Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Kitchissippi]

Wow, Lyon is looking very station-like now

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

That's virtually impossible with the Alstom Citadis Spirit because the seats are built around the mechanical protrusions in the cabin.

The biggest factor is the lack of foot room (meaning you can't tuck your feet beneath the seats to turn sideways to let someone pass) and the necessity of long aisles past the humps. Montreal's Metro might be narrower, but the choke points at most are only one set of seats back-to-back with doors on either side.

Ottawa Citizen

WikiMedia

Although the difference in capacity isn't much of a factor considering the new system more than doubles it anyway, it was definitely short-sighted of the City to go with low floor LRT to save a few bucks as opposed to going full, high floor metro, which offers way more options in terms of seat configuration and circulation.

[MalcolmTucker]

You can always fix it later if it turns into a real problem. Would mean operating at lower capacity as you rebuilt things to high floor.

Likely easier to go to a fully articulated train set while engineered to reduce the number of bogies to a minimum. Would have to be concurrent with a maintenance centre rebuild, sometime after the initial P3 concession ends.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

it was definitely short-sighted of the City to go with low floor LRT to save a few bucks as opposed to going full, high floor metro, which offers way more options in terms of seat configuration and circulation.

I don't know if the reason was money or if it was politics. They wanted to call it light rail even though it is a heavy rail system using light rail vehicles.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

You can always fix it later if it turns into a real problem. Would mean operating at lower capacity as you rebuilt things to high floor.

Sure... but retrofitting all those stations will be a wee bit of a non-trivial task.

How much more would it have cost to go high floor right off the bat?

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't know if the reason was money or if it was politics. They wanted to call it light rail even though it is a heavy rail system using light rail vehicles.

Whatever the reason.... the more I ponder it... the more disappointed I become at that decision.

[lrt's friend]

Low floor is the newer technology. If there is any possibility of on-street operations, now in the future, or operating them in a dense urban environment, low floor is preferable so that stations are less obtrusive and can be placed at sidewalk level. Planned right of ways in Riverside South and parts of Kanata are designed that LRT trains will operate right in the urban fabric of the neighbourhood. This is why DMUs cannot operate there.

If Calgary had the option when they first started, they would have chosen low floor trains too, so that downtown stations would have been right at sidewalk level.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Low floor is the newer technology. If there is any possibility of on-street operations, now in the future, or operating them in a dense urban environment, low floor is preferable so that stations are less obtrusive and can be placed at sidewalk level. Planned right of ways in Riverside South and parts of Kanata are designed that LRT trains will operate right in the urban fabric of the neighbourhood. This is why DMUs cannot operate there.

If Calgary had the option when they first started, they would have chosen low floor trains too, so that downtown stations would have been right at sidewalk level.

This is the primary benefit I see of low-floor trains. Everyone on here likes to complain about inner-city transit, but if we ever want to see LRTs or streetcars running inside the greenbelt, low-floor LRTs are a good start.

[JM1]

Low floors are made for running up and down shopping streets and across pedestrian malls. High floor is for dedicated rights of way. No if you put a low floor street tram along Bank, Rideau, Montreal, or Beechwood, then you have chosen wisely. Run the same train on a dedicated right of way and you have given up space and onboard mobility for no benefit whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Catenary

This is the primary benefit I see of low-floor trains. Everyone on here likes to complain about inner-city transit, but if we ever want to see LRTs or streetcars running inside the greenbelt, low-floor LRTs are a good start.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JM1

Low floors are made for running up and down shopping streets and across pedestrian malls. High floor is for dedicated rights of way. No if you put a low floor street tram along Bank, Rideau, Montreal, or Beechwood, then you have chosen wisely. Run the same train on a dedicated right of way and you have given up space and onboard mobility for no benefit whatsoever.

This was pure politics. They had to dangle a carrot in front of suburban councillors that surface trams would use the tunnel someday, so they couldn't use a high floor technology and they couldn't use driverless vehicles.

[Aylmer]

Well, actually, the trams we're ordering are in fact capable of fully automatic operation. I've read that they actually will be operated as driverless vehicles in the storage yard.
From a RTG presentation in 2013:

System is capable of running unattended train operation (UTO)
mode but will normally operate in automatic train operation (ATO)
mode with drivers, with capabilities of running in automatic train
protection manual (ATPM) mode in cases of emergency or for
atypical operational situations

What I understood from that is that the trains will have a driver, but that most operations (doors, acceleration, deceleration) will be automated. It's a similar situation in London where the only real task the driver has is to press a button every 30 seconds or so to indicate that he/she is still alert. I suspect that the reason why they don't go full driverless here (and in many places, in fact) is a combination of people not being totally comfortable with driverless vehicles yet and union issues.

[Kitchissippi]

I think the short-sighted reason to go with low floor LRT was largely because the city did not know what the heck it was doing with the western extension at that time. There was even a ridiculous notion that it could run on a grassy Byron ROW unfenced at 5 minute frequencies. Lack of intelligent decision-making on this 3 km stretch led to the premature choice of technology. None of the suburban on-street routes in the TMP are slated for rail for the next 30+ years, and certainly not as part of the Confederation Line.

[swimmer_spe]

Another benefit is that when it comes time to buy more trains for more lines, regardless of whether they are grade separated or not, you can use the same trains, which means overall flexibility. That is smart planning.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Another benefit is that when it comes time to buy more trains for more lines, regardless of whether they are grade separated or not, you can use the same trains, which means overall flexibility. That is smart planning.

Explain then why they didn't just buy diesel versions of the Citadis for the Trillium Line instead of the Coradia which is a mainline regional trainset. If anything it's the Trillium Line that has remote possibilities of running at street level if they ever extend it south.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

Well, actually, the trams we're ordering are in fact capable of fully automatic operation. I've read that they actually will be operated as driverless vehicles in the storage yard.
From a RTG presentation in 2013:

What I understood from that is that the trains will have a driver, but that most operations (doors, acceleration, deceleration) will be automated. It's a similar situation in London where the only real task the driver has is to press a button every 30 seconds or so to indicate that he/she is still alert. I suspect that the reason why they don't go full driverless here (and in many places, in fact) is a combination of people not being totally comfortable with driverless vehicles yet and union issues.

Yep. Braking will also be automated at well from day 1; this is important as it considerably reduces energy use. It also means we can run with 90 second frequencies and install platform screen doors, if we wanted/needed to.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Explain then why they didn't just buy diesel versions of the Citadis for the Trillium Line instead of the Coradia which is a mainline regional trainset. If anything it's the Trillium Line that has remote possibilities of running at street level if they ever extend it south.

Diesel tram?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Explain then why they didn't just buy diesel versions of the Citadis for the Trillium Line instead of the Coradia which is a mainline regional trainset. If anything it's the Trillium Line that has remote possibilities of running at street level if they ever extend it south.

I don't know if diesel versions of the Citadis even exist.

Legally, the Trillium Line is a "mainline railway", so I believe that, under North American railway regulations, it can't run with trams. This could be changed however it would require a grade separation of the Elmwood Diamond (thus removing it from interaction with the continental railway network).

[Kitchissippi]

I believe Kassel is running diesel hybrid tram-trains which can run on either overhead wires or on its own using a diesel generator. The RegioTram model is now called Citadis Dualis and has the same option of hybrid electric/diesel operation. This could have given the Trillium Line trains the option of entering the tunnel, even if just to access the same maintenance yard, or allow staged electrification of the line.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I don't know if diesel versions of the Citadis even exist.

Legally, the Trillium Line is a "mainline railway", so I believe that, under North American railway regulations, it can't run with trams. This could be changed however it would require a grade separation of the Elmwood Diamond (thus removing it from interaction with the continental railway network).

I believe that is exactly the reason, and it is Ellwood. But as long as they use DMUs, they will not running into Riverside South. So this is stop gap measure to address the interactive with main line railways at the Ellwood Diamond.

As far as high floor or low floor, who cares? They accomplish the same thing. In fact, the Ottawa use of low floor LRT erases one of the few remaining differences, that is speed. With the Ottawa implementation, our low floor trains have the same speed capability as high floor LRT.

As I said, low floor LRT is the newer technology, so why is this a disadvantage?

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

...
As I said, low floor LRT is the newer technology, so why is this a disadvantage?

My fear is that the cars will be "squishy" and the system will look "cheap" for an underground, grade separated network. Edmonton's has many level crossings and street level stations.... but is a solid, high floor system, with large platformed stations downtown... When emptying arenas (hint, hint), this seems like the way to go.

Maybe the "newer technology" will add to the sexiness factor and it will be a shining star in urban transport...

Really don't know... the path is set... we can do nothing other than watch on

[Aylmer]

Well I don't know about a shiny factor - there are dozens of cities which already have basically the same vehicles (from Jerusalem to Melbourne via Basel) and there are are yet dozens more which have almost the same vehicles.

This isn't a monorail or, more modernly, a hyperloop. It's a regular tech which has been used around the world for about two decades.