Canadian LRT/RT projects U/C

[casper]

Originally Posted by Daveography

^ Won't someone think of the poor cars?

The poor car is top of mind for some. But it needs to be completely re-imagined, California style. Fariday will save the car. http://www.ff.com/

Though leadership on the car comes from the bay area not Detroit.

[J.OT13]

Ground breaking (aka political photo-op) at "Pimisi" (Algonquin word for "eel") station in Downtown Ottawa. Two updated renderings.

http://ottawastart.com/confederation...onquin-people/

The station will have an Algonquin theme. Note the chrome eel coming out of the aqueduct and the red poll-top donuts at the Booth Street entrances, Ottawa's tacky version of the famous and distinctive London Underground and Montreal Metro logo.

[kwoldtimer]

Tacky in what way? All I see is a large red "O".

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Tacky in what way? All I see is a large red "O".

To me, the red donut just looks tacky. Not as well thought out and obvious as other systems.

Good that we'll have something that can be seen from a far to point people towards transit station entrances, but will tourists instinctively be drawn to these signs like we all are when we see the London Underground, Montreal Metro, NYC subway, TTC...

Couple more with the "red donut".

[kwoldtimer]

I think it's great - simple and immediately recognizable. Red is the obvious colour and the form is well considered for "O-town". I'll have to wait until I see one, but there may even be a bit of humour in the resemblance to a lollipop! The furthest thing from "tacky" imho, although I don't see it becoming iconic, just an effective piece of the Ottawa streetscape.

[a very long weekend]

Originally Posted by odogfo

Green Line LRT tunnel through downtown looking more likely
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ttee-1.3636563

holy shit is this dumb. a lobbyist for some office building owner has succeeded in convincing the city that property values won't rise with the installation of rapid transit in front of their buildings. so the city has decided to spend hundreds of millions (article wasn't clear, is it $700 million more?) to bore a tunnel instead. i've looked at the calgary system, it's already at grade/elevated, so this one will make it worse?? the governments paying for it (we know it's not the city) should reject this and use the extra hundreds of millions on extra cars, another extension, etc.

[McC]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

Good that we'll have something that can be seen from a far to point people towards transit station entrances, but will tourists instinctively be drawn to these signs like we all are when we see the London Underground, Montreal Metro, NYC subway, TTC...

What an odd thing to say. Each of those systems' designs had a first day, one day they didn't have those symbols and fonts, the next day they did (and they've each evolved over the years). There was nothing instinctive about them on their first day. They're only known through repeated exposure. The "M" for the Paris Metro is only obvious after you already know about the Paris Metro, ditto if you're looking for the "O Train" then a big red "O" might be a good place to start, but if you don't know it's called O Train it might be as meaningless as TTC would be to the uninitiated.

The design is not my favorite, not what I would have picked, and could be improved for a variety of reasons, but criticizing it for being new is weird.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

What an odd thing to say. Each of those systems' designs had a first day, one day they didn't have those symbols and fonts, the next day they did (and they've each evolved over the years). There was nothing instinctive about them on their first day. They're only known through repeated exposure. The "M" for the Paris Metro is only obvious after you already know about the Paris Metro, ditto if you're looking for the "O Train" then a big red "O" might be a good place to start, but if you don't know it's called O Train it might be as meaningless as TTC would be to the uninitiated.

The design is not my favorite, not what I would have picked, and could be improved for a variety of reasons, but criticizing it for being new is weird.

But it's not new. This logo has been in use for 15 years. Instead of recycling the branding of a slow, unreliable diesel train, they should have worked on a complete re-branding IMO.

[McC]

Now you're re-litigating the decision to name the whole system the O-Train. This is a totally different argument than how the signs should indicate the O-Train. Again, that was a decision I disagreed with (I asked for metrO), but it was taken some time ago, is unlikely to be reversed, and it is now the context for a discussion of what the sign should look like.

You're free to argue that the sign shouldn't be an O because the system shouldn't be called the O Train, but it's a dead end conversation, and not very interesting. I think we have more than enough ground hog day posters around here: people pop every once and a while to say the same thing, and then go back into their hole. Please don't join them. You have more to say than that.

Now back to the matter at hand, I think the Cherry Lifesaver lollypop is a refinement of the old flat O Train signs, more permanent, whereas the old ones said "temporary pilot project." Cleanliness, simplicity and elegance are virtues in design that I usually support, and there is a tendency in smaller less confident organizations to lard on too much flair to attract attention (see the swooshes on the side of our trainsets). But I also agree with Darwin that the O Train logo could use just a bit more pizazz, and would do well if inspired by the art at Carleton station.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by McC

Now you're re-litigating the decision to name the whole system the O-Train. This is a totally different argument than how the signs should indicate the O-Train. Again, that was a decision I disagreed with (I asked for metrO), but it was taken some time ago, is unlikely to be reversed, and it is now the context for a discussion of what the sign should look like.

You're free to argue that the sign shouldn't be an O because the system shouldn't be called the O Train, but it's a dead end conversation, and not very interesting. I think we have more than enough ground hog day posters around here: people pop every once and a while to say the same thing, and then go back into their hole. Please don't join them. You have more to say than that.

Now back to the matter at hand, I think the Cherry Lifesaver lollypop is a refinement of the old flat O Train signs, more permanent, whereas the old ones said "temporary pilot project." Cleanliness, simplicity and elegance are virtues in design that I usually support, and there is a tendency in smaller less confident organizations to lard on too much flair to attract attention (see the swooshes on the side of our trainsets). But I also agree with Darwin that the O Train logo could use just a bit more pizazz, and would do well if inspired by the art at Carleton station.

I agree with most of your points. metrO would have been far superior, but the City went with the safe, familiar option.

Not a huge fan of the livery either. The "swooshes" as you call them; tacky. Simple red and white would have been more, let's say "sophisticated" or "big city". Just like calling it "light rail" is under-selling it.

If not with the name of the system and stations, the City should at least have had consultations and web polls to choose the livery, just as Calgary and Montreal have done.

I agree, the lifesaver on a pole is in fact an improvement over the status quo.

I'm not going to complain about this for eternity, just stating my opinion. All in all, I'm content with what we're ending up with.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

I agree with most of your points. metrO would have been far superior, but the City went with the safe, familiar option.

Not a huge fan of the livery either. The "swooshes" as you call them; tacky. Simple red and white would have been more, let's say "sophisticated" or "big city". Just like calling it "light rail" is under-selling it.

If not with the name of the system and stations, the City should at least have had consultations and web polls to choose the livery, just as Calgary and Montreal have done.

I agree, the lifesaver on a pole is in fact an improvement over the status quo.

I'm not going to complain about this for eternity, just stating my opinion. All in all, I'm content with what we're ending up with.

I'm glad that someone remembers my metrO branding! It was ten years ago! It's great to know that my automated LRT proposal for Ottawa is being used for Montreal though Hard work finally paid off!

[McC]

#metrO4life

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm glad that someone remembers my metrO branding! It was ten years ago! It's great to know that my automated LRT proposal for Ottawa is being used for Montreal though Hard work finally paid off!

I wonder if Ottawans won't eventually take to just calling it "The O"?

[FFX-ME]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

I wonder if Ottawans won't eventually take to just calling it "The O"?

What about "the big O"? Lol

[nephersir7]

Provision of the Rolling Stock, Systems and Operation and Maintenance Services of the Réseau électrique métropolitain de Montréal:

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/..._mrsem-eng.pdf

3. ROLLING STOCK

3.1 GENERAL
In designing the Rolling Stock for the REM, particular consideration will be given to:
 A minimum useful life of 40 years;
 Optimization of life-cycle costs;
 Use of functionalities involving technology that is proven, particularly in winter conditions;
 Recycling of components at the end of their useful life; and
 Passenger and employee safety.

3.2 TRAIN CONFIGURATION
In addition to certain criteria presented in Table 2 below, CDPQ Infra recommends the following for the REM train configuration:
 Modular components;
 Interchangeable trains and components; and
 Possibility of automatically coupling two trains (i.e. two single units) to form a multiple unit at any point on the network.



3.3 PERFORMANCE OF THE ROLLING STOCK
The trains will need to be designed to brake appropriately at all stations and in all possible weather conditions in the Montreal area.

The acceleration and braking performance sought for the Rolling Stock will need to optimize travel time while ensuring passenger comfort and safety.



3.4 TRAIN CAPACITY
The unit capacity of the trains must guarantee operating performance while ensuring passenger comfort. The unit capacity of an 80-metre-long train with a normal load (four people standing/m²) will be 600 people, with a comfort rate (number of seats compared to total number of spaces) of at least 20%. The interior configuration of the trains will provide full accessibility for passengers with reduced mobility, particularly people in wheel chairs.

Platforms will be equipped with screen doors. Due to the position of screen doors and the combination of the number of doors and their size in comparison to the vehicle, the combined width of the screen doors will cover at least 30% of the vehicle’s length.

3.5 TRAIN INTERIOR DESIGN
Trains will need to ensure maximum comfort with a modern interior that is calm, safe, well-lit and climate-controlled. A high level of comfort and service quality must be ensured.

People’s movement within the train will be facilitated as much as possible by encouraging direct access and eliminating all obstacles. The arrangement of flip-up seats on the platforms will not limit train access and will encourage passengers to stand when there is a high passenger volume.

The supports and gripping mechanisms in the vehicles will allow any passenger, regardless of height, handicap and location in the vehicle, to stand safely. Space will also be provided for luggage.

In the event that a train must be operated manually, an operator will have to activate the concealed retractable control panel located at one end of the train in order to take control of the train.

Each vehicle will be equipped with the following onboard systems, among others:
 Video surveillance (interior and exterior);
 Passenger information (announcements and on screen);
 Interphone; and
 Train-to-ground communication.

3.6 TRAIN DESIGN
CDPQ Infra is seeking Rolling Stock with a high-level exterior and interior design that will be esthetically pleasing to its clientele at all times.

The RSSOM Contractor will need to provide a design book that meets the requirements set out in the performance specifications, while presenting three (3) different design concepts. In this respect, the contractor will be asked to provide colour renderings for each design concept to assess the overall appearance of an 80-metre-long train.

To minimize maintenance costs, the train’s interior and exterior must be designed with easy-to-clean materials that are resistant to graffiti and vandalism

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by FFX-ME

What about "the big O"? Lol

"Capital O" perhaps?

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

"Capital O" perhaps?

In spite of its reputation, Ottawa can be irreverent in a subtle, "wink wink" kind of way.

My bet is that people will call it the "Big O".

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by nephersir7

Provision of the Rolling Stock, Systems and Operation and Maintenance Services of the Réseau électrique métropolitain de Montréal:

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/sites/all/..._mrsem-eng.pdf

Oh! Good find. I'm glad the RFP includes full-width size metro cars. It was still up in the air. Also the map to the airport looks finalized.

[J.OT13]

Originally Posted by d_jeffrey

I'm glad that someone remembers my metrO branding! It was ten years ago! It's great to know that my automated LRT proposal for Ottawa is being used for Montreal though Hard work finally paid off!

That was you!? That was hands down the best proposal! And considering we went from the original N/S plan (1 billion), to what we have now (5.5 billion, 6 billion if you include the current Rapibus, 7 billion with Stage 3 to Kanata), it wouldn't have been such a stretch to just build your plan (possibly 9 billion or so) that would have served the entire city and Gatineau (if I remember correctly).

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

That was you!? That was hands down the best proposal! And considering we went from the original N/S plan (1 billion), to what we have now (5.5 billion, 6 billion if you include the current Rapibus, 7 billion with Stage 3 to Kanata), it wouldn't have been such a stretch to just build your plan (possibly 9 billion or so) that would have served the entire city and Gatineau (if I remember correctly).

Yes it was :-) Thanks for the comments! I work in transit now in Montreal (pied à terre there) and I have a house near Ottawa. Actually the REM in Montréal is about the same cost per km (including vehicles and maintenance facilities) that I planned my basis on, with 2006 prices.

I should have still have the maps on my mac, I'll post them here later I find them.