The Great Canadian Transit Thread - Page 378

Nouvellecosse · #**7541** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I agree that Edmondon's and Calgary's are not RT due to the incomplete grade separation but the confederation line as they are building it will have NO at grade crossings, even in its 2023 expansion to the subburbs. The choice of that vehicle was for flexibility since it allows the opportunity of expanding the line as conventional LRT, but what is being built is clearly a metro:

-Fully grade separated
-Electric rail
-Very high frequency (3 mins)
-high speed
-similar vehicle capacity to Vancouver's Skytrain

what more do you want. Your argument that the geometry of the vehicle is important is just absurd.

You're absolutely right. The rolling stock has little to no relevance in determining if something should be classified as RT. As long as it's some type of EMU (electric multiple unit), the details can vary.

swimmer_spe · #**7542** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

You're absolutely right. The rolling stock has little to no relevance in determining if something should be classified as RT. As long as it's some type of EMU (electric multiple unit), the details can vary.

So, a DMU, like the Trillium line is not RT?

1overcosc · #**7543** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, a DMU, like the Trillium line is not RT?

I'd argue that no, DMUs are not, because DMUs have properties that handicap them, most notably the slower acceleration.

SkahHigh · #**7544** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

I agree that Edmondon's and Calgary's are not RT due to the incomplete grade separation but the confederation line as they are building it will have NO at grade crossings, even in its 2023 expansion to the subburbs. The choice of that vehicle was for flexibility since it allows the opportunity of expanding the line as conventional LRT, but what is being built is clearly a metro:

-Fully grade separated
-Electric rail
-Very high frequency (3 mins)
-high speed
-similar vehicle capacity to Vancouver's Skytrain

what more do you want. Your argument that the geometry of the vehicle is important is just absurd.

I agree but why does the Confederation Line marketing campaign brand it as an LRT and clearly says it is light rail then?

swimmer_spe · #**7545** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I agree but why does the Confederation Line marketing campaign brand it as an LRT and clearly says it is light rail then?

Head down the highway about 2 hours to the nearest metro. The cars are bigger. The stations are bigger. The cars use a third rail.

1overcosc · #**7546** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 10:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I agree but why does the Confederation Line marketing campaign brand it as an LRT and clearly says it is light rail then?

Ottawa has a long history of desiring light rail, and many more LRT-like ideas (street running segments, median LRT, etc.) were originally part of that history. So in Ottawa, "LRT" has become a synonym for "rail transit". Many Ottawans regularly compare the future Confederation Line to the Toronto subway or Montreal metro.

Nouvellecosse · #**7547** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:08 PM**

I'm just glad that it's actually happening. It's a rather exciting time for public transit in this country!

SkahHigh · #**7548** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:15 PM**

I don't want to sound picky but even the Alstom Citadis Spirit series also describes itself as light rail on the Alstom website...

Quote:

Alstom is bringing a new spirit to light-rail and streetcar projects across North America – the Citadis Spirit.

Very tough to argue that it's not light rail...

Don't get me wrong though, the Confederation Line is a great project and I'm very happy for Ottawa. As a matter of fact, I follow the project's progression every week!

ssiguy · #**7549** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:24 PM**

Vancouver's Canada Line is full standard Metro and is totally grade separated but the stations complete Mickey Mouse at only 40 meters which is made even worse by only having one exit and VERY thin platforms.

ssiguy · #**7550** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:27 PM**

The Confederation Line, while built to Metro standard, may be Metro depending on the extensions. As I understand it the amount under construction is totally grade separated which makes it a Metro but further extensions will have sections running down roadways without total grade separation and hence will no longer qualify as a Metro system.

ssiguy · #**7551** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:33 PM**

LRT can be a lot of different things in terms of how it's run and some seem more like glorified streetcars than true LRT {ie Toronto's Finch} but there is one thing that uniformily tends to separate the streetcar routes from LRT......the vehicles.

Yes, they are basically exactly the same technology but LRT vehicles have 2 enhancements that streetcars don't............one train can be joined up with another separate train vehicle and LRT have doors on each side of the train whereas streetcars only have doors on the one side. TTC streetcars are proof of the latter and Calgary/Edmonton LRT are proof of the 2 former.

milomilo · #**7552** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:45 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Head down the highway about 2 hours to the nearest metro. The cars are bigger. The stations are bigger. The cars use a third rail.

What about the London Underground? Teeny tiny trains, much narrower than any LRT train, yet the no one would deny the Tube is rapid transit. Which is why these definitions are arbitrary and of little use. I suggest you stop worrying about it!

GlassCity · #**7553** Posted **Dec 10, 2015, 11:46 PM**

While I am firmly of the opinion that if it's not grade separated, it's not rapid transit, this doesn't mean that only big train, third-rail systems can qualify. If Vancouver's SkyTrain counts as rapid transit, as it should, then so should the Confederation Line, until the time when it gets extended and goes through an at-grade crossing. SkyTrain trains are the same size as most LRT trains, so is it only rapid transit because it isn't powered by wires? If SkyTrain was exactly the same–100% grade separated, but used Ottawa's trains and power supply, does this mean that it wouldn't be rapid transit anymore? That would be silly.

There's nothing that says light rail can't be rapid transit. If it's frequent and grade-separated like the Confederation Line will be, it very well can be. If it's like Portland's system, then it's not. Rolling stock and service are completely different things. If light rail is built properly, it is just as much rapid transit as Toronto's subway is.

VIce · #**7554** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 12:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkahHigh

I agree but why does the Confederation Line marketing campaign brand it as an LRT and clearly says it is light rail then?

Even if you can somehow manage to get everyone to agree on the definitions of terms, there's still possibility that the definitions overlap. There are arguments to be made, for example, that Vancouver's Skytrain, although definitely rapid transit, also qualifies as 'light rail' based on the specific technology used (hence the term 'light metro').

In some senses 'rapid transit' might be considered a technical specification, whereas 'light rail' can be thought of more as a design philosophy with highly variable technical implementation.

Hybrid247 · #**7555** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 12:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

The Confederation Line, while built to Metro standard, may be Metro depending on the extensions. As I understand it the amount under construction is totally grade separated which makes it a Metro but further extensions will have sections running down roadways without total grade separation and hence will no longer qualify as a Metro system.

Not sure where you heard that but extensions of the confederation line that are confirmed at this time will be fully grade separated. Post-2023 extensions may or may not have level crossings. All we know for those extensions are their potential alignments, not their design.

caltrane74 · #**7556** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 12:51 AM**

I love streetcars... but I really love the new streetcars.

Nouvellecosse · #**7557** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 1:03 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by milomilo

What about the London Underground? Teeny tiny trains, much narrower than any LRT train, yet the no one would deny the Tube is rapid transit. Which is why these definitions are arbitrary and of little use. I suggest you stop worrying about it!

That bolded part isn't actually true. The trains in the Underground's "tube" lines are 2.629 m wide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_1996_Stock), compared to the Calgary C-Train LRT at 2.654 m wide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_SD-100_and_SD-160#Technical_details). Nearly identical. And the Underground's subsurface lines are of course wider at 2.92m (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Underground_S7_and_S8_Stock). There are of course both wider are narrower examples of metro and LRT stock; Baltimore LRT is much wider, Brussels LRT stock being much narrower, while the Montreal Metro and parts of the Paris Metro being narrower and Toronto Subway and (and most other metro rolling stock) is wider. I think it's safe to say that the size of the rolling stock isn't the differentiating factor, however systems with low capacity rolling stock (shorter than 75m) are often called light metro.

swimmer_spe · #**7558** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 1:45 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

LRT can be a lot of different things in terms of how it's run and some seem more like glorified streetcars than true LRT {ie Toronto's Finch} but there is one thing that uniformily tends to separate the streetcar routes from LRT......the vehicles.

Yes, they are basically exactly the same technology but LRT vehicles have 2 enhancements that streetcars don't............one train can be joined up with another separate train vehicle and LRT have doors on each side of the train whereas streetcars only have doors on the one side. TTC streetcars are proof of the latter and Calgary/Edmonton LRT are proof of the 2 former.

See, Toronto really confuses me.
The subways are definitely RT.
The Eglinton Crosstown is being labeled as one of the RT.
Yet, 510 Spadina (and others), are built to the same standards as the EC, but they are not part of the RT

So that would mean the O-Train system is RT. But the CTrain and Edmonton LRT and future Ion are not.
And the Transitways in Ottawa and Mississauga, the parts that do not interact with traffic would be considered RT.

On a side note, I am impressed with the fact that the top 25 cities in Canada have some sort of express service, regardless of what we want to call it.

Chadillaccc · #**7559** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 1:58 AM**

Delete.

SkahHigh · #**7560** Posted **Dec 11, 2015, 2:16 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

See, Toronto really confuses me.
The subways are definitely RT.
The Eglinton Crosstown is being labeled as one of the RT.
Yet, 510 Spadina (and others), are built to the same standards as the EC, but they are not part of the RT

So that would mean the O-Train system is RT. But the CTrain and Edmonton LRT and future Ion are not.
And the Transitways in Ottawa and Mississauga, the parts that do not interact with traffic would be considered RT.

On a side note, I am impressed with the fact that the top 25 cities in Canada have some sort of express service, regardless of what we want to call it.

BRT=not actual rapid transit
Eglinton Crosstown=LRT
Confederation Line=let's call it a mix of both LRT and RT
CTrain and Edmonton LRT=LRT