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:
  • 10 Vote(s) - 4.3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit
(02-19-2018, 11:09 AM)Canard Wrote: Trailing-point half-crossovers like ours are inherently safer - a mis-thrown switch doesn't have the possibility of leading to a head-on collision between vehicles, like leading-point half-crossovers do.

There's no need to have full-full crossovers, either, unless you want to reverse-run for a short section of a route due to platform or track maintenance in a short section and have a pinch (not an issue when your headways are as big as ours, but that's another discussion...).  Our system was never designed with that capability in mind (otherwise there would be full crossovers at much more frequent intervals).

The trailing-point setup we have will be just fine for ion.  Simple, cheap, and effective - the motto of the entire system, really, and an excellent model for others to follow.

Indeed, and lately I’ve been wondering why (almost) all the TTC crossovers are double — I know some used to be terminal locations, but there are several that have always been nothing more than intermediate short turn locations and it’s not clear to me why they would ever use the facing-point half of the double crossover.

I was raising the issue in the context of somebody pointing out that each track could be used in either direction and therefore one should look both ways before crossing. Of course they are correct as a matter of prudent behaviour, but I’m wondering how often our trains will actually run in the opposite direction, given that the crossovers are not designed to make opposite-direction running convenient (except on the Spur Line of course).

Incidentally, I don’t understand why we have double crossovers and dual platforms at the terminal stations. It seems like just having the two tracks join into a single track just under one half of a minimal headway’s travel time from the end would work fine. One switch instead of four, no diamond, and a single buffer. Of course space should be left to extend the double track to the end of the line to allow for future extension.
Reply


(02-19-2018, 01:37 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The document I referenced in the winter walking thread also defines, among other things, non-compliant track geometry and spells out the fines for non-compliance for track geometry ($20,000 per non-compliance event).

Well, this is one good explanation for the recent track corrections.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
(02-19-2018, 02:50 PM)KevinL Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 01:37 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The document I referenced in the winter walking thread also defines, among other things, non-compliant track geometry and spells out the fines for non-compliance for track geometry ($20,000 per non-compliance event).

Well, this is one good explanation for the recent track corrections.

Doesn't explain why they weren't found and fixed earlier though. GrandLinq has been lucky the LRVs have been so late to have this much slack in their schedule.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
They don’t though. They’re now holding up LRV delivery!

(02-19-2018, 02:37 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: given that the crossovers are not designed to make opposite-direction running convenient (except on the Spur Line of course).

ijmorlan: the Spur half-crossovers are the exact same trailing point configuration as the two urban ones. There is no added convenience.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
Idle speculation time: does having two tracks at the terminal ends give more flexibility in scheduling? I'm trying to think of a scenario in my head, but it isn't working.
Reply
Yes, it does - it allows a train to come in on Platform 1, and sit for a little bit longer (gives that operator a moment to take a washroom break, etc.). Next train comes in and uses Platform 2, and does the same thing. Now the first train that came in on Platform 1 can leave. It doubles the time that a particular LRV can wait at the end. If it's lunch time for that operator, it might sit there for a couple of cycles. etc...

(basically, exactly what you said - it affords flexibility.)

One end of G:link was done as a single track but it's actually double tracks and they extended a "temporary-ish" platform over the second tracks. It has a single half crossover IIRC. As many of the same system partners built our line I'm assuming they decided it seemed like a good idea on paper to do that but in reality the extra flexibility to have two terminus tracks would be nice to have, and added it into our design.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(02-19-2018, 04:11 PM)Canard Wrote: They don’t though. They’re now holding up LRV delivery!

(02-19-2018, 02:37 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: given that the crossovers are not designed to make opposite-direction running convenient (except on the Spur Line of course).

ijmorlan: the Spur half-crossovers are the exact same trailing point configuration as the two urban ones. There is no added convenience.

Not the one just south of Northfield. I mean immediately south of the platform. And the reason for it is that single-track operation is planned late at night. So by “on the Spur Line” I mean that the single-track operation will be on the Spur Line. Southbound traffic will use the facing-point crossover to get onto the northbound track, and stay there until near Erb and Caroline, where the “wrong way” traffic returns to the southbound track the normal trailing-point crossover.

You know this, but for the benefit of anybody who sees the track configuration near Erb and Caroline and wonders, there is a “facing-point” crossover also, but I understand it is only for the freight train and only has temporary overhead wire installed for testing.
Reply
(02-19-2018, 08:26 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Not the one just south of Northfield. I mean immediately south of the platform. And the reason for it is that single-track operation is planned late at night.

Why will there be single track operation on the spur line? The freight usage will be outside of ion service hours, right?
Reply
(02-19-2018, 05:45 PM)Canard Wrote: Yes, it does - it allows a train to come in on Platform 1, and sit for a little bit longer (gives that operator a moment to take a washroom break, etc.).  Next train comes in and uses Platform 2, and does the same thing.  Now the first train that came in on Platform 1 can leave.  It doubles the time that a particular LRV can wait at the end.  If it's lunch time for that operator, it might sit there for a couple of cycles.  etc...  

(basically, exactly what you said - it affords flexibility.)

One end of G:link was done as a single track but it's actually double tracks and they extended a "temporary-ish" platform over the second tracks.  It has a single half crossover IIRC.  As many of the same system partners built our line I'm assuming they decided it seemed like a good idea on paper to do that but in reality the extra flexibility to have two terminus tracks would be nice to have, and added it into our design.

I would say that if two LRVs are regularly present at the end of the line, just get rid of one of them. Even if the operators need a substantial layover, the vehicles don’t. There is no reason to keep operators attached to their vehicles. This is especially so at the headways we are planning — with never less than 7 minutes between trips, there should not be any terminal congestion at all. Having said that, having a place to stash a vehicle out of the way isn’t a bad idea. But then again, that’s also true in places not at the ends of the line, and we don’t have any storage tracks at all (other than at the OMSF).

I’ll be interested to see how the tracks actually get used at the ends of the line, as potentially evidenced by rust and wear patterns, once the system has been open for a time.

An in-between terminal solution is used at Santee Town Center on the San Diego Trolley. The two tracks reduce down to one after the 2nd-last station, and continue to the last station, where they split into two tracks serving two platforms. This gives almost all the benefits of the double crossover and extra platform track. The only limitation is that you can’t have a train arriving and leaving simultaneously. But at our headways that is never necessary anyway so it’s not a real limitation. If I recall correctly the second platform’s rails are fairly rusty but it’s been a while since I was there so I might be wrong or things might have changed.
Reply
(02-19-2018, 08:31 PM)timc Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 08:26 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Not the one just south of Northfield. I mean immediately south of the platform. And the reason for it is that single-track operation is planned late at night.

Why will there be single track operation on the spur line? The freight usage will be outside of ion service hours, right?

The last I heard, which admittedly is some time ago so things may have changed, the rules were to be one northbound freight between 23:00 and 01:00. During this time LRT would operate using only the northbound track. From 01:00 to 05:00 no LRT traffic and freight can run as much as they want (which in practice means one southbound trip during that time).

During the period of concurrent operation, the shared trackage between northbound LRT and freight consists of the track from the switch at Waterloo Town Square to the freight crossover by the Perimeter Institute, maybe about 300m. For southbound LRT the shared trackage exists from the freight crossover to the LRT crossover, maybe 75m.

I’ve actually been a bit surprised to see freight still going north around 21:00. LRT isn’t in operation yet of course but I had been expecting the freight to start operating within the LRT restrictions by now.
Reply
(02-19-2018, 08:31 PM)timc Wrote:
(02-19-2018, 08:26 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Not the one just south of Northfield. I mean immediately south of the platform. And the reason for it is that single-track operation is planned late at night.

Why will there be single track operation on the spur line? The freight usage will be outside of ion service hours, right?

Not under the current service model, but I've heard this is a possible way to have 24-hour service on the line, if the Region ever wants to go ahead with that.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
The project agreement actually answers a couple of questions that have come up today:

Normal Operations
A. The normal operations for the LRT lines will be a right-hand-running trains operating between the terminal stations at Fairview Mall and Conestoga Mall. Each train will stop at each LRT Stop on its route. When the trains are within Semi Exclusive Roadway Right of Way, reverse running is not permitted under normal operations. When the trains are within Semi Exclusive LRT Right of Way and under ATP reverse running is possible within the limits of Project Co design for Train Control Systems and procedures established for reverse running.
B. The normal operations for the LRT shall include the incorporation of one northbound movement of freight railroad service during evening off peak LRT service hours.


Contingent Operations
A. Project Co shall design the LRT System for contingent operations to address conditions that may result from failure management and maintenance-related operations. Reverse running within Semi Exclusive Roadway Right of Way may be necessary to remove failed trains or to use the turnback crossovers located near the Pine Street and Cedar Street stations as part of revenue service contingent operations. The design of the traffic control signals shall assist in reverse running at these designated turnback locations.
B. The continent operations for the LRT shall include the incorporation of one southbound movement of freight railroad service during off peak LRT service morning hours.


Central Control Facility (CCF)
(i) System Operating Criteria and normal hours of operations for the System shall be as set forth in the Project Agreement. Refer to the Baseline Service Plans found in Schedule 15-3, Appendix D for train schedules. Due to railroad operations on the Waterloo Spur, Project Co shall not operate revenue service LRT trains on the track section occupied by freight railroad trains after 1:00 am and before 5:00 am on weekdays. For greater clarity, Project Co may operate test or maintenance trains (for snow and ice clearing) between 1:00 AM and 5:00 PM provided there is no freight trains occupying the tracks. Project Co shall single track or control train movements on up to four designated week days that permit this freight railroad movement. 
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
Well, I learned something today. Thanks!
Reply
(02-19-2018, 10:52 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: The project agreement actually answers a couple of questions that have come up today:

[....]

Thanks, that’s very helpful. So it sounds like in the specific location we were discussing the only likely reverse running would be a “tow” vehicle running backwards to reach a dead vehicle in order to couple up and drag it back to the OMSF.
Reply
(02-19-2018, 01:37 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: It also says that after the simulated service work during testing, "Project Co shall provide an augmented Baseline Service Plan which includes the arrival times for each LRT Stop along the Route." and that the, "Plan will include a general layover time of 4 minutes and not less than 3 minutes,"
I'm sorry, what? So, of the journey from Conestoga Mall to Fairview Park Mall, at least 48 minutes, possibly 1h04 will be dwell time, for just one direction? I know loading doesn't occur instantaneously, but surely I must be misunderstanding that the train needs to spend at least 3 minutes at each stop.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Light Rail Vehicles - LRT, ICTS, Monorail, and more Canard 376 170,182 02-12-2019, 07:37 PM
Last Post: KevinL
  ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit Canard 474 168,505 12-03-2018, 11:54 AM
Last Post: tomh009
  Region of Waterloo will receive over $341m in funding for public transit Bob_McBob 32 6,227 03-20-2018, 09:07 PM
Last Post: tomh009

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 5 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