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
My assumption was that the layover would be at each terminal (Conestoga and Fairview), not every station on the route.
Reply


I would hope so, but that wouldn't really make sense to quantify, would it? Increased layovers only matter as they relate to shift changes (which do occur at the ends), but that being a GrandLinq responsibility (given it's their drivers), why would we be trying to quantify it?
Reply
What's the expected dwell time at each station in between the terminals? Are there other tasks that are expected to occur at each end such as a rudimentary cleaning (eg garbage)? I could also imagine that in a scenario where only one LRV arrives at a double platform, that the three minute dwell time would allow passengers the chance to switch platforms if they discover that they are waiting on the wrong side of the tracks.

Finally, I can imagine that the approach in the service agreement was, "Write everything down so there isn't any mistake or misunderstanding." If passengers complain about the length of the dwell time (or other operational matters), both the Region and GrandLinq can point to the agreement and say, "If it fits in this standard, then everything is working fine."
Reply
(02-20-2018, 01:33 PM)nms Wrote: What's the expected dwell time at each station in between the terminals? Are there other tasks that are expected to occur at each end such as a rudimentary cleaning (eg garbage)?  I could also imagine that in a scenario where only one LRV arrives at a double platform, that the three minute dwell time would allow passengers the chance to switch platforms if they discover that they are waiting on the wrong side of the tracks.

I’m pretty sure “layover” refers to the terminals only. I would expect dwell time at en-route stations to be planned at well under a minute. Stations with a lot of boarding and deboarding will need more time (by seconds) of course.

As to the double platform situation, our terminal stations are designed ideally for only one track to be in regular use. Best design for a terminal station where trains regularly depart from either platform is either a single platform, a centre platform, or separate “off” and “on” platforms. I’m a bit concerned however that at both ends they built the same shelters on both platforms, which suggests trains might regularly use both.

Using the second platform as an “off only” for vehicles going out of service, either because of a fault or because it’s the end of peak period or the end of service for the day, would be a reasonable use for our second platforms. However that use doesn’t require shelters, so I don’t know. We’ll see.
Reply
(02-19-2018, 12:37 PM)Canard Wrote: 1/1 - Friday, February 16, 2018


[i]History is made:  Crews on Friday made it all the way to Fairway!

Are the last OCS poles placed in the path of the tracks, the same as at Conestoga? That seems like a weird choice when there is an active plan to extend the line.
Reply
They indeed are. Reworking 1 pair of OCS poles will be the least of their concern when extension plans come along - they’ll have to move the birbs, for example!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
...speaking of birbs, where is that promised update about the art projects from a few weeks ago?! Philipides?
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(02-20-2018, 02:02 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(02-20-2018, 01:33 PM)nms Wrote: What's the expected dwell time at each station in between the terminals? Are there other tasks that are expected to occur at each end such as a rudimentary cleaning (eg garbage)?  I could also imagine that in a scenario where only one LRV arrives at a double platform, that the three minute dwell time would allow passengers the chance to switch platforms if they discover that they are waiting on the wrong side of the tracks.

I’m pretty sure “layover” refers to the terminals only. I would expect dwell time at en-route stations to be planned at well under a minute. Stations with a lot of boarding and deboarding will need more time (by seconds) of course.

As to the double platform situation, our terminal stations are designed ideally for only one track to be in regular use. Best design for a terminal station where trains regularly depart from either platform is either a single platform, a centre platform, or separate “off” and “on” platforms. I’m a bit concerned however that at both ends they built the same shelters on both platforms, which suggests trains might regularly use both.

Using the second platform as an “off only” for vehicles going out of service, either because of a fault or because it’s the end of peak period or the end of service for the day, would be a reasonable use for our second platforms. However that use doesn’t require shelters, so I don’t know. We’ll see.

The LRVs will dwell at each stop until no more than 30 seconds after their scheduled departure time. If they arrive early they remain at the station until the scheduled departure time to ensure the LRVs don't get too far ahead of schedule.
Reply
(02-20-2018, 02:25 PM)Canard Wrote: ...speaking of birbs, where is that promised update about the art projects from a few weeks ago?! Philipides?

I found this: https://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Cou...19,%202018

Of note:
  • Conestoga Stop – Installation of Continuum by Catherine Paleczny has been slightly adjusted so that the artwork will be at a more prominent location between the multiuse trail and the stop platform. ???!!?!!??!!!???!??!!!?!?!?!!!!?????
  • Research + Technology – Network by Ken Hall has been upgraded to have a presence on both sides of the tracks in accordance with the updated stop design. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(02-20-2018, 02:37 PM)Canard Wrote:
(02-20-2018, 02:25 PM)Canard Wrote: ...speaking of birbs, where is that promised update about the art projects from a few weeks ago?! Philipides?

I found this:  https://calendar.regionofwaterloo.ca/Cou...19,%202018

Of note:
  • Conestoga Stop – Installation of Continuum by Catherine Paleczny has been slightly adjusted so that the artwork will be at a more prominent location between the multiuse trail and the stop platform. ???!!?!!??!!!???!??!!!?!?!?!!!!?????
  • Research + Technology – Network by Ken Hall has been upgraded to have a presence on both sides of the tracks in accordance with the updated stop design. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This means bigger, actually... you'll like it. In fact you all will be very pleased what is planned for this station!
Reply
But taking Continuum to be in a 'more prominent location between the multiuse trail and stop platform' sounds a lot like "we're taking this piece of public art meant to enliven a transit stop, and moving it closer to the road, so that cars whizzing by at 50 (to let's be honest, 70) km/h can glance out their windows and see it briefly.
Reply
No, I see this as a hugely stupid thing because:
  • It was supposed to serve dual-duty as a cosmetic wind wall, but also as a way to prevent people from climbing on top of tbe Driver’s facility. Now, a second, probably ugly, fence will be required
  • It will block the view of beautiful LRV’s and the anchor wall from both the trail and the road
  • It will prevent people from moving between the trail and the platforms across the grass, which I actually think is the real reason they have done this

Urbd: you working on this?
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
(02-20-2018, 03:50 PM)Canard Wrote: No, I see this as a hugely stupid thing because:
  • It was supposed to serve dual-duty as a cosmetic wind wall, but also as a way to prevent people from climbing on top of tbe Driver’s facility. Now, a second, probably ugly, fence will be required
  • It will block the view of beautiful LRV’s and the anchor wall from both the trail and the road
  • It will prevent people from moving between the trail and the platforms across the grass, which I actually think is the real reason they have done this

Urbd: you working on this?

You’re talking about Continuum here, right? I hope you’re wrong but fear you’re right. Ugly fences are not what we need. Nice art that happens to serve a function as a fence is much better. And who cares if people cross the grass to get to the platform? If enough people do it that the grass doesn’t grow they should just add a paved path.
Reply
My interpretation is that the term "layover" refers to the time between trips, not time spent at each station. I am sure if you look hard enough the term has been clearly defined by some lawyer in those documents somewhere.

According to the system description the design goal is, "...a round trip time of 90.0 minutes or less. This time period is the time it takes for a train to depart from a Terminal Station, return back to the same terminal station and is ready to once again depart from that Terminal Station."

Plus, we have seen in the baseline service that they expect a trip to take about 46min from end to end.
Everyone move to the back of the bus and we all get home faster.
Reply
A couple of notes from the Southern portion of the line:
  • A crew at Fairway was working on the crossover switches.
  • A crew was using very large rail equipment (couldn’t see what) at Overland Dr. on the Huron Spur.
  • Hayward may be our next casualty for track gauge rework. A bunch of people were crawling around on their hands and knees measuring stuff.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Possibly Related Threads...
  Light Rail Vehicles - LRT, ICTS, Monorail, and more Canard 376 170,171 02-12-2019, 07:37 PM
Last Post: KevinL
  ION Phase 2 - Cambridge's Light Rail Transit Canard 474 168,496 12-03-2018, 11:54 AM
Last Post: tomh009
  Region of Waterloo will receive over $341m in funding for public transit Bob_McBob 32 6,225 03-20-2018, 09:07 PM
Last Post: tomh009

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 4 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