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. Click here to get started.


Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Light Rail Vehicles - LRT, ICTS, Monorail, and more
#31
Are these trams fixed bogie? I would think with a low floor the wheels would rotate independently.
My Twitter: @KevinLMaps
Reply
#32
I don't quite understand your sentence - sorry.  Yes, all 4 wheels can rotate independently on their respective axes... there are no axles running across, if that's what you mean.  But that's not what fixed bogie means.

FLEXITY Freedom (our trains that ion is getting) is fixed bogie, meaning modules 1, 3 and 5 have wheels, 4 each, and those 4 wheels are mounted semi-rigidly (there are some small amount of rubber cushioning between this frame and the vehicle frame to try and mitigate vibrations) on a bogie frame directly connected to that module.  Think of a mining cart, with 4 wheels rigidly mounted on the frame.  Fixed bogie results in a simpler construction and permits an easy way to get 100% low floor, at the expense of ride quality and turning characteristics, because the wheelbase between the axles is generally longer as a compromise between nose pitching and turning capability.  The closer the axles are together, the better the wheel-to-rail tangent interface is... but the worse the nose-pitching problem becomes (and you get horrible turning oscilations).  Putting the axles further apart gives you a stiffer ride with less of those oscillations, but the wheel-to-rail tangent goes all out to lunch, making noise.

TL:DR  - LFLRV's with fixed bogies squeal and make lots of metal-metal grindy noises in curves.  (Unlike monorails riding on rubber tires on a concrete guideway, which are near silent.)




Fixed-bogie 7-module Bombardier FLEXITY 2 Tram at Gold Coast, Australia on G:link, built by many of the same system partners as ion.
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#33
(01-25-2016, 07:18 PM)Canard Wrote: Not really.  There are only so many logical shapes you can choose.  You have a body up top, and running wheels below.  How else would you cover them?

And even if it was, so what? Bob Gurr came up with a great looking train.  Why not keep it sexy? 

I'm quoting directly from the Disney web site. The exterior of the Mark VII was designed to echo the Mark III  (I originally said Mark I, my mistake).

I also find it quite telling that the outside enclosure was designed by Disney Imageneering to look cool, instead of by transportation engineers to actually be cool, like a highspeed ICE or TGV.

And do you know why the monorail runs on a single rail of concrete instead of an overhead rail like Alweg was doing at the time? Because Walt thought a concrete rail looked more futuristic and wanted it that way.
Reply
#34
(01-25-2016, 09:38 PM)BuildingScout Wrote: And do you know why the monorail runs on a single rail of concrete instead of an overhead rail like Alweg was doing at the time?

Huh?

Alweg = Concrete Beam

(I'm really tired of this thread just being a pissing match.)
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#35
I think monorail could work -- if you're willing to invest your city's (or region's) network to include a significant number of monorail lines and you don't mind the intrusion. But A) it's expensive but not as expensive as tunneling B) it's ideally suited for high riderships. I think that's why we're seeing a bunch of them in non-Western nations like in Mumbai and Sao Paolo. Up and coming cities with a need for infrastructure and want bang for buck.

Then again, India is weird and should be the *essential* argument against elevated transit because of all the ancient structures and heritage, but a lot of the new Indian systems are elevated from traditional heavy rail to BRT to PRT.
Reply
#36
Japan has almost exclusively elevated urban systems (aside from underground metro), like Monorail and AGT. There's a very good reason why there are no Light Rail systems in Japan (although they have a few novelty tram lines that the Japanese think are kawaii.)
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#37
These seem to be pretty quiet. Let's hope that ours are similar for noise.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbAN7xpJ1o
Reply
#38
(01-25-2016, 10:34 PM)DKsan Wrote: I think monorail could work -- if you're willing to invest your city's (or region's) network to include a significant number of monorail lines and you don't mind the intrusion. But A) it's expensive but not as expensive as tunneling B) it's ideally suited for high riderships. I think that's why we're seeing a bunch of them in non-Western nations like in Mumbai and Sao Paolo. Up and coming cities with a need for infrastructure and want bang for buck.

Then again, India is weird and should be the *essential* argument against elevated transit because of all the ancient structures and heritage, but a lot of the new Indian systems are elevated from traditional heavy rail to BRT to PRT.

I’m not sure what heritage has to do with elevation. I mean sure, one should always be careful with placement so as to avoid aesthetic problems, but the idea that elevated systems are automatically ugly seems weird to me. Even when the surroundings are historical, I think a carefully-placed elevated system can become part of the mix perfectly effectively.

I always assumed the reason for elevating lines in some of these places is because the cities are already extremely crowded. In particular, this may be where the low impact at ground level of monorail (both construction and continued existence) is a really big benefit. This is by contrast with K-W. Here, admittedly grade separation in Uptown and Downtown and maybe a few other places would be good, but the benefit of grade separation along the Waterloo Spur, for example, would be very little and unlikely to be worth the expense. The same argument applies to future extensions. So it seems likely that a monorail system in a very large and crowded city will deserve extension as monorail, for the same reason as the initial phase; whereas here, any future lines are even less likely to merit full grade separation.

Also, I wonder about the driving culture. My impression of driving in some of these places is that drivers will take every possible advantage. Would it work to have a lane reserved for LRT? I think in some places it would get filled up with regular traffic no matter how many signs were installed. There are solutions for this but it may be one more factor in the decision to go with a completely grade-separated system.
Reply
#39
(01-25-2016, 11:23 PM)BrianT Wrote: These seem to be pretty quiet. Let's hope that ours are similar for noise.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbAN7xpJ1o

Wow. Now *those* are futuristic looking trains.
Reply
#40
We're missing the accessibility angle, which is the bane of any grade-separated transit be it subway or elevated. One thing making the LRT affordable (!) to build is that the stations are little barely more than a double-long iXpress stop. No stairs, elevators, or escalators. Barely any lighting. No tunneling. No scaffolding. Barely any roofs or walls (this is going to suck in winter (my prediction)).

I think I would've preferred grade-separated transit. Routing would've been less cut-and-dried by the presence of existing rail, and I like linear induction motors. But the realities of the situation when these decisions were being made were not going to result in a favourable decision.
Reply
#41
(01-26-2016, 08:48 AM)timc Wrote:
(01-25-2016, 11:23 PM)BrianT Wrote: These seem to be pretty quiet. Let's hope that ours are similar for noise.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vbAN7xpJ1o

Wow. Now *those* are futuristic looking trains.

Alstom Citadis. French cities mostly buy Alstom for the same reason Canadian cities mostly buy Bombardier.
Reply
#42
(01-26-2016, 11:04 AM)kps Wrote: Alstom Citadis. French cities mostly buy Alstom for the same reason Canadian cities mostly buy Bombardier.

Canadian cities mostly buy Bombardier because Bombardier products are the best, no? There can't be two 'best's.
Reply
#43
(01-26-2016, 11:25 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Canadian cities mostly buy Bombardier because Bombardier products are the best, no? There can't be two 'best's.

I thought Canadian cities mostly bought Bombardier because they are made in Canada.
Reply
#44
It's a twofer - Canadian, and the best!
For daily ion construction updates, photos and general urban rail news, follow me on twitter! @Canardiain
Reply
#45
(01-26-2016, 11:32 AM)timc Wrote:
(01-26-2016, 11:25 AM)MidTowner Wrote: Canadian cities mostly buy Bombardier because Bombardier products are the best, no? There can't be two 'best's.

I thought Canadian cities mostly bought Bombardier because they are made in Canada.

My comment was meant to be tongue-in-cheek. But Canard's right- it's a great coincidence that the best around happen to be built right here!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 3 Guest(s)