Calgary Public Transit II

[DizzyEdge]

One idea I had, since there are no plans (I believe) to change the paint jobs of the older busses and LRT cars to match the new branding, why not exclusively use the older cars for full-wrap advertising, and exclusively not do that on the newer cars.

[MalcolmTucker]

The wrapped cars won't be either as numerous, or as spread through the fleet to not have different wraps on the same train.

[kap384]

So, is there an updated LRV count with these white additions? I think I saw at least 4 of those units on my commute home yesterday.

In terms of cars in for service, mostly U2's or SD160's as well?

[Cage]

While we are on the issue of SD160 Series 8, what is the cost to convert from inward facing seats to the forward/rear facing seats? Other than dollar costs, any other obsticles to converting to the traditional seat configuration.

I ask because I notice a significant number of travellers seem to avoid the series 8 because they do not like the new configuration. For the morning commute I am in this category as well. I would rather wait for another car than take a Series 8. At some point there is going to be a tipping point where customer dissatisfaction with the seat configuration will become an issue.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Cage

While we are on the issue of SD160 Series 8, what is the cost to convert from inward facing seats to the forward/rear facing seats? Other than dollar costs, any other obsticles to converting to the traditional seat configuration.

I ask because I notice a significant number of travellers seem to avoid the series 8 because they do not like the new configuration. For the morning commute I am in this category as well. I would rather wait for another car than take a Series 8. At some point there is going to be a tipping point where customer dissatisfaction with the seat configuration will become an issue.

the cost is having to buy even more LRVs to handle the lost capacity.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

the cost is having to buy even more LRVs to handle the lost capacity.

The capacity difference between a series 8 and standard configuration is 10 people over the denominator of 162 people. There are 35 series 8 LRV on order, so theoretic saving is 2 LRVs.

2 LRVs sounds like a lot of money, however I respectfully submit that there no practical capacity difference between each LRV. I submit that at 150 people both LRVs interior configurations would be considered overcapacity by the travelling public. People will start taking the next available train or another mode of transportation. If this assumption is true, any gains in capacity remain purely theoretical and will not translate into improved customer service perception or improved system capacity.

Also, to look at things another way the the additional theoretical capacity increase is 6% (10 new seats out of a base of 162). However a portion of your customer base does not like the new configuration and will take another mode of transportation. If the passenger dislike for the new configuration gets above 4-5% of total LRV peak time users, the effect of the new configuration is largely negated.

[Canadian74]

There are currently 40 on order, not 35.
They will be ordering 50 more Series 8 (unless they choose Bombardier or something, since the order is big enough). Also, I think there were (are?) plans to introduce the new seating arrangement on the current SD-160s also.

[DarkKeyo]

The side seating would be more acceptable if it met two conditions: 1. The seats were intended to fit average sized adult human beings and 2. They actually created more standing room (a person seated facing the centre of the train, particularly one who has no elbow room, sticks out into the middle of the car, almost as much as the seats on the older trains.

Why can't we, on the order of series 8's, or 9's that are next, have seats that are a MIX, like every other metro train system in Canada? Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, have a mix of seating. Edmonton, last I had heard, has what our older trains have. I realize that most of those systems have wider cars, but still...

These opinions are from both me and people I know who ride the trains. We have also noticed that if there is a train announcement saying that we have to wait for a train that has developed a mechanical problem, that at least half the time we have seen that the train ahead of us is a series 8. That contributes to us avoiding them, when we have a choice.

[MalcolmTucker]

Off top of mind, Montreal has narrower cars.

People will get used to the side seating, I seriously doubt more people would stop taking transit due to side seating than would be induced because of greater capacity. People just like to complain.

As for the next series, they possibly won't be by Siemens even if my memory serves, so it all depends on what others have on offer. It is possible a new design would be able to push out over the couplers more, giving more floor space and capacity within the same train envelop, possibly allowing more seats without sacrificing capacity. I know if I wanted to win the contract, I would try my best to beat them on cost and capability to make up for the lack of somewhat common maintenance.

[Canadian74]

It's not decided if they're going with Siemens or not. There will be a tender, and Bombardier,etc. can bid if they want. But Siemens certainly WILL have an advantage, fleet commonality.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Cage

The capacity difference between a series 8 and standard configuration is 10 people over the denominator of 162 people. There are 35 series 8 LRV on order, so theoretic saving is 2 LRVs.

2 LRVs sounds like a lot of money, however I respectfully submit that there no practical capacity difference between each LRV. I submit that at 150 people both LRVs interior configurations would be considered overcapacity by the travelling public. People will start taking the next available train or another mode of transportation. If this assumption is true, any gains in capacity remain purely theoretical and will not translate into improved customer service perception or improved system capacity.

Also, to look at things another way the the additional theoretical capacity increase is 6% (10 new seats out of a base of 162). However a portion of your customer base does not like the new configuration and will take another mode of transportation. If the passenger dislike for the new configuration gets above 4-5% of total LRV peak time users, the effect of the new configuration is largely negated.

Blah blah blah. Everywhere else in the world (practically) uses perimeter seating.

People just aren't used to it and the percentage of trains with the new seating configuration is low at this point, which allows people to be choosy about accepting and getting used to the change. The old, inefficient and cramped, seating patterns will be phased out as old LRVs get retired.

Most of the complaints I've heard relate to the bucket-design of the seat which can make it uncomfortable for people with - no way to put it delicately- larger behinds. This is an easy thing to fix going forward by just making it a straight bench.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Canadian74

It's not decided if they're going with Siemens or not. There will be a tender, and Bombardier,etc. can bid if they want. But Siemens certainly WILL have an advantage, fleet commonality.

I would almost be wiling to guarantee that Siemens will NOT get the contract for the next batch of LRVs.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Blah blah blah. Everywhere else in the world (practically) uses perimeter seating.

Pretty much. Aside from some very old London Underground rolling stock, I've never been on a heavy rail metro system that didn't have perimeter seating. It's simply a more efficient use of space in a railcar designed for efficient transport of people, where comfort isn't the number one factor.

[Canadian74]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

I would almost be wiling to guarantee that Siemens will NOT get the contract for the next batch of LRVs.

Thats good news, I would like some change! That means Bombardier/Hyundai-Rotem?

[MalcolmTucker]

To have Siemens be exclusive suppliers in Bombardier's back yard I could see it being an embarassment to them. Even more so if they don't win an open competition.

Winning a contract to switch someone over would be quiet the thing for marketing as well, plus lots of future expansion and replacement in Calgary.

I would also guess that Siemens has an order backlog from Sacramento? due to Buy America. That being said, Bombardier would have trouble sourcing vehicles in North America as well, with Toronto's streetcars, subway, and Montreal's subway all on order for delivery soon, unless there is a plant about to be idle that was building subways or commuter trains for New York (but I think those may have closed awhile ago).

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

People will get used to the side seating, I seriously doubt more people would stop taking transit due to side seating than would be induced because of greater capacity. People just like to complain.

And sometimes the complaining is justified.

god forbid we actually listen to Calgarians, aka the customer, and respond.

Scrap that advisory committee....

[Aegis]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

I would almost be wiling to guarantee that Siemens will NOT get the contract for the next batch of LRVs.

Why is that?

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Off top of mind, Montreal has narrower cars.

People will get used to the side seating, I seriously doubt more people would stop taking transit due to side seating than would be induced because of greater capacity. People just like to complain.

Montreal also has a full size subway system, while Calgary has light rail that is above ground for 90% of the journey.

To further my position that some people will stop taking transit if the perimeter seating is expanded, consider the following:
- The extra capacity is being utilized at times when a lot of the customers have other viable options like driving their car. The extra capacity is only utilized during peak commute, after sporting events, and during stampede. Almost all other times the trains are not at overcapacity situation save for unplanned breakdowns and emergencies. Emergencies and unplanned mechanicals are too short notice events to deploy higher capacity on shorter notice.
- The capacity expansion is very small, 30 people per 3 car train at maximum. Over 12 trains on a line (5 min frequency) perimeter seating only adds 360 people over the course of the peak hour. This assumes all trains have perimeter seating. A realistic number is 1/2 the trains (assume all 160s are converted) have perimeter seating and the capacity increase is 180 people. The 180 people assumes the 10 person theoretical capacity increase. Move the capacity increase to 5 people (once backpacks, strollers, wheelchairs, and personal preference is taken into account), and my theory only needs 90 people per peak hour use to become reality (my theory that 90 people would switch transportation options and negate the effect of perimeter seating).

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Blah blah blah. Everywhere else in the world (practically) uses perimeter seating.

People just aren't used to it and the percentage of trains with the new seating configuration is low at this point, which allows people to be choosy about accepting and getting used to the change. The old, inefficient and cramped, seating patterns will be phased out as old LRVs get retired.

Most of the complaints I've heard relate to the bucket-design of the seat which can make it uncomfortable for people with - no way to put it delicately- larger behinds. This is an easy thing to fix going forward by just making it a straight bench.

Subway systems have perimeter seating, particularly in Europe. Light rail systems (direct comparison to Calgary) have forward/rear seating for most of the seats. Places with forward facing seats in North America include: Vancouver (both lines), Edmonton, Denver, Dallas, San Diego, Seattle, Portland).

I think we both agree that Calgarians are not accustomed to perimeter seating as the only seating option. However where we disagree is whether commuters would switch transportation options if perimeter seating is expanded. As I have demonstrated above, the number of people switching transportation options only needs to be 100 peope per peak hour to make this venture nonproductive.

WRT bucket seats, its not just users with big behinds, but anyone that has broad shoulders that is impacted by the narrow seats. The old seat configuration has the same issue (lack of space at shoulder width). However with forward facing seats each bench has an additional 2 inches of room between the end of the seat and the window. Additionally the aisle passenger can lean out into the aisle. Neither of these options are available to perimeter seats.

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Pretty much. Aside from some very old London Underground rolling stock, I've never been on a heavy rail metro system that didn't have perimeter seating. It's simply a more efficient use of space in a railcar designed for efficient transport of people, where comfort isn't the number one factor.

Originally Posted by Robert in Calgary

And sometimes the complaining is justified.

god forbid we actually listen to Calgarians, aka the customer, and respond.

Scrap that advisory committee....

Exactly my point. For Calgary Transit to be effective they must be on time, dependable, safe, and comfortable.

Air Canada faced a similar seat comfort issue in 2001-2005 period. AC had ordered some very uncomfortable seats for their new (post CP merge) A319 and A321 fleets. When the airline went out for fleet replacement, they brought couple hundred super elite flyers to YUL inorder to try both a new generation of seats and new airplanes. The result was XM seats and inflight entertainment, lie flat seats in Exec First, Embraer 90 and 777 airplanes. All which are a major sucess.

[MalcolmTucker]

If we are focusing on mobility and ridership, the peak hours should be the focus. Outside of peak hours the crowding issue caused by the seats shouldn't be a problem.

You use Air Canada as an example, but lots of people still travel on Air Transat - having capacity that is as cheap as possible is more important to most than a bit of numb bum.

As for trying to say 100 people per peak hour avoiding the trains negates the purpose of the capacity, it completely ignores that the trains are pretty much at capacity, and growth to take up the extra capacity will more than make up for numb bums.

No marginal rider has a seat anyways during peak - having a seat at all is a perk.

[Canadian74]

sorry, delete please.