Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by ryan1

Anyone else thinking that the train aisles seem VERY narrow?

Not to me, or at least, it's pretty much the norm. The Confed trains are the same width as Montreal's M63 and M73, and the aisle width in the seat section looks to be about the same as in the 4 seat configuration of those Montreal Metro trains.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Which they should have done. Ottawa is too obsessed with seats. Standing is quite easy to do on a smooth accelerating train like the LRT will be.

When the trains will be full, most people will be standing.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by ryan1

Agreed. All the news coverage today reminded me of what seems like a pretty big blunder for a mass transit system.

I realize they are different systems with different capacity requirements, but when comparing Ottawa's train cars to the new TTC Rockets in particular, the space to move within the aisle seems like night and day.

What blunter? Trains like the TTC Rockets would be overkill. Seems to be a great call and these trains will be replaced in 20-30 years with higher capacity ones. What's the problem?

[lrt's friend]

I chuckled when I heard the comments about the views from the train. Obviously, the politician who made that comment has never used the Eastern Transitway in the 20 or 30 years that it existed. It is the same view.

[McC]

The elevated stretch at Hurdman would give a different view of the Rideau, and uOttawa keeps building, and the windows wouldn't be crusted over in salt (or all fogged up, since hardly anyone was on board) like the buses often are.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by McC

The elevated stretch at Hurdman would give a different view of the Rideau, and uOttawa keeps building, and the windows wouldn't be crusted over in salt (or all fogged up, since hardly anyone was on board) like the buses often are.

That is another advantage of LRT. The windows should stay much cleaner. I suspect humidity won't be as much of a problem as well.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ottawa: Light Rail
Toronto: Heavy Rail.

Ottawa could not have built a system with wider aisles without sacrificing seating.

Are the tracks not standard guage?

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by ryan1

Anyone else thinking that the train aisles seem VERY narrow?

Yes.

And I think the notional standing capacity of these vehicles is grossly overestimated.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

What blunter? Trains like the TTC Rockets would be overkill. Seems to be a great call and these trains will be replaced in 20-30 years with higher capacity ones. What's the problem?

Going with low-floor trams needlessly constrained capacity. Even the industry recommended a light metro solution.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Going with low-floor trams needlessly constrained capacity. Even the industry recommended a light metro solution.

Yup. I'm still mad to this day about that decision, that with open stations... so fun in the middle of Winter!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Are the tracks not standard guage?

Yes. But it's not track gauge that matters so much as the requirement to fit in a car lane if you want to run in non-segregated ROWs (which is what LRT is designed for).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yes. But it's not track gauge that matters so much as the requirement to fit in a car lane if you want to run in non-segregated ROWs (which is what LRT is designed for).

Of course standard rail gauge (and vehicle lanes) are designed to fit the width of the back ends of two Roman war horses.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/horses-pass/

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yup. I'm still mad to this day about that decision, that with open stations... so fun in the middle of Winter!

I'm mad because they went with low floor Citadis Spirit to potentially use them as streetcars and now refuse to consider anything non-grade separated

• Video Link

[1overcosc]

It's a consequence of the change in direction. Originally the city's conception of the Confederation Line was as a high capacity, high frequency grade-separated trunk through the main part of the city that would split into multiple low frequency street-running routes through the suburbs; so the early design choice was made to go with LRT over light metro to facilitate that.

However, we then changed our minds and opted for a single trunk line operating as a high capacity grade separated route through its entire length with minimal branching. With that, light metro makes a lot more sense.

The good news is that it would be relatively trivial for the city to convert to light metro in the future.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Going with low-floor trams needlessly constrained capacity. Even the industry recommended a light metro solution.

How are high-floor trains higher in capacity than low-floor ones? Everyone is going with low floors... Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal...

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

Yup. I'm still mad to this day about that decision, that with open stations... so fun in the middle of Winter!

oh please

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

How are high-floor trains higher in capacity than low-floor ones?

As mentioned earlier, low floor-trains require wheel wells to bulge up from the floor. The only thing you can put on top of those wheel wells is seats. High-floor trains have a flat floor and allow flexibility in seating configuration. As a result the number of seats can be minimized to allow more room for people to stand (people take up less space standing than they do sitting).

Everyone is going with low floors... Edmonton, Calgary, Toronto, Montreal...

Low floor designs don't require as high a curb, which is important when trains run along city streets. They are unnecessary when fully separated from traffic.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As mentioned earlier, low floor-trains require wheel wells to bulge up from the floor. The only thing you can put on top of those wheel wells is seats. High-floor trains have a flat floor and allow flexibility in seating configuration. As a result the number of seats can be minimized to allow more room for people to stand (people take up less space standing than they do sitting).



Low floor designs don't require as high a curb, which is important when trains run along city streets. They are unnecessary when fully separated from traffic.

I question that this is the only reason. High platforms are a hazard even if the trains are not running on the street. Furthermore, the high floor trains will require a little more clearance in a tunnel.

Low floor trains are the more modern technology. The main reason for not selecting them for commuter distance trains in the past was their slow speed. That has been addressed with the model selected. I suspect that there are minimal differences in capactiy between low-floor and high-floor models.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

I'm mad because they went with low floor Citadis Spirit to potentially use them as streetcars and now refuse to consider anything non-grade separated

• Video Link

I agree! We are really limiting ourselves concerning the coverage of our long-term rail network without unnecessary transfers. It also makes build out in the suburbs equally expensive to more critical parts in the city centre. We can never afford a Bank Street or Rideau Street subway because we plan to run an elevated rail line to Stittsville. We are forced to expend tons of money to pay for one trunk line at the expense of the rest of the city when the technology is more flexible than how it is planned to be used.

[McC]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I suspect that there are minimal differences in capactiy between low-floor and high-floor models.

You suspect incorrectly; the newest high-floor trains in Vancouver hold an extra person and a half per metre:

Skytrain MarkIII: capacity 532 for a 68 m train
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_rolling_stock

O-Train Citadis: capacity 600 for a 96 m train (coupled pair of 48 m sets)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xnIbutbaqM

Plus the huge operating savings of not having to pay drivers overtime to ferry people home from games and Bluesfest and things.