Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Yes, there are.

What makes you think that it wouldn't?
There are other 100% low floor vehicles that could handle these turns/curves just fine.


A regular reminder that the decision to forgoe mixed traffic was made after Stage 1 contracts were signed. Really not an easy decision to undo.

Well if there are other 100% low floor that handle curves then I don't see the point of switching to 70%, A new trainset is clearly needed so I guess adding the capacity also helps? I think it's a very busy system at a few stops though so that is also a factor.

I guess then it's the kneejerk reaction to forgoe mixed traffic in the suburbs that was classic Ottawa/Canada. A level train crossing accident has little to do with Trams. Though they can do serious damage to cars especially for drivers not used to them.

[lrt's friend]

Fixing Hurdman is unaffordable, yet replacing our rolling stock requiring the whole system to be rebuilt to accomodate incompatible trains and requiring a multi-,year closure is a more reasonable solution? A Carling route could not possibly reuse our current train fleet. We would be selling them at an enormous loss. And all through this transition, our remaining transit would be failing miserably.

[LRTeverywhere]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

A Carling route could not possibly reuse our current train fleet.

Why would it not be able to use our current train fleet? They are literally planned and in testing to be used for the Finch West at grade lrt line.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by LRTeverywhere

Why would it not be able to use our current train fleet? They are literally planned and in testing to be used for the Finch West at grade lrt line.

My comment was not quite clear. We have far more trains than needed for a Carli ng route. The city can't afford Carling anyways.

[lrt's friend]

I believe the existing trains will work. Given the city's finances, will they make the investment to fix any remaining problems? I assume the consortium will not pay these costs .

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The course was set in the 70s.

I was around and it was the early 80s. Edmonton and Calgary got LRT because of Alberta's 1970s oil boom. Vancouver got the SkyTrain because of Expo 86 special funding. The Transitway was more affordable and was very successful.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Well if there are other 100% low floor that handle curves then I don't see the point of switching to 70%, A new trainset is clearly needed so I guess adding the capacity also helps? I think it's a very busy system at a few stops though so that is also a factor.

There isn't a real point. It may allow for a better interior layout, or other similar superficial benefits, but that's about it.

A new trainset is only "clearly needed" if you keep pretending like these trains can't be fixed. There isn't anyone from the city, RTG, Alstom, any of the half-dozen consultants brought in who has ever suggested that this might be the case.

I guess then it's the kneejerk reaction to forgoe mixed traffic in the suburbs that was classic Ottawa/Canada. A level train crossing accident has little to do with Trams. Though they can do serious damage to cars especially for drivers not used to them.

Another regular reminder that the decision to forgo mixed traffic was made months before the VIA accident happened.
The associated TMP, with an at-grade Carling LRT alignment, was approved shortly after the accident happened.

As far as I can tell, this narrative only exists as a convenient deflection for some people from the reality that at-grade operations were unsuitable for the Confederation Line, because yeah— it doesn't make any sense.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

A new trainset is only "clearly needed" if you keep pretending like these trains can't be fixed. There isn't anyone from the city, RTG, Alstom, any of the half-dozen consultants brought in who has ever suggested that this might be the case.

Exactly. Though the current issues are frustrating, it is nearly 100% certain that fixing the issues with the current fleet will take much less time and be much less costly than purchasing a completely new fleet.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Fixing Hurdman is unaffordable, yet replacing our rolling stock requiring the whole system to be rebuilt to accomodate incompatible trains and requiring a multi-,year closure is a more reasonable solution? A Carling route could not possibly reuse our current train fleet. We would be selling them at an enormous loss. And all through this transition, our remaining transit would be failing miserably.

Who said anything about rebuilding the system? LRVs are fairly interchangeable. Virtually all 100%/70% low floor models would work in ours, even mixed with the Citadis vehicles we have as long as they use the same ATC. They are far more "off the shelf" than Metro vehicles, which are unique to each system. I'm not seriously suggesting it, but it would be the cheapest nuclear option

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Who said anything about rebuilding the system? LRVs are fairly interchangeable. Virtually all 100%/70% low floor models would work in ours, even mixed with the Citadis vehicles we have as long as they use the same ATC. They are far more "off the shelf" than Metro vehicles, which are unique to each system. I'm not seriously suggesting it, but it would be the cheapest nuclear option

Are there any vehicles on the market that would be any better. The problem seems to be that they took European trams that were not designed for high speed, high curves, high-usage metro operations. Since Ottawa is the only city on earth stupid enough to subject trams to this usage I am not sure a different tram would be any better.

[lrt's friend]

We have heard it before, 70 percent low floor or high floor LRT was not the best alternative to what we purchased but a light metro instead. I can't imagine this would not require a major rebuild. Would 70 per cent low floor really solve our problems at a more reasonable cost?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Are there any vehicles on the market that would be any better. The problem seems to be that they took European trams that were not designed for high speed, high curves, high-usage metro operations.

They were explicitly designed for high speeds, tight curves, and full passenger loads. Don't conflate an engineering error with a lack of consideration for these factors.

Like I said previously, nobody involved with the project or the fallout of the project has suggested that this fundamentally can't work.
If it were as simple as these trains being "not designed" for any of these factors, then it would be really easy to address. That's obviously not the case, and I don't know how that could be any clearer.

Since Ottawa is the only city on earth stupid enough to subject trams to this usage I am not sure a different tram would be any better.

Seattle? Seville?

Fun fact for those who don't know, the current head of RTM was the director of maintenance on the Seville Metro. (I highly recommend looking up a picture of said metro).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

They were explicitly designed for high speeds, tight curves, and full passenger loads. Don't conflate an engineering error with a lack of consideration for these factors.

Like I said previously, nobody involved with the project or the fallout of the project has suggested that this fundamentally can't work.
If it were as simple as these trains being "not designed" for any of these factors, then it would be really easy to address. That's obviously not the case, and I don't know how that could be any clearer.

That is not what the judicial inquiry said.

The City received advice at the start of the project that the best course in establishing its technical requirements for the system was to use proven vehicles. In other words, vehicles that had been used successfully in other cities with similar needs and climatic conditions should be used on this project. This would reduce the risk of design flaws, delays, and malfunctions, and would minimize the chances of service interruptions.

Consistent with this advice, the City included a requirement in the Project Agreement that the vehicle for the OLRT1 be a “service-proven” vehicle.
Despite this advice and the requirements of the Project Agreement, the City chose to proceed with unproven technology. The vehicle used, Alstom’s Citadis Spirit model, included existing components from other train models but was actually a new custom built vehicle for this project.

Further, the City’s demands for the vehicle, including a low floor and performance requirements that made the use of an automatic train control
system with aggressive acceleration and deceleration rates necessary, among other performance capabilities, pushed the limits of performance for an LRT.

In effect, the City elected to gamble with unproven technology. As one of the City’s consultants stated, Ottawa “took one for the team” by being the first adopter of the new technology, because other cities would benefit from the City’s experience of living through the growing pains of a new vehicle. As will be discussed, this problem was compounded by the decision to make RTG solely responsible for the delivery of the vehicle. Given that the Project Agreement put the risk on RTG to supply a proven vehicle, and that RTG via OLRT-C subcontracted that task to Alstom, the City had no direct relationship with the key supplier.

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Seattle? Seville?

Seville is more or less a tram system they buried underground. The capacity is not very high (about 1/3 of the Confederation Line), there are not large gaps between stations where vehicles are expected to accelerate to highway speeds and there do not appear to be the crazy curves that Ottawa installed.

Seattle is a pretty standard tram system and doesn't resemble Ottawa's situation at all.

In both cases a tram technology was reasonable given the typical tram usage.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That is not what the judicial inquiry said.

The City received advice at the start of the project that the best course in establishing its technical requirements for the system was to use proven vehicles. In other words, vehicles that had been used successfully in other cities with similar needs and climatic conditions should be used on this project. This would reduce the risk of design flaws, delays, and malfunctions, and would minimize the chances of service interruptions.

Consistent with this advice, the City included a requirement in the Project Agreement that the vehicle for the OLRT1 be a “service-proven” vehicle.
Despite this advice and the requirements of the Project Agreement, the City chose to proceed with unproven technology. The vehicle used, Alstom’s Citadis Spirit model, included existing components from other train models but was actually a new custom built vehicle for this project.

Further, the City’s demands for the vehicle, including a low floor and performance requirements that made the use of an automatic train control
system with aggressive acceleration and deceleration rates necessary, among other performance capabilities, pushed the limits of performance for an LRT.

In effect, the City elected to gamble with unproven technology. As one of the City’s consultants stated, Ottawa “took one for the team” by being the first adopter of the new technology, because other cities would benefit from the City’s experience of living through the growing pains of a new vehicle. As will be discussed, this problem was compounded by the decision to make RTG solely responsible for the delivery of the vehicle. Given that the Project Agreement put the risk on RTG to supply a proven vehicle, and that RTG via OLRT-C subcontracted that task to Alstom, the City had no direct relationship with the key supplier.

That says nothing about what the vehicle was "designed" to do.
It describes a narrative about how such an engineering error could have occurred, but there is no detailed independent engineering analysis within the inquiry on the matter— and again, none of the engineers who have actually analyzed the issue seem to think this was a result of a simple oversight on any of these factors.

If the project agreement was wrong about the expected passenger loads, top speed requirements, or minimum turn radius, then it would be very easy for Alstom or RTG to point to that error in the project requirements. Vice versa for the City and the built capabilities of the vehicles.

Once again: this is not the case. So to assert that this was the result of a mis-consideration of any combination of design factors is claiming to know more than the dozens of engineers currently working to fix the issues.

Seville is more or less a tram system they buried underground. The capacity is not very high (about 1/3 of the Confederation Line), there are not large gaps between stations where vehicles are expected to accelerate to highway speeds and there do not appear to be the crazy curves that Ottawa installed.

Have you looked at a map of the Seville Metro? Many stations are separated by more than a kilometre. There is a S-curve through its downtown tunnel.
It may be a lower-capacity system, but again that's an actual factor here. Certainly for the last few years the Confederation Line has only been carrying little more than what the Seville Metro does, and it's still falling apart.

Yet another regular reminder that the curves on the Confederation Line are not extreme by any measure. Certainly not even remotely close to the smallest turn radius that these trains were designed to handle. (See Finch West).

Seattle is a pretty standard tram system and doesn't resemble Ottawa's situation at all.

In both cases a tram technology was reasonable given the typical tram usage.

Are you serious? Have you ever seen the Seattle LINK??
The 9km high speed grade separated run between Rainier Beach and Tukkwila along I-5 is hardly a standard feature of a tram network.

The LINK is admittedly more like what the Confederation Line was supposed to be, with at-grade sections in parts... but it is predominantly not a conventional at-grade tram system.


----

A very common theme among discussions about the issues with the LRT is piecing together various bits of tangentially related info that have no actual solid basis in reality.

[eltodesukane]

NYC is going down, down, down...

Cash Jordan 2024-08-27
"[...] a citywide shoplifting problem thats only getting worse."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y1hWfo_lBgI

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That says nothing about what the vehicle was "designed" to do.
It describes a narrative about how such an engineering error could have occurred, but there is no detailed independent engineering analysis within the inquiry on the matter— and again, none of the engineers who have actually analyzed the issue seem to think this was a result of a simple oversight on any of these factors.

If the project agreement was wrong about the expected passenger loads, top speed requirements, or minimum turn radius, then it would be very easy for Alstom or RTG to point to that error in the project requirements. Vice versa for the City and the built capabilities of the vehicles.

Once again: this is not the case. So to assert that this was the result of a mis-consideration of any combination of design factors is claiming to know more than the dozens of engineers currently working to fix the issues.


Have you looked at a map of the Seville Metro? Many stations are separated by more than a kilometre. There is a S-curve through its downtown tunnel.
It may be a lower-capacity system, but again that's an actual factor here. Certainly for the last few years the Confederation Line has only been carrying little more than what the Seville Metro does, and it's still falling apart.

Yet another regular reminder that the curves on the Confederation Line are not extreme by any measure. Certainly not even remotely close to the smallest turn radius that these trains were designed to handle. (See Finch West).


Are you serious? Have you ever seen the Seattle LINK??
The 9km high speed grade separated run between Rainier Beach and Tukkwila along I-5 is hardly a standard feature of a tram network.

The LINK is admittedly more like what the Confederation Line was supposed to be, with at-grade sections in parts... but it is predominantly not a conventional at-grade tram system.


----

A very common theme among discussions about the issues with the LRT is piecing together various bits of tangentially related info that have no actual solid basis in reality.

People are basing their assessments on what the judicial inquiry that heard from hundreds of witnesses, including engineers and a myriad of experts and produced a report hundreds of pages long. Or we could listen to what some rando on the internet that says what engineers (who are almost certainly trying to cover their backside) think without providing any sources.

I have never taken the Link to the airport but from a quick look at youtube it is not subject to the sorts of curves, inclines or passenger load that the Confederation Line is subject to. It looks like a typical US light rail system.

Finch is not yet open. We will see in a couple years how the Alstom trains hold up, although there is only one tight curve as far as I can tell.

The Confederation Line does all sorts of weird things most lines don't do like climbing from a deep tunnel to the surface while making a 270 degree turn, making a sharp U shaped turn while climbing to an elevated station at Hurdman, a pretty tight s-curve coming out of St Laurent.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

People are basing their assessments on what the judicial inquiry that heard from hundreds of witnesses, including engineers and a myriad of experts and produced a report hundreds of pages long. Or we could listen to what some rando on the internet that says what engineers (who are almost certainly trying to cover their backside) think without providing any sources.

The quote you provided from the inquiry doesn't even refer to any of what you said in your original argument.
It doesn't say anything about the designed capacity, curve radius, or speeds, nor does does the judicial inquiry actually make any specific engineering determinations about the cause of these issues.
Again, it's a narrative describing how these issues came to be, not a verdict on whether these trains can or cannot be made to work.

So yes, your assessment is drawn from tangentially related comments in the inquiry report, but the assertions you're making have no actual basis in reality. A lot of your comments aren't even logically sound on their own.

Case in point: I don't think the city's engineers would hesitate to call out errors in Alstom's work, or vice versa, considering the amount of money that's on the line for whoever it turns out was wrong. So why would anyone be trying to cover their backside? Nevermind the accusation that any of the engineers from the numerous organizations involved are lying.

Finch is not yet open. We will see in a couple years how the Alstom trains hold up, although there is only one tight curve as far as I can tell.

My point was about the designed capabilities of the vehicles. They were designed to handle turns far tighter than what they will ever see on the Confederation Line.

The Confederation Line does all sorts of weird things most lines don't do like climbing from a deep tunnel to the surface while making a 270 degree turn, making a sharp U shaped turn while climbing to an elevated station at Hurdman, a pretty tight s-curve coming out of St Laurent.

The way you describe this makes it sound like an inclined curve doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, or that the Confederation Line has especially tight turns.
None of these things are unique to Ottawa. They aren't a root cause.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

The quote you provided from the inquiry doesn't even refer to any of what you said in your original argument.
It doesn't say anything about the designed capacity, curve radius, or speeds, nor does does the judicial inquiry actually make any specific engineering determinations about the cause of these issues.
Again, it's a narrative describing how these issues came to be, not a verdict on whether these trains can or cannot be made to work.

So yes, your assessment is drawn from tangentially related comments in the inquiry report, but the assertions you're making have no actual basis in reality. A lot of your comments aren't even logically sound on their own.

Case in point: I don't think the city's engineers would hesitate to call out errors in Alstom's work, or vice versa, considering the amount of money that's on the line for whoever it turns out was wrong. So why would anyone be trying to cover their backside? Nevermind the accusation that any of the engineers from the numerous organizations involved are lying.


My point was about the designed capabilities of the vehicles. They were designed to handle turns far tighter than what they will ever see on the Confederation Line.



The way you describe this makes it sound like an inclined curve doesn't exist anywhere else in the world, or that the Confederation Line has especially tight turns.
None of these things are unique to Ottawa. They aren't a root cause.

So AC says we should have gone for a Metro given the capacity needed and other design parameters. Instead we chose a Tram that was designed to meet those parameters instead unlike really every other city in the world looking for the capacity and use case we are doing. This vehicle meets almost none of those requirements though it seems to deal with crush loads decently at this point though not sure if it can sustain that for a whole day (if the doors jam 1 in 100 times people crush into a full train and block them you might not notice it with 10 trips on Canada day and a trip or two after Bluesfest)

Given all this your assessement is still this was the right decision? As I said before we don't need to beat up the original decision makers. They are all gone anyway but we should be realistic about what will meet our needs going forward. Changing trains is probably too expensive but if a another set can be mixed in adding reliablity we might want to consider that.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I believe the existing trains will work. Given the city's finances, will they make the investment to fix any remaining problems? I assume the consortium will not pay these costs .

Did the contract not require the trains to work as advertised? Did the decision to rush the start date before a successful test void our "warranty" so to speak?

Interesting TTC annoucing service increases today. Shows what a tax increase can do. Suspect we are headed that way here as well.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

Given all this your assessement is still this was the right decision? As I said before we don't need to beat up the original decision makers. They are all gone anyway but we should be realistic about what will meet our needs going forward. Changing trains is probably too expensive but if a another set can be mixed in adding reliablity we might want to consider that.

I'm not disputing whether or not this was the right choice— it wasn't.

What I'm disputing is the idea that these trains "can't" be fixed and that the only path forward necessitates replacing an entire fleet of trains.

Interesting TTC annoucing service increases today. Shows what a tax increase can do. Suspect we are headed that way here as well.

I don't think there's any reason to believe we'll see any service increases here. At best we'll see a tax hike to maintain the status quo.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I'm not disputing whether or not this was the right choice— it wasn't.

What I'm disputing is the idea that these trains "can't" be fixed and that the only path forward necessitates replacing an entire fleet of trains.



I don't think there's any reason to believe we'll see any service increases here. At best we'll see a tax hike to maintain the status quo.

We almost certainly aren't going to replace the fleet. Is it too late to mix in a better model for phase 2 is maybe a better question but suspect the answer is mostly yes.

I think we will see some of the recent cuts reversed and a large but not 37% tax increase. LRT Line 1 and expansion in the East openin will require a wholesale change in the east and south so will be hard to compare service levels.