Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[OTSkyline]

That's a pretty major issue/flaw if you ask me. Everyone should be putting pressure on OC Transpo and Amilcar to get things back to reg speed.

If it could go to a 35km/hr avg. speed from the current 25, that should increase travel speeds & could help increase frequency. Both could help significantly drive usage.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OTSkyline

That's a pretty major issue/flaw if you ask me. Everyone should be putting pressure on OC Transpo and Amilcar to get things back to reg speed.

If it could go to a 35km/hr avg. speed from the current 25, that should increase travel speeds & could help increase frequency. Both could help significantly drive usage.

Our trunk rapid transit lines should be rapid. How did we arrive here? Major design flaws? The comparison between Line 2 and the SE Transitway is shocking and tells me that an extension of the Transitway would have been more effective. With a few traffic light controlled intersections, it would have been much, much cheaper and still would have moved passengers faster.

[Richard Eade]

I think that the conversion of Ottawa’s Transitway to rail would be an excellent topic for an in-depth study by some university class. There were many technical facets that needed to be taken into consideration, and some political ones.

Personally, I think that Ottawa would have been better off sticking with its (mostly) segregated Bus RAPID Transit (BRT) than to try to replace the existing system with Light RAIL Transit (LRT). Correcting the issues with the existing Transitway could have been far less expensive and could have provided much better service.

Note, as Mayor Chiarelli kept pointing out, the ‘R’ in LRT stands for RAIL – not RAPID. While LRT is considered a ‘higher-order’ of public transit, it is not necessarily rapid.

The biggest issue with the Transitway was due to one of its benefits; that it could provide service at a reduced level across missing sections. That is, you didn’t need an entire, unbroken, transitway to move buses. Those buses could bridge gaps in the Transitway by temporarily diverting to run in mixed traffic. This benefit meant that the Transitway could be built as funds allowed.

Unfortunately, it also provided an excuse for not building the required central bus tunnel. This led to hundreds of buses getting caught in traffic as they crossed the core during peak periods. Yes, they had dedicated east-bound and west-bound lanes, but that only locked them into a single file that was impeded by traffic signals, interactions with traffic (particularly vehicles turning right, and passing through or sitting in the bus lanes), pedestrians, and even the buses ahead which were stopping for passengers. Single dedicated lanes among mixed traffic is not sufficient to move large numbers of buses.

Thus, those who use the excuse that a bus tunnel would have had to be much larger and more expensive that a train tunnel are correct. A four-lane tunnel would, likely, have been more expensive to construct. However, with a BRT tunnel, the rest of the Transitway could have bee left as a Transitway. If, for example, the LRT tunnel cost about $500M to bore out, a cut & cover bus tunnel might have cost $800M-$1B. But, after constructing that bus tunnel, the buses would be running the entire length of the route again. The main bottle-neck would have been removed. In the case of the LRT, many more Billions of dollars are needed to convert the rest of the corridor to rail. Thus, yes, the BRT tunnel could have cost more, but the overall project could have been significantly less expensive.

(Another benefit of a cut & cover tunnel under Albert and/or Slater? The under-road infrastructure needed to be replaced – meaning that there would have been an additional cost saving by doing both jobs at once.)

Another argument that I hear quite often is that putting the buses into a tunnel was just moving the problem underground – that it would do little to increase the transit capacity. To me, this is an argument from people who only think in two dimensions. First of all, moving the buses into their own realm means that the restrictions of mixed traffic are removed. Also, stations can be designed to handle more buses and put those buses at defined locations (so no more trying to guess where your bus will stop and sprinting to that location). Where OC Transpo found that they could reasonably run up to 180 buses per hour along the surface, I imagine that 200-220 buses would be no problem underground.

But then the third dimension comes into play. Moving buses into a tunnel does NOT mean that EVERY bus MUST be in the tunnel. During peak periods, people will expect some road congestion in the city’s core. This would include buses. There is nothing wrong with having buses on the roads. They are part of the city. I would estimate that up to 120 buses per hour could still be run on the surface with no complaints of ‘Bus Backups’. Add that to the 220 buses that would be running through the tunnel, and there is a significant increase in capacity. Single-seat rides from the suburbs to the core might still have been practical.

Of course, that increased capacity is not infinite, so it would not last forever – but neither is the LRT capacity. And increasing the LRT’s capacity further requires additional capital. If more money is needed, I would still prefer to use that money to add a second bus tunnel under the core (assuming that that it is downtown that becomes a pinch-point again).

And, yes, I do know that running buses is expensive – perhaps more expensive than trains (although I would need to see the numbers on what our O-Train lines are really costing us to be sure) – but I think that the service could be better with buses. Having one-seat rides on express buses is hard to beat.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Our trunk rapid transit lines should be rapid. How did we arrive here? Major design flaws? The comparison between Line 2 and the SE Transitway is shocking and tells me that an extension of the Transitway would have been more effective. With a few traffic light controlled intersections, it would have been much, much cheaper and still would have moved passengers faster.

Line 2 is exactly we knew what it was going to be. It actually averages 35km/h across the entire length, because south of South Keys it goes much faster. In his chart he only did the speed north of South Keys. And we know why the average speed is so slow, long dwell times waiting for trains to pass. Even if it were fully electric, but still single track it would have similar average speed times.

However, Line 2 was designed to be eventually double tracked the full length, and they did do future thinking like wider pylons at the Airport station for longer platforms in the future. So it was more a budget thing, we got the "we can give you the 70% solution, and will do the remaining 30% later". Unideal, but eventually fixable

Line 1 is a different beast entirely, there's absolutely no reason it should be running that slow. It's a semi-automatic electric train on full double track. This is the real thing that they should be acting on right now, as we were told it was to have a 43km/h average speed (and it did) back at the begining.

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It's closed all the time, permanently. That happened a while ago.

To be honest, it never got much traffic. The one at Blair does better, not sure about Tunney's
To be honest though, I think it's a poor location. Rideau doesn't cater as much to the office crowd getting off and heading to work. It's more shoppers and tourists, why get a coffee in a tunnel when there's more pleasant options on the surface.

I think Parliament would have been a better choice, there's always a huge morning rush at the Starbucks just upstairs in the Sunlife center, and it's all people heading to their desks, not looking to sip and savour while shopping or exploring

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/happy-goat-lrt-rideau-blair-coffee-business-ottawa-1.6975845

All good points. I'm just disappointed in general at the lack of any types of services or amenities within any station. Might be the best for any potential proprietors/lease holders given the drop in foot traffic since Covid. The abandoned Happy Goat at Hurdman is a sad sight to see and feels a bit representational of our transit system as a whole in its current state.

I think I'm just used to Eglinton station in Toronto and seeing a different potential transit station environment.

Part of me sees it as potential lost revenue for OC? Is there still no print advertising on the trains? None of this would bridge a 40M funding gap but it feels like somebody at OC just isn't doing their job or being creative. Maybe I am overestimating the market for print advertising with everybody staring at their phones now. If they can sell full bus/train liveries in other markets why can't it be done here etc?

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

All good points. I'm just disappointed in general at the lack of any types of services or amenities within any station. Might be the best for any potential proprietors/lease holders given the drop in foot traffic since Covid. The abandoned Happy Goat at Hurdman is a sad sight to see and feels a bit representational of our transit system as a whole in its current state.

I think I'm just used to Eglinton station in Toronto and seeing a different potential transit station environment.

Part of me sees it as potential lost revenue for OC? Is there still no print advertising on the trains? None of this would bridge a 40M funding gap but it feels like somebody at OC just isn't doing their job or being creative. Maybe I am overestimating the market for print advertising with everybody staring at their phones now. If they can sell full bus/train liveries in other markets why can't it be done here etc?

It's not that they can't, it's that they won't. They had an explicit policy against wrapping trains, and they only recently relented on the tame amount of advertising they've allowed into the stations. They had some vision of keeping everything ad free at the beginning

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

My perception of how slow Line 1 and 2 is confirmed with a comparison chart appearing on urban Toronto website. Line 1 and 2 are by far the slowest and the southeast Transitway is by far the fastest. It compares similar rail lines in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.

https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/ottawa-transit-developments.28872/page-156

There's no indication otherwise, but it seems questionable to compare Ottawa's speed-restriction ridden Line 1 to Toronto's speed-restrictionless timetables.

Anybody who has used Toronto's subway network in the past year knows that it's nowhere near that fast.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

I think that the conversion of Ottawa’s Transitway to rail would be an excellent topic for an in-depth study by some university class. There were many technical facets that needed to be taken into consideration, and some political ones.

Personally, I think that Ottawa would have been better off sticking with its (mostly) segregated Bus RAPID Transit (BRT) than to try to replace the existing system with Light RAIL Transit (LRT). Correcting the issues with the existing Transitway could have been far less expensive and could have provided much better service.

Although this might be an interesting analysis, I don't think it's a particularly useful one if you present the problem as a false dichotomy like this.

There was a third option: "Heavy" rail transit .

(Another benefit of a cut & cover tunnel under Albert and/or Slater? The under-road infrastructure needed to be replaced – meaning that there would have been an additional cost saving by doing both jobs at once.)

Why are we comparing a bored rail tunnel to a cut and cover bus tunnel? This is apples to oranges to blueberries.

But then the third dimension comes into play. Moving buses into a tunnel does NOT mean that EVERY bus MUST be in the tunnel. During peak periods, people will expect some road congestion in the city’s core. This would include buses. There is nothing wrong with having buses on the roads. They are part of the city. I would estimate that up to 120 buses per hour could still be run on the surface with no complaints of ‘Bus Backups’. Add that to the 220 buses that would be running through the tunnel, and there is a significant increase in capacity. Single-seat rides from the suburbs to the core might still have been practical.

If we assume that people will always choose the most "rapid" option available to them, then the idea of creating a two-tiered transit corridor where one option will inevitably always be worse sounds like it would be self-defeating.

Why would anyone use the slower surface routes? Because they're single-ride trips? That's a bold bet.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

There's no indication otherwise, but it seems questionable to compare Ottawa's speed-restriction ridden Line 1 to Toronto's speed-restrictionless timetables.

Anybody who has used Toronto's subway network in the past year knows that it's nowhere near that fast.

Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any current plan to get rid of the speed zones on line 1.

The line seems fairly reliable this year, but it seems now that they've band-aided things there's no rush in actually fixing the issues. There's also no indication they won't plop speed zones on the new extensions "just in case" at this point. It would be nice to know if there's some progress, if any, at alleviating this.

At least Toronto is working on their speed zones

[ponyboycurtis]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It's not that they can't, it's that they won't. They had an explicit policy against wrapping trains, and they only recently relented on the tame amount of advertising they've allowed into the stations. They had some vision of keeping everything ad free at the beginning

I remember their commitment to being ad-free for the first year for the purpose of way finding and keeping visual clutter to a minimum. I commend the notion of that as I am certainly no fan of advertising but in practice I don't see what it really accomplished.

We are also several years removed from that concept.

At this stage I don't understand the puritan notion. These people are disconnected from reality. Assuming some company wanted to hand you a pile of money to wrap a train they would say no? As a cash strapped organization I would "selling out" at every possible opportunity. Instead we are paying $4.05 with service treading water at best.

I am going to pick my friends brain who owns a downtown Toronto advertising firm. I'll see if I can come back with some rough numbers on what having X number of ads inside the train and stations could potentially bring in.

I'll report back. If I'm not back in 5 minutes just wait longer.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any current plan to get rid of the speed zones on line 1.

The line seems fairly reliable this year, but it seems now that they've band-aided things there's no rush in actually fixing the issues. There's also no indication they won't plop speed zones on the new extensions "just in case" at this point. It would be nice to know if there's some progress, if any, at alleviating this.

At least Toronto is working on their speed zones

I think that framing really depends on how you characterize a "plan". The TTC keeps fixing their slow zones, yes—but they keep coming back. So does the TTC really have a plan? Debatable, as far as the public is concerned.

I do also think it's interesting that you'd perceive the TTC as being upfront in the way they're working on their slow zones considering the absolute lack of transparency on the matter. We know why the Confederation Line is slow. We do not actually know why Toronto's subways are riddled with speed restrictions.

[ottawaballa]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Regardless, there doesn't seem to be any current plan to get rid of the speed zones on line 1.

The line seems fairly reliable this year, but it seems now that they've band-aided things there's no rush in actually fixing the issues. There's also no indication they won't plop speed zones on the new extensions "just in case" at this point. It would be nice to know if there's some progress, if any, at alleviating this.

At least Toronto is working on their speed zones

These articles from fall 2023 indicate that the speed restrictions will stay in place until the wheel bearing assemblies are redesigned and replaced.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-new...ctions-on-ottawas-lrt-system-report-says

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/lrt-watson-anniversary-promise-reality-ottawa-1.6954375

It would be nice to get an update on the progress of the redesign since it was announced that Alstom was resuming work on it. I thought there was supposed to be a report by the end of 2024 but I haven't seen anything.

I do like how the TTC has a map on their website that shows the slow zone locations on the system.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

I think that framing really depends on how you characterize a "plan". The TTC keeps fixing their slow zones, yes—but they keep coming back. So does the TTC really have a plan? Debatable, as far as the public is concerned.

I do also think it's interesting that you'd perceive the TTC as being upfront in the way they're working on their slow zones considering the absolute lack of transparency on the matter. We know why the Confederation Line is slow. We do not actually know why Toronto's subways are riddled with speed restrictions.

It's not perfect transparency, but they at least make an attempt

https://www.ttc.ca/riding-the-ttc/Updates/Reduced-Speed-Zones

The TTC slow zones are mostly due to age and TTC kicking the can down the road on "state of good repair". Steve Monro has written a lot about it over the years.

We know why they exist on the confed line, but in the best case that new cartridge is years away, they should be looking at alternate mitigations (track greasing in corners? Increasing super elevation?) that could be done sooner. Without keeping the fire on RTM and Alstom un the public sphere, we risk perhaps a decade of this as they plod along

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It's not perfect transparency, but they at least make an attempt

https://www.ttc.ca/riding-the-ttc/Updates/Reduced-Speed-Zones

The TTC slow zones are mostly due to age and TTC kicking the can down the road on "state of good repair". Steve Monro has written a lot about it over the years.

The problem is that that's an incredibly vague reasoning, particularly in instances where slow zones are removed and later reinstated. Why's that? There's also no indication of what work needs to be done in order to bring the track infrastructure back into a "state of good repair". Big chunks of the subway are shutting down early at night and on weekends, but there's very little explanation for what's actually being done. Not all closures have even been in areas that have active speed restrictions (or at least that the TTC posts on that page).

All this is really proving is that some performative "transparency" is apparently enough to appease people, I guess? If you've read Steve Munro's writing on the subject, I'd think you see just how critical he is about all of this.

We know why they exist on the confed line, but in the best case that new cartridge is years away, they should be looking at alternate mitigations (track greasing in corners? Increasing super elevation?) that could be done sooner. Without keeping the fire on RTM and Alstom un the public sphere, we risk perhaps a decade of this as they plod along

If you weren't aware, they've already installed track lubricators across the surface sections of the line. Ultimately, there's no real course of action that can reasonably be taken if the root cause is still unknown.

I certainly can't disagree with wishing for more updates and more of a plan from the city/RTM/Alstom, but this continued framing of the TTC making an honest attempt at transparency is far too generous considering how opaque they've actually been.

To my original original point: OC Transpo has baked the temporary speed restrictions into the posted timetables. It's unclear if the TTC has done the same for the subway network. How's that for passenger-facing transparency?

[rocketphish]

LRT Line 1 being shut down Sunday at 8 p.m. for Stage 2 work
R1 bus service will operate between the Tunney's Pasture and Blair stations from 7:45 p.m. until 11 p.m., transit service general manager Renée Amilcar said.

By Staff Reporter, Ottawa Citizen
Published May 05, 2025 | Last updated 1 hour ago

Ottawa LRT Line 1 service will end early — at 8 p.m. — on Sunday, May 11 so planned Stage 2 work can be done.

R1 bus service will operate between the Tunney’s Pasture and Blair stations from 7:45 p.m. until 11 p.m., transit service general manager Renée Amilcar said in a memo to council Monday. Shuttle bus service will also run between the St-Laurent and Cyrville stations, and between Lees Station and Mackenzie King Bridge during the closure.

Regular night bus service routes will operate on a regular schedule after 11 p.m. and Line 1 service will resume at its regular 5 a.m. start time on Monday, May 12, the memo stated.

“This temporary closure is required for Stage 2 systems integration, in preparation for Line 1 service to be extended from Blair to Trim Station as part of the O-Train East extension,” the memo read.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/lrt-line-1-shut-down-sunday

[Richard Eade]

With any luck, they will leave a couple of trains on the eastern extension so that they can do a lot more testing/training.

Now that the universities are done, the load on the Line 1 trains should be reduced. Line 1 should only need to use the north platform of Blair, and the south platform could be used for the training of operators on the east extension. Since there is a switch just east of Blair Road, only the south platform needs to be used for trains on the eastern track. This will give the operators the ‘feel’ of leaving and arriving at Blair, as if they are on the complete Line 1/3.

With two (or maybe even more) trains on the tracks east of Blair, they can do timing for passing at the usual passing points. Once operators are familiar with the eastern portion, and its timing, then the testing/training can join to the existing Line 1 section. That integration test/training should be pretty quick, and occur just before the extension opens for revenue.

[rocketphish]

That's some top-quality signage right there...



https://ottawacitizen.com/public-service/budget-2025-public-servants

[rocketphish]

Ottawa LRT service to be disrupted by summer maintenance work
There will also be work on continuing to prepare for the start of service on the East Extension past Blair Station.

By Staff Reporter, Ottawa Citizen
Published May 30, 2025 | Last updated 5 hours ago

OC Transpo has announced a schedule for summer maintenance operations and O-Train East Extension integration that will cause temporary disruptions of Line 1 LRT service.

The required adjustments, detailed in a Friday memo to the mayor and city councillors from transit general manager Renée Amilcar, include:

• June 6 after 9 p.m.: R1 replacement bus service between Tunney’s Pasture and Hurdman stations; LRT service will continue between uOttawa and Blair stations.
• June 7 after 10 p.m., June 8 after 7 p.m., and June 12 after 10 p.m.: R1 buses between Rideau and Blair stations; LRT service will continue between Tunney’s Pasture and uOttawa stations.
• June 14-15 all day, June 22 between 8 a.m. and 12 noon, and June 29 between 8 a.m. and 12 noon: R1 buses between Tunney’s Pasture and Blair stations.

Amilcar’s memo said all rail systems required regular maintenance operations to support “the long-term sustainability and reliability of the system.” In addition, she wrote, OC Transpo had co-ordinated with the Stage 2 LRT project and the city’s Infrastructure and Water Services
Department to address multiple priorities.

The maintenance work scheduled for June includes:

• Rail replacement at specific locations.
• Ongoing upgrades of supporting wires of the overhead catenary system that powers the electric trains.
• Adjustments to track electrical grounding near Tunney’s Pasture Station.
• Line 1 train control server upgrades.
• Traction Power Sub Station maintenance work.
• Work identified as part of Ontario Structure Inspection Manual examinations of the St-Laurent Station tunnel.
• General station maintenance and seasonal cleaning.
• Continued testing and integration of the Stage 2 O-Train East Extension with Line 1.

Additional work will be necessary to complete testing of the Line 1 extension east from Blair Station this summer, the memo added. “It is also anticipated that additional Stage 2 integration work will occur on the weekends of July 5 and July 26 that will affect Line 1 service. More information on specific service adjustments will be provided closer to these dates. It is also anticipated that there will be additional impacts to Line 1 throughout the summer as the O-Train East Extension testing and
commissioning progresses and, in the fall, to conduct rail grinding.”

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/ottawa-lrt-disrupted-summer-maintenance

[Richard Eade]

What can we glean from this information?

The portion of the lines (1 & the future 3) between Tunney’s Pasture and uOttawa (including the curved ramp between Rideau and uOttawa) is less of a problem than the portion between uOttawa and Blair. The west gets one evening of shut-down, while the east gets three. I suspect that there are a number of reasons for that, including; the curves around Hurdman; and the age of St. Laurent station and its associated underpasses.

I would guess that the “rail replacement at specific locations” would be swapping some of the rails in curves for harder rails. I expect that without the help of the guide rails to take part of the load on curves, the outside rails are wearing faster than originally anticipated.

[Recall that our tracks were laid with a guide rail to help the trains maneuver curves by having the guide rail push on the inside surface of the wheel flanges. This is common in North America because it splits the cornering loads between two rails, allowing for softer (cheaper) rails to be used. However, the resilient wheels that are installed on our trains are not designed to take force on the inside face of the flange. Thus, we needed to pull the guide rails back to become non-contact guard rails. That puts all of the turning force onto the face of the outside rail, causing accelerated wear of our soft rails.]

I suspect that the “station maintenance and seasonal cleaning” might involve noisy equipment (maybe a pressure washer, for example) so it is preferred to use those earlier in the evening, while the noise by-law permits it. Yes, it could be exempted from the by-law, but if that is not necessary due to a short shut-down, then all the better.

As for the rest of the list of jobs, I would think that some of them (like the “ongoing upgrades of the supporting wires”) could take place during the night hours, but, since the line is being shut-down anyway, those tasks are done faster during the longer block of time.

Although I would like it if there were no annual shut-downs, I do appreciate that OC Transpo is trying to group the work so as to minimize the number (and duration) of shut-downs that do happen.

No talk of rail grinding this year. Odd.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

[Recall that our tracks were laid with a guide rail to help the trains maneuver curves by having the guide rail push on the inside surface of the wheel flanges. This is common in North America because it splits the cornering loads between two rails, allowing for softer (cheaper) rails to be used. However, the resilient wheels that are installed on our trains are not designed to take force on the inside face of the flange. Thus, we needed to pull the guide rails back to become non-contact guard rails. That puts all of the turning force onto the face of the outside rail, causing accelerated wear of our soft rails.]

This recollection is incorrect. You have most of the right details, but the guide rails were always designed to be a passive safety feature.

Realigning the guide rail to eliminate excessive contact didn't change their intended purpose, it was entirely a mitigation for the fact that the wheels weren't supposed to be making contact with the guide rail at all.