Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

It's going up the stairs because we're running it right at the limit with the number of trains. It's underbuilt in terms of number of trains, because OC Transpo decided to start with barely enough trains (arguably not enough). Other systems don't backup other than TTCs line 1 because nobody is running so close to the line by choice. It's not underbuilt in terms of station size, they are fairly typical.

That bring said, I think OC Transpo went wrong with thinking of doing longer trains later down the line. It's much harder operationally to increase frequency than increase train size, though the later obviously has an upfront capital cost. Maybe they should aim for 120m rather than 2 minutes first and add in the 5th modules and platform extensions as part of stage 2.

That bring said, there's not another example anywhere else that I can think of like Tunney's pasture, where we take every bus in the West end of the city and do a forced transfer onto the train at a single point. Not even Finch in North York is equivalent. Hurdman's only real fault is the bus loop itself, circulation up and down is fine, I transfer there every day. They should have just left the west end connexion routes going downtown until Stage 2, where things would be more distributed through Lincoln Fields, Baseline, and Moodie.

There are various facets to something being under built. Not having enough cars is one. You could have massive stations, but if the trains are not big enough or not coming often enough, then the station size is irrelevant.

So, yes, the Confederation LRT line is under built.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

There are various facets to something being under built. Not having enough cars is one. You could have massive stations, but if the trains are not big enough or not coming often enough, then the station size is irrelevant.

So, yes, the Confederation LRT line is under built.

That's still a weird claim to make because the Confederation Line isn't using its full complement of trains... Under-operated, but not under-built.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's still a weird claim to make because the Confederation Line isn't using its full complement of trains... Under-operated, but not under-built.

It is not using the originally planned full complement of trains because they can't. So the initial plans were off-target and therefore under-built. They underestimated the number of spares required. We also have to consider how difficult it is to purchase additional trains and the lead time required.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's still a weird claim to make because the Confederation Line isn't using its full complement of trains... Under-operated, but not under-built.

I agree. Had we opened with all 15 trains +2 spares and we still had problems, then I would agree with swimmer_spe, but Transpo decided to to risk opening it before it was finished.

IMHO, the only argument for the line being under built is that it didn’t extend far enough west, resulting in too many transfers at a single station. Had we insisted on that being resolved from day one, it would have delayed the opening by at least 3 years and most likely more. It’s too bad that they can’t push up the priority of Stage 2 West. It’s looking like the most important of the 3 legs, yet it will be the last one to be completed.

[Kitchissippi]

Under-built would imply the infrastructure is inadequate, which in the context of the terminal and major transfer stations might be true. If not enough trains were ordered it would simply be under-equipped.

[bikegypsy]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Some interesting links. Just so that you don't think Ottawa is so terrible and other systems are perfect, here are two links to articles on Montreal's Metro and the Toronto TTC.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stm-metro-delays-open-data-clients-berri-uqam-1.5260177
https://globalnews.ca/news/1428761/interactive-why-your-subway-train-was-late/

Both systems see to have about 5000 delays a year, of which about 2000 of those are caused by riders.

And for those folks who thought the concept of fining people for holding open doors was outrageous, see the following two links for fines in Montreal and Toronto. Fine for holding open door in Montreal is $150-$500 while Toronto is $195. (ref1, ref 2)

Yep, exactly. I lived in Montreal for a decade and Metro interruptions were a daily occurrence, and I personally experienced them at a rate of about 2 or 3 per month, with about 2 major ones (get out and take a bus) per year. Some Ottawans are real spoilt brats. Complain, complain, complain. They have one of the best standards of living on the planet and expect to be driven from their doorstep to their office on public transport. I'm in Hanoi at the moment and their metro line is late by, wait for it, 9 years! Some stations are even starting to fall apart.

[acottawa]

To me they knew they were opening with less trains than anticipated. They also should have known from the testing phase that bugs were not fully worked out. The bus transition should have been a lot more gradual, which would have added cost in the short term but been worth it in the long run.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Some interesting links. Just so that you don't think Ottawa is so terrible and other systems are perfect, here are two links to articles on Montreal's Metro and the Toronto TTC.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/stm-metro-delays-open-data-clients-berri-uqam-1.5260177
https://globalnews.ca/news/1428761/interactive-why-your-subway-train-was-late/

Both systems see to have about 5000 delays a year, of which about 2000 of those are caused by riders.

And for those folks who thought the concept of fining people for holding open doors was outrageous, see the following two links for fines in Montreal and Toronto. Fine for holding open door in Montreal is $150-$500 while Toronto is $195. (ref1, ref 2)

More effective is Moscow where the closing doors hurt and where another train is likely within 90 seconds of the other's departure. 2 minute frequency is the rush hour norm.

Longer trains may be easier but especially once we are interlining getting the interval down is more user friendly.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

It is not using the originally planned full complement of trains because they can't. So the initial plans were off-target and therefore under-built. They underestimated the number of spares required. We also have to consider how difficult it is to purchase additional trains and the lead time required.

Where do you get this "because they can't"? The City has a fleet of 34 cars, enough for 15 train sets and 4 spare cars. They chose to only use 13 trains initially because they felt that that would meet the demand (ref). They have since decided to use 14, and they are more than able to insert the 15th train any time they want if ridership increases.

If you can provide references to the contrary, please do so.

As for purchasing additional cars/trains; as part of stage 2 we already have contracted for an additional 38 cars, which could be added to the Stage 1 portion of the line as they become available, if there was the ridership to justify it. That contract was awarded back in Jun of 2017. These won't all show up just on day 1 of Stage 2, rather they should be arriving as they are produced and prepared over the next several years.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Where do you get this "because they can't"? The City has a fleet of 34 cars, enough for 15 train sets and 4 spare cars. They chose to only use 13 trains initially because they felt that that would meet the demand (ref). They have since decided to use 14, and they are more than able to insert the 15th train any time they want if ridership increases.

If you can provide references to the contrary, please do so.

As for purchasing additional cars/trains; as part of stage 2 we already have contracted for an additional 38 cars, which could be added to the Stage 1 portion of the line as they become available, if there was the ridership to justify it. That contract was awarded back in Jun of 2017. These won't all show up just on day 1 of Stage 2, rather they should be arriving as they are produced and prepared over the next several years.

It will all settle out, in that we are agreement, but there is at least circumstantial evidence that OC Transpo moved the goal posts a bit within the terms of the contract to stop general complaints about the delayed opening. It's strange that ridership magically decreased enough to go to 13 when a mere month before Manconi said they absolutely need 15 and that there is a memo that the media obtained that Manconi was going to declare the test a failure. Assuming the they launched at a 3.8 minute peak frequency, the theoretical PPHD was only 9473, which is smaller than what the transitway had at closing. It seems foolish to launch without any slack capacity in the system at all, especially since this is a brand new rail model with an inexperienced operator, OC Transpo gave themselves no margin for error in their estimates at all. If they had sized for 11k pphd at launch, they would have had given themselves enough wiggle room in the system to handle inevitable delay rather then essentially requiring unrealistic 100% availability.

In that sense launching "early" worked, nobody's complaining about the delayed opening anymore

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

To me they knew they were opening with less trains than anticipated. They also should have known from the testing phase that bugs were not fully worked out. The bus transition should have been a lot more gradual, which would have added cost in the short term but been worth it in the long run.

I agree that they should have made the transition a bit more gradual (shorten the Rapid routes one week and the Connexion routes the next for example). They could even have kept the October 6 final transition date and made the gradual transition within that period (thus saving money rather than costing more).

I am not convinced that would have been significantly more effective. I don't think the inadequate dwell times (which was a major contributor to the door issues) would have been discovered until they had completely switched over. As a result, I don't think it would have been the Panacea that people hear think it would have been. It would also have brought about a round of complaints about why "my route" was shortened before others.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Where do you get this "because they can't"? The City has a fleet of 34 cars, enough for 15 train sets and 4 spare cars. They chose to only use 13 trains initially because they felt that that would meet the demand (ref). They have since decided to use 14, and they are more than able to insert the 15th train any time they want if ridership increases.

If you can provide references to the contrary, please do so.

As for purchasing additional cars/trains; as part of stage 2 we already have contracted for an additional 38 cars, which could be added to the Stage 1 portion of the line as they become available, if there was the ridership to justify it. That contract was awarded back in Jun of 2017. These won't all show up just on day 1 of Stage 2, rather they should be arriving as they are produced and prepared over the next several years.

Earlier this year the city suddenly dropped its requirement for operation from 15 to 13 vehicles.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/did-the-city-move-the-goalposts-for-accepting-lrt-1.5259353

As far as I know they never gave an explanation, but many seem to have assumed that the 15 vehicles were not ready.

[OTownandDown]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Earlier this year the city suddenly dropped its requirement for operation from 15 to 13 vehicles.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/did-the-city-move-the-goalposts-for-accepting-lrt-1.5259353

As far as I know they never gave an explanation, but many seem to have assumed that the 15 vehicles were not ready.

I drove past the trainyards..trainyard (?) and saw a whole bunch of unfinished train sets at the back end of the shed yesterday. I say unfinished because they were missing their fairings on the roof, and the roof infrastructure was still covered with peel-off protective plastic. I thought production was moving to Toronto?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Earlier this year the city suddenly dropped its requirement for operation from 15 to 13 vehicles.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/did-the-city-move-the-goalposts-for-accepting-lrt-1.5259353

As far as I know they never gave an explanation, but many seem to have assumed that the 15 vehicles were not ready.

The official reason given by Manconi was a drop in ridership.

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

I drove past the trainyards..trainyard (?) and saw a whole bunch of unfinished train sets at the back end of the shed yesterday. I say unfinished because they were missing their fairings on the roof, and the roof infrastructure was still covered with peel-off protective plastic. I thought production was moving to Toronto?

The first 13 sets will be assembled here in Ottawa, and those trainsets in the yard have been in that state for several months now.

There Stage 2 report from February 22nd (I think?) listed the production states of LRVs 35-38.

[lrt's friend]

They used the ridership statement as the rationale for going with 13 trains as it was more palatable to the public. Train reliability has been the real reason.

Has there been official confirmation that we are now running 14 trains?

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

They used the ridership statement as the rationale for going with 13 trains as it was more palatable to the public. Train reliability has been the real reason.

Has there been official confirmation that we are now running 14 trains?

That's still not proof that reliability was the real reason..

Maybe ridership numbers were fudged, but if it were anything it would be a (dumb) cost saving measure. Did you forget about the service cuts and how they made no sense either?

As far as we know the train control system isn't a major source of problems (beyond maybe the apparent TCMS faults, which aren't tied to the number of trains on the line). They haven't tossed thales under the train for any problems yet so I don't see why anyone is really buying into the idea that it's because 14/15 trains can't work together any better than 13..

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by roger1818

It would also have brought about a round of complaints about why "my route" was shortened before others.

Which could have been mitigated if OC Transpo would do something that is against its institutional DNA: be open and transparent about which routes were selected for which phase of transition and why.

People are pretty forgiving about inconvenient things if there's a sound explanation for them, AND YOU PROVIDE THEM WITH THAT EXPLANATION. OC Transpo has traditionally been terrible at that. It took a crisis, but they might finally be changing a little bit; the new live platform announcements under approvals will apparently provide more what-when-where-why information when there's a service interruption.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

That's still not proof that reliability was the real reason..

Maybe ridership numbers were fudged, but if it were anything it would be a (dumb) cost saving measure. Did you forget about the service cuts and how they made no sense either?

As far as we know the train control system isn't a major source of problems (beyond maybe the apparent TCMS faults, which aren't tied to the number of trains on the line). They haven't tossed thales under the train for any problems yet so I don't see why anyone is really buying into the idea that it's because 14/15 trains can't work together any better than 13..

I was thinking about reliability of individual trains. The door and computer problems that are known issues. And we also know that many trains had to be pulled out of service because of these problems. We also know that during the 12 day trial that they were not able to run 15 trains on an ongoing basis. This suggests that 2 spare trains were not enough. Also, I expect that certain faults have required maintenance staff to make changes to all the trains that meant that all the trains had to be rotated out of service to fix software, hardware and mechanical issues.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Which could have been mitigated if OC Transpo would do something that is against its institutional DNA: be open and transparent about which routes were selected for which phase of transition and why.

People are pretty forgiving about inconvenient things if there's a sound explanation for them, AND YOU PROVIDE THEM WITH THAT EXPLANATION. OC Transpo has traditionally been terrible at that. It took a crisis, but they might finally be changing a little bit; the new live platform announcements under approvals will apparently provide more what-when-where-why information when there's a service interruption.

An easy solution would have been to terminate all day routes first, then the Connexion routes, perhaps, east, south and finally west in that order.

This would a further four step switch over to the Confederation Line and more time to identify problems without the degree of crisis that we saw.

[Radster]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

They used the ridership statement as the rationale for going with 13 trains as it was more palatable to the public. Train reliability has been the real reason.

Has there been official confirmation that we are now running 14 trains?

Not to my knowledge. But if anyone can prove otherwise, feel free to post a link here.