Calgary Public Transit II

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

So approximately 50 more people/ 4 car consist with 2 married pairs. At 25 TPH that'd be 1250 pph increase (22,600 to 23,850).

If you were able to convert the 4 car consist to a single married set, you'd get 100 passengers per consist increase and 2,500 pph increase. Though I would suspect that a consist like this may have turning radius issues, the assumption here is that the coupler sections are able to turn tighter than the middle bends.

Base capacity used "Practical passenger capacity: 226" from Calgary Transit LRT Technical Data - It should be noted though that this isn't crush load.

Interesting that CT uses 2 min headways on their website, is 30 tph even possible in reality on 7th ave?

Probably not in practical terms, but in theoretical terms I think they're on the order of that. 202 runs at 300 second headways at rush hour, and 201 averages close to 200 seconds during rush hour, giving 7th ave a combined headway right around 120s. The peak interlined passenger load on the two lines is right up near 14,000-15,000 ppdph, which is near their posted 'practical limit'.

[Chadillaccc]

I know the 4 car trains are going to increase capacity by 33%, but are the new models we have ordered going to further increase capacity? Perhaps due to smaller driver cabins, more functional layout, etc?

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

I know the 4 car trains are going to increase capacity by 33%, but are the new models we have ordered going to further increase capacity? Perhaps due to smaller driver cabins, more functional layout, etc?

The S-200s have a posted capacity of 245 per car, compared to 226 for the SD-160NGs, and 200 for the SD-160s and U-2s. Seated capacity is 60, 56, 60, and 64 for the above models respectively, so it seems to be actual layout improvements as opposed to just sacrificing seating room for standing room.

[Govertical]

On another note, I am so happy that they're making changes(finally!!) to the 33 and 119/19 routes. Too many half full buses up in that area for too long!

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by VIce

The S-200s have a posted capacity of 245 per car, compared to 226 for the SD-160s, and 200 for the SD-60s and U-2s. Seated capacity is 60, 56, 60, and 64 for the above models respectively, so it seems to be actual layout improvements as opposed to just sacrificing seating room for standing room.

That is friggin awesome. So these S200s will bring a capacity increase significantly larger than 33%. It's too bad we are only getting 15 trains worth of the new vehicles though.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is friggin awesome. So these S200s will bring a capacity increase significantly larger than 33%. It's too bad we are only getting 15 trains worth of the new vehicles though.

What do you mean by 15 trains worth?

[Chadillaccc]

60 vehicles = 15 four-car trains.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

That is friggin awesome. So these S200s will bring a capacity increase significantly larger than 33%. It's too bad we are only getting 15 trains worth of the new vehicles though.

AFAIK the increase is only due to be 25% due to a slight decrease in frequency, but I don't know if that accounts for the increase in capacity of the new vehicles.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

60 vehicles = 15 four-car trains.

Until the order is complete and they can shuffle cars around, the first S-200s will run as three-car trains. Relieving an existing three-car train frees vehicles to allow for three four-car trains to begin operation after delivery of three S-200s, as opposed to one four-car train after after delivery of four S-200s. Once the deliveries are complete, regardless of how it is broken down, there will be a sufficient be a sufficient number of LRVs for 35 four-car trains with current frequencies (with 25 LRVs retired). That's a little over half (55%) of all the trains in the system, which I assume will be biased almost entirely to the 201 line.

[joe498]

As always, the latest #yyc and surrounding area growth numbers are scary to say the least.

Especially to look at places like Okotoks, Airdrie, Cochrane and Chestermere. All of which make regular use of Calgary infrastructure but don't pay us tax.

At this rate of growth and underfunding, I don't ever see us building a NC/SE LRT.

Continued periods of low tax and continued subsidization leads us massively unprepared for future growth.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by Full Mountain

Interesting that CT uses 2 min headways on their website, is 30 tph even possible in reality on 7th ave?

No. Between the hours of 6 and 9 am 25% of trains are delayed more than a minute traveling between 3rd and 10th street and 21% traveling between 10th street and City Hall stations.

In the absence of the debate over the Nose Creek alignment there isn't a soul who would be arguing that 7th Ave remaining at grade is an acceptable outcome. And once the 8th Ave subway, if it is ever built, is operational, 7th Ave will never be allowed to return to anything approaching the level of dysfunction it operates at today, Calgary Transit management and dispatch would chain themselves to the tracks in protest.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

No. Between the hours of 6 and 9 am 25% of trains are delayed more than a minute traveling between 3rd and 10th street and 21% traveling between 10th street and City Hall stations.

In the absence of the debate over the Nose Creek alignment there isn't a soul who would be arguing that 7th Ave remaining at grade is an acceptable outcome. And once the 8th Ave subway, if it is ever built, is operational, 7th Ave will never be allowed to return to anything approaching the level of dysfunction it operates at today, Calgary Transit management and dispatch would chain themselves to the tracks in protest.

Beating that drum again huh?

[Policy Wonk]

I have never seen a soul here make an argument that suggests the discussion about 7th Ave is anything other than a proxy debate over the proposed "urban" and "suburban" NCLRT alternatives with the perception that a grade separated 7th Ave will either support the "suburban" alternative or be necessitated by it.

Indeed before the current discussion over the last couple of years I don't recall anyone ever arguing that a grade separated 7th Ave will never be required.

But what has come increasingly apparent is that we are talking past one another by decades. But yes, I continue the believe that extrapolating the potential capacity of 7th Ave based on a fourth car and all frequencies operating as a single line as though the situation today presents some sort of equilibrium is ridiculous. To say that the capacity of the Blue Line can be increased by 267% without grade separation is like saying the passenger capacity of a Boeing 727 is 330 because that many people were physically stuffed on the last flight out of Da Nang.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I have never seen a soul here make an argument that suggests the discussion about 7th Ave is anything other than a proxy debate over the proposed "urban" and "suburban" NCLRT alternatives with the perception that a grade separated 7th Ave will either support the "suburban" alternative or be necessitated by it.

Indeed before the current discussion over the last couple of years I don't recall anyone ever arguing that a grade separated 7th Ave will never be required.

But what has come increasingly apparent is that we are talking past one another by decades. But yes, I continue the believe that extrapolating the potential capacity of 7th Ave based on a fourth car and all frequencies operating as a single line as though the situation today presents some sort of equilibrium is ridiculous. To say that the capacity of the Blue Line can be increased by 267% without grade separation is like saying the passenger capacity of a Boeing 727 is 330 because that many people were physically stuffed on the last flight out of Da Nang.

Perhaps we are decades off, but the fact is, Calgary Transit does not have any short, medium or long term plans to bury 7th avenue. Stephan Avenue, for sure, but not 7th.

[DizzyEdge]

I guess what tends to support that "7th will never need burying" is if 202 eventually builds out before that can happen. West end of it is probably just about there already. Unsure if the city will expand NE-wards for decades to come.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I guess what tends to support that "7th will never need burying" is if 202 eventually builds out before that can happen. West end of it is probably just about there already. Unsure if the city will expand NE-wards for decades to come.

Well, there are at least plans in the public domain to extend the NE line out past Stoney trail, while there are zero documents stating any intention to bury the 202 on 7th Ave.

As much as I dislike the 7th Ave section, I do believe that once the two flat junctions are removed and frequency is more than halved reliability could be greatly improved. The perceived delay from sitting halfway out of a tunnel waiting for a NE train to crawl through to City Hall is huge.

[Cage]

With the recent announcement that Tuscany Station will open in months time, I also note that Tuscany Station will be the NW terminus for very long time.

I am spending the week in Denver for work purposes and staying near the terminus of the RTD Green Line at Jefferson County.

The RTD green line is very new, less than two years old, and the line is not expected to be extended for a long time. What strikes me as unique is the RTD green line is single track for the last two stations. The stations are double tracked but the running track (okay go gentle, I am an avgeek not train nerd) is single.

So my question is considering that RTD gets away with single track for 5-6km, could the Tuscany Station extension have been single tracked?

How much cost savings would have been realized by only building one bridge (or narrower bridge) over Stoney?

Finally what are the operational constraints by single tracking the terminus?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Cage

With the recent announcement that Tuscany Station will open in months time, I also note that Tuscany Station will be the NW terminus for very long time.

I am spending the week in Denver for work purposes and staying near the terminus of the RTD Green Line at Jefferson County.

The RTD green line is very new, less than two years old, and the line is not expected to be extended for a long time. What strikes me as unique is the RTD green line is single track for the last two stations. The stations are double tracked but the running track (okay go gentle, I am an avgeek not train nerd) is single.

So my question is considering that RTD gets away with single track for 5-6km, could the Tuscany Station extension have been single tracked?

How much cost savings would have been realized by only building one bridge (or narrower bridge) over Stoney?

Finally what are the operational constraints by single tracking the terminus?

From my memory RTD lines run at pretty low frequency since their downtown section is interlined with 5 lines.

[Cage]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

From my memory RTD lines run at pretty low frequency since their downtown section is interlined with 5 lines.

Thought about the low frequency.

However in CTrain Tuscany instance the single track would be for less than quarter of the distance as per RTD.

I was also thinking that it might be advantageous to have some 201 trains turnaround earlier than Tuscany, so if frequency did not permit al trains to turn at Tuscany then every third train could turn at Crowfoot.

Indeed I think RTD uses Federal Center train station as an interim turn point. This station is the last use of double track and the station has 3 platforms rather than standard 2.

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Cage

Thought about the low frequency.

However in CTrain Tuscany instance the single track would be for less than quarter of the distance as per RTD.

I was also thinking that it might be advantageous to have some 201 trains turnaround earlier than Tuscany, so if frequency did not permit al trains to turn at Tuscany then every third train could turn at Crowfoot.

Indeed I think RTD uses Federal Center train station as an interim turn point. This station is the last use of double track and the station has 3 platforms rather than standard 2.

Tuscany is 2.7 km from Crowfoot (according to my Google Maps-fu, I dunno), which at 80 km/h is a 4 minute round trip. With naive scheduling, that's a four minute headway which is not enough for the 201 line during rush-hour (which is about 200 seconds, given a magical congestion free day on 7th ave). It might be possible with some creative scheduling; for instance two trains leaving Crowfoot northbound 90 seconds apart, followed by two leaving Tuscany southbound is 210 seconds which is just shy.

Or I guess if you've already got the equipment there to build bridges and lay track you could just do that.