The Great Canadian Transit Thread

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What can they not switch to automatic to get rid of the driver? AFAIK there is nothing they do that cannot be automated.

The biggest obstacle will likely be the drivers themselves. They are like NIMBYs - very vocal and only concerned with their self interest of keeping their jobs, not the wider public benefit. I'd predict the Confederation line will never get rid of its drivers, even if it was entirely automated. Like Toronto's subway - if my memory is right I think they have two drivers per train, despite automation!

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The biggest obstacle will likely be the drivers themselves. They are like NIMBYs - very vocal and only concerned with their self interest of keeping their jobs, not the wider public benefit. I'd predict the Confederation line will never get rid of its drivers, even if it was entirely automated. Like Toronto's subway - if my memory is right I think they have two drivers per train, despite automation!

The Confederation Line operation is contracted in Ottawa. It's a private consortium and they can get rid of the drivers anytime they want (if they upgrade the infrastructure to allow it).

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Confederation Line operation is contracted in Ottawa. It's a private consortium and they can get rid of the drivers anytime they want (if they upgrade the infrastructure to allow it).

That's good!

[MalcolmTucker]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Confederation Line operation is contracted in Ottawa. It's a private consortium and they can get rid of the drivers anytime they want (if they upgrade the infrastructure to allow it).

Nah it isn't. The drivers are OCTranspo. The contract doesn't include 'operate' in it. Design, construct, supply, test, commission (which OCTranspo was obligated to provide 'drivers and controllers' to support), maintain and finance.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Nah it isn't. The drivers are OCTranspo. The contract doesn't include 'operate' in it. Design, construct, supply, test, commission (which OCTranspo was obligated to provide 'drivers and controllers' to support), maintain and finance.

I stand corrected. Thought operation was contracted too.

As I understand it though, automation isn't precluded if operations justifies it. Just needs a business case.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

$6B actually for the Confederation Line between Stage 1 and Stage 2.

Actually, it will be closer to $7B, but I was referring to stage 1.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Probably a few hundred thousand per train. But the real cost comes from having to build longer than necessary platforms (and stations), and being forced to buy more trains for a given capacity target because LRVs have lower capacity. And this is then perpetuated long into the future.

As I understand it, there are no platform doors/gates. So, looking at what the TTC did with their streetcars/LRVs they have one long train made up of bending sections, kinda like the Rockets. So, now that space occupied by the driver's cab only exists in 1 spot. New vehicles could completely remove that in such a way that there is a console that connects to the car, but is not kept with it, like the Skytrain cars.

All of these can add space to existing length cars. All of these are already done elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not the driver that is the problem. Full automation requires proper protection of the corridor. Preferably platform screen doors. Which is why REM built fully enclosed platforms for their fully automated system. The added benefit will be the highest frequencies of any service in Canada and a fully climate controlled platform.

Skytrain is a fully automated system. It does not have a driver. It does not have platform doors.

Originally Posted by milomilo

The biggest obstacle will likely be the drivers themselves. They are like NIMBYs - very vocal and only concerned with their self interest of keeping their jobs, not the wider public benefit. I'd predict the Confederation line will never get rid of its drivers, even if it was entirely automated. Like Toronto's subway - if my memory is right I think they have two drivers per train, despite automation!

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Confederation Line operation is contracted in Ottawa. It's a private consortium and they can get rid of the drivers anytime they want (if they upgrade the infrastructure to allow it).

Originally Posted by MalcolmTucker

Nah it isn't. The drivers are OCTranspo. The contract doesn't include 'operate' in it. Design, construct, supply, test, commission (which OCTranspo was obligated to provide 'drivers and controllers' to support), maintain and finance.

So, take the control away from them a little at a time. Eventually, they just become glorious fare inspectors.

I understand the only real difference is that the space near the wheels can be tight. Other than that, I cannot see a problem.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Actually, it will be closer to $7B, but I was referring to stage 1.

$6B of that is the Confederation Line. About a billion for Trillium. Give or take.

I included the cost for both stages because their decision impacts both stages.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As I understand it, there are no platform doors/gates. So, looking at what the TTC did with their streetcars/LRVs they have one long train made up of bending sections, kinda like the Rockets. So, now that space occupied by the driver's cab only exists in 1 spot. New vehicles could completely remove that in such a way that there is a console that connects to the car, but is not kept with it, like the Skytrain cars.

All of these can add space to existing length cars. All of these are already done elsewhere.

The SkyTrain is a good example of what could have been done to achieve the same capacity. Ottawa's platforms are 50% longer than Vancouver because the LRVs Ottawa uses have to be longer to offer similar capacity. And that in turns drives up costs for everything from station size to maintenance facility size to number of exits at underground stations, etc.

Compare the rolling stock and capacities between SkyTrain and the Alstom Coradia Spirit that the Confederation Line uses and you'll see what I am getting at.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Skytrain is a fully automated system. It does not have a driver. It does not have platform doors.

It's also a completely elevated system with reduced risk of intrusion of the guideway. Not to mention built in a different era. There's nobody building a new system today that would be automated without platform screens.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I understand the only real difference is that the space near the wheels can be tight. Other than that, I cannot see a problem.

You don't seem to understand the difference between high floor and low floor systems. Do you have any idea how much space the wheel/bogey wells take up? The operator can isn't the problem.

[TheMatth69]

We don't need to switch Ottawa's LRT to high floor. If the real issue is about door layout and use of space there's in fact many diffent model of LRV's that could solve this problem today. We have a problem in Canada of being extremely short sighted when it comes to options and choise of manufacturers (Bombardier vs Alstom).

Siemens for exemple with their S700 or Kinkisharyo-Mitsui LRV's just like the one in Seattle both offer a much more regular door layout for similar performances, with only downside of having small steps at the end of each cars.





We also have the Stadler Tram-Train from Karlsruhe that have long low floor modules, with a more conventional boggie spacing allowing for a better door layout, with then again very similar performances with the ''Plus'' side of being an actual Tram-Train and therefore very similar to Ottawa's Alstom Citadis Spirits.



So in the end, even if I would've liked the city to go for a real light metro rolling stock like the REM, isn't stuck with the options of low floor. And considering the boom in North America of Low Floor LRT network, it wouldn't be a surprise if new manufacturers enter the market with bigger variety of options.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You don't seem to understand the difference between high floor and low floor systems. Do you have any idea how much space the wheel/bogey wells take up? The operator can isn't the problem.

So, the chief concern is the fact that we cannot pack more people in like sardines?

I'll give you that.

However, with this pandemic, I wouldn't doubt that once it is over, the idea of being packed in like sardines will be seen as a problem, not a solution. This may mean that Ottawa expands and covers even more places with LRT.

So, if your goal is to squeeze as many people into a car, then, yes low floor is bad.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, the chief concern is the fact that we cannot pack more people in like sardines?

I'll give you that.

However, with this pandemic, I wouldn't doubt that once it is over, the idea of being packed in like sardines will be seen as a problem, not a solution. This may mean that Ottawa expands and covers even more places with LRT.

So, if your goal is to squeeze as many people into a car, then, yes low floor is bad.

This is completely illogical. A low floor train can fit fewer people in it, so they are more likely to be "packed like sardines", if that is what you want to avoid.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is completely illogical. A low floor train can fit fewer people in it, so they are more likely to be "packed like sardines", if that is what you want to avoid.

If the seats are only at the wheels, then as someone seated, you have space.

However, if you are standing, and there is a high enough ridership, then, yes, I see what you mean.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, the chief concern is the fact that we cannot pack more people in like sardines?

You still don't get it.

The lack of floor space means we're packed in anyway. But now they are spending on platforms 50% longer than Vancouver to achieve the same effect. High floor would literally have given riders more space especially with 120m long trains. Put it this way, we have platforms as long as Toronto's subways with the space of Toronto's streetcars.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is completely illogical. A low floor train can fit fewer people in it, so they are more likely to be "packed like sardines", if that is what you want to avoid.

Which is exactly what happened. They launched with 2 less trains than planned. The minute they dropped the interim bus service, the trains were packed leaving the terminals. Even as the fleet has grown the crowding has been kinda ridiculous for a new system. And that's with decent peak frequencies. This is in no small measure because all their assumptions on how standees would move to the passages instead of crowding the doors, didn't pan out. Would have had no such problems with high floor vehicles.

The system they built is decent. They got a lot of bang for buck. But the rolling stock decision and that driving so much has definitely not done riders any favours and saddled them with additional future costs that were unnecessary.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Which is exactly what happened. They launched with 2 less trains than planned. The minute they dropped the interim bus service, the trains were packed leaving the terminals. Even as the fleet has grown the crowding was kinda ridiculous for a new system. In no small measure because all their assumptions on how standees would move to the passages instead of crowding the doors.

Where did these people magically come from? It isn't like the bus service was new. The city knew of the expected ridership. This sounds like poor planning on the part of having the right LRVs. Had they stuck with their plan of street running, there still isn't enough LRVs for that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Where did these people magically come from? It isn't like the bus service was new. The city knew of the expected ridership. This sounds like poor planning on the part of having the right LRVs. Had they stuck with their plan of street running, there still isn't enough LRVs for that.

Their assumption on actual capacity of the LRVs didn't pan out because they assumed riders would willingly jam themselves in the narrow passageways between the wheel wells. Turns out people don't like that we much as they assume.

And this whole thing happened because they wanted a capability they have exactly zero intention of using. If they had the same number of heavy rail carriages, there would be no such crowding.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Their assumption on actual capacity of the LRVs didn't pan out because they assumed riders would willingly jam themselves in the narrow passageways between the wheel wells. Turns out people don't like that we much as they assume.

And this whole thing happened because they wanted a capability they have exactly zero intention of using.

So, then this is not a case of high floor or low floor, but the fact that not enough low floor, which could have been used for their original plans were ordered.

This is not about anything more than ordering too little.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TheMatth69

We don't need to switch Ottawa's LRT to high floor. If the real issue is about door layout and use of space there's in fact many diffent model of LRV's that could solve this problem today. We have a problem in Canada of being extremely short sighted when it comes to options and choise of manufacturers (Bombardier vs Alstom).
....
So in the end, even if I would've liked the city to go for a real light metro rolling stock like the REM, isn't stuck with the options of low floor. And considering the boom in North America of Low Floor LRT network, it wouldn't be a surprise if new manufacturers enter the market with bigger variety of options.

The fact that they didn't specify consistent door spacing is another annoyance. But it gives them an excuse for why they can't automate for another 30 years ....

It's such a weird project. They did so much right. And then negated a good bit of their accomplishments with their choice of rolling stock.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, then this is not a case of high floor or low floor, but the fact that not enough low floor, which could have been used for their original plans were ordered.

This is not about anything more than ordering too little.

Except that more vehicles means either longer platforms (more expensive stations) or higher frequencies. The latter of which I'm not even sure they could do without substantially more automation. As it is they launched with sub 3 min frequencies at peak. This is pretty much what a lot of subway/metro systems offer elsewhere.

Again, picking LRVs in this case resulted in them effectively spending more money for less capacity in their rolling stock. That's an easy decision to criticize.

I'd enjoy the debate as a purely academic exercise as much as you, if I didn't have to ride it at peak.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Except that more vehicles means either longer platforms (more expensive stations) or higher frequencies. The latter of which I'm not even sure they could do without substantially more automation. As it is they launched with 3 min frequencies at peak. This is pretty much what a lot of subway/metro systems offer elsewhere.

Again, picking LRVs in this case resulted in them effectively spending more money for less capacity in their rolling stock. That's an easy decision to criticize.

I'd enjoy the debate as a purely academic exercise as much as you, if I didn't have to ride it at peak.

So, what is the solution?
New LRVs?
Automation?
Completely rebuild a line that is still new?

I am not debating for an exercise. I ask because I always think that unless there is a realistic solution, it is just someone whining. I am wondering what realistic solution could solve the issue.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, what is the solution?
New LRVs?
Automation?
Completely rebuild a line that is still new?

I am not debating for an exercise. I ask because I always think that unless there is a realistic solution, it is just someone whining. I am wondering what realistic solution could solve the issue.

In 25-30 years when it's time for renewal get a new low-floor fleet with consistent door spacing as TheMatth69 suggested. Hopefully, they can also pair that with full automation.

Till then, we'll all have to live with it. They've advanced some Stage 2 vehicles to Stage 1. That would have helped alleviate overcrowding. If not for Covid, they probably would have bought more vehicles for Stage 2. But I doubt ridership recovers by Stage 2 completion in 2025, so they are probably good for now.