ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

From what it sounds like the operation/runs expenses per period are pretty much set within the contract. Likely the best way to expand capacity without changing the contract would be double length trains, but this also involves capital costs.

Not fixed as such: they can get more service but it will cost more.

Running double trains will require 13-14 additional train sets, plus the station construction; reducing headways to 7.5 minutes would probably only require four or maybe five more. In addition to the cost difference, reducing the headways can be done more quickly as there is no construction, and we only need to wait for a handful of trains. Getting another 13-14 trains would surely take much more than two years.

While double trains might only need one driver, their operational and maintenance costs would still be higher, too.

The other thing they could do, as we've discussed here (and as RM Transit has pointed out), is run a more efficient system...and by that I mean, shorter end to end trip times, thereby decreasing the number of trains and operators needed to handle a given service frequency.

But sadly I don't see that happening.

[taylortbb]

reducing headways to 7.5 minutes would probably only require four or maybe five more [LRVs]

I actually don't think it would require any additional LRVs. Our original order of 14 LRVs was enough (with projected maintenance spares) to operate 8 minute rush hour service, as that was the originally expected launch frequency. We have since received a 15th vehicle from Bombardier as compensation for the delays, which IIRC said in the council report at the time would provide enough vehicles for 7 minute headways.

It's possible that they've since decided we need additional maintenance spares, perhaps due to the number of collisions, but I haven't seen any official comment to suggest that.

[nms]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know the length of the current order book for our model of LRVs? Who else is in front of us if we want to order the next batch?

[KevinL]

The only other customers for this model are Edmonton's Valley line and Toronto's Line 5, both of which have their complete fleet in place by now. So it would just be a matter of reactivating all the tooling for a new order, which might have a bit of initial cost (so ordering more units would probably be prudent to amortize that).

[KevinT]

But on the other hand, he says “Its combination of frequency, reliability and punctuality is unmatched in this province”. In fact the worst scheduled frequency for the Toronto subway of every 5-6 minutes, on the underused Sheppard line, is better than the best scheduled frequency for ION of every 10 minutes (ignoring overnight closures). At rush hour the main Toronto subway lines operate on a 2-3 minute frequency.

Yes, but what the TTC lacks is adherence to schedule. Urban Toronto of late is full of stories of people waiting more than 10 minutes for the subway due to bunching. It used to be just their street cars, but now its also commonly their trains. ION is never as fast as we think it should be, but it has an uncanny knack for hitting its schedule points that I truly appreciate.

[KevinT]

I actually don't think it would require any additional LRVs. Our original order of 14 LRVs was enough (with projected maintenance spares) to operate 8 minute rush hour service, as that was the originally expected launch frequency. We have since received a 15th vehicle from Bombardier as compensation for the delays, which IIRC said in the council report at the time would provide enough vehicles for 7 minute headways.

That additional train was to cover one at a time being out of service for the frame re-welds on the first several trains (number forgotten, and don't feel like digging for it now). Have we heard anything on the status of that re-welding initiative? Is it done? Is it started? If anything has been said about that in the past year or two, I've missed it...

[ijmorlan]

But on the other hand, he says “Its combination of frequency, reliability and punctuality is unmatched in this province”. In fact the worst scheduled frequency for the Toronto subway of every 5-6 minutes, on the underused Sheppard line, is better than the best scheduled frequency for ION of every 10 minutes (ignoring overnight closures). At rush hour the main Toronto subway lines operate on a 2-3 minute frequency.

Yes, but what the TTC lacks is adherence to schedule. Urban Toronto of late is full of stories of people waiting more than 10 minutes for the subway due to bunching. It used to be just their street cars, but now its also commonly their trains. ION is never as fast as we think it should be, but it has an uncanny knack for hitting its schedule points that I truly appreciate.

OK, I didn’t realize the incompetent management had gotten to the trains as well.

I agree that being predictable is very important. Although it would be nice if the predictability didn’t include falling over every time there is a bit of freezing rain.

[neonjoe]

If the bunching is happening on Line 1 it would mean that ATC is out of control!!

[Bytor]

From what it sounds like the operation/runs expenses per period are pretty much set within the contract. Likely the best way to expand capacity without changing the contract would be double length trains, but this also involves capital costs.

Not fixed as such: they can get more service but it will cost more.

Running double trains will require 13-14 additional train sets, plus the station construction; reducing headways to 7.5 minutes would probably only require four or maybe five more. In addition to the cost difference, reducing the headways can be done more quickly as there is no construction, and we only need to wait for a handful of trains. Getting another 13-14 trains would surely take much more than two years.

While double trains might only need one driver, their operational and maintenance costs would still be higher, too.

The ION LRT trams currently run on a 100-minute schedule with a 7-minute break at Fairway station and 6-minute break at Conestoga before turning around when doing 10-minute headways.

E.g. The tram leaves Conestoga at 12:00:00, arrives at Fairway at 12:43:00, leaves Fairway at 12:50:00, arrives back at Conestoga at 13:34:00, and leaves again at 13:40. This uses 10 trams.

For trams every 7.5 minutes, you could use 13 trams on a 97.5-minute schedule with breaks of 5 and 5.5 minutes, or 14 trams on a 105-minute schedule with breaks of 12 and 6 minutes.

Now that I think about it, that second one would not work because it would mean a second tram arriving while the first tram is waiting with a 4.5 minute overlap which could make it confusing for which tram to get on as the next departure would switch back and forth between platforms.

[taylortbb]

For trams every 7.5 minutes, you could use 13 trams on a 97.5-minute schedule with breaks of 5 and 5.5 minutes, or 14 trams on a 105-minute schedule with breaks of 12 and 6 minutes.

I remember the region referring to our original purchase of 14 vehicles as being 2 maintenance spares + 12 in-service vehicles, with 8 minute headways. So your math tracks with the reference to 1 additional vehicle being adequate for 7 minute service. I assume they meant 13 in-service vehicles, with 7.5 minute headways.

Whether 2 maintenance spares is actually enough is of course another question.

[nms]

For the breaks at either end, if the same operator is driving the train back, is there something in labour law and/or their contract that mandates how much of a break they need? (eg how long does it take to walk from the LRV to the washroom and back)

[taylortbb]

I don't think they're legally breaks, they're paid time. I think they're in the schedule primarily as schedule recovery time. Also, the LRT drivers aren't unionized like the bus drivers, so I doubt that anything is in the contract. That said, obviously the schedule needs to be setup to allow for washroom breaks.

[ijmorlan]

That said, obviously the schedule needs to be setup to allow for washroom breaks.

Jeff Bezos begs to differ.

[Bytor]

For trams every 7.5 minutes, you could use 13 trams on a 97.5-minute schedule with breaks of 5 and 5.5 minutes, or 14 trams on a 105-minute schedule with breaks of 12 and 6 minutes.

I remember the region referring to our original purchase of 14 vehicles as being 2 maintenance spares + 12 in-service vehicles, with 8 minute headways. So your math tracks with the reference to 1 additional vehicle being adequate for 7 minute service. I assume they meant 13 in-service vehicles, with 7.5 minute headways.

Whether 2 maintenance spares is actually enough is of course another question.

I just double-checked and it seems the region and GrandLinq had initially chosen 13 trams for 7.5 minute service.

https://web.archive.org/web/202211221916...df#page=22

They also anticipated 16 trams for 3 spares at that time.

[tomh009]

So, in the longer term, maybe 20 vehicles to get to a five-minute headway? That would be a superb service level, and would take off any pressure to run longer trains.