O-Train Line 1/3 [Stage 2 | West Extension | Tunney's to Baseline/Moodie] | U/C

[SkeggsEggs]

There would be one past Baseline Station I believe.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Which reminds me, are there plans to add a western maintenance and storage facility (possibly at Queensview) so that trains starting/ending their shift in the west end don't have to deadhead all the way to/from Belfast?

Why would a train need to deadhead? Why can't all routes simply start/end at Belfast?

Since this won't be a timed service anyway, just pull out and head west (or east) and start picking up people.

At the end of a shift, simple say "last stop Tremblay"... same way as several of the Transitway 9x routes end at Tunneys...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

There would be one past Baseline Station I believe.

Yes, it was to be next to the cross-town railway off of Woodroffe on land that had been formerly designated as a parkway.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day...
to Roger1818...... yup, that is indeed what I meant, and how I too interpret the statement... that the platforms at their 120m max have to be curved or bowed at the very ends to allow traincar swing as they enter the curve.
And for the second maint facility, yes, first they slightly expand Belfast to the max (mostly already done) and use one if not both the extra lanes underneath/beside Algonquin station for overnight storage of at least 2 trains each. Then they add a second facility south of Algonquin/Tallwood/Norice, in the "open" area east of Woodroffe / north of the tracks. They will install a second bridge over Woodroffe with 2 tracks to access it, with a looong non-revenue tail out of Algonquin to get there. It will at the same time be the preliminary for a future extension to Fallowfield and beyond.
EnJoy.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day....
correction to attribution in previous post...
source is not Stage2 website, but the TPAP completion entry on City of Ottawa transit website : Appendix K , section 2.2.2 :
http://ottawa.ca/en/city-hall/public-con...ion-transit-project-assessment-process-1
My apologies.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Why would a train need to deadhead? Why can't all routes simply start/end at Belfast?

Since this won't be a timed service anyway, just pull out and head west (or east) and start picking up people.

As posted earlier (shown below), they are on a set frequency:

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The approved frequencies for Phase 1 (Tunneys-Blair) are:

Weekdays:
-5am to 6:30am - every 8 minutes
-6:30am to 9:00am - every 3 minutes
-9:00am to 2:45pm - every 5 minutes
-2:45pm to 6:00pm - every 4 minutes
-6:00pm to 9:30pm - every 5 minutes
-9:30pm to 11:00pm - every 8 minutes*
-11:00pm to 1:00am - every 15 minutes*
*Except Fridays, when there will be 8 minute service from 9:30pm to 2:00am

Saturday:
-6:00am to 7:00pm - every 5 minutes
-7:00pm to 2:00am - every 8 minutes

Sunday:
-8:00am to 7:00pm - every 5 minutes
-7:00pm to 11:00pm - every 10 minutes

Now I am not sure how these frequencies are defined. My guess is they are departure frequencies from the terminal stations (Blair and Tunney's) and then the effect will trickle down to the other stations (this actually makes sense when you look at how early the PM rush hour trains start).

If you have all new trains start at Belfast, it will be quiet some time until the new trains reach Tremblay eastbound (probably about 45 min), since Belfast is so far east.

At the end of a shift, simple say "last stop Tremblay"... same way as several of the Transitway 9x routes end at Tunneys...

I beleive most of the Transitway 9x routes end at Tunney's always end at Tunney's, so no one is surprised. If you have trains randomly end at Tremblay, it will catch people off guard. Unless its part of a scheduled rotation (ex. Bayshore, Baseline, Lincoln, Bayshore, Baseline, Lincoln, ...), it will create confusion. On top of that, it will mess up the scheduled frequencies above (beyond Tremblay the frequency would be half the frequency before it and most times the transition is more gradual than that).

The best way to keep a predictable schedule is to have start and finish their runs at a "terminal" station and the only way to get trains to/from that terminal station is to deadhead from the yard.

They could create convoys and couple two trains together. Once they reach the terminal station, the trains split and depart at separate times. This would be especially good in the morning when the frequency more than doubles, so two new trains are needed between each existing train (with the existing train having to wait an extra minute). This only works if the trains can be uncoupled easily.

[lrt's friend]

I wonder when the first service cuts on the Confederation Line will take place in off-peak hours to save money.

[Guideway]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day...
to Roger1818...... yup, that is indeed what I meant, and how I too interpret the statement... that the platforms at their 120m max have to be curved or bowed at the very ends to allow traincar swing as they enter the curve.
And for the second maint facility, yes, first they slightly expand Belfast to the max (mostly already done) and use one if not both the extra lanes underneath/beside Algonquin station for overnight storage of at least 2 trains each. Then they add a second facility south of Algonquin/Tallwood/Norice, in the "open" area east of Woodroffe / north of the tracks. They will install a second bridge over Woodroffe with 2 tracks to access it, with a looong non-revenue tail out of Algonquin to get there. It will at the same time be the preliminary for a future extension to Fallowfield and beyond.
EnJoy.

I just went on google maps and the width of the ground for the future MSF is only about 127m wide, while at belfast it is 220m wide. I don't see much need of another maintenance facility in the west, maybe just a storage facility. If they need the maintenance facility, I don't understand how they can smoothly transfer the trains in between the Maintenance and Storage (Assuming they put them on the sides and not next to each other). With the room that they have, I can only guess that they will have the trains first enter the maintenance, back back out, and then go into the storage facility?
There probably is a more efficient way, but this is all I can see.

Here is something I made which could be an efficient option. (Not to scale)


Or if that takes up to much space then something like this.


Any thoughts?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I wonder when the first service cuts on the Confederation Line will take place in off-peak hours to save money.

About six weeks into service.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I wonder when the first service cuts on the Confederation Line will take place in off-peak hours to save money.

Cutting frequencies would create problems with the RTG contract so it's unlikely to be pursued in the short term; that said, in the future as peak frequencies need to increase the city could get around that by shifting trips from off peak to peak.

The off peak frequencies are considerably better than the old Transitway and each train has a considerably higher capacity than a bus so it's quite likely that many off peak trains will be mostly empty, which could potentially create political pressure to cut frequencies. Time will tell.

The best way we can safeguard against this as citizens, IMO, is by pushing for the city to automate the line as that saves a lot of money and results in very few costs associated with each specific trip, both of which significantly decrease the attractiveness of cutting frequencies.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day...
For Guideway......please reference sections 11.1 and 11.2 of the TPAP Final, per the link above, of the proposed MSF . It fits, tightly filling the entire width of the field from the rail to almost the edge of the residential area of Norice et al. And it has a full turn-around loop, per requirement - remember that non-revenue track can follow extremely tight radii at low speed. Sorry I do not know how to grab a copy of the pics for insertion here.
EnJoy.

[HighwayStar]

First off... I am by no means an LRT scheduling expert.. and I'm sure there are people much smarter than me doing that.. but this whole thing just confuses me.

First question is.. How do the LRTs deadhead on a busy 2 track system? i.e. are there sidings? do they use crossovers between stations to pass? or is there a secret third track hidden from view?

Originally Posted by roger1818

As posted earlier (shown below), they are on a set frequency:

Now I am not sure how these frequencies are defined. My guess is they are departure frequencies from the terminal stations (Blair and Tunney's) and then the effect will trickle down to the other stations (this actually makes sense when you look at how early the PM rush hour trains start).

Frequency... yes.. but not set times... during the day one shows up and waits for the next train.. I'm sure nobody is standing there saying, "it's 2:47.. I better not have to wait more than 4 minutes for the train"

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you have all new trains start at Belfast, it will be quiet some time until the new trains reach Tremblay eastbound (probably about 45 min), since Belfast is so far east.

First thing in the morning, when the tracks are empty, deadheading can make sense... though personally I think its a waste of time, money and energy to drive empty trains through the system.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I beleive most of the Transitway 9x routes end at Tunney's always end at Tunney's, so no one is surprised.

Looks like it now but wasn't always the case... maybe people got confused so they changed it

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you have trains randomly end at Tremblay, it will catch people off guard. Unless its part of a scheduled rotation (ex. Bayshore, Baseline, Lincoln, Bayshore, Baseline, Lincoln, ...), it will create confusion. On top of that, it will mess up the scheduled frequencies above (beyond Tremblay the frequency would be half the frequency before it and most times the transition is more gradual than that).

I guess I would hope Ottawa types are a little more sophisticated than that. I *really* don't see a problem with terminating the odd train at Tremblay. I was riding the NYC subway system all last weekend, and if people can handle that level of mass confusion... a simple change of termination shouldn't be more than people can handle.

I'm not so much complaining as simply trying to understand the benefit to all the wasted time/money/energy of deadheading.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

First off... I am by no means an LRT scheduling expert.. and I'm sure there are people much smarter than me doing that.. but this whole thing just confuses me.

Neither am I. I could be proven totally wrong, but discussing it helps reduce confusion.

First question is.. How do the LRTs deadhead on a busy 2 track system? i.e. are there sidings? do they use crossovers between stations to pass? or is there a secret third track hidden from view?

They are unlikely to deadhead while the system is busy (the only exception I can think of is when there is a mechanical difficulty and they need to get the train to the shop, but that hopefully won't be a regular event ). They are either trying to increase the number of trains or decrease the number.

There will be regular crossovers so they could pass if the oncoming track is clear, but more likely they will slow down and wait for the train ahead of it.

Frequency... yes.. but not set times... during the day one shows up and waits for the next train..

They may not publish the schedule, but they have to have a schedule if they want the trains to run at a set interval. At a minimum they need to know when to depart from the first station. It will likely sit their and wait until a certain scheduled time. There may or may not be other time points along the route.

First thing in the morning, when the tracks are empty, deadheading can make sense... though personally I think its a waste of time, money and energy to drive empty trains through the system.

Yes and no. Needless stopping also wastes time and energy. I gather trains have multiple signals when entering a block (including go, prepare to stop and stop). The deadheading train could slow to a speed that allows it to arrive at its destination 2 minutes after the train in front of it (the minimum interval between trains). Also, if using a convoy, with an 8 minute minute early morning interval, they could probably depart Belfast 5 minutes after the train in front of it and get to a crossover shortly after the last oncoming train passes.

It gets a bit trickier in the PM rush hour, but to go from a 5 minute frequency to a 4 minute frequency you only need to add one train every 20 minutes. I'm guessing here, but if its an 60 minute round trip (stage 1), that's only 3 additional trains. They could possibly park one at Tunnies and send an engineer to it by train.

I guess I would hope Ottawa types are a little more sophisticated than that. I *really* don't see a problem with terminating the odd train at Tremblay. I was riding the NYC subway system all last weekend, and if people can handle that level of mass confusion... a simple change of termination shouldn't be more than people can handle.

Yes they could learn. Having said that it is less about the confusion (though that is a factor) and more about getting to the required intervals as quickly as possible.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Cutting frequencies would create problems with the RTG contract so it's unlikely to be pursued in the short term; that said, in the future as peak frequencies need to increase the city could get around that by shifting trips from off peak to peak.

The off peak frequencies are considerably better than the old Transitway and each train has a considerably higher capacity than a bus so it's quite likely that many off peak trains will be mostly empty, which could potentially create political pressure to cut frequencies. Time will tell.

The best way we can safeguard against this as citizens, IMO, is by pushing for the city to automate the line as that saves a lot of money and results in very few costs associated with each specific trip, both of which significantly decrease the attractiveness of cutting frequencies.

I have read recently that even the Skytrain has had service cuts in off-peak hours. When supply exceeds demand, there is always the temptation to cut service to save money.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I guess I would hope Ottawa types are a little more sophisticated than that. I *really* don't see a problem with terminating the odd train at Tremblay. I was riding the NYC subway system all last weekend, and if people can handle that level of mass confusion... a simple change of termination shouldn't be more than people can handle.

OC Transpo is objectively terrible at number-varying routes that terminate short or have alternative destinations. The alphabet soup of B, C, E, and X numbering conventions should have been abolished years ago.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Guideway

I don't see much need of another maintenance facility in the west, maybe just a storage facility.

You are probably correct that they won't need another full fledged maintenance facility (major repairs could be done at Belfast). It would likely be beneficial to have a minor facility that can do regular maintenance to save having to continuously shunt trains to and from Belfast (trains that start the day at Baseline will likely end the day at Baseline so that the engineers finish where they start).

If they need the maintenance facility, I don't understand how they can smoothly transfer the trains in between the Maintenance and Storage (Assuming they put them on the sides and not next to each other). With the room that they have, I can only guess that they will have the trains first enter the maintenance, back back out, and then go into the storage facility?
There probably is a more efficient way, but this is all I can see.

The maintenance facility need not be as large as the storage facility (one would hope that they won't have half of the trains being repaired at a time). With that in mind, the maintenance building could be between the station and the storage building. The double track could run past the maintenance building and then fan out to the width of the storage building, with track back feeding into the maintenance building). That way trains could go directly from storage to maintenance and vice versa. To go from the main line to maintenance (or vice versa) would mean reversing, but that is a minor issue. This would also mean both buildings would only need one set of doors.

Either way, they need to leave space beside the buildings for future extension south.

[eemy]

PHrenetic posted a link that shows precisely what you guys are discussing. Here's a screen cap of what's being considered for the MSF south of Baseline. It describes the maintenance facility as light maintenance, which makes sense.

[Kitchissippi]

^^^ Those north-down maps always take me for a spin.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day....
To Jeremy_Haak : Thank You for your grab.
That is precisely the pic I wished to get, but figuring out how to do....at the least would have taken me awhile. One of these days I will get it. Meanwhile...
Yes - light maintenance and storage is all it is intended - all heavy maint will remain at Belfast Yard in a then slightly expanded shop taking over some space from the light maint area. Storage space at Belfast has already been built to the max by RTG anticipating fast expansion. Good call. Between the early storage at Algonquin and then building the Woodroffe yard for storage and light maint, train shuttling is reduced, less mileage on the trains to no purpose, and less noise and expanded track maint time in the off-hours.
I noted a discussion of deadheading earlier - most of the deadheading occurring in a train/rail system like this is the initial system train loadup AM and final system train unload at shutdown - and as was noted, some of this should more appropriately be handled by short-run train insertion/removal - a full deadhead should be unnecessary to a reasonably intelligent passenger community. Yeah - right - listen to the complaints already. Nope, won't be done - trains will start and end at the terminii to avoid arguments and bad press. I have no knowledge of Toronto's system, but Montreal Metro began this way, and I believe still operates this way. It's 'easier' - fewer complaints. Sigh.
Thank You.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Yeah - right - listen to the complaints already. Nope, won't be done - trains will start and end at the terminii to avoid arguments and bad press.

Excellent analysis PHrenetic...

My frustration over the concepts of "useless" deadheading started by trying to go downtown (from Westboro Station) during rush hour.

And I'm not exaggerating here.. heading Eastbound on the Westboro transitway at 5pm on a Wednesday..... no less than 5+ buses would fly by at full speed before ONE stopped. There are always 10-20+ passengers just watching all these empty buses fly by.

I keep thinking no wonder our system costs $3.65, while Toronto is $3.25.. and NYC is $3.

So are we really spending $$$$ simply to avoid bad press????? Guess OCTranspo needs a new communications group... ugh