Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[1overcosc]

If the line about "Ability to build a nonsegregated system in low density areas" had been removed from the project requirement, the consortia would have certainly picked a light metro vehicle for their bids.

That said, it's not a huge loss from the operating side, as the LRT system we're getting is capable of automation. RTG is using LRVs but they're operating the thing like a light metro in many ways. For example, the custom Citadis LRVs Alstom is making for us have a lot of metro-like elements in their engine designs, hence the capability for automation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

If the line about "Ability to build a nonsegregated system in low density areas" had been removed from the project requirement, the consortia would have certainly picked a light metro vehicle for their bids.

That said, it's not a huge loss from the operating side, as the LRT system we're getting is capable of automation. RTG is using LRVs but they're operating the thing like a light metro in many ways. For example, the custom Citadis LRVs Alstom is making for us have a lot of metro-like elements in their engine designs, hence the capability for automation.

But it will be worse (less space per car, less comfort for passengers, more cost); not massively worse; not unmanageable but still worse and for the next 50 or 100 years.

[MalcolmTucker]

How long are the station boxes in the downtown tunnel again?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

If the line about "Ability to build a nonsegregated system in low density areas" had been removed from the project requirement, the consortia would have certainly picked a light metro vehicle for their bids.

Hind sight being 20/20, it would have been better to make it a desirable feature rather than a hard requirement. In the decision matrix it could be given a weighted score that could be balanced against other desirable features.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But it will be worse (less space per car, less comfort for passengers, more cost); not massively worse; not unmanageable but still worse and for the next 50 or 100 years.

If the city ever decided it was serious about shifting to a light metro model they'd do that after the Alstom Citadis trains hit their end of life--so after about 30 years or so.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

How long are the station boxes in the downtown tunnel again?

120 metres.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

120 metres.

Yo... the current design/construction maximum platform for the whole Confederation line (down from the original 180, and the early design 150).
They built the tunnel stations to the max in order to easily reserve train growth to the current design max of 120. Other stations are variously at 90, 100, or 110 but are reserving space for expansion to 120.
Thanks.

[1overcosc]

The early plans called for 150m-180m trains, but that was overkill. 120m is enough for very high passenger loads.

The main reason why such huge platforms were planned in the beginning was because the original LRT vision was for there to be many LRT lines that would all interline in the tunnel: one from Gatineau, one from Riverside South, one from the Airport, one from Orleans, one from Kanata, one from Barrhaven, one from Carling Ave, etc. With such a huge number of people down there waiting for their specific train out of a total of 5 or 6, a lot of people would stay on the platforms for a while, necessitating huge platforms.

Eventually the city realized how insanely expensive it would be to build a tunnel to accommodate that, and how inefficient it would be to have a system that heavily branched.. so they shifted to a trunk-and-feeder model for rapid transit instead of branching one, which allowed them to build much smaller platforms.

As part of that same shift, they should have gone from LRT to light metro... but alas.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

As part of that same shift, they should have gone from LRT to light metro... but alas.

I totally agree. Just out of curiosity, does anybody know on a technical level how feasible/unfeasible it would be to convert the confederation line to light metro at some future date? Like, how prohibitive are we talking here? Are we talking 'converting transitway to LRT' level of difficulty or are we talking 'build a death star to rule the galactic empire' level of difficulty?

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I totally agree. Just out of curiosity, does anybody know on a technical level how feasible/unfeasible it would be to convert the confederation line to light metro at some future date? Like, how prohibitive are we talking here? Are we talking 'converting transitway to LRT' level of difficulty or are we talking 'build a death star to rule the galactic empire' level of difficulty?

Didn't the build the second deathstar in less time than the transitway conversion is taking?

[McC]

Brussels is talking about converting their pre-metro lines, which were designed in the 50s and 60s with the intention that they would eventually be upgraded to full metro lines; see for example: http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/metros/brussels-builds-urban-rail-capacity.html Our system does not appear to have been designed with that in mind (neither was the Transitway, it turned out).

[swimmer_spe]

What was the max capacity of the Transitway?
What is the max capacity that an LRT can handle?
What is the max capacity that a premetro can handle?
What is the max capacity that a metro can handle?

[MalcolmTucker]

Well, a fair amount of the benefits can be had by just buying custom trainsets and building a maintenance centre for them. Think about a 160m long train, where two 20 m locomotives hang on either side of the stations where a 100% low floor 120 m long trailer with open gangways meets the station. There you go, faux heavy rail low floor :p And that would be the most extreme case.

It wouldn't be an elegant solution, but definitely a less disruptive one than rebuilding every station. Even with the original vehicles 48.5m length which doesn't divide well into 120m station boxes you have 18,000 ppdph at 2 minute frequencies.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, a fair amount of the benefits can be had by just buying custom trainsets and building a maintenance centre for them. Think about a 160m long train, where two 20 m locomotives hang on either side of the stations where a 100% low floor 120 m long trailer with open gangways meets the station. There you go, faux heavy rail low floor :p And that would be the most extreme case.

It wouldn't be an elegant solution, but definitely a less disruptive one than rebuilding every station. Even with the original vehicles 48.5m length which doesn't divide well into 120m station boxes you have 18,000 ppdph at 2 minute frequencies.

[MalcolmTucker]

So 22,200 ppdph with the extra plug.

[Aylmer]

If I remember correctly, at full, three-train capacity, the cabs both in front and behind the train will be in the tunnel, but the doors will line up with the platform thanks to semi-automation (stops and acceleration will be totally automated iric).

[Beedok]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What was the max capacity of the Transitway?
What is the max capacity that an LRT can handle?
What is the max capacity that a premetro can handle?
What is the max capacity that a metro can handle?

I'm not sure about the transitway proper, but another system with passing lanes can apparently push towards 35K pph (though most systems are apparently more like 12K pph). It receives about 10K pph, which shows the Transitways themselves are doing fine. It's just downtown that's a problem.
The Confederation Line is aimed at ~25K pph.
The Brussels tram pre-metro has a total ridership abour 25-30% higher than OC transpo overall, spread over 17 tram lines, only a few of which are technically pre-metro, and I couldn't quickly find info on those specific lines.

The Yonge Line is apparently able to get 32K pph with automation in either direction. I'm guessing that means right now it's about 59K pph in both directions. (And frequently runs over designed capacity.) Some other upgrades in technology might get it a bit higher.

So in suburbs and planned communities BRT has a higher capacity than lots of light metro systems, but getting into downtowns makes life a bit trickier for the BRT system. Still, Bogata's system handles a bit over 2 million passengers a day, and serves some pretty urban zones.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What was the max capacity of the Transitway?
What is the max capacity that an LRT can handle?
What is the max capacity that a premetro can handle?
What is the max capacity that a metro can handle?

Originally Posted by Beedok

I'm not sure about the transitway proper, but another system with passing lanes can apparently push towards 35K pph (though most systems are apparently more like 12K pph). It receives about 10K pph, which shows the Transitways themselves are doing fine. It's just downtown that's a problem.
The Confederation Line is aimed at ~25K pph.
The Brussels tram pre-metro has a total ridership abour 25-30% higher than OC transpo overall, spread over 17 tram lines, only a few of which are technically pre-metro, and I couldn't quickly find info on those specific lines.

The Yonge Line is apparently able to get 32K pph with automation in either direction. I'm guessing that means right now it's about 59K pph in both directions. (And frequently runs over designed capacity.) Some other upgrades in technology might get it a bit higher.

So in suburbs and planned communities BRT has a higher capacity than lots of light metro systems, but getting into downtowns makes life a bit trickier for the BRT system. Still, Bogata's system handles a bit over 2 million passengers a day, and serves some pretty urban zones.

Does Ottawa have the need for something more than 25k pph?

If it does, would it not make sense to add a second line downtown that is a premetro (about 30k pph) or full metro (60k pph)?

Boston has BRT, LRT and full metro systems. They all are integrated within the entire system and one type would not be removed or converted for the other types.

Ottawa already will have 3 types of higher than local service. Adding one more in a decade or so would not be much of a stretch.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by Beedok

Didn't the build the second deathstar in less time than the transitway conversion is taking?

Using shoddy slave labour, I think they were able to get it about half done. Still had some pretty major flaws and vulnerabilities if memory serves though

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by McC

Brussels is talking about converting their pre-metro lines, which were designed in the 50s and 60s with the intention that they would eventually be upgraded to full metro lines; see for example: http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/metros/brussels-builds-urban-rail-capacity.html Our system does not appear to have been designed with that in mind (neither was the Transitway, it turned out).

Thanks! That was an interesting read. For those interested, here's the relevant section:

Pre-metro to metro

Peak capacity has also become a serious constraint on the north-south pre-metro lines, lines 3 and 4, between North station and Albert. Despite the introduction of 43m-long LRVs with wider doors, consolidation of tram routes using the tunnel and the operation of 2 minute 30 second headways, de Meeûs says the line is approaching saturation point.

Technical studies are underway into the conversion of the pre-metro into an automated north-south metro line, which will include the construction of a 4.5km northern extension to serve the densely-populated district of Schaerbeek-Evere. A new metro tunnel will be required on the central section of the route between Anneessens and South station and a new tram tunnel will be constructed beneath Fonsylaan to replace the Constitution tunnel near South station, the oldest tram tunnel in Brussels, which dates back to 1958.

Construction of the extension and conversion of the pre-metro is expected to begin in 2018 and the €570m project is due to be completed in 2022. Stib estimates that the northern extension would be used by around 6000 passengers per hour per direction.

That's good. So it doesn't sound too onerous a task. Though the second paragraph there scares me a little bit when they're talking about digging a new metro tunnel. Is that because there wasn't any tunnel there to begin with or because the tunnel they had before was totally incompatible with metro?