Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I believe it might be already. Somebody can correct me if I'm wrong.

No it's 90m as are all the surface stations, but it has reserved space for the expansion (it's actually a planter between the art installation and end of the platform right now) . You used to be able to see the reserved space on GeoOttawa, not sure if that's still

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Concrete pads with integrated heating and extend the covered structure. They would also need to order and install additional modules on the train sets.

Cyrville has a longer platform because the western part is used for faregates. They will need to expand eastward to accommodate the 120 meter trains.

http://www.octranspo.com/ready4rail/cyrville
http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/

Based on a 2014 Calgary Herald article, the estimated cost of expanding platforms to accommodate an extra car was $300 million. The article doesn't specify the length of the expansion (ours would be 10 meters for a total of 100 meter platforms, not the 120 originally planned). Theirs are high floor platforms, which are likely more expensive, but I assume the cost to extend our trains and re-program the automated system might be more than their new cars and electrical components.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/calgary/Four+project+price+hits+300M/10089255/story.html

Calgary went to 110m platforms

[J.OT13]

How is the TTC not running 150 meter trains and why isn't Montreal on this graphic?

But yes, seems Calgary expanded their platforms by 30 meters. As it currently stands with 10 meter extension on Confederation, few stations than Calgary, low floor, it might be cheaper (not considering inflation). It would sill be a significant expense.

[Hybrid247]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

How is the TTC not running 150 meter trains and why isn't Montreal on this graphic?

But yes, seems Calgary expanded their platforms by 30 meters. As it currently stands with 10 meter extension on Confederation, few stations than Calgary, low floor, it might be cheaper (not considering inflation). It would sill be a significant expense.

Why only 10m extensions instead of 30m? Wouldn't it make more sense to just do the full 30m extensions in one shot?

[J.OT13]

I believe that was a change brought on by the City as part of Stage 2. In order to save more money, they figured out that platforms only need to be 100 meters in order to fit a 120 meter trains' doors within the loading area. Basically, the front and back of the train will overshoot the platforms by 10 meters each way, as they do now (98 meter trains along 90 meter platforms, so overshoots 4 meters each way).

[Hybrid247]

Ah that makes sense. I didn't realize they could overhang the platforms by that much on each side.

I know the maximum length of the Citadis train is 59m, but I wonder if it's at all possible to make it longer given its modular design, and if it would make more sense to upgrade to a single 100-120m unit instead of two 59m units.

Here is what that could potentially look like, but I'm not sure what the overall lengths would be for these hypothetical configurations since we don't know the exact length of each module.

[J.OT13]

I believe the automated system allows for that overhang. In systems controlled by drivers, the end of the platform acts as a visual queue for where they need to stop.

I'm hoping they're able to do that at some point (one 120 meter train). Removing two driver cabs (and maybe all four at some point) would greatly increase capacity.

At the moment, two linked units makes for better flexibility in terms of lowering capacity on weekends (while maintaining a decent frequency) and improved logistics storage/maintenance wise.

[Hybrid247]

Ya, ATC would most likely make the precision stopping that would be required possible. I would imagine max capacity for Line 1 could increase to 25,000+ pphpd with a single 120m train too, which would be a nice option to have in the future.

For the foreseeable future, though, I agree that two linked units makes the most sense for operational flexibility and maintenance.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Ya, ATC would most likely make the precision stopping that would be required possible. I would imagine max capacity for Line 1 could increase to 25,000+ pphpd with a single 120m train too, which would be a nice option to have in the future.

For the foreseeable future, though, I agree that two linked units makes the most sense for operational flexibility and maintenance.

Hannover actually has a light rail vehicle that's single ended with an open gangway so they can run a pair as a single continuous train



This could conceptually be done here as well to link to citadis vehicles. This could be done ahead of platform expansion to squeeze a bit more capacity out of the existing system when it comes to it

[Hybrid247]

^^^ Interesting. It'd be cool to see that done with the Citadis. I haven't seen any official source saying the Citadis is capable of expanding beyond the 5-module configuration, but I would be surprised if it isn't possible.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I believe the automated system allows for that overhang. In systems controlled by drivers, the end of the platform acts as a visual queue for where they need to stop.

I'm hoping they're able to do that at some point (one 120 meter train). Removing two driver cabs (and maybe all four at some point) would greatly increase capacity.

At the moment, two linked units makes for better flexibility in terms of lowering capacity on weekends (while maintaining a decent frequency) and improved logistics storage/maintenance wise.

That's not necessarily true. The Trillium Line trains are run like that where the front of the train is well past the end of the platform. (The new FLIRTs will be 80m long and the platforms will only be 70m long) There are "Platform Spot" signs at the ends of the platform to indicate where the driver should stop.

[J.OT13]

I don't have full knowledge of how it works, but Trillium as an open air diesel system with high visibility, I imagine it's easier to implement these types of markers than tight urban metro systems such as Confederation, especially at tunnel stations.

Worth noting that the three underground stations downtown are 120 meters, designed that way before the City decided to shorten the platform once again and, possibly to handle the larger loads. Other tunnel station such as St-Laurent and Baseline will have the shorter design. Interestingly, Cleary (fully underground) and New Orchard (open air between two tunnel sections) are shown as 100 meters with 20 meter future extensions.

http://maps.ottawa.ca/geoottawa/

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's not necessarily true. The Trillium Line trains are run like that where the front of the train is well past the end of the platform. (The new FLIRTs will be 80m long and the platforms will only be 70m long) There are "Platform Spot" signs at the ends of the platform to indicate where the driver should stop.

This is true. The only issue is accuracy: a human requires a larger buffer, in case they are off by a little bit. If the tolerances are tight, the human has to check and see if they're lined up, and adjust if they aren't, which takes time, so a larger platform helps speed things up. With an automated system, the train stops within millimeters, so the tolerances are tighter.

[J.OT13]

Tremblay Station


https://twitter.com/chrisrands/status/1088936646970503168

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Hybrid247

Ah that makes sense. I didn't realize they could overhang the platforms by that much on each side.

I know the maximum length of the Citadis train is 59m, but I wonder if it's at all possible to make it longer given its modular design, and if it would make more sense to upgrade to a single 100-120m unit instead of two 59m units.

Here is what that could potentially look like, but I'm not sure what the overall lengths would be for these hypothetical configurations since we don't know the exact length of each module.

I am not sure if train's power distribution circuity can power a train that long. They could get around that by coupling two, single ended trains together (with either semi-permanent or standard couplers). As others have said, you would lose some operational flexibility to run shorter trains that way though, unless they go fully automated and remove the driver altogether.

[zzptichka]

Isn't it all kinda moot point since in 20-30 years we'll probably have different trainsets? Or they plan to keep Citadis Spirit for that long and then some?

[corynv]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Isn't it all kinda moot point since in 20-30 years we'll probably have different trainsets? Or they plan to keep Citadis Spirit for that long and then some?

all depends on how well they hold up. If they realize they can easily get 50+ years out of them, no point placing them until it's needed. (or if we need to replace specific units for various reasons).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Isn't it all kinda moot point since in 20-30 years we'll probably have different trainsets? Or they plan to keep Citadis Spirit for that long and then some?

Typical life expectancy is about 25-30 years for a trainset, but they can be refurbished to extend their life. Vancouver began refurbishing their original Mark I trains (built 1984–1993) in 2013 and have announced they will start to retire them in 2026.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-new-skytrain-cars-2024 (scroll half way down).

[J.OT13]

Edmonton and Calgary seem to be running a lot of the original stock. Ottawa might have harsher weather, so I would think we could maintain them 30 years easy, and stretch a few more to the 35 year mark. Nothing beyond that.

[roger1818]

One other thought. RTG has a 30 year maintenance contract. They won't want to pay to replace the trains, so they will want to keep them going at least that long. If the contract is extended, having the city pay to replace them may be part of the contract.