O-Train Line 2 [Stage 1 | Bayview to Greenboro] | In Service

[TransitZilla]

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/12/10/taxpayers-railroaded-on-trillium-line-frequency

Taxpayers railroaded on Trillium Line frequency

By Jon Willing, Ottawa Sun

First posted: Thursday, December 10, 2015 09:02 PM EST | Updated: Thursday, December 10, 2015 09:08 PM EST

The O-Train Trillium Line upgrade hasn't delivered on the train frequency that was pitched to council when it approved the $60-million expansion.

OC Transpo assistant GM Troy Charter says the original design -- which projected trains coming every 8-10 minutes -- was "an ambitious goal for a rail system with a passing track configuration."

"The anticipated frequency was not realized due to a variety of factors including timing delays in the safe clearing of critical signals and reduced average speeds across the system," Charter said in an e-mail Thursday.

There wasn't enough of a buffer built in for minor delays, such as passenger loading at stations, and waiting for Via Rail trains to cross the Trillium Line, Charter said.

It means Transpo needs to make technical changes, which will include updating signal cable infrastructure and replacing switches and track alignment at Carleton University. Technical improvements could also happen during the Stage 2 rail extension to Riverside South.

Council in 2011 approved the current upgrade based on service going from 15 minutes to eight minutes.

The city's key messaging on the frequency eventually turned into 8-10 minutes.

The service expansion of the Trillium Line put six new Alstom trains on the 8-km track last March.

Charter said most passengers travelling to and from Carleton University -- which makes up the bulk of the train's riders -- have been seeing a reduced trip time after the upgrade.

But for those passengers riding between Greenboro and Bayview stations, the trip time on average has added nearly two minutes. One of the reasons is the new passing tracks, since trains need to travel at lower speeds.

The upgrade does, however, provide more capacity and better comfort on the new Alstom trains, Charter said.

Regular Trillium Line customers have noticed a difference -- so much so that some south-end community groups raised the issue recently with Mayor Jim Watson.

Barbara D'Amico, president of the South Keys Greenboro Community Association, said residents frequently complain about the new Trillium Line service. She said the neighbourhood has many Carleton University students and downtown workers who count on the train.

The train scheduling seems off and residents are disappointed when the train has to be replaced with a bus route during a service blip or maintenance, D'Amico said.

"It's deterring people from using it because it's not dependable anymore," she said.

Goretti Pernitzky, president of the Emerald Woods Resident Association said there isn't a huge outcry in her area, but "it is being chatted about."

Gloucester-Southgate Coun. Diane Deans said she often hears from constituents who complain the train service is lagging behind expectations.

"They're feeling it's less reliable," Deans said.

Twitter: @JonathanWilling

[Andrew_G]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

http://www.ottawasun.com/2015/12/10/taxpayers-railroaded-on-trillium-line-frequency

I don't think this comes as a surprise to anyone. Some were speculating about these potential issues before the new system was even active. Any benefits from this project have been small, if not nonexistent. Yeah, sure, I get to sit on the train at Greenboro a bit earlier rather than waiting in the cold, but outside of that, pretty disappointing. The city really half-assed this and it shows.

[eltodesukane]

"... a rail system with a passing track configuration." == BAD configuration.
Who designed/approved this?

[bikegypsy]

Trillium needs to be double tracked. There are no other options and this is the inevitable outcome.

[Andrew_G]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Trillium needs to be double tracked. There are no other options and this is the inevitable outcome.

Yes, I also think that is the inevitable outcome. However I also think they city is going to continue dragging its feat with half measures for the next 10+ years. There are other options, they are just not respectable in my opinion. But of course the city will go through the motions and stick with a lesser (cheaper) plan until that too fails, and ultimately we will have to double track, which we should have of course done in the first place.

[acottawa]

I hope there is some sort of an audit of this that will identify who screwed up and why. The city is about to open a 2 billion dollar LRT and is immediately planning to spend another 3 billion extending it, and city staff messed up a comparatively minor project which required a lengthy shutdown and offers almost no improvement.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I hope there is some sort of an audit of this that will identify who screwed up and why. The city is about to open a 2 billion dollar LRT and is immediately planning to spend another 3 billion extending it, and city staff messed up a comparatively minor project which required a lengthy shutdown and offers almost no improvement.

Thankfully we don't have to worry about this problem extending to the Confederation Line, because:

1) Trillium was managed in-house by the city, Confederation is contracted out via P3
2) Trillium's problems are caused by a technological limitation (single track) that the Confederation Line doesn't have

[1overcosc]

It's been almost a year since the new system started up, so we should be able to finalize travel times and schedules now.

The article says that travel time is 2 minutes longer--that would be 15 minutes (it was 13 minutes). If that's the case, we can probably have a posted 10 minute schedule easily (15 minutes + 5 minute buffer = 20 minutes one way = 40 minutes round trip / 4 trains = 10 minutes).

I think they're still doing the "lets-get-everything-as-best-as-possible" approach though, so the runs are all over the place.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Trillium needs to be double tracked. There are no other options and this is the inevitable outcome.

Double-tracked and electrified, if we are to live up to commitments in reducing carbon emissions.

[lrt's friend]

I drive by Greenboro station every day. You used to be able to almost set your clock by the O-Train but since the upgrade, trains come and go randomly. With the inevitability of delays caused by VIA Rail train crossings and the inability to recover lost time because of the inflexibility of the single track, I can't see the situation improving. Adding more passing tracks and more trains as part of an expansion plan will at best maintain the status quo and at worst reduce reliability and frequency. We knew from day one that the single track service was a demonstration project. Until we double track the route, expansion of the service may not provide value for our tax expenditure.

[eternallyme]

One thing I will say: there should be NO southern extension until the line is double-tracked.

[eltodesukane]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Trillium needs to be double tracked. There are no other options and this is the inevitable outcome.

Exactly.
This was obvious since forever, and should have been done from the start.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Double-tracked and electrified, if we are to live up to commitments in reducing carbon emissions.

Agreed. I wonder if they could close the line for 1 or 2 months in order to double track on a 24/7 basis, reopen it and still have DMUs run as they electrify it. Ideally, the entire line should be closed for a few years and work should include tunnel widening.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Thankfully we don't have to worry about this problem extending to the Confederation Line, because:

1) Trillium was managed in-house by the city, Confederation is contracted out via P3
2) Trillium's problems are caused by a technological limitation (single track) that the Confederation Line doesn't have

That's true, but the single track nature of the system was known before staff told council the frequency could be increased with a long shutdown and large expense, when clearly it could not.

Not sure p3 is a panacea as we've learned with Lansdowne mess. The signalling is the same company, the rolling stock is the same company and most of the planning was done in house.

I just hope that in a few years we aren't in the same situation with a major flaw in the design that staff didn't think of and people demanding that hundreds of millions be spent to fix it.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's true, but the single track nature of the system was known before staff told council the frequency could be increased with a long shutdown and large expense, when clearly it could not.

Not sure p3 is a panacea as we've learned with Lansdowne mess. The signalling is the same company, the rolling stock is the same company and most of the planning was done in house.

I just hope that in a few years we aren't in the same situation with a major flaw in the design that staff didn't think of and people demanding that hundreds of millions be spent to fix it.

Lansdowne wasn't a great story, but the story of infrastructure P3s in Ontario is almost flawlessly perfect. This stems from the fact that infrastructure P3s in Ontario follow set rules and procedures with a standard template from Infrastructure Ontario.

Many of the companies composing RTG have pretty awesome track records.

RTG is doing almost all of the design below 30,000 feet. An example: RTG inserted crossovers (places where trains can switch tracks--allows trains to be shortturned in the event of an emergency or such without having to close the whole line). RTG is building six of them. The city's draft plan only had two.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

RTG is doing almost all of the design below 30,000 feet. An example: RTG inserted crossovers (places where trains can switch tracks--allows trains to be shortturned in the event of an emergency or such without having to close the whole line). RTG is building six of them. The city's draft plan only had two.

Oy-aouch. That's breathtakingly stupid.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That's true, but the single track nature of the system was known before staff told council the frequency could be increased with a long shutdown and large expense, when clearly it could not.

Not sure p3 is a panacea as we've learned with Lansdowne mess. The signalling is the same company, the rolling stock is the same company and most of the planning was done in house.

I just hope that in a few years we aren't in the same situation with a major flaw in the design that staff didn't think of and people demanding that hundreds of millions be spent to fix it.

Thales, the Confederation Line signalling contractor, has no involvement with the Trillium line signals. The fact that they're both going to be using Alstom trains is a bit of a fluke, but the only similarities between the two types of trains are likely to be the logos and seat fabric patterns.

I can see benefits to both the P3 and internal models. It doesn't make much sense to P3 something like the Trillium Line upgrade, as the city contracts out basically everything related to it already. Civil maintenance, signalling and dispatching is the responsibility of RailTerm, and train maintenance Bombardier. Even refueling is a contractor, as there isn't a fuel tank in Walkley Yard (this may have changed with the upgrade). As the line uses an off the shelf design, new trains can be tendered to the lowest bidder. If upgrades are required, it's easy enough just to sue RailTerm as a general contractor for the project.

We do run into issues with people making costly mistakes like most of the recent upgrade, but the stakes are lower.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Lansdowne wasn't a great story, but the story of infrastructure P3s in Ontario is almost flawlessly perfect. This stems from the fact that infrastructure P3s in Ontario follow set rules and procedures with a standard template from Infrastructure Ontario.

Many of the companies composing RTG have pretty awesome track records.

RTG is doing almost all of the design below 30,000 feet. An example: RTG inserted crossovers (places where trains can switch tracks--allows trains to be shortturned in the event of an emergency or such without having to close the whole line). RTG is building six of them. The city's draft plan only had two.

Flawless if you ignore the extra $8B the Auditor General found Ontario's interpretation of P3 cost taxpayers.

I'm not sure I see the crossover thing as a positive thing. It is another example of city being unable to design a project properly and we're basically relying on RTG to correct the city's mistakes. In this case they did, but they have a fixed price contract, so they are only going correct city mistakes that are cost-neutral or save them money. I wonder how many other design problems are slipping into the system (winter for example).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Flawless if you ignore the extra $8B the Auditor General found Ontario's interpretation of P3 cost taxpayers..

That extra $8B is only an extra $8B if you assume traditional projects never have cost overruns. Essentially, it's the extra cost paid to P3 consortia in exchange for the consortia assuming financial responsibility for overruns.

It's not a case of simply $8B wasted as the provincial NDP would have us believe.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm not sure I see the crossover thing as a positive thing. It is another example of city being unable to design a project properly and we're basically relying on RTG to correct the city's mistakes. In this case they did, but they have a fixed price contract, so they are only going correct city mistakes that are cost-neutral or save them money. I wonder how many other design problems are slipping into the system (winter for example).

Because RTG is also responsible for maintenance expenses for the first 30 years, the price of which has already been fixed, RTG has a motivation to construct a system that's cheaper to maintain. This is probably the reason why RTG added additional crossovers (more crossovers means that emergency/maintenance closures can be far more localized making it easier to do them).

As for the winter problem, the maintenance responsibility means RTG will value ease of winter control in stations (ie: they won't pick designs where snow clearing is difficult and/or ice can accumulate such that intense saltings are required). As for the operation of the line itself, climate proofing designs are offloaded to RTG. One of the contract stipulations for the vehicles & track is that they must be capable of fully normal operation with reasonable passenger comfort in temperatures as low -38C (lower than the lowest temperature ever recorded in Ottawa history). There's also stipulations about ensuring service standards are met during blizzards, freezing rain conditions, and even earthquakes.

Personally, I think the P3 contract should have been further reaching. RTG should also have been given responsibility for operations as well (ie: staffing and running the actual trains). The city would have retained control over frequencies, schedules, and fares, and that's it. This would have also ensured RTG used designs that result in efficient, smooth operation of the line. However, it would have meant loss of union jobs as it would not be OC Transpo staffing the trains, and this would have been a political non-starter. An attempt by the provincial government to incorporate operation in the P3 for the Eglinton line in Toronto had to be cancelled for this reason.