ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[bravado]

Can any public expense experts chime in on this possible new cost estimate for Phase 2 found on Reddit?

https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/s/qJMxadf22H

[SF22]

From what I understand, each platform is currently built to accommodate a double train-set without any modifications.  The added bits would be another station sign and shelter which could presumably be added after service was increased.

With a current fleet of 14 trains, with 12 in service at peak times, and 2 held in reserve or servicing, the Region currently does not have the capacity to increase to double trainsets on a regular basis.  Does anyone remember what triggers the Region buying more trainsets?  It is it adding Ion Part 2? What's the current storage capacity at the Maintenance Yard?

I wonder if they even went as far so determine a trigger so far in advance. I can't imagine they plan to expand it in the first 5-10 years of ION service, or else they would have just built the thing fully to start with. But we'll need to order new trains and fix up each station platform, and both of those things will take at least a couple of years to fully complete. It'll be interesting to see if the Region chooses to order a few more trains to run somewhat higher headways (once every 7-8 minutes) as a stopgap measure to reworking platforms and a larger train order, or if they will jump straight to ordering more train cars that can be added to our existing trains, to run more capacity at the standard 10min headways.

[KevinL]

If they only use double trains at, say, peak times, I'm not sure the platforms need much fixing; all the amenities are in place and the platform edges all meet spec. As use of them ramps up they can gradually apply upgrades, I'm sure.

[danbrotherston]

If they only use double trains at, say, peak times, I'm not sure the platforms need much fixing; all the amenities are in place and the platform edges all meet spec. As use of them ramps up they can gradually apply upgrades, I'm sure.

Yes, this is technically possible. We are all going to call them out for being ridiculously cheap. And FWIW...I don't think it'll save all that much...I suspect trains are going to be much more expensive. It would also cause some operational issues. It would cause most passengers to board the first car, especially in bad weather, which is going to partially defeat the purpose of running two car trains, and it will also increase dwell times because as RM loves to talk about...the doors will not be properly utilized.

[the_conestoga_guy]

As a hypothetical sidebar, I wonder what it would take to buy and commission autonomous LRT vehicles. It seems that it would help address the operating cost concerns at least. I know it would never happen given all of the regulatory hurdles, but it seems like it wouldn't actually be that difficult from a technical perspective since the trams are running a simple route on rails. It seems like the only difficult part would be needing to program them to avoid pedestrians and to wait for traffic lights.

Modern autonomous trains (I'm thinking of the Vancouver Skytrain) rely on the train network and remote communication to instruments in the tracks to keep things running smoothly, but I think that if Waterloo's LRTs were made to be self-driving, they would be locally controlled from some sort of on board sensor suite, similar to a Tesla or something. Maybe when the rolling stock is replaced in 50+ years, we could see something like this included. Probably just wishful thinking!

[neonjoe]

According to the Project Agreement we would be seeing two car vehicles starting in the 2025-2030 phase of the agreement. This was based on the original launch date occurring in 2017.
https://web.archive.org/web/201608121759...sRFPV4.pdf

Planned Fleet Sizes
2017-2020 - 14
2020-2024 -16
2025-2030 -20

I am wondering when the region will be approaching Alstom to purchase more. The dual car operations were only to start when there is a fleet of 20,

[KevinL]

 It would also cause some operational issues. It would cause most passengers to board the first car, especially in bad weather, which is going to partially defeat the purpose of running two car trains, and it will also increase dwell times because as RM loves to talk about...the doors will not be properly utilized.

Ah, but at many stations the first car would be the one pulling in beyond the canopy, and the people there would then board the second car. I think there's enough variation among stations that it would generally even out.

Also, interesting that you should mention Reece... https://mstdn.social/@RM_Transit/111318976433051778

[danbrotherston]

 It would also cause some operational issues. It would cause most passengers to board the first car, especially in bad weather, which is going to partially defeat the purpose of running two car trains, and it will also increase dwell times because as RM loves to talk about...the doors will not be properly utilized.

Ah, but at many stations the first car would be the one pulling in beyond the canopy, and the people there would then board the second car. I think there's enough variation among stations that it would generally even out.

Also, interesting that you should mention Reece... https://mstdn.social/@RM_Transit/111318976433051778

Oh, good point, yeah, you're right I looked at the sat view and they're split almost exactly 50/50 so that wouldn't be a problem.

They would however, have to place the door markers on the yellow edge line of tactile plates, because that's what the drivers line up with, but that's not a big deal.

   

Huh...interesting, it's funny, he was pretty cagey about where he moved to when he moved out of Toronto which I feel like was only a couple months ago.

[ac3r]

I think I'm going to move to Waterloo region

Don't do it bro...

[tomh009]

But we'll need to order new trains and fix up each station platform, and both of those things will take at least a couple of years to fully complete. It'll be interesting to see if the Region chooses to order a few more trains to run somewhat higher headways (once every 7-8 minutes) as a stopgap measure to reworking platforms and a larger train order

At the moment, the complete return trip takes about 100 minutes, from the Conestoga departure until the train leaves the same station again. With 10-minute headways, that's ten trains. They would be able to run eight-minute headways without any additional trains--and eight-minute headways would be better for passengers than double trains. With eight (or so) more trains they would be able to run five-minute headways, with the same capacity as double trains, but greater passenger convenience.

Increased frequency > increased train length

[ac3r]

Not always, it's way more nuanced than that. Convenience isn't the only contributing factor, there is a lot of logistics going on when it comes to transportation.

Like, faster but smaller scoops of dirt isn't necessarily going to be as useful as a huge wheelbarrow or dump truck full of it at once.

[tomh009]

Like, faster but smaller scoops of dirt isn't necessarily going to be as useful as a huge wheelbarrow or dump truck full of it at once.

Quite true. The dirt doesn't really care how long it has to wait for the dump truck.

[danbrotherston]

Like, faster but smaller scoops of dirt isn't necessarily going to be as useful as a huge wheelbarrow or dump truck full of it at once.

Quite true. The dirt doesn't really care how long it has to wait for the dump truck.

*blinks*...did ac3r really compare transit riders with...*checks notes*...dirt?!

I mean, even for them, I doubt that was the intention, but wow.

In any case, for transit riders, more frequent it always better. Other things can also be benefits, but there is basically no frequency high enough that more frequent won't be better.

[ijmorlan]

But we'll need to order new trains and fix up each station platform, and both of those things will take at least a couple of years to fully complete. It'll be interesting to see if the Region chooses to order a few more trains to run somewhat higher headways (once every 7-8 minutes) as a stopgap measure to reworking platforms and a larger train order

At the moment, the complete return trip takes about 100 minutes, from the Conestoga departure until the train leaves the same station again. With 10-minute headways, that's ten trains. They would be able to run eight-minute headways without any additional trains--and eight-minute headways would be better for passengers than double trains. With eight (or so) more trains they would be able to run five-minute headways, with the same capacity as  double trains, but greater passenger convenience.

Increased frequency > increased train length

They really should be able to get the 100 minutes down to 90 minutes by being smarter about speed limits and refining signalling. That would also make a lot of headways work more naturally: 3 vehicles could maintain a 30 minute headway overnight, for example, or just 6 could provide 15 minute service.

[KevinL]

Between Mill and Block Line alone trips could shave several minutes. The creek bridge and the run along Hayward are taken far too slowly and seem to have been set to some absurdly conservative limit for no clear reason.

They should also signalize the pedestrian crossing behind the Fairway shops and put in lift arms, that would save the trains going slower there.