(11-01-2023, 02:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(10-31-2023, 08:31 PM)tomh009 Wrote: Quite true. The dirt doesn't really care how long it has to wait for the dump truck.

*blinks*...did ac3r really compare transit riders with...*checks notes*...dirt?!

I mean, even for them, I doubt that was the intention, but wow.

In any case, for transit riders, more frequent it always better. Other things can also be benefits, but there is basically no frequency high enough that more frequent won't be better.

(11-01-2023, 12:40 PM)KevinL Wrote: Between Mill and Block Line alone trips could shave several minutes. The creek bridge and the run along Hayward are taken far too slowly and seem to have been set to some absurdly conservative limit for no clear reason.

They should also signalize the pedestrian crossing behind the Fairway shops and put in lift arms, that would save the trains going slower there.

(11-02-2023, 04:39 PM)ac3r Wrote: But then again this particular stretch of track is where I find the LRVs most often do that weird...thing...where they'll be moving along, they start vibrating and shaking like crazy, you hear the "bzzzz" noise of the traction sand being sprayed while the driver also lowers the throttle before speeding up again, almost as if they've got weird weight issues that are result in peculiar physics of the trains. This weird shake and brake happens all over the route and it's incredibly annoying, but it definitely occurs here more often than other places. It has me wondering if Metrolinx/TTC will regret using these on Line 5. The Valley Line in Edmonton should be opening this Saturday so it will be interesting to see what the broad public response will be to these trains because so far we're still the only ones using them here and they have not been very good all things considered.

(11-02-2023, 08:42 PM)plam Wrote: Not perfect, but way better than Ottawa!

(11-03-2023, 11:26 AM)ac3r Wrote: It's the Ottawa light metro still having issues? I figured they would have solved most of them by now.

(11-03-2023, 11:57 AM)neonjoe Wrote:

(11-03-2023, 11:26 AM)ac3r Wrote: It's the Ottawa light metro still having issues? I figured they would have solved most of them by now.

They have a plan for a meeting to discuss future plans for more meetings to solve the issue.

In all seriousness they do a have potential fix for the main issue. The design flaw was that the european axel assemblies were not compatible with the typical north american rail. Alstom plans to have a prototype fix ready for 2025.

(11-01-2023, 10:37 PM)nms Wrote: So even accounting for the two year delay with the mid-2019 launch, the Region is conceivably well within the 2020-2024 (corrected to 2022-2026) window when 16 trains would be in the fleet. 

(11-01-2023, 10:37 PM)nms Wrote: Since I don't know how far in advance an LRV must be ordered, it might also be time to consider getting in line for LRVs 17 to 20.

(11-02-2023, 04:39 PM)ac3r Wrote: And unless the Flexity Freedom's are even worse than we thought, surely they could take those actual tight turns to get across Hayward much faster than they do. I've been on plenty of trains, trams and streetcars that can make similarly tight turns a bit faster.

(11-03-2023, 02:56 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(11-02-2023, 04:39 PM)ac3r Wrote: And unless the Flexity Freedom's are even worse than we thought, surely they could take those actual tight turns to get across Hayward much faster than they do. I've been on plenty of trains, trams and streetcars that can make similarly tight turns a bit faster.

This is another thing done by equations.

rₘ = (G * s²)/(g * (C + D))

rₘ is minimum radius of curve
G track gauge in mm
s is speed of train in m/s
g is the gravitational constant 9.81 m/s
C is the cant of the rails in mm
D is the cant deficiency expressed in mm

Cant deficiency is essentially how hard the train pushes toward the outside rail on a curve. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cant_deficiency

It doesn't seem to me like ION tracks were laid with any cant on curves like from Charles onto Borden. It feels like minimal centrifugal force outwards. It looks like about a 35m radius, so a small cant deficiency of 50mm gives us a max speed of about 12km/h around it. Cant deficiency cannot be higher, or you'd feel more centrifugal force as a passenger.

If you get an app that tracks your speed with GPS, the trams go about 10km/h around the Borden and Hayward corners.

Unless the trams you were on had a cant in their rails, they likely were not going any faster around similar sized corners.

(11-01-2023, 11:36 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(10-31-2023, 04:57 PM)tomh009 Wrote: At the moment, the complete return trip takes about 100 minutes, from the Conestoga departure until the train leaves the same station again. With 10-minute headways, that's ten trains. They would be able to run eight-minute headways without any additional trains--and eight-minute headways would be better for passengers than double trains. With eight (or so) more trains they would be able to run five-minute headways, with the same capacity as  double trains, but greater passenger convenience.

Increased frequency > increased train length

They really should be able to get the 100 minutes down to 90 minutes by being smarter about speed limits and refining signalling. That would also make a lot of headways work more naturally: 3 vehicles could maintain a 30 minute headway overnight, for example, or just 6 could provide 15 minute service.

(11-06-2023, 03:56 PM)dunkalunk Wrote: GRT's got a survey up. https://www.grt.ca/en/about-grt/budget-2024-proposals.aspx
Interesting that they're running it through their own internal site instead of through Engage.

The questions in the survey are laid out in a way so that you need to give a 1-10 score to an entire category, rather than indicate what you like and don't like about a proposal.



I marked this zero, along with the bus wraps, since trading lower frequency for higher frequency is not something GRT should be doing with service. Also, bus wraps are horrible.