ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version +- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com) +-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14) +--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25) +--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
1001
1002
1003
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
1035
1036
1037
1038
1039
1040
1041
1042
1043
1044
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
1068
1069
1070
1071
1072
1073
1074
1075
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
1083
1084
1085
1086
1087
1088
1089
1090
1091
1092
1093
1094
1095
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
1102
1103
1104
1105
1106
1107
1108
1109
1110
1111
1112
1113
1114
1115
1116
1117
1118
1119
1120
1121
1122
1123
1124
1125
1126
1127
1128
1129
1130
1131
1132
1133
1134
1135
1136
1137
1138
1139
1140
1141
1142
1143
1144
1145
1146
1147
1148
1149
1150
1151
1152
1153
1154
1155
1156
1157
1158
1159
1160
1161
1162
1163
1164
1165
1166
|
RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - timc - 01-08-2016 (01-08-2016, 04:26 PM)Canard Wrote: Has anyone driven down King between Union and Wellington in the last day or two? The detailed ion emailer that just went out reads like OCS Poles and Wires are actually going up here right now! I biked there this morning and didn't see any poles going up or in a position to do so. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - GtwoK - 01-08-2016 Just read that latest Ion update... wow, @ shutting down Courtland to through traffic for 6 months. Though I see the necessity when you've got intersections like ho Blockline / Courtland is planed to look. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 01-08-2016 If you've seen the current state of the Courtalnd /Shelley area you can see how that is necessary. I'm a bit surprised at 6 months, though. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-08-2016 (01-08-2016, 04:40 PM)Markster Wrote:(01-08-2016, 03:29 AM)taylortbb Wrote: Markster, to answer your comment about three car trains, when I spoke to Nancy Button years ago she said they were designing to allow for future expansion to three car trains. I've never seen any reference in the project agreement, and a lot has changed since she was in charge, so who knows what that means now. But it definitely was on their radar at some point. The information at the public consultation on stop design said they were planning the platforms to be long enough for two-car trains. At first, the shelters, ticket machines, and other features of the stops will extend only the length of a single car. However, it would be very smart to design the actual track and road layout to allow for an extension of the platform to three cars. If they are indeed doing this, even if only where relatively easy, then I am impressed. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-09-2016 I honestly don't think there's any plan or evidence that they're planing on platforms being long enough to couple 3 trains together. It's not anywhere on the 30-year operations plan. The gauntlet tracks along the spur are built to permit freight trains to bypass a platform that is long enough for two trains coupled together. It brings to mind one of my favourite quotes, "...and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle". RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 01-09-2016 There was a question about catpoles being erected in the Union to Wellington area. I am in that area now and can confirm nothing is up yet. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 01-09-2016 There are poles going up, but they're hydro poles. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 01-09-2016 Further to my earlier visit, I got a good look at the progress at KCI. On the main stairs, good progress to the right side, obviously the left will follow. Further along is this structure that we've speculated on in the past. I'm still not sure what it's supposed to be. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - tomh009 - 01-09-2016 (01-09-2016, 08:51 AM)Canard Wrote: I honestly don't think there's any plan or evidence that they're planing on platforms being long enough to couple 3 trains together. It's not anywhere on the 30-year operations plan. The gauntlet tracks along the spur are built to permit freight trains to bypass a platform that is long enough for two trains coupled together. They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains. Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them. But hopefully they will increase frequency before they start even thinking about adding a third car to the trains. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - KevinL - 01-10-2016 (01-09-2016, 10:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote:(01-09-2016, 08:51 AM)Canard Wrote: I honestly don't think there's any plan or evidence that they're planing on platforms being long enough to couple 3 trains together. It's not anywhere on the 30-year operations plan. The gauntlet tracks along the spur are built to permit freight trains to bypass a platform that is long enough for two trains coupled together. There are physical limitations at a number of the stations that would not allow three-car trains. Notably, both of the core stations on Charles Street: Victoria Park would not have enough space between Gaukel and the Manulife building; Queen would not have enough between Queen Street and the slope up to Benton. Others have less restrictive geometry but lengthening the platforms would require rebuilding roadways a second time to allow enough space, on top of realigning many stretches of track (which would shut down the line, at least partially). I don't think this would be a straightforward undertaking. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - BuildingScout - 01-10-2016 Flexity Freedom have capacity for 150 people. A two car configuration is 300 passengers. LRT would have to be a wild success for this not to be enough at 5 min intervals. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-10-2016 (01-09-2016, 10:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains. Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them. Oh, I know all about planing for future capacity - I'm a designer My point is, all this 3-LRV's coupled together thing is coming from is one picture from the UoW bridge where you can see there's a gap that looks about as long as one train between the end of the current platform and the next pedestrian road crossing. It's a bit of a wild jump in my mind that this automatically means the Region is planing for it. You could just as easily say "Oh, they're planing on making 401 20 lanes wide through Cambridge" because the nearest house just happens to be set way back or whatever. Can Conestoga's Terminal accommodate 3 LRV's coupled together? Is there enough space between the buffer stops at the tail tracks and the crossover at the other end of the platform? Quote:But hopefully they will increase frequency before they start even thinking about adding a third car to the trains. Correct - the 30-year operations plan in the Project Agreement has a very detailed roll-out plan for coupling 2 LRV's together, and also on how they will increase service frequency. At the end of the 30 year projection, each train is two LRV's coupled together, 14 in total, exercising the future additional 14 LRV purchase option from Bombardier, running at 7.5 minute headways. Schedule 15-3 Appendix D Baseline Service Plans 2017 to 2047 I really really really hope that any consideration to increase capacity beyond that would involve running trains closer together, rather than longer - 7.5 minutes is still too long in my mind. While we're talking about long trains - Chongqing built their entire Monorail system (both lines) to handle 8-car trains. When the system opened ~10 years ago, they were running 4 car trains. They've just started rolling out 8 car trains due to the wild success of the system. RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-10-2016 (01-10-2016, 10:17 AM)Canard Wrote:(01-09-2016, 10:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains. Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them. Very much agreed. I think it really ought to run every five minutes all the time (except maybe overnight). Of course the vehicles would be by no means full late at night but the point of running service like this is to provide service that everybody knows they can rely on and will therefore use. This is how it works in Toronto with the subway. Even if it dropped off to every 10 minutes late at night that wouldn’t be too bad. But the idea of spending all the money for the track and vehicles and then only operating them every 30 minutes at some time periods seems questionable. I had a thought about how the base service level was determined however. Remember that more service will cost more to operate, and will increase the cost of the contract. The headline contract price ($1.9G, oh my!) includes 30 years of operation at the service levels detailed in the RFP. So one cannot help but wonder if one factor determining the proposed service levels was what the final headline contract price would appear to be. While none of this makes any difference to some people — as far as I can tell, there are people who would consider it a bad thing even if it got built and operated for free — there may be people at the margin who can be kept onside with a more moderate contract cost. In future years we can decide, as a Region, to run more service, and the headline expense at that point will be only the increment to do so. Of course this is another example of non-motor-vehicle transport being treated differently. What road project has its 30-year maintenance and operations cost splashed across every newspaper headline when it is proposed or when the contract is signed? Or worse yet, first has its capital expense publicized, then the 30-year all-in cost, then people write letters to the editor about how the cost has ballooned from just the capital expense number to the 30-year all-in, as if the difference is due to obvious oversights and corruption? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Canard - 01-10-2016 Toronto is a bit of an exception, when it comes to service frequency and headways. At rush, they aim for 2:26 headways between trains (and automating the YUS line, which is what they're doing now, will bring that down even further!) - which is about the lowest of any rapid metros in the world, certainly that I've ever ridden. Exceptions are SkyTrain (Vancouver) where I've actually been standing on the platform, watching the train I just got off leave and before it's even cleared the platform, the next train is coming in, and automated systems like VAL, where small trains run extremely frequently to get the capacity up to a reasonable level: But all other heavy metros and subways I've ridden do something closer to 5 minutes in rush and 10+ minutes non-rush. Growing up with Toronto as our nearest subway we kind of hold others up to a higher standard. So when I got older and started going off and exploring the world I was shocked that so many systems have such dismal headways between trains in off-peak. DC drops to something like 20 minutes off-peak! It's a beautiful system but the service frequency can be brutal. There's going to be a balance obviously between the number of trains we run here, which dictates how close they'll be together, and I'm sure the first few years there's going to be a lot of balancing done to try and optimize wait times with operational costs (more trains running = more expense, both from an operations standpoint and a maintenance one as well). It's no different than going to a theme park and getting annoyed at one-train operations on a light day. Yeah, I hate it, but it makes sense because why wear out the wheels on 2 trains when you can just make your guests wait twice as long and cut your ops cost in half? RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Markster - 01-10-2016 (01-09-2016, 10:04 PM)tomh009 Wrote: They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains. Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them. (01-10-2016, 12:18 AM)KevinL Wrote: There are physical limitations at a number of the stations that would not allow three-car trains. Notably, both of the core stations on Charles Street: Victoria Park would not have enough space between Gaukel and the Manulife building; Queen would not have enough between Queen Street and the slope up to Benton. Others have less restrictive geometry but lengthening the platforms would require rebuilding roadways a second time to allow enough space, on top of realigning many stretches of track (which would shut down the line, at least partially). I don't think this would be a straightforward undertaking. I pointed out the example of Victoria Park, which agrees that extendability to 3 platforms is not a mandated requirement. We shall see about Queen, as there is nothing there yet. The block is long enough. Cedar and Borden appear to be able to extend without such massive rebuilding of track, which was my point. (01-10-2016, 10:17 AM)Canard Wrote: My point is, all this 3-LRV's coupled together thing is coming from is one picture from the UoW bridge where you can see there's a gap that looks about as long as one train between the end of the current platform and the next pedestrian road crossing. It's a bit of a wild jump in my mind that this automatically means the Region is planing for it. That was the picture I posted yes. However my "wild" statement is based on consistent observations at Conestoga, R&T, UW, Seagram, Caroline, Cedar, and Borden. Especially Borden, where Charles St has been drastically realigned, and there is now a nice long 120m straight stretch where there wasn't one before. I agree with you that there's no obligation for Grandlink to extend the platforms. That platform extension is probably 30 years away at least. That one station, Victoria Park, would have to be scrapped/moved. But you're replying to my observations by pointing at a piece of paper, saying that it's not written down. I'm pointing at concrete and saying it's there. Quote:You could just as easily say "Oh, they're planing on making 401 20 lanes wide through Cambridge" because the nearest house just happens to be set way back or whatever. The size of a road's right of way, coupled with advantageous property acquisition is the same kind of "we don't need it yet, but we might in the future, so let's make decisions now to make it easier" is the exact kind of planning for the future I'm talking about. Anyway, taylorbb confirmed that it was thought about, which would explain why there are many considerations in place, but they are not universal. (01-08-2016, 03:29 AM)taylortbb Wrote: Markster, to answer your comment about three car trains, when I spoke to Nancy Button years ago she said they were designing to allow for future expansion to three car trains. I've never seen any reference in the project agreement, and a lot has changed since she was in charge, so who knows what that means now. But it definitely was on their radar at some point. |