Confederation Line West LRT Extension (Stage 2) [Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[rocketphish]

O-Train Stage 2 budget cracks $5B as delays and legal fees push up cost
Price tag originally set at $4.7B, but council once again asked to top up contingency buffer

Arthur White-Crummey · CBC News
Posted: Nov 19, 2025 4:00 AM EST | Last Updated: 5 hours ago

The city is asking for $156.5 million in extra funding for the O-Train next year as delays and legal fees push up costs, while a contingency buffer needs to be padded again.

The funding is part of the 2026 draft municipal budget. Most of it would go to Stage 2, which was approved in 2019 with a price tag then estimated at $4.66 billion.

The latest request, which still needs council approval, isn't the first time the project budget has swelled. OC Transpo media relations confirmed to CBC that it now stands at $5.06 billion.

Stage 2 involves three extensions to the existing rail network, including links to the east and west that are still underway, plus the Trillium Line expansion to the south that opened more than two years behind schedule.

The draft budget document released last week says delays to all three extensions "have introduced pressures on the project oversight budget," while project changes, risks and claims require more funding for contingency.

It asks for an extra $150 million in response, plus a separate sum of $6.5 million to cover costs for the existing Stage 1 rail line.

The Stage 2 contingency was initially set at just over three per cent of total project costs, or about $152 million, as a cushion against price increases and potential legal disputes.

It was later increased to about $287 million due to "unforeseen costs and improvements," but all but $18 million of that money was committed as of this September.

<more>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottaw...cost-9.6983475

[J.OT13]

And this doesn't include the settlement of unknown amount to one of the two contractors? Also, why are we paying for the bearing assembly? That should be covered by Alstom; it was there faulty design.

[DarthVader_1961]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And this doesn't include the settlement of unknown amount to one of the two contractors? Also, why are we paying for the bearing assembly? That should be covered by Alstom; it was their know faulty design.

Anyone when the bearing design is to be tested on our tracks?

[Mousel]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Anynudes when the boogie design is to be tested on our tracks?

You want to boogie in the nude?

[DarthVader_1961]

Originally Posted by Mousel

You want to boogie in the nude?

Sorry…. This should have read…

Anyone know when the bearing design is to be tested on our tracks

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

And this doesn't include the settlement of unknown amount to one of the two contractors? Also, why are we paying for the bearing assembly? That should be covered by Alstom; it was there faulty design.

Hard to call the design faulty when it has been used without issues for many years on other trainsets. Fit for purpose would be a better description. Part of the issue likely comes down to the city insisting on LRT trainsets when all of the experts were saying we needed light metro. I am sure there are lots of other secret details that the city is trying to keep under wraps.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Sorry…. This should have read…

Anyone know when the bearing design is to be tested on our tracks

Who knows. Everyone had agreed the bearing assembly was the problem, a year (?) later, Alstom decided that wasn't the problem and stopped working on it. Not sure where we're at now.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Hard to call the design faulty when it has been used without issues for many years on other trainsets. Fit for purpose would be a better description. Part of the issue likely comes down to the city insisting on LRT trainsets when all of the experts were saying we needed light metro. I am sure there are lots of other secret details that the city is trying to keep under wraps.

It's true that the City was very stupid in insisting on LRT when experts were telling us what we need is a metro (OtTaWa iS tO sMaLl fOr A rEaL SuBwAy). But three (maybe two, I think one proposed a real metro) consortiums were even dumber by submitting bids with rolling stock that could not do the job.

This is what I'm talking about with the secret settlement: https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...t-construction

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Hard to call the design faulty when it has been used without issues for many years on other trainsets. Fit for purpose would be a better description. Part of the issue likely comes down to the city insisting on LRT trainsets when all of the experts were saying we needed light metro. I am sure there are lots of other secret details that the city is trying to keep under wraps.

It seems that way, yet the part that still doesn't make sense is that Citadii in other cities take far sharper corners than ours. Our curves and very generous compared to many other lines. One thing that might be odd about ours though is that we use all long modules, whereas most European versions are more "caterpillar" like with shorter modules and more articulation

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

It's true that the City was very stupid in insisting on LRT when experts were telling us what we need is a metro (OtTaWa iS tO sMaLl fOr A rEaL SuBwAy). But three (maybe two, I think one proposed a real metro) consortiums were even dumber by submitting bids with rolling stock that could not do the job.

I can't recall what the other consortiums proposed for rolling stock. Were they 100% low floor LRVs too? In my opinion, I don't think the main issue is with the use of LRT technology and rolling stock (although light metro would've been best), but rather going with a 100% low floor LRV instead of a high floor LRV or even a partial low floor LRV like the Siemens S700.

When I was in Seattle last year, their S700 trains really didn't seem to have the flimsy feel of the Citadis Spirit trains despite being partial low floor, nor did they seems to have issues navigating curves at higher speeds. That probably has something to do with the powered bogies being housed under the high floor segments of the trains and the non-powered ones being housed under the low floor segments. The issue at hand for the Citadis really seems to revolve around the 100% low floor design.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

I can't recall what the other consortiums proposed for rolling stock. Were they 100% low floor LRVs too? In my opinion, I don't think the main issue is with the use of LRT technology and rolling stock (although light metro would've been best), but rather going with a 100% low floor LRV instead of a high floor LRV or even a partial low floor LRV like the Siemens S700.

When I was in Seattle last year, their S700 trains really didn't seem to have the flimsy feel of the Citadis Spirit trains despite being partial low floor, nor did they seems to have issues navigating curves at higher speeds. That probably has something to do with the powered bogies being housed under the high floor segments of the trains and the non-powered ones being housed under the low floor segments. The issue at hand for the Citadis really seems to revolve around the 100% low floor design.

The issue with the 70% low floors like Seattle is that you lose the open gangways. If they insisted on LRT, I wish they went with designs like the Alberta twins (original lines, not the new low floors built and proposed in the last decade).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It seems that way, yet the part that still doesn't make sense is that Citadii in other cities take far sharper corners than ours. Our curves and very generous compared to many other lines. One thing that might be odd about ours though is that we use all long modules, whereas most European versions are more "caterpillar" like with shorter modules and more articulation

A few things.

1. Citadis is a product line (kind of like RAM is a product line for Stellantis). Spirit is the model.
2. Yes they have sharper curves, but most of those are at intersections on city streets, where they have to slow down to a crawl to make sure that they don't hit a pedestrian, cyclist or motor vehicle. It doesn't seem as slow though, because of how tight and chaotic the environment is. In a wide open field, it seems much slower.
3. IIRC, that bearing design is used, without issue, on other vehicles around the world

Certainly the length of the modules (and the train overall) could be contributing factors. Shorter modules would create more wasted space, making the required overall train length even longer, which comes back to LRT trainsets are not optimized for transporting 600 people per train. The claim that the Confederation Line would be the world's largest (in passenger volume) LRT system on opening day should have been a warning, not a boast.

[J.OT13]

If we could one day get a model that's 100 meters long, no cabs in the middle, then that could balance shorter units. Of course you could no longer halve the trains for weekend service, but would save us enough trouble, time, money otherwise that it might be worth it.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The issue with the 70% low floors like Seattle is that you lose the open gangways. If they insisted on LRT, I wish they went with designs like the Alberta twins (original lines, not the new low floors built and proposed in the last decade).

Agreed, high floor would've been better. And yes, we would lose open gangways and capacity with an LRV like the S700, but that loss in capacity would probably be made up for with the faster end-to-end travel times you would presumably get with the S700.

Anyways, it's a moot point now. We're stuck with the citadis for many years to come. We can only hope they figure out the bogie issue sooner than later.

[Admiral Nelson]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

We can only hope they figure out the bogie issue sooner than later.

Do we know that someone, anyone, is looking into this still?

[AuxTown]

Do we know what the anticipated travel time will be from Moodie to Rideau? If they can keep that in the 30 minute range then it would be a win in my opinion. Our stations are spaced far enough apart that some decent speed should be attainable for much of the trip.

[DarthVader_1961]

Originally Posted by AuxTown

Do we know what the anticipated travel time will be from Moodie to Rideau? If they can keep that in the 30 minute range then it would be a win in my opinion. Our stations are spaced far enough apart that some decent speed should be attainable for much of the trip.

With speed restrictions, I cannot imagine 30 minutes is doable. Unless those restrictions only apply to certain sections of line 1

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

With speed restrictions, I cannot imagine 30 minutes is doable. Unless those restrictions only apply to certain sections of line 1

My thought as well. Moodie to Trim was supposed to be under an hour, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's closer to two hours in reality.

If they need restrictions on many parts of the current line, I'm sure more will be added to Stage 2. Not as many curves, so we may have fewer restrictions/km.

[Kitchissippi]

If the trains average 50kph and dwell times are down to 30 seconds, Trim to Moodie should be under an hour, something like 52 minutes. I'm really hoping they work the kinks out by the time the western extension opens.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

If the trains average 50kph and dwell times are down to 30 seconds, Trim to Moodie should be under an hour, something like 52 minutes. I'm really hoping they work the kinks out by the time the western extension opens.

That was the estimate initially before all the slow orders. Decreasing the dwell times is by far the best thing they could do to minimize the impacts, but those dwell times continue to be ridiculously long. They bother me more than the slow orders.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That was the estimate initially before all the slow orders. Decreasing the dwell times is by far the best thing they could do to minimize the impacts, but those dwell times continue to be ridiculously long. They bother me more than the slow orders.

I suspect the long dwell times are part of the cost cutting measures. They make up some time to make the 10 minute frequency work. I estimate the extra 30 seconds at each station adds roughly 30% to the trip length which also means you can put less trains in the system. I don't really take the O-Train during rush hours, do people notice that the dwell times are shorter on the peak periods?

When the east extension opens they'll have to rework the schedule and frequencies, and I hope the dwell times get shortened as a result.