Calgary Public Transit II - Page 334

artvandelay · #**6661** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 6:29 AM**

Those are sick!

Love the interior layout - best of both worlds and no stupid poles in the middle of the train anymore.

The Buffalo design is best, followed by Bow. The more red, the better.

Socguy · #**6662** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 1:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allan83

I wonder if it would make sense to have the fourth car of the new 4 car trains be more open, with few or no seats. Make it essentially only for cyclists and standers, iow. Then maybe the city could allow cyclists at any time of the day in that car. You’d need more polls and more straps from the ceiling to hang onto as well. I wonder if this is being done anywhere. It would help to promote cycling, and there seem to be lots of people who don't mind standing for several stops, and without the seats you may not lose much capacity overall. You'd lose some with the bikes but gain some with more standers. Just a thought.

I've been wondering the same thing. If it was up to me, the 4th car would have basically no seats but twice the number of doors. Make it easy to get bikes and strollers onto the train or really be able to cram people in when needed.

Fuzz · #**6663** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 2:03 PM**

Is there a good reason to have every car have driver stations on both ends? I would think they could improve capacity significantly by only having the lead of the train and the tail of the train with driver controls. Couldn't the middle cars just be passenger carriages? I'm sure it would save money and improve capacity. The downside would be losing some flexibility of not being able to use every car everywhere on the train.

The driver area of these new cars also looks significantly larger with a control panel on 3 sides of the driver, as opposed to just up front on the old ones.

I do like the idea of moving the doors away from the ends a bit.

MalcolmTucker · #**6664** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 2:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a good reason to have every car have driver stations on both ends? I would think they could improve capacity significantly by only having the lead of the train and the tail of the train with driver controls. Couldn't the middle cars just be passenger carriages? I'm sure it would save money and improve capacity. The downside would be losing some flexibility of not being able to use every car everywhere on the train.

The driver area of these new cars also looks significantly larger with a control panel on 3 sides of the driver, as opposed to just up front on the old ones.

I do like the idea of moving the doors away from the ends a bit.

Bingo. The loss to flexibility would be an issue. Maybe a person familiar with CT operations can weigh in on the frequency of assembling and disassembling trains?

Fuzz · #**6665** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 4:01 PM**

With 4 car trains is it as big a deal though? It just seams such a waste to have 2 cars with cabins on each end taking up valuable passenger space.

You Need A Thneed · #**6666** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 4:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

With 4 car trains is it as big a deal though? It just seams such a waste to have 2 cars with cabins on each end taking up valuable passenger space.

They could have gone with married pairs, essentially 50 metre long cars instead of 25 metre cars.

Calgarian · #**6667** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 4:56 PM**

Put me down as a fan of the Buffalo design as well.

So are these new trains the only ones that can go 4 cars? they can't just add another car to the existing trains?

shogged · #**6668** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 4:57 PM**

Great looking train and a great deal for Calgary. I like the goalie mask, best looking train from head on!

MasterG · #**6669** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:01 PM**

I hope these new trains have faster opening / closing doors. This wastes 10 seconds per stop everyday on every train. Also gives runners more time to jump infront of the door to keep it open further delaying things.

You Need A Thneed · #**6670** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:06 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Put me down as a fan of the Buffalo design as well.

So are these new trains the only ones that can go 4 cars? they can't just add another car to the existing trains?

Any kind of car they have can run in 4 car sets. They just need more cars to have enough to actually add capacity, or else they just have to run with fewer trains.

Calgarian · #**6671** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:16 PM**

Ok good, I figured I was reading that wrong lol.

Cage · #**6672** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Is there a good reason to have every car have driver stations on both ends? I would think they could improve capacity significantly by only having the lead of the train and the tail of the train with driver controls. Couldn't the middle cars just be passenger carriages? I'm sure it would save money and improve capacity. The downside would be losing some flexibility of not being able to use every car everywhere on the train.

The driver area of these new cars also looks significantly larger with a control panel on 3 sides of the driver, as opposed to just up front on the old ones.

I do like the idea of moving the doors away from the ends a bit.

Flexibility issues aside, the biggest issue with passenger only carriages is that no other SD100/SD160/SD200 operator has requested the design change. Consequently Siemans would have to charge CT the full cost of design, build, and certifcation for the passenger only cars.

freeweed · #**6673** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

With 4 car trains is it as big a deal though? It just seams such a waste to have 2 cars with cabins on each end taking up valuable passenger space.

The driver cabins, at best, could hold 2 people standing up. So you're talking 4 people per car, in a car that holds what, 60? I can't even remember. Let's go with 60.

On a 4 car train, there are currently 8 cabins. You need 2 at least (have to be able to reverse a train in an emergency, from the other end). So you could in theory take out 6 cabins, and add 12 more standing bodies. Out of 240 passengers.

A 5% capacity increase, at the cost of incredibly reduced flexibility - cars couple and uncouple all the time - as well as increased cost because now you'd be designing several models of car. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

Also, the Buffalo design is the only one worth doing.

You Need A Thneed · #**6674** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by freeweed

The driver cabins, at best, could hold 2 people standing up. So you're talking 4 people per car, in a car that holds what, 60? I can't even remember. Let's go with 60.

On a 4 car train, there are currently 8 cabins. You need 2 at least (have to be able to reverse a train in an emergency, from the other end). So you could in theory take out 6 cabins, and add 12 more standing bodies. Out of 240 passengers.

A 5% capacity increase, at the cost of incredibly reduced flexibility - cars couple and uncouple all the time - as well as increased cost because now you'd be designing several models of car. Doesn't seem worth it to me.

Also, the Buffalo design is the only one worth doing.

If you take out the cab, you could probably add much more than 2 people standing per cab. Probably 4-6 seats plus a couple of people standing.

If you had 50 metre car instead of 25 metre cars, you could also have people in what is currently the space between cars - probably another 10-15 people.

If they bought consists that were 100 metres long, had cabs only at either end, and were continuous inside, you are probably adding 10-12 metres of length of usable passenger space over what is existing, approximately half a car's worth.

However, if we get 60 cars for the price of 50, that helps a lot too. We're going to need another 60-80 new cars in the next decade on top of this to be able to go full time 4 car trains with all trains on all lines, and to be able to retire the U2s that need to be retired.

By 2020 or so, we are going to have to start thinking about retiring the oldest SD160s too.

Calgarian · #**6675** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 5:53 PM**

I think the bigger problem is that every car has a motor that helps move the entire train (someone correct me if I'm wrong), removing the drivers cabin would likely require removing the motors in the passenger trains and adding more in the driver trains. It would also impact the flexibility of the cars as only so many cars would be driver cars, and if a few of them break down, then more trains would be affected.

DizzyEdge · #**6676** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by frinkprof

- Digital displays for next stop/destination as well as possible "infotainment" displays that could display things such as: realtime line map with current train location, next stop/destination, date, time, weather, announcements

What are the odds that these get filled with ads?

lubicon · #**6677** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 6:25 PM**

Buffalo design does it for me.

Fuzz · #**6678** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 6:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think the bigger problem is that every car has a motor that helps move the entire train (someone correct me if I'm wrong), removing the drivers cabin would likely require removing the motors in the passenger trains and adding more in the driver trains. It would also impact the flexibility of the cars as only so many cars would be driver cars, and if a few of them break down, then more trains would be affected.

Removing the driver cab wouldn't require removing the motors.

The 100m cars actually seam to make the most sense as far as gaining passenger space...

lineman · #**6679** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 6:36 PM**

Longer cars won't fit into the maintenance lifts at either Anderson or OBMF. Cars without cabs would have to be pettiboned in, creating logistical issues in the yards.

mersar · #**6680** Posted **Sep 12, 2013, 6:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

All the SDs have come from Sacramento.

Those numbers add up to 190.

Yep, I can't add obviously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I think the bigger problem is that every car has a motor that helps move the entire train (someone correct me if I'm wrong), removing the drivers cabin would likely require removing the motors in the passenger trains and adding more in the driver trains. It would also impact the flexibility of the cars as only so many cars would be driver cars, and if a few of them break down, then more trains would be affected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Removing the driver cab wouldn't require removing the motors.

The 100m cars actually seam to make the most sense as far as gaining passenger space...

Correct. The motors themselves are below the floor of the train, part of the wheel assembly.

I'm not surprised they stuck with 25m cars either. Larger would be nice, but definitely has operational/maintenance logistical issues.

What I am curious about is if these LRV's will be able to pair up to the SD160NG's... I suspect they won't based on the information I've seen but we will have to wait and see.