O-Train Line 2/4 [Stage 2 | Greenboro to Limebank/Airport] | In Service

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not true. It may seem counter intuitive, but increasing train speed does not significantly increase frequency. It will only decrease travel time. Having shorter blocks (with passing tracks between the blocks) is how you increase frequency. The disadvantage of shorter blocks is increased travel times and decreased reliability, so you get to the point where double tracking it the only solution. We are close to that point (if not already there) with the Trillium Line.

But decreasing travel time allows you to run trains more frequently. If we were to get travel time on the current Trillium Line back down to 12 minutes with a 3 minute layover at the end of the line for a total of 15 minutes, we could run trains every 7.5 minutes. Right now, end to end travel including waiting time is 24 minutes (of which 16 to 17 minutes is actual travel time). This is why we have 12 minute frequency. To a large degree, poorly located passing tracks is making it impossible to improve on the 12 minute frequency and reduce the wait time at the end of the line.


We will be improving the location of passing tracks and eliminating the VIA Rail diamond that will eliminate some delays following Phase 2. Whether that results in improved frequency is questionable but it is possible. We also have to remember that we will be reducing wait times at the south end, because trains will have to reach the next passing track at South Keys, whereas today, they wait at Greenboro. This will mean that we have less wait time that can be reduced in order to improve frequency. Furthermore, single tracking between South Keys and the Walkley underpass may be sufficient to limit frequency improvements for the entire line. That is quite a distance with no passing track.


I do agree that we can't add additional passing tracks beyond what we have today to allow additional trains to run on the existing route. At this point, we need to go to full double tracking to add trains. Even if just the Dow's Lake tunnel was left single track, it would be sufficiently limiting that it would minimize the possible service improvements possible by double tracking everything else.

[Truenorth00]

Going purely off intuition, 12 mins seems so long.... I would think they could do better. Even with passing tracks. We're talking about train leaving Bayview when the next one is at Walkley and the one further is at Bowesville. That would imply the operation of about 6 trains (3 in each direction). Yet, they'll have 10 trains in stock (7 FLIRT and 3 coupled LINTs). So is my math wrong here? From the looks of it, I would think they could do 8 min headways. Even if they separated the the fleets (LINTs for South-Keys to airport spur only), I think they could easily do at least 8-10 mins on the main branch.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Going purely off intuition, 12 mins seems so long.... I would think they could do better. Even with passing tracks. We're talking about train leaving Bayview when the next one is at Walkley and the one further is at Bowesville. That would imply the operation of about 6 trains (3 in each direction). Yet, they'll have 10 trains in stock (7 FLIRT and 3 coupled LINTs). So is my math wrong here? From the looks of it, I would think they could do 8 min headways. Even if they separated the the fleets (LINTs for South-Keys to airport spur only), I think they could easily do at least 8-10 mins on the main branch.

Operation will use 7 trains on the mainline.
They'll have one coupled pair of LINTs, and 6 FLIRTs on the mainline and then two LINTs on the airport spur leaving one spare FLIRT and 2 spare LINTs.

Here's the example case I thought of:

1. A northbound train leaves South Keys. It has just passed the Southbound train at the station.
2. The Northbound train continues stopping at Greenboro, and the Walkley along the way to Brookfield
3. By the time it reaches the Brookfield passing track, 6 minutes has passed (based on the computer times, but even just timing the Trillium Line as it exists now on its journey between Greenboro and Brookfield)
4. The Northbound train passes the Southbound train
5. The Southbound train repeats the same process heading South which also take 6 minutes before then passing the next Northbound train at South Keys

If they can cut the dwell times down and get the signals to work with minimal delay, I feel they could get it down to 10 minutes at best, but that might not be reliable.

I've timed how long the train takes to travel from Greenboro to Brookfield (I don't have the times any more, but I can try taking them again tomorrow) and once you add in dwell times at each station and the time it takes to accelerate, etc. 6 minutes from South Keys to Brookfield isn't hard to imagine.

I can imagine dwell times on the coupled pair of LINTs will be a headache too because of the limited number of doors on the train compared to the FLIRTs.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Going purely off intuition, 12 mins seems so long.... I would think they could do better. Even with passing tracks. We're talking about train leaving Bayview when the next one is at Walkley and the one further is at Bowesville. That would imply the operation of about 6 trains (3 in each direction). Yet, they'll have 10 trains in stock (7 FLIRT and 3 coupled LINTs). So is my math wrong here? From the looks of it, I would think they could do 8 min headways. Even if they separated the the fleets (LINTs for South-Keys to airport spur only), I think they could easily do at least 8-10 mins on the main branch.

Will the third train in each direction be sufficient for South Keys to Limebank or not? They may need a third train on that part of the route especially with the latest extension. The south part of the route will be double tracked to accommodate this kind of arrangement. Also 2 LINTs will be reserved for the airport spur. This will leave all the FLIRTs in service and two of the six LINTs. Three of those LINTS will provide minimal spares, two for mainline service and one for the airport spur. This leaves one additional spare LINT.


Maybe I am all wet about the requirements from South Keys to Limebank. Does anybody know for sure what the train requirements are for this portion of the route?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Will the third train in each direction be sufficient for South Keys to Limebank or not? They may need a third train on that part of the route especially with the latest extension. The south part of the route will be double tracked to accommodate this kind of arrangement. Also 2 LINTs will be reserved for the airport spur. This will leave all the FLIRTs in service and two of the six LINTs. Three of those LINTS will provide minimal spares, two for mainline service and one for the airport spur. This leaves one additional spare LINT.


Maybe I am all wet about the requirements from South Keys to Limebank. Does anybody know for sure what the train requirements are for this portion of the route?

I mentioned the vehicle operation plan in my post above^ but this is what the Stage 2 team told me when I asked:

At this point in time, we plan to run six Stadler FLIRTs and one LINT on the mainline, and two (2) LINTs on the Airport Link. This provides for an additional spare vehicle at any one time and also supports maintenance requirements.

The trains will have dwell times of 12 minutes at either end of the mainline, if that helps (from the computer simulation).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

But decreasing travel time allows you to run trains more frequently. If we were to get travel time on the current Trillium Line back down to 12 minutes with a 3 minute layover at the end of the line for a total of 15 minutes, we could run trains every 7.5 minutes. Right now, end to end travel including waiting time is 24 minutes (of which 16 to 17 minutes is actual travel time). This is why we have 12 minute frequency. To a large degree, poorly located passing tracks is making it impossible to improve on the 12 minute frequency and reduce the wait time at the end of the line.

If the issue is lack of equipment, that would be true. However, the bigger issue is waiting for the block to clear and the switch to be thrown, and given the number of stops, the speed is not a significant factor (dwell times and acceleration are bigger factors).

We will be improving the location of passing tracks and eliminating the VIA Rail diamond that will eliminate some delays following Phase 2. Whether that results in improved frequency is questionable but it is possible.

The diamond will make things more reliable (waiting for a VIA rail train causes a domino effect of delays). The lengthening of the passing tracks should help a bit, but there is only so much you can do with single track. Even if they can improve the frequency to every 10 minutes, it would be huge as it would make it easier to co-ordinate bus schedules and would go from 5 to 6 trains an hour (a 20% increase in capacity).

We also have to remember that we will be reducing wait times at the south end, because trains will have to reach the next passing track at South Keys, whereas today, they wait at Greenboro. This will mean that we have less wait time that can be reduced in order to improve frequency.

Once again, wait time at the end of the line is only an issue if limited equipment is the issue affecting frequency. By having the dwell time equal to the frequency, they can have a train depart almost as soon as the previous train arrives, so the time spend alighting and boarding doesn't affect block ocupancy.

Furthermore, single tracking between South Keys and the Walkley underpass may be sufficient to limit frequency improvements for the entire line. That is quite a distance with no passing track.

It is about 1900m from the passing track north of Walkley to the one north of South Keys, which is about the same distance as will be from the Carleton siding to the Gladstone siding (it is currently longer though).

Even if just the Dow's Lake tunnel was left single track, it would be sufficiently limiting that it would minimize the possible service improvements possible by double tracking everything else.

They could probably reduce the effect by making the stretch of single track as short as possible, but it would still limit things significantly.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It is about 1900m from the passing track north of Walkley to the one north of South Keys, which is about the same distance as will be from the Carleton siding to the Gladstone siding (it is currently longer though).

It will have one extra station though (Greenboro + Walkley compared to just Carling) and that extra stop will add a bunch of time to the trip through that section, hence why I don't think they'll be able to cut it down much further than 12 minutes even if they get the signalling improved.

Adding a station at Walkley was/is a good idea though.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It will have one extra station though (Greenboro + Walkley compared to just Carling) and that extra stop will add a bunch of time to the trip through that section, hence why I don't think they'll be able to cut it down much further than 12 minutes even if they get the signalling improved.

Adding a station at Walkley was/is a good idea though.

True. Optimally you want your passing tracks to be at stations, since the trains need to stop there anyway, but the spacing didn't work out for that here. In my mind they should have spent the money and rebuilt the Walkley overpass to make it wide enough for double track and extended the siding to Walkley station.

With the work being done at Ellwood, they could also have easily extended it to Moonie's Bay station as well, completely removing any need for a separate stop at the siding.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

In my mind they should have spent the money and rebuilt the Walkley overpass to make it wide enough for double track and extended the siding to Walkley station.

This. Its the biggest additional piece (other than extending the Gladstone siding) they really should have "splurged" on to improve the existing Trillium Line. I'll also add that if any of the trains have to stop at Brookfield Siding, its going to really FEEL like a 2nd rate service to stop at a siding then stop at a station a couple 100 meters away.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

This. Its the biggest additional piece (other than extending the Gladstone siding) they really should have "splurged" on to improve the existing Trillium Line. I'll also add that if any of the trains have to stop at Brookfield Siding, its going to really FEEL like a 2nd rate service to stop at a siding then stop at a station a couple 100 meters away.

How many times have I already said this? It is inevitable.

At this point, there is no political will to 'fix' the Trillium Line. The experts said blah, blah, blah .............. It is good enough.

We have the Trillium Line running relatively smoothly right now. Phase 2 will destabilize the line again.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

This. Its the biggest additional piece (other than extending the Gladstone siding) they really should have "splurged" on to improve the existing Trillium Line. I'll also add that if any of the trains have to stop at Brookfield Siding, its going to really FEEL like a 2nd rate service to stop at a siding then stop at a station a couple 100 meters away.

I disagree. You invest where you get the returns. Confederation East and West are literally going to take hundreds of buses off the road. Highly doubtful that investing the extra half billion or whatever it would have been to twin track the corridor would have yielded the same result.

They made the right choice given limited resources. It's even debatable if Trillium would be competitive against Stage 3 extensions to Kanata and Barrhaven. But hopefully, they can come up with some kind of plan to more passing tracks and whatever else they need to boost frequencies.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I disagree....

... But hopefully, they can come up with some kind of plan to more passing tracks and whatever else they need to boost frequencies.

You must not have understood my post. I was not arguing the city should spend half a billion dollars or more to double track the entire line. I was arguing the City might see good return (I.e. improved frequencies and speed) if they replaced the walkley overpass and extended the Brookfield siding south to walkley station. This (including the 2nd platform for walkley) would cost maybe $30 million tops, probably much less than that.

So you say you disagree, but then in the last half of your post you say you hope they plan to add more passing tracks "and whatever else they need" to boost frequencies. Sounds like we agree.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You must not have understood my post. I was not arguing the city should spend half a billion dollars or more to double track the entire line. I was arguing the City might see good return (I.e. improved frequencies and speed) if they replaced the walkley overpass and extended the Brookfield siding south to walkley station. This (including the 2nd platform for walkley) would cost maybe $30 million tops, probably much less than that.

So you say you disagree, but then in the last half of your post you say you hope they plan to add more passing tracks "and whatever else they need" to boost frequencies. Sounds like we agree.

Heated agreement? Ha ha. Apologies. Misunderstood your post.

If it's $30 million? Sure. I think any upgrade which requires more than what the city can fund itself starts getting questionable. When federal and provincial dollars come, you really want to get the most bang for your buck, so that they keep cutting you cheques.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You must not have understood my post. I was not arguing the city should spend half a billion dollars or more to double track the entire line. I was arguing the City might see good return (I.e. improved frequencies and speed) if they replaced the walkley overpass and extended the Brookfield siding south to walkley station.

Yup. That is exactly what I proposed and you agreed with. As I said in my original post, "Optimally you want your passing tracks to be at stations." Having the train stop for the sole purpose of waiting for another train isn't efficient.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

When federal and provincial dollars come, you really want to get the most bang for your buck, so that they keep cutting you cheques.

Then how do you explain the Trim Rd. and airport extensions? They will supposedly* be funded exclusively by the federal and provincial governments. I can't imagine it will be used even as much as the Trillium line is used today. A similar thing can be said for the Limebank extension.

*it is unclear who will pay for cost overruns.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Then how do you explain the Trim Rd. and airport extensions? They will supposedly* be funded exclusively by the federal and provincial governments. I can't imagine it will be used even as much as the Trillium line is used today. A similar thing can be said for the Limebank extension.

*it is unclear who will pay for cost overruns.

It doesn't do much politically to say "we helped increase the Trillium Line frequency from 12 minutes to 10 minutes", but it does to say "we extended the Trillium Line by 6 km and added a station in the heart of you community". Political "bang for your buck" is a bit of a different beast.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

It doesn't do much politically to say "we helped increase the Trillium Line frequency from 12 minutes to 10 minutes", but it does to say "we extended the Trillium Line by 6 km and added a station in the heart of you community". Political "bang for your buck" is a bit of a different beast.

It's worse than that since the frequency won't even get down to 10 minutes.

It sounds worse when you think of it as "We're spending $535 million upgrading the Trillium Line but we still don't have anywhere near the frequencies we promised 5 years ago (let alone any frequency increases)".

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

It's worse than that since the frequency won't even get down to 10 minutes.

It sounds worse when you think of it as "We're spending $535 million upgrading the Trillium Line but we still don't have anywhere near the frequencies we promised 5 years ago (let alone any frequency increases)".

Right, I meant if on top of the original Trillium Line contract the political powers that be had a choice (costing roughly the same for the sake of argument), either:
A. extend the Trillium Line to Limebank, or
B. reduce frequencies to 10 minutes (by extending the Brookfield siding to Walkely Station for instance).

In that case, I think the political powers that be (federal and provincial) would still opt for the Limebank extension because it sounds better - "we added 6 km of track and a new station".

It isn't directly comparable for the City though, because the City is recouping some of the Limebank extension cost from development fees.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

It isn't directly comparable for the City though, because the City is recouping some of the Limebank extension cost from development fees.

That is why I said, "A similar thing can be said for the Limebank extension." The point was more directed towards the Trim and Airport extensions, which no-one seems to have responded to.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is why I said, "A similar thing can be said for the Limebank extension." The point was more directed towards the Trim and Airport extensions, which no-one seems to have responded to.

Trim extension has similar political motivations. It also has the added secondary benefit of tying in a Park and Ride that would have been a isolated if the Confed. Line wasn't extended to it. Basically, it wouldn't feel great to park at Trim just to shuttle to Place d'Orleans for your train. That would have been a similar situation to what is about to happen to the Riverview Park and Ride.

[CityTech]

^ I think Trim extension is justified for this reason. It's fairly inexpensive--only a relatively small addon considering the whole cost. And by linking it in with the park and ride it's now possible for the city to redevelop the Place D'Orleans park and ride. Trim is also better suited for the demographic that we should be targeting for the park and rides, namely the rural/exurban residents; with Orleans proper, we should instead be getting people onto connecting buses.