Waterloo Region Connected
ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit (/showthread.php?tid=14)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708 709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 767 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870 871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885 886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917 918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 950 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 967 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977 978 979 980 981 982 983 984 985 986 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1094 1095 1096 1097 1098 1099 1100 1101 1102 1103 1104 1105 1106 1107 1108 1109 1110 1111 1112 1113 1114 1115 1116 1117 1118 1119 1120 1121 1122 1123 1124 1125 1126 1127 1128 1129 1130 1131 1132 1133 1134 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1140 1141 1142 1143 1144 1145 1146 1147 1148 1149 1150 1151 1152 1153 1154 1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - Bob_McBob - 01-02-2020

Here's the original operating plan:

(06-30-2019, 12:24 AM)Bob_McBob Wrote:
Timeframe# vehiclespeak headwaymax # double vehicles
2021-2024168 min0
2025-2030207.5 min3
2031-2035237 min6
2036-2040277 min9
2041-2045307 min12
2046-2047337 minall


RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 01-02-2020

(01-02-2020, 03:54 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Here's the original operating plan:

(06-30-2019, 12:24 AM)Bob_McBob Wrote:
Timeframe# vehiclespeak headwaymax # double vehicles
2021-2024168 min0
2025-2030207.5 min3
2031-2035237 min6
2036-2040277 min9
2041-2045307 min12
2046-2047337 minall


Ugh, why sticking at 7 minute headways....more frequent service is so much better.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-02-2020

(01-02-2020, 10:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(01-02-2020, 03:54 PM)Bob_McBob Wrote: Here's the original operating plan:


Ugh, why sticking at 7 minute headways....more frequent service is so much better.

Yes, I think we should go to 5 minute headways before going to multi-vehicle trains. Around 5 minutes is where one really stops worrying about the schedule. Right now lots of LRT trips are probably shorter than the wait to get on.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 01-02-2020

(01-02-2020, 10:43 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:
(01-02-2020, 10:38 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Ugh, why sticking at 7 minute headways....more frequent service is so much better.

Yes, I think we should go to 5 minute headways before going to multi-vehicle trains. Around 5 minutes is where one really stops worrying about the schedule. Right now lots of LRT trips are probably shorter than the wait to get on.

Frankly, I think we should go to the lowest feasible headway with our signalling system, before we double trains, but of course, that costs more money, and possibly, more of a problem for those in charge, more delays to cars.  Five minutes would certainly be good.

I do think a priority should be getting off peak delays down as well.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-03-2020

I just remembered I wanted to post an observation. I have noticed in recent weeks that southbound LRTs slow to a crawl roughly in front of the Perimeter Institute. Not just slowing a bit ahead of the Erb/Caroline intersection, but slowing down to probably a slow jogging pace way back from the intersection. Anyway, I was on the LRT yesterday, and it seems the slowing is ahead of the facing-points freight crossover. We actually sped up slightly once past the switch before arriving at the Erb/Caroline intersection.

Now I need to watch to see if northbound trains slow ahead of the switch, although I don’t recall seeing that. Has anybody else observed crawling ahead of facing-points switches elsewhere? I believe the only other locations with facing-points switches would be the double crossovers at the ends of the line and a couple near the OMSF.

I hope this is a temporary condition related to some issue with that particular switch. That being said, it seems weird — the switch only moves for freight traffic, so it shouldn’t be moving at all between the freight train leaving in the early morning and the next one coming late in the evening. So they ought to be able to verify that it is positioned properly and then lock it in that position for the day.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - JoeKW - 01-03-2020

I don't think the system, as designed, can accommodate 5 minute headways. Unfortunately, I don't have any details but I remember reading it... probably here.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-03-2020

(01-03-2020, 10:08 AM)JoeKW Wrote: I don't think the system, as designed, can accommodate 5 minute headways.  Unfortunately, I don't have any details but I remember reading it... probably here.

I thought 5 minutes was the design headway. 5 minutes is a long time — it shouldn’t be a problem. If you think of how far away a train is that is 5 minutes ahead and compare that to things like stopping distance, it should be OK. On the road segments, if buses can follow each other so closely that they meet at traffic lights and stops then so can LRTs. Personally I think the system itself should be able to handle 3 minute service, although at that point the benefits of saving operator salaries by running in pairs become hard to ignore and certain crossings would be engaged too much of the time under current practices.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - timc - 01-03-2020

The thing about five minute headways is that it starts to get nasty for traffic at crossings. At a five minute headway, there is an average of 2.5 minutes between trains.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - danbrotherston - 01-03-2020

(01-03-2020, 01:13 PM)timc Wrote: The thing about five minute headways is that it starts to get nasty for traffic at crossings. At a five minute headway, there is an average of 2.5 minutes between trains.

I always hear this, even here, and I don't get it.  If we have the ridership to justify a rain every 5 minutes (or every 3 minutes)...that's 250 people per train, then that justifies keeping those crossings down...if it was an intersecting road, with cars on it, we would keep the traffic signals green for far longer to clear the traffic jam...and there wouldn't even be discussion about that, but somehow because it's people on a train, that's a reason to reduce service on the intersecting road?

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - JoeKW - 01-03-2020

I think it's more that the crossing became barely functional and you need to start looking at shutting them down.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - ijmorlan - 01-04-2020

(01-03-2020, 02:17 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(01-03-2020, 01:13 PM)timc Wrote: The thing about five minute headways is that it starts to get nasty for traffic at crossings. At a five minute headway, there is an average of 2.5 minutes between trains.

I always hear this, even here, and I don't get it.  If we have the ridership to justify a rain every 5 minutes (or every 3 minutes)...that's 250 people per train, then that justifies keeping those crossings down...if it was an intersecting road, with cars on it, we would keep the traffic signals green for far longer to clear the traffic jam...and there wouldn't even be discussion about that, but somehow because it's people on a train, that's a reason to reduce service on the intersecting road?

I have a few comments, but no firm conclusion.

It’s no problem to have one bus per cycle of the traffic lights. I believe this is typically around 2 minutes or so. Even more is possible, but especially if there is a stop at the intersection you can start to have problems. So based on this, there should not be a problem at regular intersections.

On the other hand, crossings work differently and some of them block traffic for much longer than necessary. For example, northbound trains leaving Seagram stop University traffic before the train even leaves. This isn’t so bad, especially since pedestrians can use the time, but it does mean the train takes more time from the crossing than it really needs. Much worse, however, northbound trains leaving the public square stop shut down Erb and Caroline before they even close their doors. On top of that, they’re closing down an intersection: nobody can move (well, in reality pedestrians can do some crossings of the intersection that don’t cross the tracks, but officially they can’t). In effect, it’s really the intersection of 3 routes: two roads and a train line, each of which needs its green time.

Note too that traffic lights go on their own schedule, which can be optimized but isn’t pre-empted by anything except emergency services. One LRT per 2 minutes in each direction could pretty much shut down a railway crossing permanently whereas one LRT per minute arriving at a traffic light in an on-road segment should be OK, just as it is OK for buses (but note the warning above about stopping), because the LRTs in each direction would have to wait and go together when their direction got its green.

The comment about the number of people on a train is very on-point: if the traffic being carried by the train line is similar to that being carried by the crossing street, it’s perfectly reasonable for the train to take half the time, even if that results in the street being backed up. It’s not the fault of the LRT that it’s efficient.

So overall I think that from the point of view of “snarling” (to use the word always used by LRT denialists) traffic, frequencies down to about every 5 minutes should be OK with the system as it is. Going above that would require at a minimum re-timing some of the crossings and possibly re-design of some areas.

Even without such an increase in frequency, it would be prudent to allow Caroline St. traffic to proceed when only the southbound LRT track is in use. There is no conflict between that track and Caroline St. other than turns onto westbound Erb St. At higher frequency however this improvement would be necessary unless road traffic is significantly reduced from how much we have now.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jgsz - 01-04-2020

Pedestrian fatally struck by LRT

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - clasher - 01-04-2020

Ugh, rode by train with the tarp on the side of it and had a sick feeling about it. Seemed pretty far from the Columbia crossing.

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - bgb_ca - 01-04-2020

(01-04-2020, 07:33 AM)jgsz Wrote: Pedestrian fatally struck by LRT


https://www.therecord.com/news-story/9796936-man-killed-after-being-struck-by-ion-train/

Quote:The man was walking on the Ion tracks about 125 metres north of Columbia Street at about 4:50 a.m. when he was struck by the southbound train, say police.

So it sounds like someone made the poor choice to walk down the tracks instead of the trail next to the tracks, I'm guessing with headphones on, and by the time the driver saw him it was too late (it would have still been dark that early).

RE: ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit - jeffster - 01-04-2020

Sad news. I feel for the mans family, but also the driver of the Ion. You don't ever want to be the first one to be involved in a fatality. Hopefully Grandlinq can offer some good counselling, as the driver will need this.