Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Pretend the words:
tram
LRT
Metro
Subway
Streetcar
Does not exist. Now, explain how these cars, running as they were designed to do, on ROW that was designed with these cars in mind are having problems.

I find it is weird they have door open buttons. In Vancouver Skytrain originally had those. They have been disabled on the older cars and omitted on new trains. All doors open at all stations and then close when its time to leave.

When skytrain was first installed the doors would get stuck due to snow getting between the door and side of the car. (Odd for cars originally designed for and manufactured in Ontario.) First year the staff at each station were there with spray bottles and antifreeze. At some point they figured it out. No one remembers anymore. I suspect the same thing for Ottawa. In two years no one will remember any of these issues.

What I find shocking is why in the world did they build a modern system that requires drivers. What is the point of that. Vancouver skytrain demonstrated in the 1980s that you build a large scale system with automation. For all I know skytrain may still using the same old OS/2 computer to run the system. However there should be more modern alternatives.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Pretend the words:
tram
LRT
Metro
Subway
Streetcar
Does not exist. Now, explain how these cars, running as they were designed to do, on ROW that was designed with these cars in mind are having problems.

We already did. Those cars were not meant for high volumes of passengers. That's probably why they had problems with the doors. It is also probably why it derailed. This was a failed experiment. You don't run trams like metros. It doesn't work. They tried being cheap will continue to cost them too much in repairs.

https://youtu.be/VBVDWyHYk98

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Luisito

They are using a tram as a metro. They have had major issues with it from day one. These cars are not meant to be used like a metro but that is how they are operated. It will be a never ending story with these trains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6gMK4uT62E&t=16s

This video was made before the derailment. The nations capital deserves better.

I agree that the system should have been a high floor light metro from day one but, as nouvellecosse mentioned, they originally planned for extensions of the line to run at grade on the surface, and then ditched that when the line was already well into development.

I'm not sure if the major technical faults with the O-Train have to do with the fact that the vehicles are 100% low floor, but when it's time to retire these trainsets, I hope they go with the 70% lowfloor solution that's used in cities like Minneapolis, Seattle or Phoenix. Those vehicles tend to be less complicated and, frankly, have better internal circulation for anyone who isn't bound by a wheelchair (people in a wheelchair still have easy access).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

We already did. Those cars were not meant for high volumes of passengers. That's probably why they had problems with the doors. It is also probably why it derailed. This was a failed experiment. You don't run trams like metros. It doesn't work. They tried being cheap will continue to cost them too much in repairs.

https://youtu.be/VBVDWyHYk98

So, if they were still going to be street running, there would be no issues?

[AuxTown]

Ottawa spent a lot of money on grade separation. Our biggest issue was that buses and busways were getting jammed for hours every day (particularly at peak times) so complete grade separation was the only way to improve the current comuting times. I think that, once they work out the kinks with our current vehicles, our current rolling stock will serve their purpose well.

[Nouvellecosse]

The main issued that I've heard of regarding the rolling stock are with

A) The plug style doors (which pop out and then slide sideways on the outside of the vehicle) which can malfunction if people force them or something gets caught in them. The doors are also just more complex and prone to breaking, while regular internal sliding doors tend to be more resilient. This is not strictly an issue of LRT vs metro rolling stock since you can find are examples of each door type on each rolling stock, but plug-style doors are much less common on metro vehicles. Plug doors do tend to be better in terms of climate insulation though.

B) 100% low floor leaves less space beneath the train for the bogies and other mechanical components so low floor vehicles tend to not have independently articulating axles. This isn't as much of an issue at lower speeds or when not on curves but at higher speeds and on curves it causes more wheel and track wear. It's sometimes considered an acceptable trade off for on-street operation if high floor isn't possible due to the accessibility benefits, but otherwise isn't optimal since not only does it compromise the under train components, it also is better in terms of interior layout as hipster mentioned.

There's also the issue of uneven door spacing which negatively affects loading/unloading (dwell time) but that's a fairly minor issue.

The takeaway is that this type of train would have the same reasonably minor downsides whether it's used for street running or not, but the ability to street run sometimes makes it an acceptable trade off. As far as I'm aware, the defect that caused the derailments has nothing to do with them being LRT vehicles and manufacturing or design errors can happen with any type of stock. So it's reasonable to wish they had taken advantage of the full grade separation and used metro rolling stock, but it isn't that big of a deal. Nothing to agonize about.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, if they were still going to be street running, there would be no issues?

Yes in general trams run slower carry less people and run at grade for the most part. They are not meant to run at high volumes like a metro.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I agree that the system should have been a high floor light metro from day one but, as nouvellecosse mentioned, they originally planned for extensions of the line to run at grade on the surface, and then ditched that when the line was already well into development.

I'm not sure if the major technical faults with the O-Train have to do with the fact that the vehicles are 100% low floor, but when it's time to retire these trainsets, I hope they go with the 70% lowfloor solution that's used in cities like Minneapolis, Seattle or Phoenix. Those vehicles tend to be less complicated and, frankly, have better internal circulation for anyone who isn't bound by a wheelchair (people in a wheelchair still have easy access).

Good point, even a high floor LRT would have been better. Like the edmonton trains. There are other examples of high floor lrt that work fine.
You bring up a good point.

[J.OT13]

The main issue with Ottawa's Confederation Line was the rush to complete it, resulting in poor workmanship on the Line and the trains, and bad maintenance practices.

Issues on the Line have been mostly resolved, though some exaggerated curves like at Hurdman will be an ongoing issue for life (result of not negotiating for more land with the NCC and bad design from the get-go). And yes, low-floor means more complicated maintenance, but that should not be an issue with a good maintenance regime.

Loading/unloading and circulation on the train due to the low-floor design will also always be problematic, but Stage 2 resolve most of this by spreading the transfers further outside the core. Hurdman, again, as the highest volume transfer station post-Stage 2, will continue to be an issue.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

The main issued that I've heard of regarding the rolling stock are with

A) The plug style doors (which pop out and then slide sideways on the outside of the vehicle) which can malfunction if people force them or something gets caught in them. The doors are also just more complex and prone to breaking, while regular internal sliding doors tend to be more resilient. This is not strictly an issue of LRT vs metro rolling stock since you can find are examples of each door type on each rolling stock, but plug-style doors are much less common on metro vehicles. Plug doors do tend to be better in terms of climate insulation though.

B) 100% low floor leaves less space beneath the train for the bogies and other mechanical components so low floor vehicles tend to not have independently articulating axles. This isn't as much of an issue at lower speeds or when not on curves but at higher speeds and on curves it causes more wheel and track wear. It's sometimes considered an acceptable trade off for on-street operation if high floor isn't possible due to the accessibility benefits, but otherwise isn't optimal since not only does it compromise the under train components, it also is better in terms of interior layout as hipster mentioned.

There's also the issue of uneven door spacing which negatively affects loading/unloading (dwell time) but that's a fairly minor issue.

The takeaway is that this type of train would have the same reasonably minor downsides whether it's used for street running or not, but the ability to street run sometimes makes it an acceptable trade off. As far as I'm aware, the defect that caused the derailments has nothing to do with them being LRT vehicles and manufacturing or design errors can happen with any type of stock. So it's reasonable to wish they had taken advantage of the full grade separation and used metro rolling stock, but it isn't that big of a deal. Nothing to agonize about.

None of those points to a failure point that we have been seeing. They point to a poor choice for the line, but not to a failure point.

Originally Posted by Luisito

Yes in general trams run slower carry less people and run at grade for the most part. They are not meant to run at high volumes like a metro.

The TTC might ant to speak to you. Their streetcars are some of the busiest lines in Canada.

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The main issue with Ottawa's Confederation Line was the rush to complete it, resulting in poor workmanship on the Line and the trains, and bad maintenance practices.

Issues on the Line have been mostly resolved, though some exaggerated curves like at Hurdman will be an ongoing issue for life (result of not negotiating for more land with the NCC and bad design from the get-go). And yes, low-floor means more complicated maintenance, but that should not be an issue with a good maintenance regime.

Loading/unloading and circulation on the train due to the low-floor design will also always be problematic, but Stage 2 resolve most of this by spreading the transfers further outside the core. Hurdman, again, as the highest volume transfer station post-Stage 2, will continue to be an issue.

Why is it that people will blame everything but shoddy workmanship and shoddy maintenance? The more and more I hear of the issues, the less the vehicle type and more the amount and type of maintenance being done seems to be the issues. Other low floor vehicles run just as fast without much issue. Other low floor vehicles run higher passenger load without much issue.

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Yes in general trams run slower carry less people and run at grade for the most part. They are not meant to run at high volumes like a metro.

I can't comment on maximum speeds. Shouldn't these intermediate capacities be more than sufficient? I'm thinking of other cities with Ottawa's population (not the best comparison.)

[casper]

You keep missing the most significant issue with the Ottawa system. The lack of automation. Who in their right mind would build a new modern grade separated system in this day and age and not have it fully automated.

Doing automation allows far more flexibility that having drivers.

Vancouver Skytrain provides over 25 years of proof that such systems can and do work well.

[Beedok]

I’m fairly certain that Line 1 is effectively automated? The drivers are only there for weird emergencies, and, also, are mostly there because the union managed to negotiate it. But, most of the time, they’re just pushing a button every so often to assure the train that they’re still there and it’s driving itself.

[Nouvellecosse]

The same thing happened with the Scarborough RT (line 3) in Toronto where it is automated (same technology as Skytrain) but they still have operators present.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

You keep missing the most significant issue with the Ottawa system. The lack of automation. Who in their right mind would build a new modern grade separated system in this day and age and not have it fully automated.

Doing automation allows far more flexibility that having drivers.

Vancouver Skytrain provides over 25 years of proof that such systems can and do work well.

Vancouver's is, but the rest of Canada's are not. So, why aren't the rest having these problems.

Originally Posted by Beedok

I’m fairly certain that Line 1 is effectively automated? The drivers are only there for weird emergencies, and, also, are mostly there because the union managed to negotiate it. But, most of the time, they’re just pushing a button every so often to assure the train that they’re still there and it’s driving itself.

They are not, not yet.

[casper]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Vancouver's is, but the rest of Canada's are not. So, why aren't the rest having these problems.

They are not, not yet.

Rest of Canada is either working with level crossing (e.g., Calgary, Edmonton) or antiquated work practices from the 1930s.

Let the computer do the driving. The drivers can be given new jobs as conductors to provide assistance for passengers or phased out to reduce operating costs.

Going driver less means you can operate smaller trains more frequently without increment costs, have people available on station platforms to deal with issues such as stuck doors etc. An overall better experience.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The TTC might ant to speak to you. Their streetcars are some of the busiest lines in Canada.
.

yes they are indeed. That is what Ottawa should have done with their street cars also.

[craner]

The question of driverless trains has come up on Calgary’s Green Line discussion and the biggest obstacle I’ve heard is the transit union.

Regarding the low-floor vs high-floor discussion:
Personally, I think high-floor is vastly superior and I wish that is what Calgary was going with. Especially since the existing system is high-floor - it’s a real head scratcher for me. The decision to go low-floor seems to be a desire to appear “trendy” and build an “urban friendly” line - efficiency be damned. Just writing this is making me angry - low-floor 🞵🞵🞵🞵🞵!!

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Why is it that people will blame everything but shoddy workmanship and shoddy maintenance? The more and more I hear of the issues, the less the vehicle type and more the amount and type of maintenance being done seems to be the issues. Other low floor vehicles run just as fast without much issue. Other low floor vehicles run higher passenger load without much issue.

In the present line configuration, low-floor is an issue as it dictates fewer doors and that has been problematic at the high-volume transfer stations, particularly Tunney's Pasture. Phase 2 will address this for the most part, but it will remain a limitation of the rolling stock.

Mostly, though, the issues seem to be due to poor management with RTG. The recent derailment was entirely due to shoddy maintenance practices and poor record keeping. The failure wouldn't have happened in a properly managed organization. Organizational issues aren't nearly as fun to debate online though.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by casper

Rest of Canada is either working with level crossing (e.g., Calgary, Edmonton) or antiquated work practices from the 1930s.

Let the computer do the driving. The drivers can be given new jobs as conductors to provide assistance for passengers or phased out to reduce operating costs.

Going driver less means you can operate smaller trains more frequently without increment costs, have people available on station platforms to deal with issues such as stuck doors etc. An overall better experience.

Does not explain the derailment.

Originally Posted by Luisito

yes they are indeed. That is what Ottawa should have done with their street cars also.

Does not explain the derailment.

Originally Posted by jamincan

In the present line configuration, low-floor is an issue as it dictates fewer doors and that has been problematic at the high-volume transfer stations, particularly Tunney's Pasture. Phase 2 will address this for the most part, but it will remain a limitation of the rolling stock.

Mostly, though, the issues seem to be due to poor management with RTG. The recent derailment was entirely due to shoddy maintenance practices and poor record keeping. The failure wouldn't have happened in a properly managed organization. Organizational issues aren't nearly as fun to debate online though.

Why is it that the focus is not on maintenance, and more on the type of vehicle it is?