The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[Chadillaccc]

The city of Calgary has shortlisted 4 options for the Beltline portion of the Green Line. The options include 10th Avenue Underground, 10th Avenue Surface, 12th Avenue Underground, and 12th Avenue Surface. As of the last community engagement session, 12th Avenue Underground is currently the preferred option by both the Beltline Community Association and the City of Calgary.



If the 12th Avenue Underground option is chosen, the Green Line will have a grade separated section nearly as long as Ottawa's Confederation Line. The subway will stretch from 24 Avenue North, under Centre Street North, under downtown and the Beltline, coming above ground before 4th Street East Station, elevating above the Elbow River, remaining elevated from Inglewood to Highfield Station, then travelling at grade and over a series of bridges until Lynnwood Station. In total, this section will have 5 subway stations, 3 grade level stations, and 2 elevated stations over a span of about 12 kilometers.

The line is still planned to be 42 kilometers long with 28 stations. Upon completion, the Ctrain will be 102 kilometers long with 73 stations, for a station spacing of about 1.4 kilometers which is lower than the station spacing of the Skytrain(1.5 km). The first urban mass transit system in the country with over 100 km of track (obviously not counting GO, as it's suburban and rural rail)

For more information, here's the engagement website for the Green Line: http://engage.calgary.ca/greenline/beltline

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

There's not much difference between LRT and heavy metro trains these days in terms of capability. I think Ottawa went with low floor for compatibility with existing infrastructure and the future potential of more LRT style running. And probably a little because it's 'the thing that cities do these days', as Calgary is doing.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you were to take a subway train and a LRT train of the same length, how many more people could the different modes carry?

The main difference tends to be that LRT vehicles need to be in shorter segments to allow for street running (sharp turns), and using an LRT when there will not be any street running is a waste, because in order to have short segments, you either need more articulations, or shorter vehicles (with more control cabs).

If you compare Calgary or Edmonton LRT with the Toronto or Montreal subway, each LRT car is 25m long and has an articulation in the center and two control cabs. So for a train similar in length to a Toronto or Montreal consist (138m/152m) you'd need 6 of these cars. This would have 12 control cabs, 5 coupler points to join the cars, and 18 bogies. This wastes space and adds weight and should only be done if you actually need those characteristics.

The new Toronto and Montreal stock will have just two control cabs for the full length train, while the old ones has 6 cabs. They specifically made this change to increase capacity. And a whole Toronto rocket train will have 12 bogies and 5 articulations. A lighter set up and less complexity which reduces maintenance costs.

It would be possible to have LRT vehicles formed as a single long articulated unit as well, but if you incorporated enough of these features you'd be changing LRT cars into metro cars.

One thing I've never understood is why Edmonton uses LRT cars on its original lines when it doesn't have any street running...

[UofC.engineer]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

One thing I've never understood is why Edmonton uses LRT cars on its original lines when it doesn't have any street running...

Really?

1. Edmonton LRT vehicles are powered from overhead catenary lines.To convert the system in order to use T-series cars used by bombardier seems very costly to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.
2. Edmonton LRT runs 5 car consists and is no where near capacity.
3. There a couple places on the Metro line with a more or less sharp turn:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.5482462,-113.5007489,239m/data=!3m1!1e3
4. Do you really want two different types of rolling stock on 24km system?


I don't mean to be condescending when I ask this question but have you ever ridden the LRT?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Really?

1. Edmonton LRT vehicles are powered from overhead catenary lines.To convert the system in order to use T-series cars used by bombardier seems very costly to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

There are metros powered by catenary, why limit to T-series cars?

2. Edmonton LRT runs 5 car consists and is no where near capacity.

Shorter stations could have been used in conjection to shorter trains? Less costs?

3. There a couple places on the Metro line with a more or less sharp turn:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.5482462,-113.5007489,239m/data=!3m1!1e3

So? Metros can do that too?

4. Do you really want two different types of rolling stock on 24km system?

Well there will be a new rolling stock anyways, how is this pertinent?

I don't mean to be condescending when I ask this question but have you ever ridden the LRT?

Have you ever been to other cities?

[giallo]

Vancouver's Millennium Line extension (Evergreen Line) will open on Dec 2nd.

Someone took a video of the completed line the other day, and it looks great. Some nice views too.

• Video Link

[Doady]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Depends on seat layout. Having more seats results in lower capacity overall (less room to stand). Assuming an identical seat layout... there is no capacity difference between a subway train and an LRT train.

LRV width is restricted by lane width. Subway and commuter rail are not on street so typically the trains are much wider, providing more standing room for the same amount of seats.

BART subway - 3.20m wide
TTC subway - 3.13m
Washington subway - 3.09m
GO train - 3.00m
NYC subway - 2.98m
Chicago elevated rail - 2.84m
Calgary light rail - 2.70m
Muni light rail - 2.70
TTC light rail - 2.65m
TTC streetcar - 2.54m
Montreal subway - 2.51m

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Really?

1. Edmonton LRT vehicles are powered from overhead catenary lines.To convert the system in order to use T-series cars used by bombardier seems very costly to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.
2. Edmonton LRT runs 5 car consists and is no where near capacity.
3. There a couple places on the Metro line with a more or less sharp turn:
https://www.google.ca/maps/@53.5482462,-113.5007489,239m/data=!3m1!1e3
4. Do you really want two different types of rolling stock on 24km system?


I don't mean to be condescending when I ask this question but have you ever ridden the LRT?

I can only conclude that you completely misunderstand what I meant.

What I meant is, that I don't know why the original LRT lines weren't designed and built using metro cars to begin with. I'm not talking about anything being converted after the fact. This is not just an issue with capacity, but rather an issue of efficiency, as someone already mentioned. The trains and platforms wouldn't have needed to be as long if there was less space being used for control cabs and couplers, and they would have used less power and required less maintenance of they were lighter and simplier.

If the answer is that there are tight curves that were easier to handle by using LRT stock rather than acquiring suitable metro cars or straightening the curves, then that's fine. But as a heads up, you can provide that answer without snarky remarks like "really?" and "have you ever ridden the LRT?" if you genuinely don't want to appear condescending. Not that I have any objection if you find condescension enjoyable. But if not, keep that in mind.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I can only conclude that you completely misunderstand what I meant.

What I meant is, that I don't know why the original LRT lines weren't designed and built using metro cars to begin with. I'm not talking about anything being converted after the fact. This is not just an issue with capacity, but rather an issue of efficiency, as someone already mentioned. The trains and platforms wouldn't have needed to be as long if there was less space being used for control cabs and couplers, and they would have used less power and required less maintenance of they were lighter and simplier.

If the answer is that there are tight curves that were easier to handle by using LRT stock rather than acquiring suitable metro cars or straightening the curves, then that's fine. But as a heads up, you can provide that answer without snarky remarks like "really?" and "have you ever ridden the LRT?" if you genuinely don't want to appear condescending. Not that I have any objection if you find condescension enjoyable. But if not, keep that in mind.

There are level crossings.

Edit: It was also the 70s, and everyone was trying 'new' tech in new transit installations (Bart 1972, Marta 1972, Washington Metro 1976, Morgantown Personal Rapid Transit 1975). Edmonton chose the 'new' system that suited their requirements as a city of less than 500k people.

[The Chemist]

Originally Posted by UofC.engineer

Really?

1. Edmonton LRT vehicles are powered from overhead catenary lines.To convert the system in order to use T-series cars used by bombardier seems very costly to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

Bombardier also manufactures a version of their subway rolling stock that runs on catenary power - they use this rolling stock on several of Shanghai's Metro lines.

[J.OT13]

Info on the Confederation Line rolling stock.

Length: 48.5 meters
Width: 2.65 meters
Height: 3.6 meters
Modules per car: 4

Capacity: 300 people (120 seated, 180 standing)

The line will initially run with 2 car train sets at rush hour (97 meters, capacity of 600 people).

One negative of low floor LRT is the space lost by the wheel wells which will always compromise on capacity.

In any case, with full length platforms (120 meters), and full length trains (130 meters) at a 2 minute frequency, the capacity will be 24,000 per hour, per direction. If we can somehow manage a 1.5 minute frequency, we could go up to 32,000 phpd.

So why LRT as opposed to heavy rail metro?

- On an engineering perspective, LRTs can take sharper turns and climb steeper grades, which makes building the tunnel a little easier;
- Cheaper to convert a bus-way to low floor LRT then full fledged metro;
- Up until 2013 (contract for the Confederation Line was awarded in December 2012), the City was still considering running trains partly on the surface between Bayview and Bayshore. They finnaly came to their senses and decided to build a tunnel between Dominion and Lincoln Fields, using the existing Transitway for the remaining segments.


http://www.transitottawa.ca/2013/08/recommended-lrt-station-names.html

[sunsetmountainland]

Originally Posted by giallo

Vancouver's Millennium Line extension (Evergreen Line) will open on Dec 2nd.

Someone took a video of the completed line the other day, and it looks great. Some nice views too.

• Video Link

I am looking forward to testing this product out!

[Chadillaccc]

Preliminary routing for the proposed spur line to Mount Royal University in Calgary's southwest. This line would be the final step in connecting all four of Calgary's major post secondary institutions to mass transit. It's now proposed to be separate from the West Line, using low floor models, basically a streetcar, with stations at both Shaganappi Station and Westbrook Station before turning south to the university. This will make Mount Royal a much more attractive option to students who don't own cars.


http://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/city-bureaucrats-questioned-over-west-lrt-spur-line-snub

[GreaterMontréal]

so it begins

Canadian companies shortlisted to bid on $5.5B Montreal rail project
Each group has about 6 months to submit proposal

TheCaisse de dépôt's infrastructure subsidiary has selected five consortiums to bid on two major contracts — to build the 67-kilometre network of 24 stations, and to supply and operate the train cars.

Each group has about six months to submit a proposal.

Three groups will compete to supply trains: one including Parson, Hyundai Rotem and Thales Canada; Bombardier Transportation; and the duo of Alstom Transport Canada and SNC-Lavalin.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/light-rail-montreal-companies-shortlisted-contract-1.3846266

[ssiguy]

JOT13........thanks for the info on the Ottawa LRT. Makes sense now and certainly there is nothing wrong with LRT, if it's grade separated it's still considered a Metro/subway just like Vancouver's SkyTrain is classified as. I'm glad you are not going the puny station route like Vancouver where the Canada Line already has capacity issues and not only are the stations only a puny 40 meters but also very thin and I think dangerously so.

[ssiguy]

Originally Posted by The Chemist

Bombardier also manufactures a version of their subway rolling stock that runs on catenary power - they use this rolling stock on several of Shanghai's Metro lines.

This is what Toronto should use on it's developing RER system. Many large systems in the world are near or even totally catenary including Toyko, Shanghai, Delhi, Barcelona, and Hong Kong is name just a few. In fact so is the closest system to Toronto..........Cleveland.

They are far superior to third rail when travelling primarily outside and especially along current corridors. This is because if using a current corridor that also has other trains using it {ie VIA} it allows for those tracks to be repaired without the safety concerns of electrification using third rail. Also safer for emergency evacuation or services for other trains along the route. Third rail also has a more difficult time thru snow or ice than catenary.

[Metro-One]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

JOT13........thanks for the info on the Ottawa LRT. Makes sense now and certainly there is nothing wrong with LRT, if it's grade separated it's still considered a Metro/subway just like Vancouver's SkyTrain is classified as. I'm glad you are not going the puny station route like Vancouver where the Canada Line already has capacity issues and not only are the stations only a puny 40 meters but also very thin and I think dangerously so.

I see it is time for your bi-monthly Canada Line misinformation rant.

The Canada Line does not have capacity issues, it is just above 1/3 of its ultimate build out capacity.

All stations are expandable (and some already are) to 50 meters.

I have not seen a single case that shows that the Canada Line stations have been any more dangerous than other stations. If you have hard data that shows that they have been more dangerous (injuries, fatalities) than the average station rate please show it.

The rail line is currently exceeding ridership predictions so new cars are wanting to be ordered a little ahead of schedule. That is not the infrastructure's fault.

Question, how often do you ride the Canada Line or like everything in Vancouver do you just like to bitch about it?

[giallo]

By how wrong ssiguy's observations often are about Vancouver and Kelowna, I'm willing to bet he hasn't left White Rock since 2002.

[Metro-One]

I have often suspected the same.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by GreaterMontréal

so it begins

Canadian companies shortlisted to bid on $5.5B Montreal rail project
Each group has about 6 months to submit proposal



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/light-rail-montreal-companies-shortlisted-contract-1.3846266

Hopefully Alstom will win, they built a factor in the GMA and their trains have a good track record, litterally. They can have service to up to 66s between each train.

[Denscity]

Originally Posted by giallo

By how wrong ssiguy's observations often are about Vancouver and Kelowna, I'm willing to bet he hasn't left White Rock since 2002.

Or he's been back home in Ontario the whole time.