ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[bgb_ca]

Looks like it

[Canard]

Our newest addition to the family is tucked safely away for the weekend.

   

[Canard]

[Canard]

So, here’s something fun:

You know those big black illuminated “NO TURN/TRAIN” signs? I’ve seen them triggered randomly while riding my bike along Caroline.

   

I noticed it again today while riding SB... but there wasn't a single car on the road. I always assumed it was cars up closer to William that were triggering it. So I stopped... turned around, and went back... and biked toward it again.

It went off.

   

I did it like 10 times, just to make sure it was repeatable, and it went off at the same spot every time.

   

“Haha, that’s hilarious, it thinks I’m an LRV!”, I thought...



...until someone pointed out on twitter that maybe that’s the intended operation, that it goes off for both LRV’s and cyclists.

[Canard]

So, it’s triggered by anything moving toward it - even a pedestrian. I think the white square is a radar sensor, that detects motion toward (not away) from it. It only activated if you move toward it.

My guess? Since this is right at the end of the Willis Way platform, it’s a quick and easy way to get the NO TURN/TRAIN sign to come on when the train is actually moving toward it... not just when it’s sitting there, since it might be stationary, loading.

[ijmorlan]

So, it’s triggered by anything moving toward it - even a pedestrian. I think the white square is a radar sensor, that detects motion toward (not away) from it. It only activated if you move toward it.

My guess? Since this is right at the end of the Willis Way platform, it’s a quick and easy way to get the NO TURN/TRAIN sign to come on when the train is actually moving toward it... not just when it’s sitting there, since it might be stationary, loading.

Seems weird in an era of positive train control to be relying on such an unintegrated method of triggering the light. Shouldn’t the computer simply turn it on when the LRV is approaching the intersection? I’m assuming the computer knows exactly where each LRV is and what it is doing. Or maybe use a track circuit, combined with knowledge of what the LRV is doing (direction of movement, or stopped). This would also mean that vehicles on the tracks would not trigger the turn signs.

[Canard]

I can understand why they did it this way here.

It’s right at the end of the Willis Way platform. Other areas do not have the Radar sensor and are presumably triggered instantly by the inductive presence detector loops in the ground. That won’t work, here, or when an LRV is stopped at the station, the sign would be illuminated the entire time, which imposes an unnecessary restriction on traffic.

How could the system you propose know when a train is about to start moving and turn on the signal?

That’s why they did it this way.

At a glance it might seem they could just Boolean “AND” the inductive track loop and the radar sensor - train must be present AND moving to turn on the light.

Bit, you are also assuming everything is all integrated and so on as one massive system. For all we know, there’s 24V going up to that mast and that’s it, it could be a self-contained thing operating in isolation. There are a billion reasons why they did what they did, and I’m sure they’ll come up with a simple fix.

Automation is never as simple as “why didn’t they just...”

[ijmorlan]

I can understand why they did it this way here.

It’s right at the end of the Willis Way platform. Other areas do not have the Radar sensor and are presumably triggered instantly by the inductive presence detector loops in the ground. That won’t work, here, or when an LRV is stopped at the station, the sign would be illuminated the entire time, which imposes an unnecessary restriction on traffic.

How could the system you propose know when a train is about to start moving and turn on the signal?

That’s why they did it this way.

At a glance it might seem they could just Boolean “AND” the inductive track loop and the radar sensor - train must be present AND moving to turn on the light.

Bit, you are also assuming everything is all integrated and so on as one massive system. For all we know, there’s 24V going up to that mast and that’s it, it could be a self-contained thing operating in isolation. There are a billion reasons why they did what they did, and I’m sure they’ll come up with a simple fix.

Automation is never as simple as “why didn’t they just...”

When the driver presses the button to start moving, the system knows the LRV is moving. No precognition required.

However, my point is that the system isn’t actually a single integrated system: it’s multiple pieces, some of which work completely independently, which I find somewhat surprising.

There isn’t good monitoring with the sign being effectively a totally separate system from the actual LRV and track systems. Sign on and no LRV is an error condition, and sign off but LRV coming is also an error condition. The second is obviously an immediate hazard condition, while the first is a hazard condition in the long run when one considers the effect on people’s respect for signs and signals. It’s not obvious that either of these situations will even be detected, even if a collision occurs. If the signage is reliable enough, it may not matter, which would indeed explain the design. It just seems surprising to me.

So I’ll be interested to see how this and other similar signs work in practice once the system is operating. So far all we’ve seen is testing operation that doesn’t match regular service patterns.

On a related note, have people noticed that during testing so far the LRV regularly violates its horizontal bar signals?

[trainspotter139]

On a related note, have people noticed that during testing so far the LRV regularly violates its horizontal bar signals?

Those aren't 100% integrated into the traffic signal cycles everywhere yet.

[Canard]

On Francis at Duke, the cover plate on one of the LBFoster Track lubricators has come off, revealing the labyrinth pattern which distributes grease evenly from a single port to the rail head.

   

[Pheidippides]

Has anyone tried to use the distances between the posted speed limit signs to try and figure out an approximate time table?

Basically filling in this table:
   

[Canard]

Some footage I had been meaning to throw together for a little while, heading back North after reaching Fairway for the very first time.

[trainspotter139]

Sandbag testing is apparently going to be happening pretty soon. They put out a contract 12 days or so ago to a temp agency for general labourers to move 20kg sandbags on and off the LRVs to simulate a full passenger load. The listing has the following days on it: April 4th, April 11th, April 16th, April 27th, May 2nd, and May 7th. https://ca.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=a944e...j&dupclk=0

[ijmorlan]

Sandbag testing is apparently going to be happening pretty soon. They put out a contract 12 days or so ago to a temp agency for general labourers to move 20kg sandbags on and off the LRVs to simulate a full passenger load. The listing has the following days on it: April 4th, April 11th, April 16th, April 27th, May 2nd, and May 7th. https://ca.indeed.com/m/viewjob?jk=a944e...j&dupclk=0

Why keep moving the sandbags on and off? Why wouldn’t they just load them up and leave them there? Or is it that they want to test at various loading levels?

Funny thing is, they could probably get sandbags to pay to be there, and take themselves on and off without assistance. Well, not sandbags: actually ugly bags of mostly water.

[Canard]

They use water dummies on coasters for testing. Some rides need them to complete the circuit in the morning, like Leviathan at Canada’s Wonderland.

Sandbag testing killed a Bombardier employee on the JFK SkyTrain during commissioning.

If I was big and beefy (and wasn’t gainfully employed), I’d totally jump at the opportunity to do this! I’d volunteer!