Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

So I another running paired trains at peak? Is the plan to break them for off-peak service?

[1overcosc]

Last I heard they settled on keeping paired trains in service on all weekdays and single trains on weekends, so they only have to uncouple and decouple once per week, on Friday after service end and Sunday after service end.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Last I heard they settled on keeping paired trains in service on all weekdays and single trains on weekends, so they only have to uncouple and decouple once per week, on Friday after service end and Sunday after service end.

Makes me wonder why they didn't buy long format consists to begin with. Is it really that much in energy savings from just breaking on the weekends only, to justify the two extra control cabs and lost space?

[PHrenetic]

Good Day. Just an FYI update on side notes :

Alstom (as of May 3) on the MetroLinx contract, has their assembly plant in Brampton set,
and they expect assembly to commence now for deliveries beginning in December.
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/light-rail/alstom-brampton-plant-ramping-up/

Meanwhile (as of Apr.17), K-W GrandLinq ION is delayed again until December - line all built but no go.
https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/light-rail/ontario-lrt-update-hamilton-kitchener-waterloo/

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Makes me wonder why they didn't buy long format consists to begin with. Is it really that much in energy savings from just breaking on the weekends only, to justify the two extra control cabs and lost space?

Good Day.

I was skeptical long since of the viability of quick coupling/uncoupling, but a 14 sec. video posted earlier showed at least the coupling to be really fast and easy,
and it would seem that ease of coupling/uncoupling was an advertised feature.
So, on that basis, if it really is fast and easy, then switchover between one and two LRV consists will make flexible and economic operations possible, and quite possibly worth the effort.

We shall see !!

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Makes me wonder why they didn't buy long format consists to begin with. Is it really that much in energy savings from just breaking on the weekends only, to justify the two extra control cabs and lost space?

The citadis doesn't come that long. It's better then most LRT systems though, Seattle, Minneapolis, and San Diego all run 3 vehicles and get a shorter overall length. If they add the extra module to ours making it 58m (116m coupled) that's the current max length of any low floor vehicle on the market.

EDIT: I picked those three cities because all 3 run similar length low floor trains (3x30m Siemens S70). Everyone else runs shorter trains, or is high floor like Calgary or Edmonton. Actually, we seem to be the only city in North America at the moment with LRVs longer than 30m (though longer units are much common in Europe and Edmonton soon will also have longer vehicles).


Over in Seattle, some of their bloggers were dreaming about running longer trains like we have:

https://seattletransitblog.com/2016/12/23/double-link-an-open-gangway-vehicle-concept/

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

The citadis doesn't come that long. It's better then most LRT systems though, Seattle, Minneapolis, and San Diego all run 3 vehicles and get a shorter overall length. If they add the extra module to ours making it 58m (116m coupled) that's the current max length of any low floor vehicle on the market.

I'd rather they add the extra segment and run the trains more frequently. Every 3 minutes at rush and every 8 mins off-peak with 59m Citadis sounds a lot more appealing than what they have planned now.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd rather they add the extra segment and run the trains more frequently. Every 3 minutes at rush and every 8 mins off-peak with 59m Citadis sounds a lot more appealing than what they have planned now.

They're planning 5 minutes for most of the off-peak (midday and evenings before 9pm) with 8 minutes after 9pm and for early mornings, and 10-15 minutes late at night.

I think those frequencies are great for Phase 1 (they're actually pretty awesome, better than the old Transitway) but if those are being divided into two past Lincoln Fields in Phase 2 that's a problem... 10 minutes midday and 16 minutes at 9pm is too low.

I think going forward as Phase 2 launches we should:
-Improve peak frequencies to 2.5 minutes (so 5 minutes on each spur)
-Improve midday/evening-pre-9pm frequency from 5 minutes to 3.75 minutes (so 7.5 minutes on each spur)
-Improve early morning/late night frequency from 10-15 minutes to 6 minutes (so 12 minutes on each spur)

I'd also have half of all trains turn back at Blair going east. No need for Orleans to have full trunk capacity. Maybe have trains from Bayshore going to Orleans and those from Baseline turning back at Blair.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

They're planning 5 minutes for most of the off-peak (midday and evenings before 9pm) with 8 minutes after 9pm and for early mornings, and 10-15 minutes late at night.

I think those frequencies are great for Phase 1 (they're actually pretty awesome, better than the old Transitway) but if those are being divided into two past Lincoln Fields in Phase 2 that's a problem... 10 minutes midday and 16 minutes at 9pm is too low.

I think going forward as Phase 2 launches we should:
-Improve peak frequencies to 2.5 minutes (so 5 minutes on each spur)
-Improve midday/evening-pre-9pm frequency from 5 minutes to 3.75 minutes (so 7.5 minutes on each spur)
-Improve early morning/late night frequency from 10-15 minutes to 6 minutes (so 12 minutes on each spur)

I'd also have half of all trains turn back at Blair going east. No need for Orleans to have full trunk capacity. Maybe have trains from Bayshore going to Orleans and those from Baseline turning back at Blair.

Have they given up the ridiculous plan of running shuttle trains to Bayshore from Lincoln Fields off peak? I mean there's no option on the Trillium line, but on the confederation line it's just silly

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I think going forward as Phase 2 launches we should:
-Improve peak frequencies to 2.5 minutes (so 5 minutes on each spur)
-Improve midday/evening-pre-9pm frequency from 5 minutes to 3.75 minutes (so 7.5 minutes on each spur)
-Improve early morning/late night frequency from 10-15 minutes to 6 minutes (so 12 minutes on each spur)

They could have this right now with my proposal by just splitting up the trains and adding the extra segment to add a bit more capacity.

The 15 min late night and weekend service is utterly ridiculous for a trunk line. Even 5 mins midday is pushing it. As you note, especially on the branch lines, where the frequency splits.

[J.OT13]

I know Alstom advertises 58 meters as the longest model, but why couldn't they build 129 meter (or whatever) trains? What's stopping them?

[DarthVader_1961]

Not sure where to post this

https://globalnews.ca/news/4224334/morga...?utm_source=GlobalBC&utm_medium=Facebook

[Truenorth00]

Has there been any update on how much the LRT will provide in operational savings (if any)?

All I see are old arguments that OC Transpo would save $100 million:

http://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/media/pdf/Surface%20vs%20Tunnel%20Memo.pdf

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Not sure where to post this

https://globalnews.ca/news/4224334/morga...?utm_source=GlobalBC&utm_medium=Facebook

Ha! That is awesome.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I know Alstom advertises 58 meters as the longest model, but why couldn't they build 129 meter (or whatever) trains? What's stopping them?

I think it's because they are primarily trams first, and a city block is only.so long. There is also some German law limiting trams to 60m total length, which I think had sort of limited the market. However, since there's enough LRT systems above the 60m length now, maybe market forces will start to introduce longer continuous trains in the same way subways have converted to open gangway.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by DarthVader_1961

Not sure where to post this

https://globalnews.ca/news/4224334/morga...?utm_source=GlobalBC&utm_medium=Facebook

How much will that cost them?

EDIT: Visa add campaign. Morgan Freeman won't be making any announcements beyond the new Visa feature.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I think it's because they are primarily trams first, and a city block is only.so long. There is also some German law limiting trams to 60m total length, which I think had sort of limited the market. However, since there's enough LRT systems above the 60m length now, maybe market forces will start to introduce longer continuous trains in the same way subways have converted to open gangway.

So considering our system is full grade-separated, there is no limit. It would be interesting if Alstom developed a new 98 meter long, continuous train for Stage 2. I can't imagine it would be any costlier. If anything, it would be cheaper with two less cabins.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Has there been any update on how much the LRT will provide in operational savings (if any)?

All I see are old arguments that OC Transpo would save $100 million:

http://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/media/pdf/Surface%20vs%20Tunnel%20Memo.pdf

100 million was based on long term projections that factored in that annual cost growth would be slower once LRT opened.

The immediate savings is about $15 million.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So considering our system is full grade-separated, there is no limit. It would be interesting if Alstom developed a new 98 meter long, continuous train for Stage 2. I can't imagine it would be any costlier. If anything, it would be cheaper with two less cabins.

The only thing I can think of is that wiring and electronics inside the train may not support enough current to propel a longer (thus heavier) train. That could be solved by having a second unit with a power pickup similar to when they couple two trains coupled together.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

100 million was based on long term projections that factored in that annual cost growth would be slower once LRT opened.

The immediate savings is about $15 million.

$15 million annually? After taking into account new infrastructure costs for the LRT?

That's pretty impressive! Any chance you remember where you read that.