Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 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.

You're taking a Lagrangian view of the problem. Take a Eurlerian approach instead.

Picked a fixed point. Say departing Hurdman station. Let's assume we need a capacity of 10 000 pphpd crossing that point. It means you need at least 17 trains with a capacity of 600 pax through that point.

Looking at the time of travel tells you how big the fleet has to be, to achieve that required capacity at a given point. If the fleet size is fixed, your capacity drops as the travel time increases. If your fleet size is not fixed, your capacity can be maintained or increased to compensate for travel time. A fixed fleet size means your capacity and route length are inversely related. In reality, since your route length is fixed, your fleet size and capacity are proportionally related.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

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

Still cutting it awfully close. Almost guaranteed to have serious pain on poor weather days.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

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.

Using their own numbers (300 per train), putting up 18 paired trains yields 10 800 in capacity. That probably means close to 100% capacity. And that's with no spares since 2 trains ordered means one pair. The only hope here is that the delay let's them deploy the Stage 2 LRTs to bolster capacity.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

That difference alone is likely enough to determine whether people getting on at Bayview or Hurdman have any chances at seats.

LOL. I am actually worried, I might not see a seat at Cyrville. The 300 person capacity is achieved with 180 standees. There's 120 seats on each. Or 240 seats per pair. So only 40% of people are getting a seat. Anybody getting after St. Laurent is unlikely to have a seat unless they are staying on past Lyon. From the West, there's no way there's any seats left east of Bayview.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

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?

They'd need at least 38 trains at launch to give them a bare minimum spare ratio (1 pair) and let them run 18 pairs. I have my doubts they'll make that.

And no, they won't have expanded trains on day one. Or anytime soon. They are committed to 48.5m trains.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

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.

Maybe. But boy will it be painful in the interim. If my numbers are right, people could be complaining on day one about how crowded the trains are.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

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.

The ship has sailed at this point. I have my doubts they laid the tracks wide enough to allow for conversion to metro. And they seem committed to have a light rail fleet with some vague concern for commonality if they run on the road some day. Yet, they don't have a single plan to run in-median LRT anywhere.

I only hope they can keep up with demand. If their TOD dreams come true, the Confederation line will become a crowded nightmare.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

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.

Exactly. Don't even bother discussing seats. Nobody west of St. Laurent is getting one. Possibility, nobody west of Blair will be getting one if 40% of the ridership comes from Orleans. After Phase II all but guaranteed nobody west of Blair gets a seat and nobody east of Lincoln Fields gets one either.

And with their capacity being tight, I'd really be worried about transfers at Hurdman. Especially at the very peak of rush hour (say around 815).

The only good news here is that this is a problem that can be solved by throwing a little money at it and ordering more trains. And since they have more coming online, maybe they'll have enough trains to deploy right away. I am hoping they get to the point where they have 20 trains running and can provided 12 000 pphpd at 3 min frequencies. That's about 92% max load. Won't be too horrible a ride.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Exactly. Don't even bother discussing seats. Nobody west of St. Laurent is getting one. Possibility, nobody west of Blair will be getting one if 40% of the ridership comes from Orleans. After Phase II all but guaranteed nobody west of Blair gets a seat and nobody east of Lincoln Fields gets one either.

And with their capacity being tight, I'd really be worried about transfers at Hurdman. Especially at the very peak of rush hour (say around 815).

The only good news here is that this is a problem that can be solved by throwing a little money at it and ordering more trains. And since they have more coming online, maybe they'll have enough trains to deploy right away. I am hoping they get to the point where they have 20 trains running and can provided 12 000 pphpd at 3 min frequencies. That's about 92% max load. Won't be too horrible a ride.

There is also a pocket track between Hurdman and Tremblay. They probably will short turn some trains at Hurdman to deal with the crush loads.

BTW, all doors will fit on the platform. They sized it so that is just fits, much like the current 42m Lints stop at a 30m platform.

Vancouver currently has a 13.5k per hour capacity on the Expo line running 6 car Mark Is at 108 seconds. All traffic is flowing in one direction there (outbound from Waterfront), and they have double the population so it might not be as bad as we dread. We'll all find out in a few months, the good news is that there's lots of room left in the Confederation Line to expand capacity, whereas they are pretty much bumping up against the 15k limit now on the Skytrain that requires station expansion to go beyond.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

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.)

Just saw that for Toronto's GO train, there are many cars per train (approx 10?), a train approx every half hr during rush hour, and max 2 bikes per car. So at least they're letting some bikes on during rush hour.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

There is also a pocket track between Hurdman and Tremblay. They probably will short turn some trains at Hurdman to deal with the crush loads.

This line is way too short for it to make sense to do short-turns. And short-turning between Hurdman and Tremblay makes no sense at all. Between Blair and St. Laurent, at least 50% of the ridership would be due east of Hurdman. There's no way they can do that without causing a shitstorm. And a short turn just doesn't make sense when the driver switch time would eat up savings on such a short line.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

BTW, all doors will fit on the platform. They sized it so that is just fits, much like the current 42m Lints stop at a 30m platform.

Good to know. Then they should have planned slightly larger and gone for 59m LRVs.

Originally Posted by kmcamp

We'll all find out in a few months, the good news is that there's lots of room left in the Confederation Line to expand capacity, whereas they are pretty much bumping up against the 15k limit now on the Skytrain that requires station expansion to go beyond.

They may also discover very shortly that they need to build those 120m platforms after all.....

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This line is way too short for it to make sense to do short-turns. And short-turning between Hurdman and Tremblay makes no sense at all. Between Blair and St. Laurent, at least 50% of the ridership would be due east of Hurdman. There's no way they can do that without causing a shitstorm. And a short turn just doesn't make sense when the driver switch time would eat up savings on such a short line.



Good to know. Then they should have planned slightly larger and gone for 59m LRVs.




They may also discover very shortly that they need to build those 120m platforms after all.....

Since they are doing ATO, they can get down to 2 minute frequencies or better easily. Adding trains is the way they will go first. All the hard stations (Hurdman, tunnels) are already built with 120m platforms. Adding the platform extensions for the others won't be a big deal, Calgary did it for the C-Train without any major headaches

[kmcamp]

The short turn would be for the benefit of Hurdman, if it turns out they can't get the southeast transitway riders on the train. They wouldn't start that way, but the placement of the track means they are thinking about it

[Radster]

What will the bike space look like on the trains? Will they have bike hangers? I hope so! Its the only way to go when allowing bikes on a train, as that way, bikes don't end up taking up too much space. Portland, Oregon LTR does this, and I tried it last summer, super easy to hang your bike, and its secure, and right by the door.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&...ocJgMbHwnLZT-RUAm96&ust=1518878505752110

[McC]

Requiring people to hang their bikes seems pretty "able-ist" to me, that's not an easy manoeuvre to make, especially with a bike on the heavier side (not to mention panniers, and things). I like it as an option, but not so much as a requirement.

[roger1818]

One thing I am wondering is how balanced the east and west traffic is? We hear that on day 1 the Confederation Line will have about 10,000 pphpd but that pd (per direction) is significant. Everyone here seems to be concerned about St-Laurent and Hurdman but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are slightly more passengers travelling to/from the west than east. If that is true, Bayview would be the real problem and the stage 2 plan of diverting people from the southern transitway to the Trillium line will only make it worse.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

One thing I am wondering is how balanced the east and west traffic is? We hear that on day 1 the Confederation Line will have about 10,000 pphpd but that pd (per direction) is significant. Everyone here seems to be concerned about St-Laurent and Hurdman but I seem to remember reading somewhere that there are slightly more passengers travelling to/from the west than east. If that is true, Bayview would be the real problem and the stage 2 plan of diverting people from the southern transitway to the Trillium line will only make it worse.

It is a design flaw and one of the reasons why so many in the southeast will continue to be bussed to Hurdman. It is another reason why we may never see rail on the Quebec side, since the 'cheap' solution is to use the Prince of Wales Bridge and dump everybody at Bayview. I have warned everybody that this is our Yonge-Bloor transfer nightmare of the future.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is a design flaw and one of the reasons why so many in the southeast will continue to be bussed to Hurdman. It is another reason why we may never see rail on the Quebec side, since the 'cheap' solution is to use the Prince of Wales Bridge and dump everybody at Bayview. I have warned everybody that this is our Yonge-Bloor transfer nightmare of the future.

It would be a busy transfer if they installed a Gatineau transfer point there. But not Yonge-Bloor.

They just have to make sure they have enough capacity on the Confederation Line to clear transfer from Trillium and Gatineau fast enough.

For example, if they target 15 000 ppphpd leaving Bayview, they'd be fine. That's a paired train every 2.4 minutes. Use extended 59m trains and they can increase the intervals to every 2.6 minutes.

Balancing East and West is doable with short-turns. They don't need them at launch. But they will probably need to do this after Stage 2.

[acottawa]

Yonge-Bloor has 400k passengers per weekday.

The entire OC transpo system has 320k passengers per weekday.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yonge-Bloor has 400k passengers per weekday.

The entire OC transpo system has 320k passengers per weekday.

I presume that is total passengers running through that station on both lines, not necessarily transferring. Nevertheless, we have to also consider the relative capacity of our plans. Just because we do not achieve 400K passengers at that station, does not mean we can still run into issues.

[OtrainUser]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_Transpo_routes#Connexion_(200s)

I noticed while looking at this website showing the Kanata and Stittsville connexion routes shortened to Tunney's Pasture the Orleans routes remained as they are now.

If this is the case people in Barrhaven, Kanata and Stittsville are going to be pissed about transferring when people in Orleans wont have to when the confederation line opens.

I have brought this website up with Councillor Blais and he told me that city staff may have posted stuff up there.

[roger1818]

^^^I would say it's a typo. The chart also says the Orleans routes will end at "Bay station / Lebreton station" neither of which will exist once the Confederation line opens. Wikipedia isn't perfect.

[Buggys]

Originally Posted by McC

Requiring people to hang their bikes seems pretty "able-ist" to me, that's not an easy manoeuvre to make, especially with a bike on the heavier side (not to mention panniers, and things). I like it as an option, but not so much as a requirement.

I agree with McC on this one. For longer trips, the bike's advantage is that it can be faster than busses on some downtown streets during rush hour (after getting there on the LRT!), I can heavier things on the handlebars, and also put things that need to be upright or are delicate in as basket out front. Also, having to hang up the bike like that would make it more likely that I get my pants dirty, so i would lose time & packing space on changing clothes.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I presume that is total passengers running through that station on both lines, not necessarily transferring. Nevertheless, we have to also consider the relative capacity of our plans. Just because we do not achieve 400K passengers at that station, does not mean we can still run into issues.

Yes there will be problems as there are in every transit system in the world. But we're talking about a few busses arriving every few minutes or a 4 car train arriving every 10 minutes. In all cases the arrivals are primarily from a single direction. This is not similar to the intersection of two subway lines.

[SkeggsEggs]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OC_Transpo_routes#Connexion_(200s)

I noticed while looking at this website showing the Kanata and Stittsville connexion routes shortened to Tunney's Pasture the Orleans routes remained as they are now.

If this is the case people in Barrhaven, Kanata and Stittsville are going to be pissed about transferring when people in Orleans wont have to when the confederation line opens.

I have brought this website up with Councillor Blais and he told me that city staff may have posted stuff up there.

So carleton students will have to transfer onto the Confederation Line and then immediately transfer off of that onto the Trillium Line?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by SkeggsEggs

So carleton students will have to transfer onto the Confederation Line and then immediately transfer off of that onto the Trillium Line?

If that's the case, then yes.

I suppose the extra time of waiting for the train to leave from Tunney's can be made up by the fact that it will no longer take 5 minutes to walk from the Bayview bus stop to the Trillium line platform though... Right?