Calgary Public Transit II

[frinkprof]

^Good to see something happening with these extensions.

[frinkprof]

CTV will be running a segment on Calgary Transit's history and future on tonight's 6PM news broadcast. Not sure when in the broadcast it will be, but I think these things tend to be toward the middle, in between the top news and the sports segments.

[You Need A Thneed]

Whitehorn station has it's ramp all done, mostly the above platform stuff left to go (including an actual canopy)

The pedestrian bridge at McKnight Westwinds Station over Metis Trail is nearing completion, just a few lengths of railng to go, then all of the railing is done.

The tunnel under 64th Ave for the LRT extention to Saddletowne is mostly backfilled over, and might have traffic going over it in a few weeks.

[jeffwhit]

Welcome to 1996, Calgary Transit.

From the sounds of it, only the WRT stations will offer debit and credit to begin with, but the old machines will be retrofitted to be more honest and print "FUCK YOU" on the ticket when you put $3 in the machine...

[frinkprof]

Here's the link for the CTV story on Calgary Transit's history and future mentioned earlier.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C..._50years_101111/20101111?hub=CalgaryHome

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

Here's the link for the CTV story on Calgary Transit's history and future mentioned earlier.

http://calgary.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/C..._50years_101111/20101111?hub=CalgaryHome

I am glad CTV has mentioned trolleybuses. I think Calgary should look at bringing them back.

It may be a bit more expensive to operate, but not as expensive as streetcars. Not only the wires should be maintained, but also the tracks, especially during the winter.

Also, would streetcars affect road capacity due to stops on the median? Trolleybuses share the road with cars, and it works best in high density areas to make the best use of the overhead wires, which is why I think Route 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 305 are great candidates.

Would streetcars be less flexible due to full reliance on the metal tracks while today's trolleybuses can travel away from the overhead lines for a kilometre or two? If Route 3 were to be operated with trolleybuses, they can manouever away from the wires for a few blocks while Remembrance Day ceremony takes place at Central Memorial Park with little headache; streetcars can never do that and has to rely on contingent buses even for such minor situations.

I understand that electricity is primarily coal-powered, but didn't Calgary adopted ride-the-wind for the LRT? Also, aren't we moving away from coal as we speak and more so in the future? And isn't southern Alberta going to see a wind-energy boom in the near future?

"Trolleybus dewires putting drivers at risk while fishing the poles back onto the wires." While this is true, today's trolleybuses are less likely to dewire, plus the poles automatically lower immediately after dewiring to avoid damaging on the overhead wires. Plus, since they can go off wire for several blocks, drivers can rewire at a next or convenient bus stop instead of in the middle of an intersection.

Those who think wires are ugly, did they know that streetcar relies on overhead wires too?

Oh yes, and one more reason to bring trolleybuses back is to give Edmonton a big F-ck you for abandoning theirs.

[freeweed]

I'm not sure I understand the love of trolley buses in the slightest. Surely we have enough technology available that we can run electric buses off batteries (or hell, natural gas), thereby entirely removing the safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

Is this just more pointless nostalgia or is there something I'm missing?

[MalcolmTucker]

I understand that electricity is primarily coal-powered, but didn't Calgary adopted ride-the-wind for the LRT? Also, aren't we moving away from coal as we speak and more so in the future? And isn't southern Alberta going to see a wind-energy boom in the near future?

While this isn't the proper place to discuss it at length, wind power does not reduce reliance on coal. Over the next 50 years electricity will be much better than oil for at least high frequency routes where the capital cost will offset gradually increasing and volatile oil prices.

Would streetcars be less flexible due to full reliance on the metal tracks while today's trolleybuses can travel away from the overhead lines for a kilometre or two?

While I have heard this many times, I have been on brand new trolleys that have lost their wire in Vancouver and died. So buyer beware? Not that I think it is a big issues anyways with trolley buses at least being able to switch lanes to get around disabled vehicles.

Would streetcars affect road capacity due to stops on the median?

All depends on the design of the street, stops etc. While I am not very familiar on street car vs trolley bus costs, I am under the impression that a 60ft trolley is in the range of a million where a streetcar might be in the $3 million range. Given that, unless a route needs really high capacity where headways need to reduce beyond what is reasonable, which means you have more drivers than you want, trolley buses would likely win in a head to head comparison on cost basis.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by freeweed

I'm not sure I understand the love of trolley buses in the slightest. Surely we have enough technology available that we can run electric buses off batteries (or hell, natural gas), thereby entirely removing the safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

Is this just more pointless nostalgia or is there something I'm missing?

The most obvious problem is cost. A bus with a battery that can run for several kilometers may end up costing more than a streetcar; not to mention availablily, which is clearly tougher to purchase than a trolleybus. New Flyer from Winnipeg makes trolleybuses for Vancouver (no need to import from overseas or across the border).

Don't streetcar wires have the same safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

As for natural gas - http://stephenrees.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/cng-is-not-worth-the-extra-cost/

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by Sir.Humphrey.Appleby

While this isn't the proper place to discuss it at length, wind power does not reduce reliance on coal. Over the next 50 years electricity will be much better than oil for at least high frequency routes where the capital cost will offset gradually increasing and volatile oil prices.

While I have heard this many times, I have been on brand new trolleys that have lost their wire in Vancouver and died. So buyer beware? Not that I think it is a big issues anyways with trolley buses at least being able to switch lanes to get around disabled vehicles.


All depends on the design of the street, stops etc. While I am not very familiar on street car vs trolley bus costs, I am under the impression that a 60ft trolley is in the range of a million where a streetcar might be in the $3 million range. Given that, unless a route needs really high capacity where headways need to reduce beyond what is reasonable, which means you have more drivers than you want, trolley buses would likely win in a head to head comparison on cost basis.

True, but I believe we will see more and more natural gas as base load. The proposed natural gas plant at Shepard at the east side of Calgary will probably be one.

[fusili]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

It may be a bit more expensive to operate, but not as expensive as streetcars. Not only the wires should be maintained, but also the tracks, especially during the winter.

Disagree. Streetcars would have lower lifecycle costs, as they are cheaper to maintain and last longer.

Also, would streetcars affect road capacity due to stops on the median? Trolleybuses share the road with cars, and it works best in high density areas to make the best use of the overhead wires, which is why I think Route 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 305 are great candidates.

Streetcars don't have to run in the median. They can also operate in mixed traffic. I agree with you on the routes though. All those routes could be upgraded to a streetcar along with land use redesignations within 400m of stops to higher density residential and in some places, commercial.

Would streetcars be less flexible due to full reliance on the metal tracks while today's trolleybuses can travel away from the overhead lines for a kilometre or two?

If Route 3 were to be operated with trolleybuses, they can manouever away from the wires for a few blocks while Remembrance Day ceremony takes place at Central Memorial Park with little headache; streetcars can never do that and has to rely on contingent buses even for such minor situations.

Other than that one situation, I can't think of a time when the streetcar route would cause a headache. Just don't run it that day, it is stat holiday anyways.

PS- Flexibility in a transit system is bad for high usage routes. Very, very bad.

Those who think wires are ugly, did they know that streetcar relies on overhead wires too?

Bombardier has developed an inductive power transfer system that safely powers the streetcar from underground. No need for wires.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

The most obvious problem is cost. A bus with a battery that can run for several kilometers may end up costing more than a streetcar; not to mention availablily, which is clearly tougher to purchase than a trolleybus.

I'll be honest, I have zero clue how expensive they are (hence my poorly worded inquiry). Still, those overhead wires must cost something to install and maintain.... not sure how it all evens out. You'd think that it's just a matter of critical mass, ie: once enough places order all-electric buses, they shouldn't cost too much nor should availability be an issue. Then again, I'm not sure where state-of-the art is for the batteries required to power a fully loaded bus. I'm naively optimistic that we're close enough that we could in theory start switching large fleets of vehicles to batteries only (you don't necessarily need a 500km range on an inner-city transit bus), but who knows.

Don't streetcar wires have the same safety/aesthetic problems with overhead wires?

Yes, but I'm not a fan of streetcars either, unless it's on an LRT-style setup. One line, one set of wires. Trolley buses tend to have these rats' nests of wires everywhere, or so Edmonton and Vancouver would lead me to believe. They're just plain ugly to my eye.

[CorporateWhore]

Whatever strawman, go back to your suburbs.

I guess I'm one of the few, but I actually LIKE the way trolley/streetcar wires look in a city. Must be nostalgia....

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by CorporateWhore

I guess I'm one of the few, but I actually LIKE the way trolley/streetcar wires look in a city. Must be nostalgia....

I'm not sure if it's hypocritical or what - I LOVE the look of an LRT line, wires and all. But trolley buses just look messy and a bit ghetto to me. Maybe it's that an LRT is separated from everything else in its own ROW.

[sim]

Originally Posted by fusili

Disagree. Streetcars would have lower lifecycle costs, as they are cheaper to maintain and last longer.



Streetcars don't have to run in the median. They can also operate in mixed traffic. I agree with you on the routes though. All those routes could be upgraded to a streetcar along with land use redesignations within 400m of stops to higher density residential and in some places, commercial.



Other than that one situation, I can't think of a time when the streetcar route would cause a headache. Just don't run it that day, it is stat holiday anyways.

PS- Flexibility in a transit system is bad for high usage routes. Very, very bad.



Bombardier has developed an inductive power transfer system that safely powers the streetcar from underground. No need for wires.

Totally agree. Trolley buses essentially take the disadvantages of free driving buses and the disadvantages of street cars and mix them into one.

Wireless systems already exist in places (Bourdeaux I think.) that aren't by induction. They work by powering only the section right where the tram is at any moment. This way no one gets electrocuted obviously. A wireless system actually existed in Budapest over 100 years ago. Not much information about it, and I'm not so sure if they had measures in place aside from people's awareness to prevent electrocution.

The Bombardier induction system is only in trial stages in Augsburg, Germany. I believe the premise and difference between the above and this one is that the induction would only occur in certain sections of track and the batteries powers it the rest of the time. Of course, both systems have much greater captial costs attached to them then caternary.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by sim

Totally agree. Trolley buses essentially take the disadvantages of free driving buses and the disadvantages of street cars and mix them into one.

Wireless systems already exist in places (Bourdeaux I think.) that aren't by induction. They work by powering only the section right where the tram is at any moment. This way no one gets electrocuted obviously. A wireless system actually existed in Budapest over 100 years ago. Not much information about it, and I'm not so sure if they had measures in place aside from people's awareness to prevent electrocution.

The Bombardier induction system is only in trial stages in Augsburg, Germany. I believe the premise and difference between the above and this one is that the induction would only occur in certain sections of track and the batteries powers it the rest of the time. Of course, both systems have much greater captial costs attached to them then caternary.

Can you please clarify this part for me? I don't quite understand what you said.

As for cost of induction system embed in tracks, yes I imagine it would be very expensive to build (likely more than LRT) and would be harder to re-route if needed. It really makes rerouting trolleybus wires sound easy peasy.

[MalcolmTucker]

It runs on a rail, where the rail is selectively powered, so there is no rail with electricity running through it that is not covered by a streetcar. The logistics of it are expensive, even where it is used, it is only used in heritage districts and areas where caternary would be hard to implement.

[RicoLance21]

Originally Posted by fusili

Disagree. Streetcars would have lower lifecycle costs, as they are cheaper to maintain and last longer.



Streetcars don't have to run in the median. They can also operate in mixed traffic. I agree with you on the routes though. All those routes could be upgraded to a streetcar along with land use redesignations within 400m of stops to higher density residential and in some places, commercial.



Other than that one situation, I can't think of a time when the streetcar route would cause a headache. Just don't run it that day, it is stat holiday anyways.

PS- Flexibility in a transit system is bad for high usage routes. Very, very bad.



Bombardier has developed an inductive power transfer system that safely powers the streetcar from underground. No need for wires.

Would flexibiity be even worse if the whole streetcar line suddenly stalled due to a car accident, and then we would wait for contingency buses to come in? That happens quite a few times with the C-Train system.

[para transit fellow]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

Would flexibiity be even worse if the whole streetcar line suddenly stalled due to a car accident, and then we would wait for contingency buses to come in? That happens quite a few times with the C-Train system.

Edmonton had trolley buses BUT also ended up keeping a large set of diesel buses to be put into service if a trolley line died (ie: electical interruptions were frequent as the Caternay set-up aged)).

They did recognize that failure of a single vehicle could be managed by pushing off the route-- something that they couldn't do with an LRT ( rail) unit.

anyone know how toronto deals with it?

[sim]

Originally Posted by RicoLance21

Can you please clarify this part for me? I don't quite understand what you said.

As for cost of induction system embed in tracks, yes I imagine it would be very expensive to build (likely more than LRT) and would be harder to re-route if needed. It really makes rerouting trolleybus wires sound easy peasy.

What Sir Humphrey said. Basically, the electrical infrastructure lies below the rails (obviously) and it isn't just one continuously long wire or contact. The "wire" for lack of a better term (at least not one that comes to mind) is let's say laid in 5 m long sections that do not contact eachother. So as the tram drives over said section, that section becomes electrified. The tram vehicle then needs two contacts as once the first contact leaves the electrified section, the second one is still touching it. The first contact then comes into contact with the next section which is then also electrified. So you would at times have two sections that are powered, but only ever right below the tram.

I'm not sure how exactly the sensing works - where the section becomes electrified only when the tram is there, but I can't imagine it being all that complicated or hard to implement that.

Hope that clears it up. A picture would be much easier. You could try searching Alstom, as it is their system, but you might have trouble getting too much more detail.