Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

Do you know why the city insisted on trams instead of metro? Was it really a lack of imagination, was it a cost thing, or was it both? Enclosed stations sounds appealing. Too bad.

I remember a very early presentation. 2006 or 2007, where city staff were simply presenting the need for a rail system to replace the Transitway. After the engineer gave his long presentation, the very first public question was literally, "Why does Ottawa need a rail system? We're not Toronto or Montreal. Why can't we stick with buses?"

The mindset at the time was ridiculous. It still kinda persists today where so many people still see Ottawa as some kind of very large town and not a major metropolitan centre. I suspect this played a large part of feeding into the ridiculous requirement at the time of building a system that could operate in a fully segregated ROW and on the street. At the time, the idea was that when the Confederation Line reached the burbs, they'd run on the street or on existing Transitways as trams. The Fallowfield crash basically put an end to any discussion of mixed running anywhere in Ottawa. But also, once people started to get an idea of what metro service would look like with the Confederation Line, suburban councillors themselves started to reject the idea of what they saw as second class service.

[Williamoforange]

There was some report at the beginning that pushed low floor as all Ottawa needed.

But we true north stated there was and still is very much a perception that Ottawa is a small city not in need of large infrastructure like light Metro or even skyscrapers.

All I got for that report is this:
https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1536403827728990209?s=20&t=Q4-m-VPETS6HqajBcjsSbA

[lrt's friend]

This is a legacy of the cancelled project, which included grade crossings. We started out with one plan, which was to be revised, then it morphed to something completely different. All of these changes left some aspects of the original plan intact particularly the use of LRVs, while the idea of integration with the original plan was eliminated to save money. All the value engineering and revision upon revision produced an odd-ball system that in retrospect has been less than ideal. I don't believe that this city has the creativity or expertise to implement something like Montreal's REM. In any event, let's not glorify REM until it is in operation.

[rakerman]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

Do you know why the city insisted on trams instead of metro? Was it really a lack of imagination, was it a cost thing, or was it both? Enclosed stations sounds appealing. Too bad.

They wanted a system that could both do high volume in the core as well as low volume at-grade (surface rail; trams) in the suburbs.

I wrote about all the characteristics that went into their decision:

Ottawa 2009 Rail System Selection

In retrospect, they were trying to do too many very different things with a single vehicle.

They should have selected light metro for the core (to meet 20,000 - 24,000 PPHPD) and then light rail connections at the edges to the suburbs. The presenters at the 2009 rail tech forum and the analysis report they commissioned all told them that light rail couldn't do the core requirement of >20,000 PPHPD (passengers per hour per day).

Also, even with the city having chosen light rail, many people involved in the subsequent years as the project progressed should have gone back to the city before final vehicle selection and system design and told them that they had to change the decision to metro, because even with the best efforts to find a light rail vehicle, they couldn't find one that could actually do what the city wanted.

In any case, we're stuck with the decision and vehicles, it would cost billions to change from light rail to heavy rail metro now.

[rakerman]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

There was some report at the beginning that pushed low floor as all Ottawa needed.

But we true north stated there was and still is very much a perception that Ottawa is a small city not in need of large infrastructure like light Metro or even skyscrapers.

All I got for that report is this:
https://twitter.com/rail613/status/1536403827728990209?s=20&t=Q4-m-VPETS6HqajBcjsSbA

City of Ottawa - 2009 Delcan Transit Technology Choice Report (PDF)

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by rakerman

They wanted a system that could both do high volume in the core as well as low volume at-grade (surface rail; trams) in the suburbs.

I wrote about all the characteristics that went into their decision:

Ottawa 2009 Rail System Selection

In retrospect, they were trying to do too many very different things with a single vehicle.

They should have selected light metro for the core (to meet 20,000 - 24,000 PPHPD) and then light rail connections at the edges to the suburbs. The presenters at the 2009 rail tech forum and the analysis report they commissioned all told them that light rail couldn't do the core requirement of >20,000 PPHPD (passengers per hour per day).

Also, even with the city having chosen light rail, many people involved in the subsequent years as the project progressed should have gone back to the city before final vehicle selection and system design and told them that they had to change the decision to metro, because even with the best efforts to find a light rail vehicle, they couldn't find one that could actually do what the city wanted.

In any case, we're stuck with the decision and vehicles, it would cost billions to change from light rail to heavy rail metro now.

Thanks for the info and thanks to everyone else that answered. It's really disappointing that we prioritized the suburban commute though not surprising. I mean it's obvious enough when you use the confed line (which I do all the time) but it's still depressing to me. It's also too bad we had such a small town mayor/city council at a time when this major infrastructure project was planned and implemented.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by bartlebooth

Thanks for the info and thanks to everyone else that answered. It's really disappointing that we prioritized the suburban commute though not surprising. I mean it's obvious enough when you use the confed line (which I do all the time) but it's still depressing to me. It's also too bad we had such a small town mayor/city council at a time when this major infrastructure project was planned and implemented.

I think you forget at the time that this was forward thinking. At the time, the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) was a controversial and hotly debated idea. Larry O'Brien was the one who stuck his neck out and called for both the tunnel and a prioritization of East-West service which served the majority off commuters. The previous plan to build a tram running on the street through downtown and only terminating at U of O was worse.

Sometimes I'm honestly amazed that we have come as far as we have in the last 15 years. This city has a ridiculously stubborn pro-suburban mindset. And these people still think transit is almost entirely about getting civil servants to their 8-4 downtown cubicles.

[bartlebooth]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think you forget at the time that this was forward thinking. At the time, the Downtown Ottawa Transit Tunnel (DOTT) was a controversial and hotly debated idea. Larry O'Brien was the one who stuck his neck out and called for both the tunnel and a prioritization of East-West service which served the majority off commuters. The previous plan to build a tram running on the street through downtown and only terminating at U of O was worse.

Sometimes I'm honestly amazed that we have come as far as we have in the last 15 years. This city has a ridiculously stubborn pro-suburban mindset. And these people still think transit is almost entirely about getting civil servants to their 8-4 downtown cubicles.

Yeah, that's true. I struggle to remember things from last week let alone 10-15 years ago haha

[Truenorth00]

I'd love to know if we can make lemonade out of lemons and get somebody to engineer 100m long LRVs with even door intervals that fit our curves. Would enable PSDs and more space in the future.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd love to know if we can make lemonade out of lemons and get somebody to engineer 100m long LRVs with even door intervals that fit our curves. Would enable PSDs and more space in the future.

I'd imagine it would be possible if there was a demand for them. The only challenge I see is a low floor accessible version.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd imagine it would be possible if there was a demand for them. The only challenge I see is a low floor accessible version.

I wonder why it can't be done today. The only things that comes to mind in stopping just hitching two trains with no second cab module together are

1)That second cab housing some of the control modules currently used for hitching two trains together.

2)The safety circuitry and accompanying certification that will look for a second output per control module.

Technically the software and controls are done for having 1 train with 2 control modules and etc in it.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'd love to know if we can make lemonade out of lemons and get somebody to engineer 100m long LRVs with even door intervals that fit our curves. Would enable PSDs and more space in the future.

Ironically those would be even less service proven than the Citadis Spirit!

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'd imagine it would be possible if there was a demand for them. The only challenge I see is a low floor accessible version.

I would imagine a 70% low floor vehicle would make it easier to accomplish a longer train. The system can easily accommodate 70% low floor vehicles.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

I wonder why it can't be done today. The only things that comes to mind in stopping just hitching two trains with no second cab module together are

1)That second cab housing some of the control modules currently used for hitching two trains together.

2)The safety circuitry and accompanying certification that will look for a second output per control module.

Technically the software and controls are done for having 1 train with 2 control modules and etc in it.

Or, you stop trying to shorten trains and keep them continuous like the Rocket subways and the current Streetcars in Toronto. No need to reinvent the wheel.

[Williamoforange]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, you stop trying to shorten trains and keep them continuous like the Rocket subways and the current Streetcars in Toronto. No need to reinvent the wheel.

Meant doing to while still keeping the full length the same.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Williamoforange

Meant doing to while still keeping the full length the same.

It sounded like you wanted to be able to make the train shorter at times.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Or, you stop trying to shorten trains and keep them continuous like the Rocket subways and the current Streetcars in Toronto. No need to reinvent the wheel.

You can't have Rocket type trains of a fixed, full length on our system as the maintenance facilities won't accommodate them. It would be possible to design a train with a "B" end that had no cab and possibly only hostler controls, and couple those together in the middle to increase capacity should it ever be required, and this could possibly yield some cost savings.

As for PEDs, a train with an added module would have an almost symmetrical design end for end. In this situation, the middle door would move about a metre in either direction depending on the orientation of the train, but a wider PED in that location should be able to accommodate that.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Catenary

You can't have Rocket type trains of a fixed, full length on our system as the maintenance facilities won't accommodate them. It would be possible to design a train with a "B" end that had no cab and possibly only hostler controls, and couple those together in the middle to increase capacity should it ever be required, and this could possibly yield some cost savings.

As for PEDs, a train with an added module would have an almost symmetrical design end for end. In this situation, the middle door would move about a metre in either direction depending on the orientation of the train, but a wider PED in that location should be able to accommodate that.

Build them to the length that the facility can handle. Or, built a new facility for these and phase out the others. Then rebuild the other facilities to fit the new ones?

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Build them to the length that the facility can handle. Or, built a new facility for these and phase out the others. Then rebuild the other facilities to fit the new ones?

The existing facilities can likely handle a 59m car, the existing 48m cars with an added module. Considering the platforms are 90m long with room to extend a bit, you're still left with 1/2 length trains if you build them to maximum maintenance length.

Look at the existing MSF - there's no room on that site to double the length of the maintenance bays. While the trains may be due for replacement after 30-40 years of use, the maintenance facility will have a longer lifespan than that, so replacing it so soon would be wasteful.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

Ironically those would be even less service proven than the Citadis Spirit!

Ironically, we could offer a great testbed and run a really long development and proving cycle here now that the Confederation Line is running. There could well be a market for such kit. I can't imagine that Ottawa is the only city that wants a light metro. And at the end of the day these LRVs do seem to be compatible with smaller footprint and at-grade stations.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ironically, we could offer a great testbed and run a really long development and proving cycle here now that the Confederation Line is running. There could well be a market for such kit. I can't imagine that Ottawa is the only city that wants a light metro. And at the end of the day these LRVs do seem to be compatible with smaller footprint and at-grade stations.

Ottawa would have made a better choice with the Siemens vehicles used by Edmonton and Calgary and high level platforms.