Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The layered map of levels is too complex, not sure if most of the public is going to understand or get utility out of it.

Agreed. Surface station's aren't bad, but the massive subway stations with multiple entrances and concourse levels can get disorienting.

I din't realize the letters (A, B, C...) were bus stops until I checked out Hurdman.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The layered map of levels is too complex, not sure if most of the public is going to understand or get utility out of it.

No kidding. What's going on with this orange Level 1 footprint here? Took me a while to figure out it's underneath the station and not adjacent to Albert.
Not to mention that pathways connecting to roads look identical to underpasses (We are not digging a tunnel under Albert, are we?)

[rocketphish]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

The layered map of levels is too complex, not sure if most of the public is going to understand or get utility out of it.

I don't understand it... and I know what's going on.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

No kidding. What's going on with this orange Level 1 footprint here? Took me a while to figure out it's underneath the station and not adjacent to Albert.
Not to mention that pathways connecting to roads look identical to underpasses (We are not digging a tunnel under Albert, are we?)

Not to mention the "left" (i.e. west) side of "Level 1" is *east* of Booth in the picture (along with the mythical tunnel)... yet the stair and elevator verticals line up east and west of Booth.

[acottawa]

It would be nice if the five minute line was actually based on walking times and not just a circle.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So much wasted space. Alstom has a 59 meter unit available, so what's stopping them from creating a continuous 96 meter train? I get that the City will only be running a 48 meter car on weekends, but I feel that for efficiency and maintenance wise, a full single car 96 meter train would have been better.


https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1032429158884929536

Well, it could be worse, everyone else in NA is running 4 vehicles and 8 cabs with a 90ish m LRT train

[TransitZilla]

(sorry, duplicate).

[Kitchissippi]

They're trying to do too much in those diagrams when it should just concentrate on the station layout. There's already a street map, so the streets shouldn't be prominent, maybe just label the exits "exit to Rideau Street" etc. The elevators and stairs should resemble what they are, as links between the levels, not icons.

Our stations aren't even as complicated, I can imagine a coloured version of something like this:

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by HighwayStar

Not to mention the "left" (i.e. west) side of "Level 1" is *east* of Booth in the picture (along with the mythical tunnel)... yet the stair and elevator verticals line up east and west of Booth.

OMG. You are right, this "mythical tunnel" is actually MUP on the North side of Albert West of Booth. It connects levels 1 and 2 but they have it on a lower level, so they projected it down. Incredible.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So much wasted space. Alstom has a 59 meter unit available, so what's stopping them from creating a continuous 96 meter train? I get that the City will only be running a 48 meter car on weekends, but I feel that for efficiency and maintenance wise, a full single car 96 meter train would have been better.


https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1032429158884929536

Double Cab aside... that picture really puts into perspective the capacity difference of an LRT vs Bus!!

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So much wasted space. Alstom has a 59 meter unit available, so what's stopping them from creating a continuous 96 meter train? I get that the City will only be running a 48 meter car on weekends, but I feel that for efficiency and maintenance wise, a full single car 96 meter train would have been better.


https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1032429158884929536

I suspect that the power car isn’t designed to power more than a 59m train. Few cities need (or could even use) LRT vehicles longer than that.

On the bright side, should we switch to driverless trains, it gives us a way of increasing capacity when the trains need to be replaced.

[jchilds72]

Being able to split the train can make the maintenance work area shorter?

Maybe it's to provide redundancy versus capacity? If two full length trains have a fault, they're out of service. If 2 of 4 half length trains have a fault you can juggle the pairs and still have an operational train?

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I suspect that the power car isn’t designed to power more than a 59m train. Few cities need (or could even use) LRT vehicles longer than that.

On the bright side, should we switch to driverless trains, it gives us a way of increasing capacity when the trains need to be replaced.

Aren't all the sets of wheels powered on these trains?

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

So much wasted space. Alstom has a 59 meter unit available, so what's stopping them from creating a continuous 96 meter train? I get that the City will only be running a 48 meter car on weekends, but I feel that for efficiency and maintenance wise, a full single car 96 meter train would have been better.


https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1032429158884929536

One possibility when passenger numbers will warrant 120m trains would be to buy a bunch of mid car units, of which 3 could replace the two coupling sections, the latter would then be used to make new 4 or 5 car trains.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

As has been evaluated previously in this thread, the max platforms in Phase 1 are up to 120 m. because they did not know the vehicle parameters at design time. Now, and in Phase 2, the max platforms will be 100 m., with the very end nose-and-tail overhanging the platform ends. This will allow only and exclusively a max. size of each LRV to a 5 unit 59 m. vehicle, coupled 2 LRV trains being 118m., with the doors just being accommodated inside the 100 m.. Tight, but sufficient.
But, losing the control cabs will not buy any passenger increases, as there is insufficient space for yet another unit, since, as per roger1818, I too believe that the max units per LRV is 5, limited by the power distribution systems in the power car in each LRV, and I do not think they can properly power control 2 pantographs in 'one' long vehicle.
And, yes, all wheelsets are powered.

EnJoy!

[Kitchissippi]

We could have gone for a stubbier front end, it's not like these things need to be aerodynamic. It would have looked nicer coupled instead of the sharp nose-to-nose that results in a large visual gap.

Rotterdam's Citadis:

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bikegypsy

Aren't all the sets of wheels powered on these trains?

I'm not sure. Even if they are, the electricity to power those motors comes from the power car. The more motors being driven, the higher the current, the larger the gauge of wire needed. We could have had Alstom design a special, long train power car, but that would cost extra in both materials and design cost (it isn't something that would be useful in other markets, so we would have to pay the full cost).

I guess they could have put two power cars in the train, but as others have said, there are other benefits for having two separate trains.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Kitchissippi

We could have gone for a stubbier front end, it's not like these things need to be aerodynamic. It would have looked nicer coupled instead of the sharp nose-to-nose that results in a large visual gap.

I am not sure if that would make the cab any shorter. The driver needs leg room and there needs to be room for the coupler, both of which are down low. Having sloped glass likely just brings it closer to the driver.

As for aesthetics, I prefer the aerodynamic look, even if it dips in the middle of the train.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

As has been evaluated previously in this thread, the max platforms in Phase 1 are up to 120 m. because they did not know the vehicle parameters at design time. Now, and in Phase 2, the max platforms will be 100 m., with the very end nose-and-tail overhanging the platform ends. This will allow only and exclusively a max. size of each LRV to a 5 unit 59 m. vehicle, coupled 2 LRV trains being 118m., with the doors just being accommodated inside the 100 m.. Tight, but sufficient.
But, losing the control cabs will not buy any passenger increases, as there is insufficient space for yet another unit, since, as per roger1818, I too believe that the max units per LRV is 5, limited by the power distribution systems in the power car in each LRV, and I do not think they can properly power control 2 pantographs in 'one' long vehicle.
And, yes, all wheelsets are powered.

EnJoy!

Could they not make vehicles like the Toronto Rocket?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

I do not think they can properly power control 2 pantographs in 'one' long vehicle.

I don't see that as being an issue. They could pretend it is two trains that are perminantly coupled together (you will notice in the pictures that both pantographs are up).

Better yet, they could design a train that has only has a cab at only one end. To run bidirectionally a second train would be required so that you have a second cab. This type of train would be useful in cities where they turn the trains around, so that wouldn't be as much of a custom solution. This could be a relatively easy retrofit at a later date.