, Pittsburgh light rail, St. Louis metrolink, Tyne-and-Wear metro, most German stadtbahns and the KCR light rail in Hong Kong don't have stops/stations in locations like here (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:C2.5123_acland.JPG) and thus able to avoid the constraints that low floor trams (and buses) were developed to address. Even on a completely new system where high platforms are possible in all locations, one would hope this advantage isn't squandered.
Nearly all high floor rail vehicles have standardised undercarriage designs, where the wheelbase of each bogey is at the absolute minimum length with a pivoting bogey under each end and articulated rolling stock having an additional bogey under each articulation.
But undercarriage designs vary widely among low floor trams, there are pivoting bogey designs with part high floor, fixed bogey designs with 95-100% low floor and a few 95-100% low floor designs with pivoting bogies, these still have raised aisles over the bogies, but with ramp access.
The Cobra trams in Zürich and the Viennese ULF have even more non-standard undercarriage designs, with an single wheelset under each end and joint.