Calgary Public Transit II

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by mersar

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.

It's not really a big deal if they can't. 60 divides evenly into both 4 and 3.

[Chadillaccc]

The new designs really are gorgeous.








source: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2013/09/11/calgary-new-transit-cars-tr.html

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by lineman

Cars without cabs would have to be pettiboned in, creating logistical issues in the yards.

...not sure the definition on that one...

I assume it means pushed in some way? You could have a connection port and a portable control console that could be rolled onto the cars to move them about separate of the control cabs. Obviously at this point the cost of these customs systems is going to be the barrier, so I'm just throwing ideas out there... It just seams like a waste of space for 99% of the time the cars are in use. Especially moving to 4 car trains.

[Calgarian]

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...

Yeah I started thinking about that as soon as I wrote that post, they can obviously be controlled by the lead car currently...

[DoubleK]

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.

Great post with a well laid out logical argument.

Originally Posted by freeweed

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

Aaaaaaand then you drop that.

Seriously, I wonder how they will make the decision. I'd kinda like to see it as a plebiscite but that seems like an awful expensive way to make the decision...

[Fuzz]

I don't buy the "you can only get 2 people in a drivers cabin" argument. Take out the wall, control council, and you can probably get 8-10 standing. That's on the oldest trains with he smallest cabins. The newer ones are even larger and these newest models appear to be larger again. One of the videos posted showed the cabin, and it looks to be quite large.

[sim]

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.

Umm, it's also pretty useful in normal operations as well - bidirectional and all.


I'd go with the Buffalo too.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by mersar

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.

I remember reading about this but I can't remember if it was yes or no. I'll try to dig up my notes later.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

...not sure the definition on that one...

Pettibone a brand name for a crane that can be hi-railed. They use it to move rail sections and to move cars though de-energized power sections (like in cases of catenary tear-downs. Rail folk tend to use the word like people use Kleenex.

I guess it would be possible, but it would create extra congestion in the yards and not be as efficient as moving around cars with controls.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Seriously, I wonder how they will make the decision. I'd kinda like to see it as a plebiscite but that seems like an awful expensive way to make the decision...

I heard there will be an online poll in the near future.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I don't buy the "you can only get 2 people in a drivers cabin" argument. Take out the wall, control council, and you can probably get 8-10 standing. That's on the oldest trains with he smallest cabins. The newer ones are even larger and these newest models appear to be larger again. One of the videos posted showed the cabin, and it looks to be quite large.

I dunno, I've been in the cabs and I'd say even 4 people would be a tight squeeze, even with the equipment and wall removed - unless you completely re-designed the ends of the things. Extending them so that the space between cars could be used would add a LOT more space.

But I haven't exactly taken a measuring tape to the whole thing, so I'm quite possibly completely off-base here.

From what I gather, CT is only planning on running 4-car trains during rush hour. So means continual juggling of the cars anyway - and having "special" cars with no driver cabs just makes this that much more complicated.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by DoubleK

Great post with a well laid out logical argument.

Aaaaaaand then you drop that.

Seriously, I wonder how they will make the decision. I'd kinda like to see it as a plebiscite but that seems like an awful expensive way to make the decision...

Web poll. Restrict it to one vote per IP address, or something trivial. If anyone wants to spend the time to game the system beyond that, just for LRT livery - ya know, I just don't really care that much.

[shogged]

i think the mask will grow on a few people overtime. I think aesthetically it best combines the modern look with the full glass cabin some of you like, but still maintains cohesion with the older styles with the boxy glass and straight lines

shame about the name though, I think I would have called it the Ram

[lucx]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

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

Each car is designed to last 30 years. The oldest SDs won't be replaced until 2031.

Originally Posted by mersar

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.

I read somewhere that the new cars will be compatible with the Series 8s (current cars) as part of the design requirements. The older SDs will get coupler upgrades as part of their mid-life maintenance which will make them compatible with the Series 8s and presumably the new cars.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I dunno, I've been in the cabs and I'd say even 4 people would be a tight squeeze, even with the equipment and wall removed - unless you completely re-designed the ends of the things. Extending them so that the space between cars could be used would add a LOT more space.

But I haven't exactly taken a measuring tape to the whole thing, so I'm quite possibly completely off-base here.

From what I gather, CT is only planning on running 4-car trains during rush hour. So means continual juggling of the cars anyway - and having "special" cars with no driver cabs just makes this that much more complicated.

Keep in mind, that in the newer cars (i.e. not U2s), there's a LOT of electrical components in that wall between the coach and the cab. There'd have to be another place to put all those racks of equipment, breakers, switches, etc., so I'm not sure you'd gain much space once another spot is found (presumably pressed up againt the end of the car).

As for intercompatibility, I'd imagine the new cars will be compatible with the Series 8 SD160NGs (as someone said, that would've been part of the RFP). And as lucx mentioned , midlife refurbishments of the Series 5,6 & 7s is supposed to include upgrades that allow intercompatibility with the NG cars. That being said, remember that the orginal SD160s were supposed to be compatible with the U2s - and it's still a very rare sight to see.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

Keep in mind, that in the newer cars (i.e. not U2s), there's a LOT of electrical components in that wall between the coach and the cab. There'd have to be another place to put all those racks of equipment, breakers, switches, etc., so I'm not sure you'd gain much space once another spot is found (presumably pressed up againt the end of the car).

Originally Posted by freeweed

From what I gather, CT is only planning on running 4-car trains during rush hour. So means continual juggling of the cars anyway - and having "special" cars with no driver cabs just makes this that much more complicated.

Some good points...

There is also a lot of wasted space below the benches and above the passengers. perhaps some horizontal passenger storage may be worth looking into.




OK, I'll stop now.

[Wigs]

It seems like most forumers so far have voted for the 'Buffalo' design as their favourite. I hope that's the design they choose!

and thanks for all the info/videos/photos guys!

quick question: Why doesn't Calgary Transit coordinate with ETS so that the 2 transit operators can piggyback orders, thus getting the cost per unit (train) down even cheaper, with larger bulk purchases? just a thought...

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by WIGS

It seems like most forumers so far have voted for the 'Buffalo' design as their favourite. I hope that's the design they choose!

and thanks for all the info/videos/photos guys!

quick question: Why doesn't Calgary Transit coordinate with ETS so that the 2 transit operators can piggyback orders, thus getting the cost per unit (train) down even cheaper, with larger bulk purchases? just a thought...

In the same time that Calgary has ordered 5 or 6 times, Edmonton has only ordered new cars once. Edmonton also choose to send their U2s away for refurbishment, something that Calgary council didn't find to make economic sense here.

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by WIGS

quick question: Why doesn't Calgary Transit coordinate with ETS so that the 2 transit operators can piggyback orders, thus getting the cost per unit (train) down even cheaper, with larger bulk purchases? just a thought...

They totally should. They could probably do something similar for construction contracts of new lines too.

However, I don't have that kind of faith in government collaborations.

[You Need A Thneed]

Edmonton only has about 80 total. This new order brings Calgary's total before retiring cars to 250.