OC Transpo

[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).