Green Line LRT - $4.6 Billion Project

[Blue_Cypress]

I'm kind of out of the loop of late on this. Has anyone heard mention of an intertie between existing lines and the new green line?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

I'm kind of out of the loop of late on this. Has anyone heard mention of an intertie between existing lines and the new green line?

What do you mean an intertie? There will be no track connection between the two and they will be using incompatible rolling stock, but there will be some form of interchange station on 7th Ave.

[mersar]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

I'm kind of out of the loop of late on this. Has anyone heard mention of an intertie between existing lines and the new green line?

More than likely there won't be one. Its quite possible (even likely) that the new SE line may use completely different LRV's than existing, low floor is a likely possibility but we could potentially see even a different manufacturer depending on how the process goes. Its already planned that there would need to be a storage/mechanical garage for the SE line so likely no need to use existing facilities (which are setup for the current style of LRV anyways).

[Blue_Cypress]

Ah, so we're still going with the "stupid" plan. Thanks guys.

[CTrainDude]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

Ah, so we're still going with the "stupid" plan. Thanks guys.

I'm not sure it's really that stupid. Tying it together is just going to slow everything down. The biggest reason for delays downtown is because the two lines share the same track and switching takes time - if you add switching with the Green Line (even if it's just to cross), you're reducing capacity on all three lines.
By using low floor trains, not only is the system more accessible, but stations are cheaper, and there's many more options in rolling stock to choose from.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Blue_Cypress

Ah, so we're still going with the "stupid" plan. Thanks guys.

What were you expecting? The lines cross at right angles and use different platform heights. Linking them would achieve nothing.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by CTrainDude

I'm not sure it's really that stupid. Tying it together is just going to slow everything down. The biggest reason for delays downtown is because the two lines share the same track and switching takes time - if you add switching with the Green Line (even if it's just to cross), you're reducing capacity on all three lines.

While I'm against interlining, I can see the benefits of having a connection point between the lines. The main benefit would be having the ability to move rolling stock from one line to another for delivery, repair or storage.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Riise

While I'm against interlining, I can see the benefits of having a connection point between the lines. The main benefit would be having the ability to move rolling stock from one line to another for delivery, repair or storage.

After a certain size of fleet there are very few economies of scale, not saying there won't be any, but as a probable P3 process those economies would have to be pretty huge to outweigh keeping the project clean.

[Riise]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

After a certain size of fleet there are very few economies of scale, not saying there won't be any, but as a probable P3 process those economies would have to be pretty huge to outweigh keeping the project clean.

Sorry, I did not intend to suggest that they could share rolling stock but rather move their rolling stock between depots. For example, TfL had to undertake a massive operation to replace the rolling stock on the Waterloo & City line as it is completely isolated from all other lines. Even an unpowered switch or segment of connecting track would have been a lot easier than having to move the new cars from trucks to the track using a crane.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Riise

Sorry, I did not intend to suggest that they could share rolling stock but rather move their rolling stock between depots. For example, TfL had to undertake a massive operation to replace the rolling stock on the Waterloo & City line as it is completely isolated from all other lines. Even an unpowered switch or segment of connecting track would have been a lot easier than having to move the new cars from trucks to the track using a crane.

Oh, lots track adjacent to freight track for a delivery spur.

[lineman]

I'm assuming the new tracks would be the same gauge as the existing light and heavy rails around the city. I would imagine a delivery spur could be made somewhere near Ramsay (which would be probably the same heavy rail track that has a spur at Haysboro).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Riise

Sorry, I did not intend to suggest that they could share rolling stock but rather move their rolling stock between depots. For example, TfL had to undertake a massive operation to replace the rolling stock on the Waterloo & City line as it is completely isolated from all other lines. Even an unpowered switch or segment of connecting track would have been a lot easier than having to move the new cars from trucks to the track using a crane.

Lots of the LU lines are completely separate from each other, it's just the Waterloo and City line is completely underground, including the depot, hence the craning down a hole which happens very rarely. Seeing as the Green Line will definitely be using different rolling stock (low floor) there will be no benefit whatsoever for linking the lines.

[Chadillaccc]

Nenshi submits formal funding request to NDP government for Green Line LRT
TREVOR HOWELL | CALGARY HERALD

The NDP government needs to pony up cash to help pay for Calgary’s Green Line LRT now that the city has submitted an official funding request, says a local transit lobby group.

Both the federal government and the city have promised to fund two-thirds of the 46-kilometre light rail transit project, which could now cost $4 billion to $5 billion, excluding additional financing costs. While the NDP have voiced support for the project, it has refused to commit any dollars until it received a formal request.

“We now have a provincial government that has stated throughout that they’re in support of the project,”said Jeff Binks, president of LRT on the Green. “The one reason that they’ve kept coming back to for not making a consideration for funding has now been taken away.”

Last month, Calgary’s mayor submitted a letter to Alberta Infrastructure Minister Brian Mason, outlining the scope of the Green Line LRT, previous commitments by the city and Ottawa, and the crucial role the province has played in building Calgary’s LRT system — one of the most well used in North America — since it first opened in 1981.

...

Source: http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news...est-to-ndp-government-for-green-line-lrt

[Riise]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Seeing as the Green Line will definitely be using different rolling stock (low floor) there will be no benefit whatsoever for linking the lines.

Using the rolling stock on multiple lines is not the only benefit of linking lines. In addition to deliveries, it can also accommodate temporary storage. However, Calgary Transit has to weigh the cost of providing a link against the potential benefits.

[ByeByeBaby]

Originally Posted by Riise

Using the rolling stock on multiple lines is not the only benefit of linking lines. In addition to deliveries, it can also accommodate temporary storage. However, Calgary Transit has to weigh the cost of providing a link against the potential benefits.

The costs also include the substantial additional costs of larger stations. It seems to me that rather than building a few hundred metres of linking track in the most expensive and constrained part of the city connecting rail lines at potentially three different grade levels, it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to drop a few hundred metres of storage track at grade in available right of way a low-density area.

The cost also would include whatever political pushback you would get from tens of thousands of residents communities that have been promised low-profile, small stations and would be getting much larger more intrusive stations. But maybe there are tens of thousands of addled railfan trainspotters with OCD out there to sway the politics the other way.

[MalcolmTucker]

Since the lines don't touch and likely will be maintained by outside contractors, they will probably use AC power as well.

[hulkrogan]

Why is AC preferred for LRV applications? Large scale transmission is moving toward DC because of the efficiencies it provides. Have LRVs gone to induction motors?

[Riise]

Originally Posted by ByeByeBaby

The costs also include the substantial additional costs of larger stations. It seems to me that rather than building a few hundred metres of linking track in the most expensive and constrained part of the city connecting rail lines at potentially three different grade levels, it would be orders of magnitude cheaper to drop a few hundred metres of storage track at grade in available right of way a low-density area.

While the cost of providing the link is an important consideration, the stations would not need to be larger is size as the rolling stock from other lines would be dead-heading.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

Why is AC preferred for LRV applications? Large scale transmission is moving toward DC because of the efficiencies it provides. Have LRVs gone to induction motors?

The actual power supply/OHLE is still 600V DC, if that's what you mean. It's just the older U2s have DC motors.

I'm not sure why they would go to AC power supply Malcolm? Almost all metros/LRTs are low voltage DC?

[MalcolmTucker]

Right now our system takes AC from the grid and rectifies it to DC, then in non-U2 LRVs converts it back to AC to run the vehicle. You must have at least some losses in all the conversions, plus higher equipment costs. AC supply voltage for trains isn't uncommon - the Calgary system is only DC because the Frankfurt system is DC so they could slowly introduce the U2s onto the legacy streetcar network. New build lines go either way: S70s in Charlotte are DC, in Paris are AC, and some are built for both as 'tram-trains'.

Presumably for an AC system you could build fewer larger scale substations, but don't quote me on that. That is just applying logic, not knowledge.

In any case since the system will be independent, it will probably come down to which equipment the winning bidder has a competency in, as the efficiency tradeoff likely isn't large enough to cause someone to implement an alternative they have little experience in.