(12-13-2020, 12:46 PM)westwardloo Wrote: As much as I hate the observers anti LRT cartoons. I grew up in Elmira, and I understand their point. I do think that a by-pass is needed. Downtown Elmira hasn't been a good destination for shopping in my lifetime, but it is made even worse by the constant tractor trailer traffic zooming through it. Obviously this would divert some traffic from Arthur Street that might stop and shop, but I would hazard a guess most people shopping in downtown Elmira are from Elmira or the surrounding farms.

(12-13-2020, 02:19 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(12-13-2020, 12:46 PM)westwardloo Wrote: As much as I hate the observers anti LRT cartoons. I grew up in Elmira, and I understand their point. I do think that a by-pass is needed. Downtown Elmira hasn't been a good destination for shopping in my lifetime, but it is made even worse by the constant tractor trailer traffic zooming through it. Obviously this would divert some traffic from Arthur Street that might stop and shop, but I would hazard a guess most people shopping in downtown Elmira are from Elmira or the surrounding farms.

I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

(12-13-2020, 03:40 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(12-13-2020, 02:19 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

Well, look what the Charles/Duke loop did to DTK. That may only have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but we're still recovering from it today.

(12-11-2020, 11:51 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 11:23 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Wishful thinking?

I mean, I honestly do not understand the purpose of the restriction there...it's ridiculous...but I'm not a railway engineer, so I'm sure there's a good reason why a train can't do more than a jogging pace through an entirely segregated straight right of way next to a track where trains go four times the speed in the opposite direction.

Maybe there is something wrong with the track? It’s hard to imagine what would require such an extreme slowdown.

A similar case previously occurred on the southbound track approaching Erb St. They would slow to a crawl ahead of the switch for the freight crossover, then speed up a little before slowing down as they approached the crossing at Erb. I actually watched one and the slowdown appeared to be intended to apply to the switch itself, so I suspect there was an issue with the switch. What it was I can’t imagine; and if they were concerned about the switch not switching properly or staying in the proper location I think a better approach would have been to send out a crew every morning to clamp or bolt it in the LRT operating position, then reverse the procedure before the freight went through in the evening. But regardless, eventually it was fixed and while they still proceed rather slowly through the Erb St. crossing they at least approach it at a somewhat more reasonable speed.

Although a lot of this stuff is somewhat mysterious. I recently watched a video discussing an incident in Britain where a passenger train went through a slow order 100mph over the limit, at full track speed of about 125mph rather than the slow limit of 25mph (numbers might be slightly off, but not hugely off; it went through at 5 times the speed limit). It was a temporary slow order, not a curve or something like that. What is weird is that the limit for freight trains was 125mph! Indeed, the signage, with two numbers on it, one for passenger and one for freight, was a factor in the incident. I don’t understand how passenger trains could need to slow to 25mph while it’s still considered perfectly safe for freight to blow through at 125mph.

(12-14-2020, 03:57 AM)trainspotter139 Wrote:

(12-11-2020, 11:51 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: Maybe there is something wrong with the track? It’s hard to imagine what would require such an extreme slowdown.

A similar case previously occurred on the southbound track approaching Erb St. They would slow to a crawl ahead of the switch for the freight crossover, then speed up a little before slowing down as they approached the crossing at Erb. I actually watched one and the slowdown appeared to be intended to apply to the switch itself, so I suspect there was an issue with the switch. What it was I can’t imagine; and if they were concerned about the switch not switching properly or staying in the proper location I think a better approach would have been to send out a crew every morning to clamp or bolt it in the LRT operating position, then reverse the procedure before the freight went through in the evening. But regardless, eventually it was fixed and while they still proceed rather slowly through the Erb St. crossing they at least approach it at a somewhat more reasonable speed.

Although a lot of this stuff is somewhat mysterious. I recently watched a video discussing an incident in Britain where a passenger train went through a slow order 100mph over the limit, at full track speed of about 125mph rather than the slow limit of 25mph (numbers might be slightly off, but not hugely off; it went through at 5 times the speed limit). It was a temporary slow order, not a curve or something like that. What is weird is that the limit for freight trains was 125mph! Indeed, the signage, with two numbers on it, one for passenger and one for freight, was a factor in the incident. I don’t understand how passenger trains could need to slow to 25mph while it’s still considered perfectly safe for freight to blow through at 125mph.

There's nothing wrong with the track there that is limiting the speed. It is, in fact, entirely based on the limitations of ATP. ATP is entirely limited by the human driver factor. Had we gone with an ATC system (which is much more expensive to implement) like what is being done on Line 5 Eglinton in Toronto that large section of crawling along at 15 km/h wouldn't exist since ATC essentially drives the train in ATC enabled sections. The curve speed limit for the Hayward section is 15 km/h. With ATC the system could calculate in real time and then implement the required braking to get the train to decelerate to 15 km/h before a point about 15m before entering the curve. ATP, since it's entirely dependent on human factors, requires a large buffer zone before the start of where speed restrictions are required to account for a driver failing to acknowledge the speed limit change, penalty grace period and potential subsequent penalty braking. The larger the change in speed limit, the larger that buffer zone must be.

(12-14-2020, 10:34 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't think I buy this explanation...the 15 km/h section starts a minute before the curve...we have lots of other turns which don't have similar ridiculous restrictions.

(12-14-2020, 02:36 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(12-14-2020, 10:34 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: I don't think I buy this explanation...the 15 km/h section starts a minute before the curve...we have lots of other turns which don't have similar ridiculous restrictions.

Are the turns with non-ridiculous speed limits in Line-Of-Sight (LOS) areas? I have no idea, I’m just wondering if that might be the difference.

It doesn’t really matter, because even if there is a reason that means they can’t just simply fix it, it still doesn’t justify it, because it is ridiculous for the train to have to go as slow as it does. This is similar to the O-Train “can’t operate with doors open even in an emergency without going back to 1800s scheduling technology” problem; regardless of the technical details, it’s ridiculous that they have such a problem. In both cases, whatever the detailed technical explanation, it just means the designers screwed up earlier in the process.

(12-13-2020, 03:40 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(12-13-2020, 02:19 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I certainly support a bypass but I got the sense the opposition to a bypass was strictly within Elmira.

Well, look what the Charles/Duke loop did to DTK. That may only have been the straw that broke the camel's back, but we're still recovering from it today.

(12-14-2020, 03:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(12-14-2020, 02:36 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Are the turns with non-ridiculous speed limits in Line-Of-Sight (LOS) areas? I have no idea, I’m just wondering if that might be the difference.

It doesn’t really matter, because even if there is a reason that means they can’t just simply fix it, it still doesn’t justify it, because it is ridiculous for the train to have to go as slow as it does. This is similar to the O-Train “can’t operate with doors open even in an emergency without going back to 1800s scheduling technology” problem; regardless of the technical details, it’s ridiculous that they have such a problem. In both cases, whatever the detailed technical explanation, it just means the designers screwed up earlier in the process.

I'm thinking of the turn from Waterloo Park onto Caroline Rd. it's also moving from an ATP section to an on road section, now, the speed restriction is higher because it is a wider turn, but the speed restriction doesn't start hundreds of meters (yes, hundreds, I measured) away from the intersection as it does at Hayward.

Quote:I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

(12-14-2020, 03:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

(12-21-2020, 07:28 AM)KevinT Wrote:

(12-14-2020, 03:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I will also take this opportunity to once again argue that the LRT should have continued along the freight railway, to a grade separated station at Block Line, then turned towards the hydro corridor between the car dealership and the mattress place. While they were at it, they could have built segregated bike lanes and a sidewalk on Courtland, as well as a trail from Block line to Balzer Rd, as well as connecting to the back of the towers on Fallowfield cutting 600 meters off their walk to the LRT station.

I daydream about this every time I ride through that section. What a wasted opportunity...

(12-21-2020, 02:39 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(12-21-2020, 07:28 AM)KevinT Wrote: I daydream about this every time I ride through that section. What a wasted opportunity...

That would have been a bad route, IMO. Think of the work necessary to get accessible stairs and a ramp down to the bottom of the corridor for a station there. Also, the nearest track at the bottom is a bit more than 90m from the current station platform, straight line distance, so a switchback ramp and stairs at AODA maximum grade would potentially double that distance. That would add a couple minutes to get to the station for healthy people, more for people with mobility issues, and thus reduce the catchment area on the other side of Courtland Ave., not to mention how it makes transferring to and from busses less convenient, too.

(12-21-2020, 08:46 PM)neonjoe Wrote: A station in the middle of a rail yard would be a lovely place to wait for a train.

(12-21-2020, 08:46 PM)neonjoe Wrote: A station in the middle of a rail yard would be a lovely place to wait for a train.