(12-08-2023, 05:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(12-08-2023, 05:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: They only share track from Waterloo Town Square to Northfield. There are places where there is effectively a single level crossing but the tracks themselves are completely isolated (e.g. Hayward).

When I say something can be done, I don’t always know who has to give permission. I’m pretty sure some of my complaints relate to safety paranoia from people within the Region (e.g. limiting to 50km/h along King St.); while others might relate to various regulatory authorities. I think a full discussion, with facts, would be very interesting.

I’m not sure about when gates should drop, but I think they should rise no later than as soon as the train clears the crossing. Actually I think a case can be made for having them rise as soon as the front of the train reaches the far side of the crossing. The idea is that the gates should be a warning that a train is coming; if the crossing is actually occupied by a train, no gates are needed as drivers are expected to avoid obstructions in the roadway. In multi-track situations, this would mean that people would know whether a second train was approaching by whether the gates go down again.

I wish trains travelled at 50km/h. In practice speeds are typical 30-40 km/h. And that's well below the speed limits, which are also often below 50km/h at 35-45km/h.

Safety paranoia is exactly the word I am looking for.

That being said...I'll give you that the chances of injuries or deaths would be higher if LRVs were routinely going 55km/h instead of 40km/h on that segment, given how many collisions there have been.

Of course, I wish safety paranoia was applied in any way to driving. Like...we'll do anything to ensure the safety of drivers the LRV hits, EXCEPT for restricting or enforcing their driving in any meaningful way. Like, we outright refuse to install cameras and ticket every single illegal left, but we will delay millions of passengers billions of minutes over the entire lifetime of the transit system to ensure that when a driver does make an illegal left they're less likely to die.

I will say that drivers are starting to get a clue about the existence of the LRT....or to put it more specifically, all three of the vehicles parked on the tracks for my 15 minute journey reversed off of the tracks when the train dinged at them.

(12-09-2023, 01:17 PM)Acitta Wrote: Saturday towards noon—Caroline and Father David Bauer Dr (Twitter)

(12-10-2023, 05:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I realize this is actually wrong. Safety paranoia doesn't actually describe what is happening...it's actually about liability. The reason the trains are so heavily restricted is because the engineers are believe they could be liable if things go wrong. Unlike with cars, where drivers are the ones who will be liable.

(12-11-2023, 01:35 AM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(12-10-2023, 05:55 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I realize this is actually wrong. Safety paranoia doesn't actually describe what is happening...it's actually about liability. The reason the trains are so heavily restricted is because the engineers are believe they could be liable if things go wrong. Unlike with cars, where drivers are the ones who will be liable.

I’d love to hear a lawyer’s expert take on this.

I know that many ridiculous liability decisions have been taken by the courts, making liable the innocent victims (property and business owners, manufacturers) of the irresponsible behaviour of others, but even so I have trouble believing that the Region would really be liable if their LRVs went at 70km/h down King St. when motor vehicles are mostly doing 60km/h and there was a collision caused by a motor vehicle violating the traffic law.

(12-10-2023, 10:24 PM)nms Wrote:

(12-09-2023, 01:17 PM)Acitta Wrote: Saturday towards noon—Caroline and Father David Bauer Dr (Twitter)

Just based on this photo, I am struggling to figure out how a transport truck could be traveling fast enough or maneuver fast enough in that location that the LRV couldn't stop in time.  The damage appears to show that the LRV hit the truck that was fouling the track. The LRV was also presumably traveling at slow enough speed having just cleared the Erb/Caroline corner and also preparing to stop at the station. Based on the trailer, this truck was likely making a delivery to the Loblaws Independent Grocer.

(12-11-2023, 07:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: Given the orientation of the truck, it was probably proceeding straight (the trailer is aligned in the lane), and made a turn, if they weren't signalling, the driver would have almost no warning about the impending collision.

(12-11-2023, 07:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(12-10-2023, 10:24 PM)nms Wrote: Just based on this photo, I am struggling to figure out how a transport truck could be traveling fast enough or maneuver fast enough in that location that the LRV couldn't stop in time.  The damage appears to show that the LRV hit the truck that was fouling the track. The LRV was also presumably traveling at slow enough speed having just cleared the Erb/Caroline corner and also preparing to stop at the station. Based on the trailer, this truck was likely making a delivery to the Loblaws Independent Grocer.

The speed limit of the LRV in that section is 50 km/h (it's a rare section where the speed limit matches the surrounding traffic...doubly so for a side running section). It's 150 meters from the last intersection so I wouldn't say it "just cleared" Erb and Caroline. While it's unlikely the operator is actually doing the speed limit there, 40km/h is very possible. At that speed the LRV stopping distance will be significant (a dozen meters maybe).

Given the orientation of the truck, it was probably proceeding straight (the trailer is aligned in the lane), and made a turn, if they weren't signalling, the driver would have almost no warning about the impending collision.

(12-11-2023, 06:45 PM)dtkvictim Wrote: I was referring to the road speed, since that might not have been clear.

Though if Waterloo convinced the Region to lower the speed limit on their portion of the road, I wouldn't put it past the Region to lower to speed limit of the LRT too...

(12-11-2023, 07:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(12-10-2023, 10:24 PM)nms Wrote: Just based on this photo, I am struggling to figure out how a transport truck could be traveling fast enough or maneuver fast enough in that location that the LRV couldn't stop in time.  The damage appears to show that the LRV hit the truck that was fouling the track. The LRV was also presumably traveling at slow enough speed having just cleared the Erb/Caroline corner and also preparing to stop at the station. Based on the trailer, this truck was likely making a delivery to the Loblaws Independent Grocer.

The speed limit of the LRV in that section is 50 km/h (it's a rare section where the speed limit matches the surrounding traffic...doubly so for a side running section). It's 150 meters from the last intersection so I wouldn't say it "just cleared" Erb and Caroline. While it's unlikely the operator is actually doing the speed limit there, 40km/h is very possible. At that speed the LRV stopping distance will be significant (a dozen meters maybe).

Given the orientation of the truck, it was probably proceeding straight (the trailer is aligned in the lane), and made a turn, if they weren't signalling, the driver would have almost no warning about the impending collision.

1. come up to just past the pedestrian island
   
2. cranked the steering wheel right so when they went into reverse the tractor-trailer would bend and the trailer go diagonally across the lanes
   
3. as they go start cranking the steering wheel left so the tractor and trailer align with each other
   
4. continue to back up diagonally across the road a bit more
   
5. turn the steering wheel right so the trailer turns to align with the loading dock
   

(12-19-2023, 11:37 PM)Bytor Wrote:

(12-11-2023, 07:04 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: The speed limit of the LRV in that section is 50 km/h (it's a rare section where the speed limit matches the surrounding traffic...doubly so for a side running section). It's 150 meters from the last intersection so I wouldn't say it "just cleared" Erb and Caroline. While it's unlikely the operator is actually doing the speed limit there, 40km/h is very possible. At that speed the LRV stopping distance will be significant (a dozen meters maybe).

Given the orientation of the truck, it was probably proceeding straight (the trailer is aligned in the lane), and made a turn, if they weren't signalling, the driver would have almost no warning about the impending collision.

40km/h is unlikely.

Had the tram not come by at that moment it would have gone something like this:

1. come up to just past the pedestrian island
   
2. cranked the steering wheel right so when they went into reverse the tractor-trailer would bend and the trailer go diagonally across the lanes
   
3. as they go start cranking the steering wheel left so the tractor and trailer align with each other
   
4. continue to back up diagonally across the road a bit more
   
5. turn the steering wheel right so the trailer turns to align with the loading dock
   

That turn at 2) would have taken them up onto the tracks. The tram would have been already very slow from rounding the corner and not needing to slow to stop at Willis Way station, so it was likely at the ass-end of the trailer or not much farther when the truck driver pressed on the accelerator to start the bend in step 2. If the tram was much farther back there would have been more time for the tractor-trailer to bend more and the tram's front-left corner would have hit the hitch end of the trailer or the right rear tires of the tractor instead of hitting and scraping along the cab and snagging the tractor's front bumper like that.


As the tram would not have been in the right side blindspot, the truck driver was likely fixated on the driver's side mirror to judge that the ass-end of the trailer was headed where they wanted it to go.

(12-11-2023, 11:23 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: To be fair, the LRT can’t go very fast on that block because of tight curves at each end.

Unlike all the places where it can’t go very fast because the people in charge won’t let it go faster.

(12-20-2023, 10:46 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(12-19-2023, 11:37 PM)Bytor Wrote: 40km/h is unlikely.

...

...

As for 40km/h, I think the thing that makes it less likely is the overly conservative operational safety policy which means they often operate the tram at more than 10km/h below the limit.