Confederation Line (Stage 1) | In Service 1.0

[lrt's friend]

Permanent solution? Do we have one yet? It sounds like those curves between Lees and Tremblay are the big culprit.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Permanent solution? Do we have one yet? It sounds like those curves between Lees and Tremblay are the big culprit.

And yet the city wants to repeat the problem in Stage 3 because they don't want to expropriate the land that the owner is planning to renovict the tenants anyway to convert them to luxury townhomes.

[SL123]

Originally Posted by roger1818

And yet the city wants to repeat the problem in Stage 3 because they don't want to expropriate the land that the owner is planning to renovict the tenants anyway to convert them to luxury townhomes.

They're repeating it for stage 2 as well. One just need to look at those curves right after Blair station to know its a disaster in the making.


From Rail Fans

[Richard Eade]

In fairness; the curves in that image look more severe than they really are. That photo appears to have been taken with a telephoto lens; which gives a foreshortened view.

[MalcolmTucker]

At this point I have to wonder whether replacing the 100% low for trains with 70% low floor trains would solve the various associated problems with the axles by going to a more conventional bogie layout like the one for the S70 on page 28 of this https://web.archive.org/web/201907222304...onents-and-systems/bogies-catalog-en.pdf

versus the low floor one on page 22.

Maybe just maybe acknowledge that the original output specifications (100% low floor with high floor speeds edit: was heavily preferred) is a tradeoff where all bidders would have had similar failures.

[Kelnoz]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Maybe just maybe acknowledge that the original output specifications (100% low floor with high floor speeds) is a tradeoff where all bidders would have had similar failures.

Was 100% low floor a requirement? Low floor was, but I'm pretty sure 70% was accepted.

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Kelnoz

Was 100% low floor a requirement? Low floor was, but I'm pretty sure 70% was accepted.

I haven't looked at things in detail (and I can't find the original output spec in a quick google, alas) since I was a consultant on a small aspect of the procurement design process more than a decade ago. The process included a long period called competitive dialog in P3 parlance, where bidders and procurers can iterate. Optional things can be requirements if scored high enough.

I can tell you that the somewhat simultaneous TTC streetcar project that preferenced 100% low floor to a great degree (but allowed 70%) was big in bidders minds. There is a reason during this process the winning bidders were able to get the requirement for a proven vehicle removed (which likely was a 70% low floor RegioCitadis) and replaced with what Ottawa got. The procurers didn't want the lowest bid screened out for proposing a 70% train.

[lrt's friend]

Is this really a train problem or was the track improperly designed for the trains? Nevertheless, how long will closure last this time? Days, weeks, months? It seems to me that go slow orders, which was designed to reduce stress on the trains has not worked. Is it now time to find a permanent solution even if means a substantial closure?

[Spoonsy]

did they really discover this the day after bluesfest or did they just cross their fingers for a week?

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Is this really a train problem or was the track improperly designed for the trains? Nevertheless, how long will closure last this time? Days, weeks, months? It seems to me that go slow orders, which was designed to reduce stress on the trains has not worked. Is it now time to find a permanent solution even if means a substantial closure?

Well, it is all meant to be an optimization, with different bidders adjusting things to best meet the output specification while minimizing overall costs (the balance of capital, operations, and maintenance) over the contract term.

Clearly the bidder felt pressure to be over optimistic about the vehicle given the design of the tracks, or didn't reevaluate maintenance needs for vehicles after design changes driven by costs for tracks.

In any case now is a mitigation point. And the problem comes back to money - does the city want to push the project into failure to solve the problem? What is the best way to solve the problems?

I'd bet there are two options:

• accept slower service as in full compliance with the contract but make up for the loss in ppdph with additional consists
• replace the vehicles (likely at majority city expense)

[Fading Isle]

If this was only a matter of inspecting all the trains, they should have a pretty clear idea of how long that takes and be able to give a timeline. The fact that they’ve specifically said the closure is indefinite suggests a bigger issue and a potentially quite lengthy closure doesn’t it?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Well, it is all meant to be an optimization, with different bidders adjusting things to best meet the output specification while minimizing overall costs (the balance of capital, operations, and maintenance) over the contract term.

Clearly the bidder felt pressure to be over optimistic about the vehicle given the design of the tracks, or didn't reevaluate maintenance needs for vehicles after design changes driven by costs for tracks.

In any case now is a mitigation point. And the problem comes back to money - does the city want to push the project into failure to solve the problem? What is the best way to solve the problems?

I'd bet there are two options:

• accept slower service as in full compliance with the contract but make up for the loss in ppdph with additional consists
• replace the vehicles (likely at majority city expense)

The ultimate solution might require a new bridge over the Rideau (pointing more to the east) and relocation of Hurdman Station, a very expensive solution.

We have had go slow orders for a year and still are having axle problems. How slow can we go to keep these trains running? Walking speed instead of bicycle speed? This will be a catastrophe for Ottawa transit, since the problem area is so central to the system.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by SL123

They're repeating it for stage 2 as well. One just need to look at those curves right after Blair station to know its a disaster in the making.


From Rail Fans

Originally Posted by Richard Eade

In fairness; the curves in that image look more severe than they really are. That photo appears to have been taken with a telephoto lens; which gives a foreshortened view.

Not quite as severe as what the picture suggests, but still a questionable design choice. Originally, they were planning building a new underpass, but decided not to to cut costs.

"This improvement will decrease construction complexity and costs associated with the life cycle maintenance and inspection of the tunnel structures," Swail wrote in the memo, adding that the new design allows for future integration with the planned Cumberland Transitway.

True it decreases construction complexity, but saving costs on life cycle maintenance is an outright lie. Swail had no issues straight up lying to the public and Council, under the direction of Watson.

I also fail to understand how the rail line and Cumberland Transitway can co-exist in one underpass.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/cleary-station-lrt-ottawa-1.3506075

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

At this point I have to wonder whether replacing the 100% low for trains with 70% low floor trains would solve the various associated problems with the axles by going to a more conventional bogie layout like the one for the S70 on page 28 of this https://web.archive.org/web/201907222304...onents-and-systems/bogies-catalog-en.pdf

versus the low floor one on page 22.

Maybe just maybe acknowledge that the original output specifications (100% low floor with high floor speeds edit: was heavily preferred) is a tradeoff where all bidders would have had similar failures.

I don't think 70% low floor would allow for open gangways. Even if it did, it would result in far less efficient movement of people through the train.

I wonder if smaller modules (and therefore, shorter wheel bases) would help.

[ponyboycurtis]

Are the boogies on each side of the train car fixed?

I feel like i remember hearing some rumblings about pivoting boogies but rejected to save cost. I have no clue where I might have got that information from and it could all be a feverish dream after using this transit system.

If a pivoting boogie could be adapted I think that would pretty much solve this issue no?

Here is a quick blurb from Wiki under 'Low-floor tram'

"Many low floor trams have fixed bogies[3] which increase track wear and tear, while decreasing the speed at which a tram can drive through a curve (usually 4–15 km/h in 20 m radius curve).[4] The Škoda ForCity and the newest Alstom Citadis X04 try to counter the effect with low floor pivoting bogies while maintaining 100% low floor design. Prior to the new design, pivoting bogies could only be used under high floors, hence such trams could only be part low-floor, with high-floor sections over the pivoting bogies."

[MalcolmTucker]

I imagine they're much like this:
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/288839/42811068

It is likely the high-speed operations creates stress that is hard to mitigate. Might even be the semi-automated operating manner creates the exact same stress each time operating through curves at speed, compounding the problem that the randomness introduced by human operation causes.

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

Are the boogies on each side of the train car fixed?

Your Avatar says it all

[Tesladom]

Originally Posted by ponyboycurtis

Are the boogies on each side of the train car fixed?

Your Avatar says it all

[OTownandDown]

Did we have a track layout design decision based on a radius spec, followed by a cost saving non-pivoting bogie that would ultimately require a larger radius and now we're in a jamb and RTG are internally finished pointing fingers and have burned that particular file.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OTownandDown

Did we have a track layout design decision based on a radius spec, followed by a cost saving non-pivoting bogie that would ultimately require a larger radius and now we're in a jamb and RTG are internally finished pointing fingers and have burned that particular file.

On time, on budget, well the latter anyways.

[daud]

honest question:

Is there a train in the market that could replace our trains and run on our system?

Comments (not a train expert at all)

It really seems to me Alstom delivered a prototype product that didn't meet the spec (higher speeds and higher volume). That's on them.

It also seems to me that our city procurement chose a solution that had elements that were simply just prototypes. Modified from the original models to increase speed and capacity. Hindsight is 20/20 but we should have stuck to something that was tested and known. That part is on us.

I, like many others have been calling this system a lemon for years now. Some of the other issues are not "deal breakers" per say but this bearing issue seems to be a critical one. Wilson Lo on CTV today admitted there are going to likely be some very difficult decisions and conversations to be had about this line and any long term solution.

I love this system when it works, the trains look awesome, the tunnel and stations for the most part look awesome too but this is probably the biggest mess our city has ever managed to get themselves into-and there have been a few!