Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 15 Vote(s) - 3.93 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
(06-29-2019, 08:39 PM)Lens Wrote: I still think the end platforms should have been center boarding.

The way the platforms are built is definitely wrong if both platforms will regularly be used for boarding. You will note that all permanent TTC subway terminal stations, past and present, are centre-platform, except for the Yonge part of Sheppard/Yonge where they only use a single platform (side-platform stations Woodbine and Keele were the original terminii of Line 2, but the extensions to centre-platform Islington and Warden started construction as soon as the initial portion of the line opened).

They should have either decided explicitly that one platform is for normal boarding, and the other for taking vehicles out of service; or built centre-platform stations; or built a tail track so the terminal station can operate like a non-terminal station. Given minimum headways of 7/8 minutes, a single platform should be enough — it does not take a full headway to process a vehicle in and back out again. This is not like the subway where you have much longer trains arriving every 2 minutes during rush hour.

Another possibility, which is used by Gold Coast LRT, is to extend one platform over one of the tracks until the extension is built. Then you can board from one platform and exit to the other platform, which can help with the large turnover common at terminal stations.
Reply


(06-29-2019, 09:42 PM)taylortbb Wrote: According to Tom Galloway on Twitter they'll be adding more service for the rest of the weekend. https://twitter.com/tomjgalloway14/statu...81216?s=09

GRT was also posting on Friday that they're adding extra trains to handle the loads from the Canada Day celebrations, but it sounds like from Tom's tweet they're going beyond that.

I think the success of ION is important enough to the region that they're interested in trying to stay on top of demand rather than just setting a schedule once every few months. I feel like the ION launch has really changed attitudes into thinking more like a big city transit system.

Do you recall when they were supposed to start two-train service? Wasn't that like 2025? They may have to rethink that if service doesn't die down as much as they anticipated come this summer and/or September (when everyone is back to work and school). I have to wonder when procurement will occur for the new trains.
Reply
(06-30-2019, 12:14 AM)jeffster Wrote: Do you recall when they were supposed to start two-train service? Wasn't that like 2025? They may have to rethink that if service doesn't die down as much as they anticipated come this summer and/or September (when everyone is back to work and school).  I have to wonder when procurement will occur for the new trains.

Timeframe# vehiclespeak headwaymax # double vehicles
2021-2024168 min0
2025-2030207.5 min3
2031-2035237 min6
2036-2040277 min9
2041-2045307 min12
2046-2047337 minall
Reply
I wouldn't read too much into the original agreement proposed schedules. Those schedules also said evening headways of 30 minutes, and service winding down at 11pm, even in 2046. We're already at service past midnight with 15 minute headways right until the end. Those tables were drawn up by people in the rapid transit team that had never talked to GRT, and probably based it on American LRT systems with much lower ridership. GRT was already providing every 15 minute service past midnight on route 7.

If current service leads to overcrowding I suspect we'll see frequency increases for a while before we see train coupling. The fact schedules are now managed by GRT is a big part of that, but the infrastructure also isn't fully built for two car trains. The concrete platforms are there, but the canopies, arrival displays, door markers, etc aren't there. It could be built, but I think it creates just enough friction for two car trains.

I also suspect that rush hour won't be the limiting factor. Rather, early evening and Saturdays, where they currently have 15 minute headways, is IMO where we'll see the first overcrowding. Because we don't have a big CBD I think the system will get lots of recreational, rather than commuter, use in the first several years.
Reply
Yep, there are already significant deviations from the baseline plan, which makes me wonder if we'll get double trains sooner than 2025-2030. We'll obviously have a much better idea of how limiting the current capacity is after Canada Day. 15 minute headway has plenty of room for improvement as demand dictates, but if the shorter headway periods are also at capacity, even reducing it to the minimum of 7 minutes isn't going to make that much difference. I still wonder what Galloway is thinking about for September.
Reply
(06-30-2019, 12:53 AM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Yep, there are already significant deviations from the baseline plan, which makes me wonder if we'll get double trains sooner than 2025-2030. We'll obviously have a much better idea of how limiting the current capacity is after Canada Day. 15 minute headway has plenty of room for improvement as demand dictates, but if the shorter headway periods are also at capacity, even reducing it to the minimum of 7 minutes isn't going to make that much difference. I still wonder what Galloway is thinking about for September.

The system specs say that everything has to support double trains at 5 minute headways. The baseline plans might not ever get to those headways, but I see no reason we can't do it. If ION is really as well received as it appears to be I suspect the political will for it will be there, especially as they continue to get the signalling system tightened up (and running with ATP).
Reply
For those that haven't been on the LRT, like myself, I found this on youtube, and it's a great FPP: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-GmX89Bc9s
Reply


ijmorlan Wrote:
Lens Wrote:I still think the end platforms should have been center boarding.

The way the platforms are built is definitely wrong if both platforms will regularly be used for boarding. You will note that all permanent TTC subway terminal stations, past and present, are centre-platform, except for the Yonge part of Sheppard/Yonge where they only use a single platform (side-platform stations Woodbine and Keele were the original terminii of Line 2, but the extensions to centre-platform Islington and Warden started construction as soon as the initial portion of the line opened).

They were restricted by the geometry of the site in each case, particularly at Conestoga. A centre platform would mean the tracks are farther apart, and thus the leading crossover has to be longer in turn. They couldn't fit this into the property and architecture they had to work with.
Reply
(06-30-2019, 10:43 AM)KevinL Wrote:
ijmorlan Wrote:The way the platforms are built is definitely wrong if both platforms will regularly be used for boarding. You will note that all permanent TTC subway terminal stations, past and present, are centre-platform, except for the Yonge part of Sheppard/Yonge where they only use a single platform (side-platform stations Woodbine and Keele were the original terminii of Line 2, but the extensions to centre-platform Islington and Warden started construction as soon as the initial portion of the line opened).

They were restricted by the geometry of the site in each case, particularly at Conestoga. A centre platform would mean the tracks are farther apart, and thus the leading crossover has to be longer in turn. They couldn't fit this into the property and architecture they had to work with.

I am sure there were trade offs to be made for all stations on the line. The frustrating thing is that passenger convenience and access seem to be a very low priority compared with cost, and motorist convenience when hard choices had to be made.

Hopefully some of these can be fixed over time but central platforms isn't likely one of them.
Reply
Train report:. Far far less busy than yesterday. Still standing room only. Signs are showing times. Still seeing 15 minute frequency but given the smaller crowds probably okay.

Also the (Kitchener) mayor just got on our train.
Reply
The one positive about standing room only is that it is at least a smooth ride. I once read something amusing about how GRT buses provide you with the most uncomfortable experience you can get for less than 3 dollars, and that's true. Nothing like being on a 200 jam packed that seems to hit every pot hole and bump possible.
Reply
(06-30-2019, 10:58 AM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(06-30-2019, 10:43 AM)KevinL Wrote: They were restricted by the geometry of the site in each case, particularly at Conestoga. A centre platform would mean the tracks are farther apart, and thus the leading crossover has to be longer in turn. They couldn't fit this into the property and architecture they had to work with.

I am sure there were trade offs to be made for all stations on the line. The frustrating thing is that passenger convenience and access seem to be a very low priority compared with cost, and motorist convenience when hard choices had to be made. 

Hopefully some of these can be fixed over time but central platforms isn't likely one of them.

At Fairway the platforms will be fixed by the Cambridge extension. Once it’s not a terminus the problem will go away.

At Conestoga they should just use a single platform except for unusual situations.

Also, they need to do whatever is required to ensure that the announcements are always correct, which would help with the platform situation regardless of the actual operations. On Friday I saw a Conestoga-bound LRV signed for Fairway, which made me wonder what the stop announcements were doing inside, and also makes me wonder just how much scope for manual error there is. Shouldn’t the LRV know what trip it is and therefore what the destination sign should be showing?

On a related note, I’ve complained before about how crossing protection immediately past a stop activates as a train arrives at the stop, and there has been some discussion about why this might be needed — in case of overrun, etc. I’ve observed operations at Conestoga Mall which invalidate any conceivable justification for pre-activating the crossing protection (other than, of course, being required to follow “safety” rules arbitrarily imposed from above): twice I have arrived at the Mall with an LRV parked at the very end of the track, past the part of the platform which is currently used for passenger loading. My LRV simply drove in on the same track and stopped no more than a couple of metres short of touching the other LRV. If this is something they can do in service with passengers, then they clearly feel that they can stop reliably in the station, and it should be no problem if what is immediately past the station is not a parked LRV but instead a crossing.
Reply
(06-30-2019, 12:26 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: On a related note, I’ve complained before about how crossing protection immediately past a stop activates as a train arrives at the stop, and there has been some discussion about why this might be needed — in case of overrun, etc. I’ve observed operations at Conestoga Mall which invalidate any conceivable justification for pre-activating the crossing protection (other than, of course, being required to follow “safety” rules arbitrarily imposed from above): twice I have arrived at the Mall with an LRV parked at the very end of the track, past the part of the platform which is currently used for passenger loading. My LRV simply drove in on the same track and stopped no more than a couple of metres short of touching the other LRV. If this is something they can do in service with passengers, then they clearly feel that they can stop reliably in the station, and it should be no problem if what is immediately past the station is not a parked LRV but instead a crossing.

The problem is ION has two different regulatory regimes. There's railway operations with crossing lights and ATP, and there's on-street line of sight (LOS) operations.

The Conestoga station is in the LOS operation section where it's basically just a bus on rails and the driver has all responsibility. The problems with gates are in the railway section, where all sorts of rules written for heavy rail trains (that can't stop quickly) come into play. It's definitely an arbitrary regulation issue, combined with general safety panic about trains (while we accept the same things from cars).
Reply


I'm a fan of the wayfinding signs they have on the sidewalks in downtown.
Reply
Also, it seems that they bumped up the frequency today. Next train is apparently 10 minutes right now.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 11 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links