Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I thought the city had bought a few more trains (not the spares) for increasing capacity, though I think they ended up getting rolled into the Stage 2 build. Hopefully they will be able to get them online quickly if demand warrants.

I heard stories that the extra couple trains were to replace some highly defective Stage 1 units. Don't know what happened with that. But yes, I think they were included in the Stage 2 count.

Has the City ever mentioned what kind of frequency we can expect from the 72 Stage 2 trains? How many would be in rush-hour service and how many of those are "spares"?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I thought the city had bought a few more trains (not the spares) for increasing capacity, though I think they ended up getting rolled into the Stage 2 build. Hopefully they will be able to get them online quickly if demand warrants.

Good Day.

Yep... LRVs 1135-1138 are mostly assembled and are sitting in the rear reaches of the sheds while RTG and Alstom pushed to substantial completion. They appear to need only two more months +/- of assembly and testing to come online.

IMHO.

And ALstom said that the next nine are in the works here.
The remaining 25 will be built in Brampton.

EnJoy!

[roger1818]

I know this has been discussed before, but it is worth repeating. To achieve the promised 10,700 PPHPD using double trains each with a total capacity of 600, they need to run 1 train every 3:22 (600 passengers / 10,700 passengers per hour, converted from hours to minutes and seconds). This works out to 17.8 trains per hour, which, with only 15 trains running, would require a full cycle time (including dwell times at Blair and Tunnies) of just under 51 minutes. Considering they are saying, it is 25 minutes travel time from Blair to Tunnies, I don't know if that cycle time is possible as it gives less than 30 seconds dwell time at each of the terminuses (two of the busiest stations).

I don't know if this has been updated, but the schedules I have seen so far, show 1 train every 4 minutes. If that is true (they might just be preliminary schedules), that works out to 15 trains an hour, which is only 9000 PPHDP. That schedule also has issues, as it has a 5 minute average dwell time at each of the terminuses, which, since it is longer than the frequency, would result in a backlog of trains at the terminuses (the average dwell time can't be longer than the average frequency).

Since neither of these scenarios actually add up, I am at a bit of a loss as to what the capacity or peak frequency will be. Maybe they have just been rounding all of the preliminary schedule information (maybe the travel time is actually closer to 24:30 so that they will actually have a 1 minute dwell time at Blair and Tunnies) and it will actually work out, but something doesn't make sense.

If the schedule is indeed this tight, I can certainly see why they don't want anyone holding doors.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I know this has been discussed before, but it is worth repeating. To achieve the promised 10,700 PPHPD using double trains each with a total capacity of 600, they need to run 1 train every 3:22 (600 passengers / 10,700 passengers per hour, converted from hours to minutes and seconds). This works out to 17.8 trains per hour, which, with only 15 trains running, would require a full cycle time (including dwell times at Blair and Tunnies) of just under 51 minutes. Considering they are saying, it is 25 minutes travel time from Blair to Tunnies, I don't know if that cycle time is possible as it gives less than 30 seconds dwell time at each of the terminuses (two of the busiest stations).

I don't know if this has been updated, but the schedules I have seen so far, show 1 train every 4 minutes. If that is true (they might just be preliminary schedules), that works out to 15 trains an hour, which is only 9000 PPHDP. That schedule also has issues, as it has a 5 minute average dwell time at each of the terminuses, which, since it is longer than the frequency, would result in a backlog of trains at the terminuses (the average dwell time can't be longer than the average frequency).

Since neither of these scenarios actually add up, I am at a bit of a loss as to what the capacity or peak frequency will be. Maybe they have just been rounding all of the preliminary schedule information (maybe the travel time is actually closer to 24:30 so that they will actually have a 1 minute dwell time at Blair and Tunnies) and it will actually work out, but something doesn't make sense.

If the schedule is indeed this tight, I can certainly see why they don't want anyone holding doors.

Couple of things.

• I have often noticed a train waiting for a spot at Blair when both tracks are occupied. I haven't spent much time at Tunney's, but I remember Tweets;
• If I remember correctly, they use to advertise that the trains would come every 3 minutes or less. Now it's every 4 minutes or less. What gives;
• Similarly, they use to boast that travel time was under 24 minutes, and now it's up to under 25 minutes.

I can understand that speed and frequency might be off from original estimates. It's nowhere near as bad as the Trillium "upgrades" (frequency was suppose to increase dramatically from 15 minutes to 8 minutes, but best they could do was 12). For Line 1, I imagine travel time is the major factor in the frequency change. If we add a double train or two, that will no longer be an issue.

Which brings me to the next point: how is it that with an automated system, we still have trains waiting in line for space at the terminus stations? If it's automated, shouldn't it be a smooth and perfect synchronization?

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Couple of things.

• I have often noticed a train waiting for a spot at Blair when both tracks are occupied. I haven't spent much time at Tunney's, but I remember Tweets;
• If I remember correctly, they use to advertise that the trains would come every 3 minutes or less. Now it's every 4 minutes or less. What gives;
• Similarly, they use to boast that travel time was under 24 minutes, and now it's up to under 25 minutes.

I can understand that speed and frequency might be off from original estimates. It's nowhere near as bad as the Trillium "upgrades" (frequency was suppose to increase dramatically from 15 minutes to 8 minutes, but best they could do was 12). For Line 1, I imagine travel time is the major factor in the frequency change. If we add a double train or two, that will no longer be an issue.

Which brings me to the next point: how is it that with an automated system, we still have trains waiting in line for space at the terminus stations? If it's automated, shouldn't it be a smooth and perfect synchronization?

My guess is they forgot to account for the time it takes for the driver to walk to the other end of the train

[OCCheetos]

With 15 trains on the track, the trains are running at 3-minute frequencies (according to the arrival signs). This morning it looked like it may have been even more frequent, but it may have been an oddity and I also wasn't timing.

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

My guess is they forgot to account for the time it takes for the driver to walk to the other end of the train

Perhaps Corvulpes can provide some insight on this but I figured they could just rotate operators at terminal stations like they do at Greenboro on the Trillium Line to avoid needing to make the full walk.

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

With 15 trains on the track, the trains are running at 3-minute frequencies (according to the arrival signs). This morning it looked like it may have been even more frequent, but it may have been an oddity and I also wasn't timing.

The signs sometimes show 3min frequencies, sometimes 4min, so it's somewhere in between. 3m 22s sounds about right.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

The signs sometimes show 3min frequencies, sometimes 4min, so it's somewhere in between. 3m 22s sounds about right.

They should update the Ready for Rail schedule then. It shows a maximum of one train every 4 minutes, or 15 trains an hour. I sent an email to my Councillor to see if he can shed any light on this.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

They should update the Ready for Rail schedule then. It shows a maximum of one train every 4 minutes, or 15 trains an hour. I sent an email to my Councillor to see if he can shed any light on this.

This is critical. There is a big difference in the number passengers that can be handled between 3 minute and 5 minute frequency. Are we going to be able to meet current passenger demand, let alone, any passenger growth? I think it is very bad practice to open a new service that starts with crush loads.

We don't need a situation like when Edmonton opened a new line and had to beg people to change their travel schedules because they didn't buy enough trains.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This is critical. There is a big difference in the number passengers that can be handled between 3 minute and 5 minute frequency. Are we going to be able to meet current passenger demand, let alone, any passenger growth? I think it is very bad practice to open a new service that starts with crush loads.

We don't need a situation like when Edmonton opened a new line and had to beg people to change their travel schedules because they didn't buy enough trains.

They should just show "every x minutes" on the schedule. Because it's not going to be accurate anyway unless they show seconds on the schedule.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

They should just show "every x minutes" on the schedule. Because it's not going to be accurate anyway unless they show seconds on the schedule.

It would be a whole lot easier. Looking at a massive table with hundreds of times stamps for each station is crazy.

[daud]

saw 2 doubles this aft. One under St. Laurent which was booting it. The other over Riverside which was going faster than previous times I have seen it.

Usually I see them going about 5KMPH over riverside. Maybe this one was going 20-30kmph?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

They should just show "every x minutes" on the schedule. Because it's not going to be accurate anyway unless they show seconds on the schedule.

I would say "every 3-4" minutes (or whatever the range is). If they do want to list them all, they need to have some 3 minutes apart and some 4 minutes apart (by rounding the time to the nearest minute) to show the correct number of trains each hour.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by roger1818

They should update the Ready for Rail schedule then. It shows a maximum of one train every 4 minutes, or 15 trains an hour. I sent an email to my Councillor to see if he can shed any light on this.

There are a bunch of issues with the schedules there, e.g.

-97 Hurdman schedule doesn't show any trips heading downtown after 5am on Sundays, even though Line 1 service doesn't start until 8am.
-The Friday night schedule isn't available
-New service changes (new route 15 etc) aren't in there

I expect the data will be refreshed when RSA is confirmed.

[sseguin]

In my video with John Manconi, he states that the Thales system can be run with as little as 90 second headways between trains when demand and capacity call for it. Of course that requires more trains.

We are starting off with 15 double LRVs (30 LRV) with 2 doubles (4 LRVs) kept as backup or maintenance rotation.

So it is important to recognize that whether it is every 3 or 4 or 5 minutes, it can do significantly better then that when it is really needed. Question of having enough trains available rather than the system handling it.

https://youtu.be/Ogro9nLqFo0

[zzptichka]

Watching from my balcony, they are still running doubles at about 4-5min intervals at 9:20 PM.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by sseguin

So it is important to recognize that whether it is every 3 or 4 or 5 minutes, it can do significantly better then that when it is really needed. Question of having enough trains available rather than the system handling it.

I have no doubt this is the case, but it would be interesting to know how soon after launch they could have additional trains running if the line is as great as a success as we all hope it will be.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

I have no doubt this is the case, but it would be interesting to know how soon after launch they could have additional trains running if the line is as great as a success as we all hope it will be.

Exactly. It isn’t an issue of future capability but an issue of how much capacity they will actually have on day 1 and how quickly they can scale it up if demand requires it.

[Truenorth00]

I fear a Yonge line situation. In Toronto, the Yonge leaves its terminus with every seat taken and some standees. Barely enough room in 2-3 stops. Crush load for half the line.

I don't anticipate any open seats during rush leaving Blair or Tunneys.

[PHrenetic]

Good Day.

gee.....Cncl. Hubley is finally "miffed" at the oversight of construction......and look at what it took to get him there - finally !

CTV : Seating mishap at Hurdman LRT Station miffs Ottawa councillor
Joanne Schnurr, CTV Ottawa : Published Tuesday, July 16, 2019 5:03PM EDT

Here’s a story that you want to sit down for. Well maybe not - once you look at where you’re sitting: a bench at the LRT Hurdman station mistakenly plunked in the middle of the landscaping.There must be a joke in here somewhere. How many people does it take to install a bench? Well clearly at least one more because they got it wrong.

As of today you wouldn't know anything was amiss with the seating at Hurdman station.

But, up until yesterday, the wooden seating portion of the bench was stuck right into the hydrangea bushes. It is a similar situation we are told at the Bayview Station. Linda Hunter snapped photos of the seating mishap and tweeted out "is it for sitting in nature or a bit of a planting and bench failure combo?"

“Interesting design choice,” Hunter said in a telephone interview, “I think it's a matter of whoever is in charge of that part, of doing a reassessment to make sure everything is done the proper way and not to install it as lickety-split as this was installed.”

The city of Ottawa says Rideau Transit Group is responsible.

"The bench was incorrectly installed,” Michael Morgan, the Director of the Rail Construction Program said in an email "and RTG has already corrected it by removing the additional seating in the planter."

But Ottawa councillor Allan Hubley says that explanation isn't good enough.

“I'm not here to give excuses for stupidity,” Hubley said, “and definitely this was stupid, that somebody had a bench installed like that and it was inspected; that troubles me a lot.”

With the ongoing delays of the LRT, performance issues and derailments, Hubley says this bench mishap makes him question the oversight of the entire plan.

“If this goes to the oversight of what's happening, then I have to talk to our people about we need to take a close look of what they're handing over to us.”

Cathy Barayni and her mother-in-law, Yveline, meantime, are enjoying the bench the way it's supposed to be and can only laugh at the seating mishap.

“They actually put the bench in the dirt?” Cathy Baranyi asks, “Did they want to?”

“I would not sit in the bushes,” adds Yveline Baranyi, “because of the mosquitoes. That’s not for me.”

Councillor Hubley says he's glad it was fixed and quickly but he still plans to get to the bottom of how it happened in the first place and why no one seemed to notice.

Note - shows the cookie-cutter plans - stated same error at both Hurdman and Bayview !

https://ottawa.ctvnews.ca/seating-mishap-at-hurdman-lrt-station-miffs-ottawa-councillor-1.4510726

EnJoy?