Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Wow, they didn't take the cheapest bid? That's unheard of in Ottawa. Cheapest bid is basically the only criteria here.

Sad but true. That's why Ottawa uses street cars for a metro system. The nations capital deserves a better transit system.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

Sad but true. That's why Ottawa has uses street cars for a metro system. The nations capital deserves a better transit system.

That still does not explain why the system is so badly flawed. Why are they having all the defects? this cannot be blamed on the type of equipment.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Wow, they didn't take the cheapest bid? That's unheard of in Ottawa. Cheapest bid is basically the only criteria here.

Looking forward to Ottawa's Trillium Line Phase 2 when the lowest bid was accepted despite failing to meet technical requirements, not once, but also following a second review. What will this mean to the rider when it opens?

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Greetingsfromcanada

Canada needs to do what India does. They built 1 system in Delhi that works really well and the rest of country basically contracts them to consult and design all their systems. If Ontario talked to Translink, I'm sure they would have come up with something more reasonable

China perfected this long before India.
All transit lines have about 9 standard plans that the authorities can pick from.
Many cities have the same plans and it allows China to build transit at the cheapest prices in the world.
In Canada everything is designed from scratch and using different materials and equipment from every other project and costing billions more compared to if everything is standardized

[rbt]

Originally Posted by Nite

China perfected this long before India.
All transit lines have about 9 standard plans that the authorities can pick from.
Many cities have the same plans and it allows China to build transit at the cheapest prices in the world.
In Canada everything is designed from scratch and using different materials and equipment from every other project and costing billions more compared to if everything is standardized

Madrid was similar. They had a few standard plans and a full-time in-house engineering team who just laid out, and periodically updated, line designs.

Mayoral candidates would pick from the list of pre-designed lines as part of their campaign, then immediately tender construction when elected.

[Luisito]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That still does not explain why the system is so badly flawed. Why are they having all the defects? this cannot be blamed on the type of equipment.

True.....though maybe it can? Running trams like a metro? Were the cars properply designed to move at such high speeds with so many people? Even if that isn't the reason, it 's still rather unfortunate the city went to all the trouble to build a grade separated system(like a metro system) for trains that are essentially street cars/trams. Had they used actual metro trains would they have run into so many problems?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Luisito

True.....though maybe it can? Running trams like a metro? Were the cars properply designed to move at such high speeds with so many people? Even if that isn't the reason, it 's still rather unfortunate the city went to all the trouble to build a grade separated system(like a metro system) for trains that are essentially street cars/trams. Had they used actual metro trains would they have run into so many problems?

I feel this is more of a quality issue than a design issue.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by Luisito

True.....though maybe it can? Running trams like a metro? Were the cars properply designed to move at such high speeds with so many people? Even if that isn't the reason, it 's still rather unfortunate the city went to all the trouble to build a grade separated system(like a metro system) for trains that are essentially street cars/trams. Had they used actual metro trains would they have run into so many problems?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I feel this is more of a quality issue than a design issue.

I think it's both. The trains are certainly not well adapted for their usage in Ottawa. Limited number of doors and restricted circulation within the train caused some of those early issues.

But yes, quality of the build and maintenance was also a factor, which seem to have been mostly resolved. if we start seeing pre-pandemic volumes however...

[Coldrsx]

Ottawa and Edmonton have something in common.

https://edmontonjournal.com/opinion/...-for-edmontons

[thewave46]

China isn't a good model for us. We didn't build a dozen mass-transit systems in the span of a generation. It's a bunch of different provinces and cities constructing different systems across different eras.

A 'standard' Canadian design would be, what, exactly? The TTC/Montreal Metro were 'big-city' heavy-rail projects that spanned from the '50s to the '80s. The C-Train and Edmonton LRT were '70s-era light-rail for cities of less than a million. Vancouver did its own thing with SkyTrain in the 1980s, splitting the difference.

Sure it's kludgey, but a 'standard' design would have failed badly for this country. One would end up with either hugely overbuilt systems, or hilariously under-built ones.

[Luisito]

Sure it's kludgey, but a 'standard' design would have failed badly for this country. One would end up with either hugely overbuilt systems, or hilariously under-built ones.

That almost seems to be what is happening now with LRT though. The same model low floor trams seems to be the standard for everything.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by thewave46

China isn't a good model for us. We didn't build a dozen mass-transit systems in the span of a generation. It's a bunch of different provinces and cities constructing different systems across different eras.

A 'standard' Canadian design would be, what, exactly? The TTC/Montreal Metro were 'big-city' heavy-rail projects that spanned from the '50s to the '80s. The C-Train and Edmonton LRT were '70s-era light-rail for cities of less than a million. Vancouver did its own thing with SkyTrain in the 1980s, splitting the difference.

Sure it's kludgey, but a 'standard' design would have failed badly for this country. One would end up with either hugely overbuilt systems, or hilariously under-built ones.

Ontario was building two systems that should have been light metro at the same time and instead used (different) streetcars for both. (Eglington and the Ottawa system). Edmonton and Vancouver have also recently built light metro systems (with more lines planned). Montreal is currently building a light metro system.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Luisito

That's almost seems to be what is happening now with LRT though. The same model low floor trams seems to be the standard for everything.

Right now, Canada is layering transit on relatively low density areas.We are trading capability for distance.

So, one ends up with sub-optimal situations when trying to do this.

The low-floor LRTs are a symptom, not a cause. It's to cut down on cost (lose the heavy-duty/high capacity rolling stock) so that one can stretch the system further.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ontario was building two systems that should have been light metro at the same time and instead used (different) streetcars for both. (Eglington and the Ottawa system). Edmonton and Vancouver have also recently built light metro systems (with more lines planned). Montreal is currently building a light metro system.

The value of mass-standardization might have worked if the systems were interconnected, or the things were built as a mass project run by the federal government.

The economics of a standard design don't pencil out if one is building piecemeal projects thousands of kilometres away from each other.

Now, if there was a concentrated, national multi-decade infrastructure plan that crosses provincial borders, sure. Have fun with that in this country as set up. Heck, even keeping the ability to do that alive (as Hydro-Quebec does with its projects) by continually expanding might be worthwhile, instead of re-learning lessons over and over. Canada's too disconnected for that. Feast and famine.

The fact that the Eglinton Line and Confederation Line use different rolling stock seems irrelevant, because no economies of scale will be realized. Neither will run on the other's track, nor be serviced by the other. Within a system? That makes more sense.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by thewave46

China isn't a good model for us. We didn't build a dozen mass-transit systems in the span of a generation. It's a bunch of different provinces and cities constructing different systems across different eras.

A 'standard' Canadian design would be, what, exactly? The TTC/Montreal Metro were 'big-city' heavy-rail projects that spanned from the '50s to the '80s. The C-Train and Edmonton LRT were '70s-era light-rail for cities of less than a million. Vancouver did its own thing with SkyTrain in the 1980s, splitting the difference.

Sure it's kludgey, but a 'standard' design would have failed badly for this country. One would end up with either hugely overbuilt systems, or hilariously under-built ones.

That's why China has about 9 standards to fit all transit types and the local transit authority picks from these 9 standard models, once picked nearly everything such as stations, vehicles to materials are already chosen.

everything is known such as how long it will take, machinery needed, amount of staff, station layouts, total cost, etc... because the authority will use one of the 9 standards.
such a system in Canada would have avoid both the problems in Edmonton and Ottawa because there would be no need to design new columns or use the wrong vehicles.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Nite

That's why China has about 9 standards to fit all transit types and the local transit authority picks from these 9 standard models, once picked nearly everything such as stations, vehicles to materials are already chosen.

everything is known such as how long it will take, machinery needed, amount of staff, station layouts, total cost, etc... because the authority will use one of the 9 standards

Without stating the obvious, China is very different from Canada.

Putting aside the political systems and the whole role of infrastructure development as a make-work/stifle-dissent project of a centralized government, China has 145 cities of over 1 million people; 21 cities of over 5 million. We have 6 and 1, respectively.

Within those cities, the urban built form is remarkably similar owing, of course, to central planning. Whether you're in Shanghai or Shijiazhuang you have a relatively uniform high density city with a collection of polycentric commercial nodes.

In Canada rapid transit lines are currently being built to serve everything from exurban Ottawa sprawl to Toronto's financial district which has over 100,000 jobs in about a square kilometre.


It's not just an economy of scale, it's the economy of a standardized urban context.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by thewave46

The value of mass-standardization might have worked if the systems were interconnected, or the things were built as a mass project run by the federal government.

The economics of a standard design don't pencil out if one is building piecemeal projects thousands of kilometres away from each other.

Now, if there was a concentrated, national multi-decade infrastructure plan that crosses provincial borders, sure. Have fun with that in this country as set up. Heck, even keeping the ability to do that alive (as Hydro-Quebec does with its projects) by continually expanding might be worthwhile, instead of re-learning lessons over and over. Canada's too disconnected for that. Feast and famine.

The fact that the Eglinton Line and Confederation Line use different rolling stock seems irrelevant, because no economies of scale will be realized. Neither will run on the other's track, nor be serviced by the other. Within a system? That makes more sense.

If you standardize the rolling stock you iron out the bugs once. Instead we have a half dozen projects across the country with different rolling stock all ironing out the bugs separately.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you standardize the rolling stock you iron out the bugs once. Instead we have a half dozen projects across the country with different rolling stock all ironing out the bugs separately.

Or you buy a proven piece of equipment from a global manufacturer, instead of rolling the dice on something untested?

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Or you buy a proven piece of equipment from a global manufacturer, instead of rolling the dice on something untested?

Maybe I'm projecting as a Torontonian who's interested in transit, but I have a theory that BBD's decision to be the only manufacturer who met the TTC's [ridiculous] bid to replace the TTC's legacy fleet of streetcars resulted in a soft power PR disaster that might have imperilled the entire company - not just its transportation division, but its aerospace one too.

Long story short, the TTC had a juicy contract - supply 200 light rail vehicles - that seemed too lucrative to pass up, but given the onerous technical requirements such as dealing with the TTC's outdated switches, extremely tight turning radii and steep grades, only one bidder, BBD, bothered to go ahead with a bid. It turned out to be a Pyrrhic victory where the product suffered failures and deficiencies and downtown Torontonians who rely on the streetcars to get them to their financial district and media jobs were left with years of riding substitute buses as the kinks got sorted out again and again. When they penned columns in the Globe and the Star they would not shut up about it. Even when there would be news articles about something Bombardier related that had nothing to do with rail transportation, like subsidies for the C-series, there would be a barrage of newspaper commenters moaning about how BBD was this huge Quebec corporate welfare recipient that gave the rest of us shitty streetcars that didn't even run properly.

When Bombardier died and sold for parts, there was barely a whimper about it from Toronto's chattering classes.

In hindsight, I wonder if it would have been more advantageous for the Quebec and Federal governments to give the City of Toronto's Transportation Services department several hundred million to rebuild every streetcar switch, incline and curve to modern standards to allow for off-the-shelf products to be sourced in a fair bidding process, than it would have been for BBD to be the sole bidder on what might have been its Waterloo.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by thewave46

Or you buy a proven piece of equipment from a global manufacturer, instead of rolling the dice on something untested?

Likewise, if one has rolled the dice and picked an out-there piece of rolling stock (i.e. the UTDC-designed LIM-powered automated light metros used on the original SkyTrain line), once it has proven itself and the initial wrinkles are ironed out (i.e. on-demand door opening), for goodness' sake, keep specifying that rolling stock and let it mature over time.

SkyTrain Mk 1

Source

SkyTrain Mk 2

Source

SkyTrain Mk 3

Source

SkyTrain Mk 4
???

SkyTrain Mk 5

Source