Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

I'm struggling mightily to understand why the interests of Public Sector employees over-rules the actual Public.

Who is running the city (and province for that matter)?? The representatives elected by the people? or the Public Sector Unions?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-political-party-fundraising-largest-donors-1.3540674

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by acottawa

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-political-party-fundraising-largest-donors-1.3540674

Ignoring labour for a moment, the real advantage of driverless trains is frequency. You can run them far closer together than ones with drivers.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Ignoring labour for a moment, the real advantage of driverless trains is frequency. You can run them far closer together than ones with drivers.

Not really. The Confederation line will be almost completely automated. The train will drive itself and all the driver is only there in case of an emergency and otherwise only has to do is push a button ever 30 seconds to tell the train that he/she is awake (she/he might also tell it to close the doors). The only thing that will make higher frequencies possible by removing the driver is the driver's salary won't affect the decision, but they still need to buy the trains and pay the other costs to run it (like electricity).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not really. The Confederation line will be almost completely automated. The train will drive itself and all the driver is only there in case of an emergency and otherwise only has to do is push a button ever 30 seconds to tell the train that he/she is awake (she/he might also tell it to close the doors). The only thing that will make higher frequencies possible by removing the driver is the driver's salary won't affect the decision, but they still need to buy the trains and pay the other costs to run it (like electricity).

So 50k per year to push a button every 30 seconds?

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So 50k per year to push a button every 30 seconds?

However, I can certainly see how one needs 35+ years of taxpayer funded retirement after such a long and illustrious career

[hwy418]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So 50k per year to push a button every 30 seconds?

I think it's more likely that senior drivers with the most seniority will get first dibs on those jobs... so more likely that drivers on the sunshine list will be "driving" the trains.

[1overcosc]

I wouldn't be surprised if the city uses the threat of automating the Confederation Line as leverage in future negotiations with the union.

Really the city should be pursuing maximum automation in every single field of its operations to lower costs. The city's mandate is to serve its citizens, not provide jobs. It does the latter only insofar as it is necessary to do the former.

[roger1818]

I think it came down to the city choosing its battles. I suspect full automation will eventually come, but they are taking baby steps to avoid labour unrest.

[Richard Eade]

Because full automation has worked out so well for OC Transpo? Take the Automated Next Stop Announcement (ANSA) System for instance - Oh, wait ... OC Transpo just got fined another $25,000 because the CTA determined that the ANSA system wasn't working reliably.

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oc-transpo-fines-next-stop-announcements-1.4456114)

[Kitchissippi]

Even if the trains are fully automated, someone is going to have to monitor it somewhere. At this point what's the difference between having those eyes on the train or some screen in a remote location? I'm thinking about cases where someone jumps on to the tracks or jams the doors. Having a human on the train even though they're just pressing a button most of the time would be more responsive than calling someone to deal with a situation.

[SFUVancouver]

It's a constant surprise to me that people still have any doubts about the viability and value of fully automated rapid transit.

Metro Vancouver is 31+ years into fully automated rapid transit since the inauguration of SkyTrain in 1986. The idea of a staffperson (or two) sitting on the train pressing the door button is as preposterous and antiquated as an elevator operator. It's just not a big deal to have door sensors. This isn't new stuff, people.

As for train control, fully automated trains using moving block train control systems are safer than human driver-controlled systems, enable higher frequencies at lower cost, and allow for the precise sculpting of system capacity to meet demand.

A good example of this is when a Canucks game goes into overtime. The level of service for the SkyTrain line serving the stadium district (and downtown CBD) would be programmed to extend the evening commute peak level of service (LoS) until the game begins to make sure that there isn't a fall-off in LoS in that crucial hour before the game begins. LoS would be programmed to go down to regular evening LoS once the game starts and then back up to peak LoS after the game ends to clear the crowds. These blocks of time don't match up well with standard 8 hour staffing shifts, nor would they always be sufficiently predictable to schedule around.

Say the game goes into overtime and ends late. This will push peak demand past the originally-planned post-game peak LoS. Not a problem: SkyTrain control monitors the crowds (or their absence) through CCTV and on-site SkyTrain roving attendants and transit police and then just extends the peak level of service with a few keystrokes so that the platforms can be cleared. When it makes sense, with a few more keystrokes they taper it off back to off-peak LoS.

With the fully automated system and centralized control room, there is no need for overtime for drivers or an abrupt fall-off in LoS if the original schedule were rigidly followed. It's a significantly better system for transit users, saves money and lives, and maximizes the utility of the public's investment in transit infrastructure.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Even if the trains are fully automated, someone is going to have to monitor it somewhere. At this point what's the difference between having those eyes on the train or some screen in a remote location? I'm thinking about cases where someone jumps on to the tracks or jams the doors. Having a human on the train even though they're just pressing a button most of the time would be more responsive than calling someone to deal with a situation.

Lots of cities operate fully automated transit systems (e.g. Copenhagen, Turin, Vancouver). I believe it is more efficient to have one person monitoring a set of video monitors and implementing emergency procedures remotely then having a button-pusher on each train.

[FFX-ME]

Maybe they will upgrade to full automation eventually. Originally though the plan was to run the trains at grade in the suburbs which would mean automation would be impossible.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Maybe they will upgrade to full automation eventually. Originally though the plan was to run the trains at grade in the suburbs which would mean automation would be impossible.

Places like Toronto and NYC are still running with two person operation on most lines, and even though the Scarborough RT uses the exact same system as the original Skytrain, it has an operator because of union fights. If you don't start automated, it's very hard to change after the fact, and it has nothing to do with technology.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

Even if the trains are fully automated, someone is going to have to monitor it somewhere. At this point what's the difference between having those eyes on the train or some screen in a remote location?

Partially true. It is more efficient to have people monitor the system remotely than it is to have someone on every train, but you are right and the perceived cost savings aren't as great as they are in reality.

I'm thinking about cases where someone jumps on to the tracks or jams the doors. Having a human on the train even though they're just pressing a button most of the time would be more responsive than calling someone to deal with a situation.

There are other ways of dealing with this situation. In Vancouver they have sensors at the stations to detect when someone falls onto the tracks and it will automatically stop an approaching train. The sensors can react faster than a human operator and you don't need to worry about the physiological damage to a driver that was unable to stop the train in time. Between the stations, you make it very difficult to get onto the tracks (though you can never completely prevent stupidity).

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

Originally though the plan was to run the trains at grade in the suburbs which would mean automation would be impossible.

Only impossible with current technology. It won't be long before the technology used for driver-less cars will be applied to LRT trains.

Other options are to have sensors, similar to stations, determine that it is all clear or you could have someone remotely monitor the crossing and confirm all is clear. In the later case, fixed cameras could be used to get a better view than from the cab of the train and confirm traffic is stopping.

[CanadaGoose]

The Confederation Line will be carrying large amounts of people and will be key to keep Ottawa moving.

If any issues such as Medical Emergency, Tree Branch fallen on tracks, flooding and etc, I rather have a human train operator available (on the train) to diagnose/resolve the situation and minimize the downtime.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

Because full automation has worked out so well for OC Transpo? Take the Automated Next Stop Announcement (ANSA) System for instance - Oh, wait ... OC Transpo just got fined another $25,000 because the CTA determined that the ANSA system wasn't working reliably.

(http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/oc-transpo-fines-next-stop-announcements-1.4456114)

On the shorter buses, why can't the driver just call out the stops like in the past? And on the longer buses, a simple on-board loudspeaker can just make the driver's voice louder in the back.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Buggys

On the shorter buses, why can't the driver just call out the stops like in the past? And on the longer buses, a simple on-board loudspeaker can just make the driver's voice louder in the back.

This almost never happened before the automated system was installed. Besides, why would we want to impose this distraction on the drivers when their prime responsibility is to drive and keep the passengers safe.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Partially true. It is more efficient to have people monitor the system remotely than it is to have someone on every train, but you are right and the perceived cost savings aren't as great as they are in reality.



There are other ways of dealing with this situation. In Vancouver they have sensors at the stations to detect when someone falls onto the tracks and it will automatically stop an approaching train. The sensors can react faster than a human operator and you don't need to worry about the physiological damage to a driver that was unable to stop the train in time. Between the stations, you make it very difficult to get onto the tracks (though you can never completely prevent stupidity).


Only impossible with current technology. It won't be long before the technology used for driver-less cars will be applied to LRT trains.

Other options are to have sensors, similar to stations, determine that it is all clear or you could have someone remotely monitor the crossing and confirm all is clear. In the later case, fixed cameras could be used to get a better view than from the cab of the train and confirm traffic is stopping.

Vancouver's skytrain achieves this by being almost 100% grade separated. Ottawa's system will not be. It will be necessary to almost cage in any surface sections to minimize intrusion. Do we want to do this?

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This almost never happened before the automated system was installed. Besides, why would we want to impose this distraction on the drivers when their prime responsibility is to drive and keep the passengers safe.

You're being sarcastic right? Anyone who's taken a bus in the 2000s or earlier knows that the drivers used to call out all the stops before the electronic stop-caller device started being installed.