Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[swimmer_spe]

The mess is almost like they rushed it into service.....

I figured that the line was under built. This kinda proves it. Those pictures; I would expect at Bloor-Yonge, not along a new LRT.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Well, considering the 10 comes into the west part of downtown (Lyon) from the south, and the 11 comes in from the West and ends up in the east part (Parliament), it seems highly unlikely that anyone would ever make that connection. If you do need to transfer between those two lines, simply make that transfer where the two routes cross over each other at Somerset and Bronson.

The system you're suggesting where all routes go into downtown would do nothing to alleviate congestion on the roads, and would in essence still create a parallel system to the LRT, albeit with a transfer point.

A transit network cannot cater to any and all potential journeys. It has to balance moving a lot of people as efficiently as possible along major commuting pathways while at the same time providing those basic essential services where ridership is limited.

You putting words in my mouth, I never suggested every route should go downtown, but the existing centretown routes serve a local transit purpose and should have a central hub when they are in close proximity anyway, just like surburban routes have hubs at Greenboro, Blair, Terry Fox, etc.

A transit system should be about much more moving commuters and "basic essential" transit, that kind of thinking is why transit has failed south of the border.

That's why cities like Toronto and Vancouver use a grid system for transit with buses deviating off the grid to serve hubs, and rely on their rail systems for long distance journeys. OC Transpo started with a good idea and the new network is more grid like, but they broke the grid in several key places centretown. They also should have the rapid routes maintain roughly the same frequency (combined when interlined) as the rail system, but a particularly notorious example is the 39 rapid route that only comes every 30 minutes outside rush hour, despite the train still running at a 5 minutes frequency.

All OC Transpo needs to do to fix things is make some tweaks to the grid downtown, and fix frequencies on key routes, and should aim for a 10 minute frequent standard for frequent routes rather than 15. Door issues, switches, etc are just teething issues with a new system and will be solved, but the transit system is more than Line 1.

[OCCheetos]

From the maintenance section of the leaked contract/agreement on the Stage 2 Trillium Line extension:

The City has established a Service Reliability Standard of 98.5% on-time
performance, where a trip is considered on time if it is available to depart
the following Terminal Stations within 30 seconds of scheduled
departure time

Vehicle and system
availability shall allow
for 98.5 % of trips to
depart terminal stations
no later than 30
seconds after scheduled
departure times, in
accordance with the
Service Reliability
Standard

Evidently, if 98.5% is the standard the city has set for the Confederation Line as well, then that's quite high (compared to Toronto) and is definitely motivation for RTG to fix reliability problems once you consider the financial penalties attached to not meeting that standard (e.g. $2.8 million)

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

You putting words in my mouth,

Apologies. You wrote "all bus routes downtown meet" and I read that incorrectly as "all bus routes meet downtown". Inverting the two words in my head changed the meaning.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I figured that the line was under built. This kinda proves it. Those pictures; I would expect at Bloor-Yonge, not along a new LRT.

The line is not "underbuilt", if by that you mean it has insufficient capacity for the amount of passengers. There is more than enough capacity to meet demand and significant room for growth*. The problems are caused by reliability issues (both technical and human caused) that have caused delays and reduced the frequency of service. When you are moving 10,000 people an hour in each direction, even a delay of a few minutes will lead to huge backups.

Pictures can be deceiving as well. Each train can hold 600 people, which is a lot and so pictures of hundreds of people waiting at Blair or Tunney's can seem like a bit deal. However, that crowd can disappear with a single train.

*The O-Train Confederation Line has a planned peak capacity of 10,700 passengers per hour in each direction, with the potential to grow to over 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction by 2031 and ultimately 24,000 passengers per hour in each direction. (ref)

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

From the maintenance section of the leaked contract/agreement on the Stage 2 Trillium Line extension:




Evidently, if 98.5% is the standard the city has set for the Confederation Line as well, then that's quite high (compared to Toronto) and is definitely motivation for RTG to fix reliability problems once you consider the financial penalties attached to not meeting that standard (e.g. $2.8 million)

I understand why the city would write a contract like that, but right now the 30 second performance time makes the system worse since the schedule depends on the programmed dwell time. Some flexibility would help on this one.

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Charles5

The line is not "underbuilt", if by that you mean it has insufficient capacity for the amount of passengers. There is more than enough capacity to meet demand and significant room for growth*. The problems are caused by reliability issues (both technical and human caused) that have caused delays and reduced the frequency of service. When you are moving 10,000 people an hour in each direction, even a delay of a few minutes will lead to huge backups.

Pictures can be deceiving as well. Each train can hold 600 people, which is a lot and so pictures of hundreds of people waiting at Blair or Tunney's can seem like a bit deal. However, that crowd can disappear with a single train.

*The O-Train Confederation Line has a planned peak capacity of 10,700 passengers per hour in each direction, with the potential to grow to over 18,000 passengers per hour in each direction by 2031 and ultimately 24,000 passengers per hour in each direction. (ref)

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I figured that the line was under built. This kinda proves it. Those pictures; I would expect at Bloor-Yonge, not along a new LRT.

Good Day.

Well.... I do not know about -underbuilt-, and I concur with your problem analysis (as do many),
(although it sure looks underbuilt to me, as well - I have commented on the tight platforms before, with that exact Toronto comparison)
but......It sure has a capacity problem right now :

Ottawa Sun, Blair Crawford, Saturday November 2 2019, quoting Jimbo :

40 buses returning to service as mayor says he's 'furious' with poor LRT performance

“The platforms are designed to hold 600 people at a time so if you miss even one four-minute train cycle, you have another 600 people arriving.
That’s when you see the pictures of crowds backing up the steps,” Watson said.

https://ottawasun.com/news/local-news/40...wcm/af6d8db0-0630-4bd5-ab19-ff24f63058cb

Gee, he's so good at leading from behind !!

To me, a full platform that just matches a jam-packed full train, is simply asking for problems.
Esp. when at so many stations they had clear opportunity to build larger at (to my eye) very little additional cost
(but yet another example of cheap-out penny-wise pound-foolish).

Yes, it has expansion capability for future growth, but that is then. We now have a real problem, now.

We need better service reliability on more trains (15 +) and better reliability on buses (frequency, on-time).
Beats me why OC was so all-fired quick to pull and decommission all those buses: so so so quick.

NoJoy here !

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

To me, a full platform that just matches a jam-packed full train, is simply asking for problems.
Esp. when at so many stations they had clear opportunity to build larger at (to my eye) very little additional cost

In my opinion, I think that having a platform that holds more than a trainload of people is asking for even greater problems, including potential safety issues. If you have enough people on the platform to fill a train, they are in location and ready to board when the train arrives. The next 600 people then have 3 or 4 minutes to make their way down to the platform before the next train. By having a bottleneck (the stairs) at a point just beyond a trainload worth of people, you create a natural division so that those who arrived first get on the train first and flow happens more naturally. If you were to put 1200 people on the platform you end up with situations where people start to compete for access to the trains, and potentially those who are against the back walls get stuck for numerous cycles as more and more people flow onto the platform from the stairwells at the sides.

You definitely don't want people starting to try and push and shove their way to the front of the pack as the train is arriving. Anything more than a trainload's worth of people should be held away from the actual platform on upper or lower concourses.

Edit: another point to consider is that both Tunney's and Blair operate from both sides of the station, with two platforms you can 'stockpile' 1200 people, and there's probably at least that much room up in the concourse as well.

On a side note, there have been comments about lack of down escalators onto platforms. I see this as a related issue and a safety issue as well. Imagine people getting onto an escalator at the top, while those at the bottom don't have space to get off.

PS: I take the train from Tunney's most mornings just after 7am. During Friday's "chaotic commute" that started at 6am, I had to wait all of 2 minutes to catch a train and there were still empty seats when it departed. I realize the situation was worse in the east end. All this to say, it's a very busy line and so large backlogs can occur very quickly, but this system also has the capacity to clear those backlogs quickly as well once it's back up to regular frequency.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day.

Well.... I do not know about -underbuilt-, and I concur with your problem analysis (as do many),
(although it sure looks underbuilt to me, as well - I have commented on the tight platforms before, with that exact Toronto comparison)
but......It sure has a capacity problem right now :

Ottawa Sun, Blair Crawford, Saturday November 2 2019, quoting Jimbo :



https://ottawasun.com/news/local-news/40...wcm/af6d8db0-0630-4bd5-ab19-ff24f63058cb

Gee, he's so good at leading from behind !!

To me, a full platform that just matches a jam-packed full train, is simply asking for problems.
Esp. when at so many stations they had clear opportunity to build larger at (to my eye) very little additional cost
(but yet another example of cheap-out penny-wise pound-foolish).

Yes, it has expansion capability for future growth, but that is then. We now have a real problem, now.

We need better service reliability on more trains (15 +) and better reliability on buses (frequency, on-time).
Beats me why OC was so all-fired quick to pull and decommission all those buses: so so so quick.

NoJoy here !

Having ridden a lot of trains in various countries, I really don't think our platforms are anything special in terms of narrowness. It would have been better not to steal platform space for vertical circulaton, Lyon is particularly bad, but the narrowness isn't that atypical, I've seen much narrower.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Charles5

In my opinion, I think that having a platform that holds more than a trainload of people is asking for even greater problems, including potential safety issues. If you have enough people on the platform to fill a train, they are in location and ready to board when the train arrives. The next 600 people then have 3 or 4 minutes to make their way down to the platform before the next train. By having a bottleneck (the stairs) at a point just beyond a trainload worth of people, you create a natural division so that those who arrived first get on the train first and flow happens more naturally. If you were to put 1200 people on the platform you end up with situations where people start to compete for access to the trains, and potentially those who are against the back walls get stuck for numerous cycles as more and more people flow onto the platform from the stairwells at the sides.

You definitely don't want people starting to try and push and shove their way to the front of the pack as the train is arriving. Anything more than a trainload's worth of people should be held away from the actual platform on upper or lower concourses.

On a side note, there have been comments about lack of down escalators onto platforms. I see this as a related issue and a safety issue as well. Imagine people getting onto an escalator at the top, while those at the bottom don't have space to get off.

PS: I take the train from Tunney's most mornings just after 7am. During Friday's "chaotic commute" that started at 6am, I had to wait all of 2 minutes to catch a train and there were still empty seats when it departed. I realize the situation was worse in the east end. All this to say, it's a very busy line and so large backlogs can occur very quickly, but this system also has the capacity to clear those backlogs quickly as well once it's back up to regular frequency.

I feel like the media is misleading a bit. There was 9 hours of service disruptions, but that doesn't mean 9 hours of delays to the end user. So far, I've been delayed 3 times, and the longest might have been 5 minutes extra waiting. Back when it was the bus, 5 minute delays would be considered "on time". My commute by train is way better than the service downtown before, it's when I get off the train that the troubles begin.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Having ridden a lot of trains in various countries, I really don't think our platforms are anything special in terms of narrowness. It would have been better not to steal platform space for vertical circulaton, Lyon is particularly bad, but the narrowness isn't that atypical, I've seen much narrower.

I assume the width of the station caverns, and by extension the platform width,. were limited by the width of Queen Street. Had they built the tunnel under Albert, we might have been able to place the vertical circulation to the side of the platforms and not on the platforms.

Although the platforms are narrow along he vertical circulation, we do have far more vertical circulation compared to Vancouver and even Montréal, which kind of compensates, ironically. We also have far more fare gates and much larger concourses than Vancouver also, so fewer pinch-points.

[passwordisnt123]

40 buses returning to service as mayor says he's 'furious' with poor LRT performance

“The platforms are designed to hold 600 people at a time so if you miss even one four-minute train cycle, you have another 600 people arriving.
That’s when you see the pictures of crowds backing up the steps,” Watson said.

That's some 1984-style "but we've always been at war with Eurasia" shit right there. How is Watson not getting called out on the fact that we were NEVER promised 4-minute intervals. If memory serves, we were promised something like 2.5 minutes at rush hour. Now those memories have been thrown down the memory hole and there are no consequences for Watson. How is this guy so teflon?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

That's some 1984-style "but we've always been at war with Eurasia" shit right there. How is Watson not getting called out on the fact that we were NEVER promised 4-minute intervals. If memory serves, we were promised something like 2.5 minutes at rush hour. Now those memories have been thrown down the memory hole and there are no consequences for Watson. How is this guy so teflon?

...We were "promised" 5 minutes. 4 and 3 minutes was higher than what anyone had been expecting, though everyone saw why it was necessary.

[passwordisnt123]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

...We were "promised" 5 minutes. 4 and 3 minutes was higher than what anyone had been expecting, though everyone saw why it was necessary.

My recollection was that they'd promised us better.

https://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/355030628201309024522.pdf

Initial 3 minute headway

I think the goalposts were moved, but I guess it's a question of when. I'd be extremely curious to see some sort of a frequency distribution graph over time of when the numbers started creeping from the 3 minutes that was discussed in 2013 and 2014 to now.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

My recollection was that they'd promised us better.

https://www.ligneconfederationline.ca/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/355030628201309024522.pdf



I think the goalposts were moved, but I guess it's a question of when. I'd be extremely curious to see some sort of a frequency distribution graph over time of when the numbers started creeping from the 3 minutes that was discussed in 2013 and 2014 to now.

I hadn't seen that slide before. Every other reference to headways on the confederation line site had listed 5 minutes "or less".

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by passwordisnt123

I think the goalposts were moved, but I guess it's a question of when.

Frequency of trains is directly related to the number of trains and the length of time it takes to do a round trip. If you divided the length of time for a round trip by the number of trains available, that gives you the interval between trains.

The City purchased 34 cars, that was enough for 15 train sets and 4 spare cars. With 15 trains, you would need to do a round trip in 45 minutes in order to have exactly 3 minute intervals. I think the reality is that it takes about 50 minutes to do the round trip which with 15 trains would be 3.3 minutes (which rounded down would be 3 minutes).

This August the City announced that due to reduced ridership they estimated that they would only need 13 trainsets running in order to meet peak demand. Given the same 50 minute round trip that means that train intervals would need to be extended to 3.8 minutes (which rounds up to 4 minutes).

In those types of calculations, just as reducing the denominator (# of trains) increased intervals, so does anything that increases the numerator (round trip time). So, for example, the increased dwell times that were implemented perhaps added about 2 minutes to the overall round trip, thus again slightly increasing the interval between trains. A 52 minute round trip divided by 13 trains would give an interval of 4 minutes.

Edit:
PS: Just crunching the numbers for fun here: Going from 13 trains to 15 trains would increase hourly capacity by almost 1400 people in each direction (total 2800). However, it would only reduce the average wait for a train by about 15 seconds, which is pretty much irrelevant to most people. (Interval between trains would go from 4 minutes to about 3.5 minutes; and average wait time is half the interval between trains since some people just miss a train while others don't wait at all if they just catch a train.) In my opinion, adding more trains to the network should be done if capacity needs to be increased, but not in any vain effort to try and reduce commuting time.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Frequency of trains is directly related to the number of trains and the length of time it takes to do a round trip. If you divided the length of time for a round trip by the number of trains available, that gives you the interval between trains.

The City purchased 34 cars, that was enough for 15 train sets and 4 spare cars. With 15 trains, you would need to do a round trip in 45 minutes in order to have exactly 3 minute intervals. I think the reality is that it takes about 50 minutes to do the round trip which with 15 trains would be 3.3 minutes (which rounded down would be 3 minutes).

This August the City announced that due to reduced ridership they estimated that they would only need 13 trainsets running in order to meet peak demand. Given the same 50 minute round trip that means that train intervals would need to be extended to 3.8 minutes (which rounds up to 4 minutes).

In those types of calculations, just as reducing the denominator (# of trains) increased intervals, so does anything that increases the numerator (round trip time). So, for example, the increased dwell times that were implemented perhaps added about 2 minutes to the overall round trip, thus again slightly increasing the interval between trains. A 52 minute round trip divided by 13 trains would give an interval of 4 minutes.

Edit:
PS: Just crunching the numbers for fun here: Going from 13 trains to 15 trains would increase hourly capacity by almost 1400 people in each direction (total 2800). However, it would only reduce the average wait for a train by about 15 seconds, which is pretty much irrelevant to most people. (Interval between trains would go from 4 minutes to about 3.5 minutes; and average wait time is half the interval between trains since some people just miss a train while others don't wait at all if they just catch a train.) In my opinion, adding more trains to the network should be done if capacity needs to be increased, but not in any vain effort to try and reduce commuting time.

I don't think people are complaining about frequency, 4ish minutes is very frequent, but they are complaining about capacity. A big fault in the city calculations was assuming each train can hold 600 people. That's is if they can use all the space, and just below crush load, but generally the aisles are empty because there's nothing to hold onto, so I'm guessing the trains are running quite a bit below 600 when "full", so the capacity of the system is far less than OC Transpo is advertising. You can make the trains longer of course, but those extra 2 trains would do wonders, but I think they need even more than that, they need a full 3 minute frequency to handle peak loads, which is 18 trains at the above guess of 52 minutes end to end time to hit 10k assuming each train is actually only at 550 when "full"

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

Parallel R1 service would be overkill, but it wasn't necessary to make the network discontinuous without a trip on the LRT. We should have continued to have all bus routes downtown meet at a central transfer point, rather than requiring a silly (and time consuming considering the depth of the stations) transfer onto the LRT for a 400m distance between the 10 and 11 for example. They could have made Parliament the central transfer if they must, or the war monument, but it's silly. This pattern is repeated all over, the LRT is and should be a trunk route, but it's not necessary to route every single trip via it.

We had a perfectly good central hub for all the downtown local routes for decades. All of the local buses numbered 18 or less, other then the 8 which was the Alta Vista to Hull run, at some point passed through Rideau Street.

This principle of design went by the wayside starting with the first round of service "optimizations" in 2008, when the old 2 was split and many other routes started to short at Rideau, reducing cross-downtown frequencies. More routes got split or abolished (RIP old 3), and others got relocated to the bridge level, which is an effective frequency reduction: if you were trying to get from Rideau to Elgin Street, you could have taken the first of the old 5 or 14 that came along; now you have to pick one or the other, but not both.)

The 6 and 7 came very close to being permanently split at Rideau, with additional "Route 11" problems with some buses terminating at Parliament, others at Rideau, and nothing but two major transfer penalties and a one-stop subway ride connecting them.

Whether any of the suburban transitway-style buses are restored to downtown or not, and whether or not they converge at a central hub, the within-downtown/urban buses should be restored to a central Rideau hub, with much better passenger amenities. (There are frequently more people waiting at any moment for a bus on Rideau Street, than for a train on the train platforms of Rideau Station; the lack of proper shelter and seating for the bus passengers is an insult at this stage.)

And that Rideau hub, outside of overnight hours, should be for those local buses. Put the suburban routes, if need be, back to Albert, Slater, and the bridge.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

You can make the trains longer of course, but those extra 2 trains would do wonders, but I think they need even more than that, they need a full 3 minute frequency to handle peak loads, which is 18 trains at the above guess of 52 minutes end to end time to hit 10k assuming each train is actually only at 550 when "full"

I believe at 550 people per train you could move 10K people/hr with 16 trains.

16 x 550 = 8800 in a round trip of 52 minutes. (8800/52 min)*60min/hr = 10,154/hour.

Interval between trains would be 3min 15 sec.


On a related side note, the Alstom Citadis Spirit with four modules has a maximum capacity of 340/car, but the Ottawa configuration is for 300 (ref). That might suggest that we might have a little more elbow room than when filled to "crush load". Perhaps we can realistically fit 600 on a train???

Metrolinx, which I believe is buying the same car, describes them as 120 seated and 216 standing (total 336), while Ottawa describes them as 120 seated and 180 standing (300 total). Once again, it seems like Ottawa errs on the side of more elbow room per rider as we have 36 fewer standees per car than Toronto will.

[SidetrackedSue]

Originally Posted by Charles5

In my opinion, I think that having a platform that holds more than a trainload of people is asking for even greater problems, including potential safety issues. If you have enough people on the platform to fill a train, they are in location and ready to board when the train arrives. The next 600 people then have 3 or 4 minutes to make their way down to the platform before the next train. By having a bottleneck (the stairs) at a point just beyond a trainload worth of people, you create a natural division so that those who arrived first get on the train first and flow happens more naturally.

Since you take the train from Tunney's can you comment on the number of people exiting the train in the morning, or trying to get down to the trains in the evening?

The 600 on the platform is great, as long as there aren't 400 trying to get off the platform and up to work in the morning.

I haven't been there so haven't seen for myself if the numbers arriving to work at Tunney's are making the crowded platforms even more crowded.