Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's why I keep saying they should use longer trains and boost frequencies instead of coupling trains together.

Just look at the configuration:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadis_Spirit

It will be busy. Using their own numbers and assuming no spare trains, they have 10 200 pphpd capacity. That's ridiculous when they are anticipating 10 000 - 11 000 pphpd.

It will be busy when they plan 300 pax per train with the 48.5m version. They need trains with one more centre section to boost capacity to 330 per train (59m version). The extra 30 pax per train would add 1020 pphpd with the 34 trains being operated at peak. And even 34 trains will 330 pax means 11220 pphpd. Barely enough.

As it stands they are planning on running every train at max capacity. No spare trains at all. I don't think that's very prudent. I have inquired about this in the past. Never got a straight answer.

Coming from the East, it'll be packed leaving St. Laurent. And possibly crush after Hurdman. Every day.

We all know this was about maintaining the $2.1 Billion budget. I hope you are wrong because there is a huge area of southeast Ottawa (where I live) that is going to be required to transfer at Hurdman. It has to be a reliable transfer.

If they screw up, is there a possibility that some bus routes will have to be maintained into downtown until extra LRVs are purchased? That will be a black eye on the city planners if this happens and puts into question how this will be able to handle a Canada Day event.

I also noticed a slippage on proposed service from 3 minutes 15 seconds which was the original plan during peak hours to 5 minutes or better, which is the latest that I have read.

[lrt's friend]

Let us all remember how big the confidentiality issue was back in 2006. It was one of the main pillars that defeated it. I always said that it was bogus because these contracts always contain a lot proprietary information, that if made public, would affect bidding and result in potentially substantially higher prices. I am always surprised when this comes up. Confidentiality is normal way to conduct business especially when competitive bidding is mandated.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's why I keep saying they should use longer trains and boost frequencies instead of coupling trains together.

Just look at the configuration:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citadis_Spirit

It will be busy. Using their own numbers and assuming no spare trains, they have 10 200 pphpd capacity. That's ridiculous when they are anticipating 10 000 - 11 000 pphpd.

It will be busy when they plan 300 pax per train with the 48.5m version. They need trains with one more centre section to boost capacity to 330 per train (59m version). The extra 30 pax per train would add 1020 pphpd with the 34 trains being operated at peak. And even 34 trains will 330 pax means 11220 pphpd. Barely enough.

So you are suggesting that instead of having 90m platforms expandable to 100-120m we should have had 60m platforms and run twice as many trains? This would leave no room to grow. The current plan allows us to double the number of trains and lengthen them over time as demand grows.

As it stands they are planning on running every train at max capacity. No spare trains at all. I don't think that's very prudent. I have inquired about this in the past. Never got a straight answer.

We probably should have bought more trains for day 1, but the plan always was to buy more trains every year. This got morphed into the stage 2 project which will also require more trains to maintain the same level of service.

This also shows why going with LRT was moronic. A light metro would have more capacity for the same cost.

Yes. That has been discussed many times here. The politicians had their brains stuck on LRT though as it sounds more modern than light metro.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We all know this was about maintaining the $2.1 Billion budget. I hope you are wrong because there is a huge area of southeast Ottawa (where I live) that is going to be required to transfer at Hurdman. It has to be a reliable transfer.

If they screw up, is there a possibility that some bus routes will have to be maintained into downtown until extra LRVs are purchased? That will be a black eye on the city planners if this happens and puts into question how this will be able to handle a Canada Day event.

I also noticed a slippage on proposed service from 3 minutes 15 seconds which was the original plan during peak hours to 5 minutes or better, which is the latest that I have read.

Good Day.

yup. Capacity and Frequency and Dependability - the tripod pillars of service.

Fortunately, the Phase 2 LRV contract is already in place, so that economies of continuity would be available, and this was the case. So the flow of LRVs should continue, in all likelyhood just about as fast as current deliveries, which makes them available sooner than would otherwise be expected. an accidental bonus for improving service almost as of Day One (esp. with the hand-over slippage).

As for the slippage in scheduled service - are we really truely surprised, given OC-Transpo history on this aspect !!??!!

IE: as usual, we wait and see.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by roger1818

We probably should have bought more trains for day 1, but the plan always was to buy more trains every year. This got morphed into the stage 2 project which will also require more trains to maintain the same level of service.

We have purchased 2 extra trainsets using the PTIF money. I'm not sure when they are being delivered but PTIF projects are supposed to be complete by March 2019.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

We have purchased 2 extra trainsets using the PTIF money. I'm not sure when they are being delivered but PTIF projects are supposed to be complete by March 2019.

Good Day.

Do we have knowledge of which trainsets for which line when where what how?
All the info I have always, even recently, seen, is Confed line 34 Phase 1 vehicles and 38 Phase 2 vehicles.

I have heard of this purchase before, but never seen ANY details on it.
Those PTIF projects had VERY little detail to them that I ever saw.

Any references (?hope?) .

Thx.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Buggys

This is shortsighted. People don't always go & return on the same route, so having to lock bikes will deter a lot of users.

Greater Vancouver's modal share of work commuters by bike is comparable to Ottawa's, and there are limits, including peak-hour restrictions, on bike boardings for the SkyTrain there. (It's slightly less restrictive on the Canada Line, with its more spacey rolling stock.)

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Do we have knowledge of which trainsets for which line when where what how?
All the info I have always, even recently, seen, is Confed line 34 Phase 1 vehicles and 38 Phase 2 vehicles.

I have heard of this purchase before, but never seen ANY details on it.
Those PTIF projects had VERY little detail to them that I ever saw.

Any references (?hope?) .

Thx.

From Budget 2017:
http://app05.ottawa.ca/sirepub/view.aspx?cabinet=published_meetings&fileid=423165

908709 Acquisition of 2 train sets

Acquisition; This project is to pre-purchase 2 new train sets for a total of four train cars in support of the LRT Stage 2. This will provide redundancy to the new Confederation line network and increase resiliency for a new service provided to an expanded clientele. Delivery is targeted for March 31, 2018.

(Although the most recent January update says assembly will continue past March 31 2018 so I'm not sure what the new expected delivery date is.)

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We all know this was about maintaining the $2.1 Billion budget. I hope you are wrong because there is a huge area of southeast Ottawa (where I live) that is going to be required to transfer at Hurdman. It has to be a reliable transfer.

If they screw up, is there a possibility that some bus routes will have to be maintained into downtown until extra LRVs are purchased? That will be a black eye on the city planners if this happens and puts into question how this will be able to handle a Canada Day event.

I also noticed a slippage on proposed service from 3 minutes 15 seconds which was the original plan during peak hours to 5 minutes or better, which is the latest that I have read.

Knowing the city, they are almost certainly planning on keeping the frequency at precisely the point of crush loading at the busiest point. They'll quickly have data on train loads (all trains are equipped with infrared based counters so they'll know exactly how many people are on each train at each moment in time) and for peak periods they'll schedule to have the fewest number of trains possible while still keeping load under 100%, so expect crowding.

The decision to change of peak service from "3 minutes 15 seconds" to "5 minutes or better" is pretty much that. The planned frequency is 5 minutes during most of the off-peak: weekday midday and early evening, weekend daytimes and early evenings, while dropping down to 7-8 minutes later in the evenings and 10-15 minutes late at night (this last drop happens only after midnight, according to the last chart we saw). Writing in peak service "as <5 minutes", is their way of saying that peak service is going to only go above off-peak service to the bare minimum necessary to have adequate capacity.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing (it is the most efficient thing to do and sub-5 minutes frequency doesn't have much relevance to passenger convenience anymore, it's really all just about capacity at that point), but I hope they're targeting at more like 85% capacity than 95% capacity.

I also wonder if they're planning on having short-turned trains or some such at peak; this could be a clever way to manage capacity. An example layout during the AM peak could be every other eastbound train turning back at Hurdman instead of Blair (this would also cause a reverse effect of having every other westbound train starting at Hurdman instead of Blair). A good schedule for that would be 4 min 30 second frequency for each pattern, so 4 min 30 sec frequency for the whole line at AM peak and 2 min 15 sec combined frequency between Hurdman and Tunney's only. This would work well because:
-With Tunney's much being much "further in" than Blair, incoming transfer traffic during the AM peak would presumably be much higher at Tunney's than at Blair; Blair being relatively far out, it could probably handle fine with 4 min 30 sec frequency for trains, while Tunney's likely needs that 2 min 15 sec.
-During the AM peak, eastbound trains will likely empty out considerably after they serve the core and especially after they serve Hurdman, so this will help avoid unnecessarily empty trains. Those headed towards the eastern end of the line at AM peak will have to deal with only every other train going to where they want to go, but 4.5 minutes is still a pretty short wait.

[lrt's friend]

They better not be planning on crush loads with very little flexibility to handle natural rider traffic variation. That is what happened in Edmonton when they appealed to the public to change their travel plans during peak periods. This will destroy public confidence if riders have to wait multiple trains. Can we imagine the blow-back that City Council will get if the Confederation Line starts up and cannot handle the passenger traffic?

Short-turning trains also has a negative aspect. No longer can we say that every train is your train. This was a big selling point and an argument against interlining. It will be pathetic to argue against an eventual Confederation Line - Trillium Line link when trains are being short turned, perhaps even at Bayview.

I do remember hearing about the purchase of two additional trainsets.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

So you are suggesting that instead of having 90m platforms expandable to 100-120m we should have had 60m platforms and run twice as many trains? This would leave no room to grow. The current plan allows us to double the number of trains and lengthen them over time as demand grows.

As it stands, they'll be running paired trains which are 97m long combined and using 90m platforms. Which means some doors may not be accessible to riders. Not sure how much of the comined trains length is nose and tail areas. And they will achieve a capacity of 10 200 pphpd, when they are saying they might need as much as 11 000 pphpd at launch.

To achieve the 11 000 pphpd they claim will be the demand at or just after launch, they need to increase frequencies (1-2 more trains) or they need to increase the length of the trains they are using, with twin pairs of the 59m trains. That would get them to 11 220 pphpd. To do that, they should have built 120m platforms from the start.

We'll see after launch. But as of right now, I feel for anyone transferring at Hurdman. It's going to be crowded and probably the longest stop time in the system.

Originally Posted by roger1818

We probably should have bought more trains for day 1, but the plan always was to buy more trains every year. This got morphed into the stage 2 project which will also require more trains to maintain the same level of service.

Their current plan leaves absolutely zero room for error. Indeed, with every train deployed in the morning, they could still be undercapacity. Just one train breaking down and the whole line will be rammed.

Hopefully the launch delay means they have time to finish 2-4 trains from the Stage 2 order, which would give them 1-2 additional frequencies when paired for peak ops.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Yes. That has been discussed many times here. The politicians had their brains stuck on LRT though as it sounds more modern than light metro.

Truly bizarre. They insisted on LRT, when they have zero intention of ever operating these vehicles on the road anywhere. They've bought vehicles that are heavier and with lower capacity than necessary.

[lrt's friend]

Truly bizarre. They insisted on LRT, when they have zero intention of ever operating these vehicles on the road anywhere. They've bought vehicles that are heavier and with lower capacity than necessary.

The change of plans following the 2006 cancellation were massive and the city was under the gun for a replacement. This resulted in fluid decision making. They didn't know exactly what Phase 2 or 3 would bring. Consequently, they chose the option that gave them the most flexibility. In a way, their choice of vehicle was something that carried over from early 2000s planning, although not the same manufacturer or model that was agreed to in 2006. When years of planning were tossed out, politicians promised a quick alternative. As it stands, we lost almost 10 years without fully reconsidering the implications of our LRV choice. I don't think it makes that much difference. The chosen trains will provide an adequate level of service and capacity.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The change of plans following the 2006 cancellation were massive and the city was under the gun for a replacement. This resulted in fluid decision making. They didn't know exactly what Phase 2 or 3 would bring. Consequently, they chose the option that gave them the most flexibility. In a way, their choice of vehicle was something that carried over from early 2000s planning, although not the same manufacturer or model that was agreed to in 2006. When years of planning were tossed out, politicians promised a quick alternative. As it stands, we lost almost 10 years without fully reconsidering the implications of our LRV choice. I don't think it makes that much difference. The chosen trains will provide an adequate level of service and capacity.

Yet, they planned for > 10 000 pphpd. That's the threshold for heavy rail/subway. As it stands, I think its conceivable they'll have to launch construction to 120m platforms in just a few years.

And they are claiming a max capacity of 24 000 pphpd. I can't see how that is achievable at all without further conversion to a metro.

Going LRT was a terrible decision, when they knew they needed > 10 000 pphphd at launch.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yet, they planned for > 10 000 pphpd. That's the threshold for heavy rail/subway. As it stands, I think its conceivable they'll have to launch construction to 120m platforms in just a few years.

And they are claiming a max capacity of 24 000 pphpd. I can't see how that is achievable at all without further conversion to a metro.

By increasing frequency. Now I don't know what the maximum frequency of the system is, but if initial capacity is aprox. 11,000 pphpd and the increase the frequency from one train every 3:15 minutes to one train every 1:40 minutes, that would increase capacity to almost 21,500 pphpd. If you then lengthen the trains to increase total capacity to 680 (340 per trainset), you then get more than the 24,000 pphpd.

Is a frequency of every 1:40 minutes possible? I don't know, but that is how the math works. Apparently Vancouver's Expo and Milinium Lines have a ultimate design of capacity of 25,000 pphpd with 80 metre platforms (their largest trains have a capacity of 532) so 24,000 pphpd with 120m platforms and trains with a capacity of 680 doesn't sound out of the question.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

By increasing frequency. Now I don't know what the maximum frequency of the system is, but if initial capacity is aprox. 11,000 pphpd and the increase the frequency from one train every 3:15 minutes to one train every 1:40 minutes, that would increase capacity to almost 21,500 pphpd. If you then lengthen the trains to increase total capacity to 680 (340 per trainset), you then get more than the 24,000 pphpd.

Is a frequency of every 1:40 minutes possible? I don't know, but that is how the math works. Apparently Vancouver's Expo and Milinium Lines have a ultimate design of capacity of 25,000 pphpd with 80 metre platforms (their largest trains have a capacity of 532) so 24,000 pphpd with 120m platforms and trains with a capacity of 680 doesn't sound out of the question.

1:40 would be tied for the second most frequent line in the world.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/transpor...frequent-line-in-the-world-a3544946.html

I have no idea if that kind of frequency is possible for an outdoor line in a city that gets winter (100 seconds would also be the maximum journey time between stations).

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Going LRT was a terrible decision, when they knew they needed > 10 000 pphphd at launch.

Well if we ever get to the point where ridership per hour is 2.5x what it will be at launch, the the good news is that Uhuniau will probably get his Montreal Rd subway.

[1overcosc]

One complication is that we don't know travel time. It is "less than 24 minutes" but we won't know exact travel time until we have test data. It will likely be a minute or two faster, maybe 22 or 23 minutes.

We do know that the city has 34 trains as part of the initial order, when coupled that's 17 trains. Most cities with metro systems have a 5%-10% spare ratio; if we follow that, this means we can have 15 trains in service at once.

If 15 trains are deployed in service, and the turnaround time the ends are 3 minutes after each run (also roughly standard), the maximum frequency accommodated with the initial order fleet is:
-23 minute travel time: 3 minutes 28 seconds, total peak hour capacity of 10,384
-22 minute travel time: 3 minutes 20 seconds, total peak hour capacity of 10,800

So we're looking at a likely of around ~10,500 or so peak hour capacity. We keep hearing that projected day 1 ridership is around 10,000--so we're really cutting it close.

I can see why 2 additional trains were ordered right off the bat (it is 4 additional trains, for 2 additional coupled sets). Both could be put in service without putting the spare ratio too bad (we've have to have at least a half-dozen more trains above the initial order before we'd need a third spare). With those 2 additional trains in service:
-23 minute travel time: 3 minutes 4 seconds, total peak hour capacity of 11,769
-22 minute travel time: 2 minutes 56 seconds, total peak hour capacity of 12,240

So those 2 extra trains provide a LOT of extra wiggle room. They make the difference between trains being 86% to 89% full versus being 93% to 96% full at their busiest points. That difference alone is likely enough to determine whether people getting on at Bayview or Hurdman have any chances at seats.

With 2 additional trains tacked onto the order, it makes sense for RTG to just extend the assembly line past the initial date and churn out 4 more after they are done the initial 34. With train assembly on time and the line itself delayed 5 months, there's probably a good chance they'll be ready.. which begs the question: will the city have the expanded train sets in operation on day 1?

With the Phase 2 order also coming in, the assembly line is probably going to keep going for years past 2018 so they could probably put trains on gradually as needed.

As for the LRT-light metro debate.. given that the line is now definitely light-metro compatible, and all future extensions are as well, the city may very well decide to switch to light metro vehicles after the initial LRT fleet goes out of warranty in 2048.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Well if we ever get to the point where ridership per hour is 2.5x what it will be at launch, the the good news is that Uhuniau will probably get his Montreal Rd subway.

And maybe we will get a route that actually goes directly downtown from the south end.

Yes, but the point is that when we are getting up to those passenger loads, we better be planning a second subway 10 years in advance.

[lrt's friend]

So those 2 extra trains provide a LOT of extra wiggle room. They make the difference between trains being 86% to 89% full versus being 93% to 96% full at their busiest points. That difference alone is likely enough to determine whether people getting on at Bayview or Hurdman have any chances at seats.

This is not about getting a seat, it is about getting in the door.

It is little scary that they have ordered hardly any extra capacity.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

By increasing frequency. Now I don't know what the maximum frequency of the system is, but if initial capacity is aprox. 11,000 pphpd and the increase the frequency from one train every 3:15 minutes to one train every 1:40 minutes, that would increase capacity to almost 21,500 pphpd. If you then lengthen the trains to increase total capacity to 680 (340 per trainset), you then get more than the 24,000 pphpd.

Is a frequency of every 1:40 minutes possible? I don't know, but that is how the math works. Apparently Vancouver's Expo and Milinium Lines have a ultimate design of capacity of 25,000 pphpd with 80 metre platforms (their largest trains have a capacity of 532) so 24,000 pphpd with 120m platforms and trains with a capacity of 680 doesn't sound out of the question.

With 17 trains today, they'll be at 3:32 min frequencies. Doubling frequencies to 1:46 min would be something. I'm not even sure that's enough time for operator's to switch sides.