Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

Ye thats what I think too... we should kick them out do OC-Transpo would own that whole area...maybe OC can use it to bottle there own kind of Pepsi...LOL

Now if it was Coke, at least it would be OC red!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

It seems like all the Confederation line will be grade separated according to Map 3 Rapid Transit and Transit Priority Network – Ultimate Network in the TMP it looks like when it does get extended to Kanata and Barrhaven it may all be grade separated! But the Trillium Line looks like between Bowesville Station and and 200 meters west of Limebank road (Riverside town center or Main Street) would be At Grade, so there would be level crossings at Limebank road and Earl Armstrong road. IN CONCLUSION the Confederation Line IS a Metro! But the Trillium Line ONCE it gets electrified its just going to be a plain LRT between Bowesville and RTC (main street) once it gets passed Bowesville heading up to Bayview then its a Metro. So now I am done THANK YOU

I question whether the Trillium Line will be grade separated even that much. I am thinking of Leitrim and Lester Roads which are both in swamp land, and then there is the issue of grade separation south of Baseline, which is already an issue (both for safety and cost) around Fallowfield station. Furthermore, the eventual plans south of CTC and the creation of rapid transit adjacent to a more traditional main street in that area. Yes, we may plan for full grade separation within the Greenbelt and adjacent to the Queensway, but as we get further into the suburbs it becomes less clear whether it is cost effective or desirable to have full grade separation. Time will tell whether full grade separation will take place even that far out in the suburbs but it is wise to keep our options open as far as the train technology that we choose so that we are not placed in a straight jacket and forced to choose the most costly approach which may ultimately prevent or delay expansion of the network.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I question whether the Trillium Line will be grade separated even that much. I am thinking of Leitrim and Lester Roads which are both in swamp land, and then there is the issue of grade separation south of Baseline, which is already an issue (both for safety and cost) around Fallowfield station. Furthermore, the eventual plans south of CTC and the creation of rapid transit adjacent to a more traditional main street in that area. Yes, we may plan for full grade separation within the Greenbelt and adjacent to the Queensway, but as we get further into the suburbs it becomes less clear whether it is cost effective or desirable to have full grade separation. Time will tell whether full grade separation will take place even that far out in the suburbs but it is wise to keep our options open as far as the train technology that we choose so that we are not placed in a straight jacket and forced to choose the most costly approach which may ultimately prevent or delay expansion of the network.

That's the way I see it. By choosing LRT over light metro, we're not losing anything really, but we're gaining the ability to have crossings at grade in the future.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Again, debatable. The Canada Line (10 000 pphpd, including future platform extensions), DLR (15 000) and Copenhagen Metro (11 000) have a much lower maximum capacity than the Confederation Line (26 000). The Canada Line is smooth as butter, but DLR struggles with some of its tight curves. I'll take your word on the operating costs, but that isn't immediately relevant to passengers.

My point isn't to say that LRT is somehow better than anything else. My point is that these technical categories (LRT, Light Metro, Heavy Rail, S-Bahn...) are not the most relevant aspects of a system. Saying something is a light metro or LRT doesn't necessarily give me any relevant information as to the capacity, comfort, frequency, reliability (etc.) of the system - only very technical info which may appeal to us transit geeks. But for everyone else, it provides no information at best and at worst, it misrepresents the system by appealing to certain archetypes (LRT = low frequencies, slow, in traffic, etc.).
That's why I refer to the Confederation Line as a metro; a metro designates a high-capacity, low-headway, grade-separated system - all criteria relevant to the passengers' experience. This is what matters.

If the only criteria are "high capacity" "low headway" and "grade separated" then all kinds of thing would qualify as "metros" including my proposed rickshaw system, many BRT systems, many commuter rail systems, many intercity rail systems, monorails, people movers (at airports, etc), funiculars, many amusement park rides, many technologies found at ski resorts, etc, and the wikipedia "list of metros" would be thousands of items long and wouldn't be helpful for people looking for a list of services that meet the generally understood definition of metro.

My point was that light metro type technologies have higher capacity than similar sized tram vehicles (mostly because there are no wheel wells but also because there are fewer joints and sometimes because the vehicles are wider). Obviously the Ottawa tramway with platforms (and presumably vehicles) expandable to 120m is going to have higher capacity than light metros that have 40-50m platforms. Also, because they're usually driverless, there are big bay windows at the front and back, which makes for a more interesting experience for passengers.

Anyway, our new tram system will certainly be a huge improvement, but it could have been a bigger improvement.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

A note about automation: it's not necessarily required for a line to be fully grade separated to be automated. It's technologically possible (though currently not allowed by regulations), for even a mixed traffic streetcar to be automated. Heck in 15 years we'll probably have fully automated private autos on the roads.

I highly doubt it, in risk-averse, innovation-averse Transport Canada-Land.

[1overcosc]

^ Ontario is in the process of regulatory approval for driverless car testing on Ontario roads.

[J.OT13]

For those doubting that the Ottawa Alstom Citadis trains cannot be considered metro trains because they are usually used as trams, consider this:

Montreal Metro's MPM-10 are 156mx2.51m. Ottawa O-Train Confederation line's initial rolling stock will be 98mx2.65m. Yes, they will be wider than Montreal's full fledged Metro trains. Montreal opted for personalized trains that are significantly narrower than traditional subway trains so that they may save millions on smaller subway tunnels.

One must also consider the seating arrangements of your rolling stock. The reason Metro's capacity per meter of length is much higher is that the trains have very little seating compared to Ottawa's Citadis Spirit. More standing room, more capacity. If we reduce seating in our future trains, our capacity will be much more than 24,000 phpd.

Montréal:


http://www.railway-technology.com/projec...ontreal/mpm-10-metro-cars-montreal2.html

Ottawa :


http://www.alstom.com/us/products-and-services/transport/citadis-spirit-lrv/

[MalcolmTucker]

can't reduce seating that much due to the bogies on low floor.

[MoreTrains]

I never understood why, on something that is supposed to be rapid there is so much seating, there cannot be that many seniors and disabled that use transit is there? Plus less seating makes it more accessible for strollers and even wheelchairs.

Also, for the argument as to what quantifies a Metro vs Tram (LRT) scope would be a good measure. For most Metro lines, they serve high density areas with stops approx 500m apart, over the portions of a city that busses are impractical (think of Manhattan full of busses during rush hour). The Confederation line initially satisfies that requirement, but when phase two is added on, one of the spurs (to Orleans) does not. Orleans is not particularly dense, it is far away from the core and bussing is quite practical there. So would Phase 2 and 3 not turn the Phase 1 'Metro' into a commuter train? It quite literally is a one for one exchange for busses (not actual vehicles but the route). Just a thought.

[ACmodels]

WOW your your getting into Metro VS LRT VS Commuter Rail. And to me when people say TRAM I think of Streetcar which is just the total opposite of what we are building...

[Capital Shaun]

My take is that Ottawa is building a metro-like system with LRT technology.

I wouldn't call the spur to Orleans commuter rail. Commuter rail usually has less frequent stops than a LRT or metro and less frequent service than the Confederation line will have. When I hear Commuter rail I think of GoTrain or AMT.

True, our LRTs can be used as trams but it looks like Ottawa has no intention of using them as such. With the technology chosen we can implement at level crossings if needed but there's extremely little chance we'll ever see them operating in mixed traffic.

[MalcolmTucker]

But what about the RER? Metro or commuter? Inquiring minds need to know!

This argument is so stupid. It doesn't matter.

[lrt's friend]

The main difference between metros and LRT is the amount of surface versus underground operation and usually metros run with more cars, hence the higher capacity.

Commuter rail usually runs longer distances with heavier trains and fewer stops. In a city the size of Ottawa, this should not be needed.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The main difference between metros and LRT is the amount of surface versus underground operation and usually metros run with more cars, hence the higher capacity.

So... Chicago?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But what about the RER? Metro or commuter? Inquiring minds need to know!

This argument is so stupid. It doesn't matter.

I agree. Let's move on to something that matters.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Hey, if your rickshaws operate with speeds, capacity and comfort comparable to a metro, I don't see why not! What is a subway but several hundred rickshaws attached to each other on steel wheels and 'run' with electric motors?




Again, debatable. The Canada Line (10 000 pphpd, including future platform extensions), DLR (15 000) and Copenhagen Metro (11 000) have a much lower maximum capacity than the Confederation Line (26 000). The Canada Line is smooth as butter, but DLR struggles with some of its tight curves. I'll take your word on the operating costs, but that isn't immediately relevant to passengers.

My point isn't to say that LRT is somehow better than anything else. My point is that these technical categories (LRT, Light Metro, Heavy Rail, S-Bahn...) are not the most relevant aspects of a system. Saying something is a light metro or LRT doesn't necessarily give me any relevant information as to the capacity, comfort, frequency, reliability (etc.) of the system - only very technical info which may appeal to us transit geeks. But for everyone else, it provides no information at best and at worst, it misrepresents the system by appealing to certain archetypes (LRT = low frequencies, slow, in traffic, etc.).
That's why I refer to the Confederation Line as a metro; a metro designates a high-capacity, low-headway, grade-separated system - all criteria relevant to the passengers' experience. This is what matters.

Incorrect, the Canada Line has a full build out capacity of 15 000 pphpd with the third car added. The other skytrain lines have theoretical full capacities of up to 30 000 pphpd with some modifications (Ask one of the Vancouver skytrain geeks about the specifics on this).

[Aylmer]

Oop, must have misread - thanks for the correction.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

But what about the RER? Metro or commuter? Inquiring minds need to know!

This argument is so stupid. It doesn't matter.

Yes, I had the same idea, RER and BART. They operate as metros in the dense core, but more like commuter rail out in the suburbs. In my mind, San Fran's BART and Ottawa's O-Train Confederation Line are rapid transit. RER might be commuter since (I think) it runs on main line railways at some points.

can't reduce seating that much due to the bogies on low floor.

Agreed, that is a limitation with the chosen technology.

Although this says nothing about capacity, I'd like to share this:


http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/a-conflict-of-interest-the-broadway-subway/

[MalcolmTucker]

I wonder how long Ottawa will be coupling and decoupling trains for peak vs non-peak. Calgary used to do this, as did Edmonton. Pretty rare now days. Also, the graphic doesn't mention, with automatic train control it is easier to overhang platforms, helping squeeze a bit more capacity without redoing stations, which looks like it will be used in Ottawa, but isn't used elsewhere currently.

[ehlow]

100 meter 2-car trains is pretty massive capacity wise. If you have those running every few minutes it should be quite a lot.

Eglinton Crosstown LRT in Toronto will be able to run 3-car trains 90 meters (30m each), but will probably start at 2 car trains at 60m.

One disadvantage of running low-floor trains is that you have to have parts of the trains with 2 chairs side by side on each side, as you can see on the interior rendering above, because of the wheels.

You can see in the Montreal interior rendering they don't have bottleneck spots like that, even though they have pretty narrow trains.

I noticed this on the new streetcars in Toronto. If one person is standing between the two sets of chairs, there's no way to get around.

It's still likely worth it to go low-floor assuming the vehicle will operate on the street and you don't want to build platforms & ramps on the street.