ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

Markster, to answer your comment about three car trains, when I spoke to Nancy Button years ago she said they were designing to allow for future expansion to three car trains. I've never seen any reference in the project agreement, and a lot has changed since she was in charge, so who knows what that means now. But it definitely was on their radar at some point.

That's nice to hear.
There's only one platform I've seen so far that doesn't have an additional 30m of runoff space that could clearly become a platform extension.   Victoria Park Station is tightly squeezed in between Gaukel and a ramp into the Manulife parking garage.

The information at the public consultation on stop design said they were planning the platforms to be long enough for two-car trains. At first, the shelters, ticket machines, and other features of the stops will extend only the length of a single car. However, it would be very smart to design the actual track and road layout to allow for an extension of the platform to three cars. If they are indeed doing this, even if only where relatively easy, then I am impressed.

[Canard]

I honestly don't think there's any plan or evidence that they're planing on platforms being long enough to couple 3 trains together. It's not anywhere on the 30-year operations plan. The gauntlet tracks along the spur are built to permit freight trains to bypass a platform that is long enough for two trains coupled together.

It brings to mind one of my favourite quotes, "...and if my grandmother had wheels she would have been a bicycle".

[KevinL]

There was a question about catpoles being erected in the Union to Wellington area. I am in that area now and can confirm nothing is up yet.

[Markster]

There are poles going up, but they're hydro poles.

[KevinL]

Further to my earlier visit, I got a good look at the progress at KCI. On the main stairs, good progress to the right side, obviously the left will follow.




Further along is this structure that we've speculated on in the past. I'm still not sure what it's supposed to be.

[tomh009]

I honestly don't think there's any plan or evidence that they're planing on platforms being long enough to couple 3 trains together. It's not anywhere on the 30-year operations plan.  The gauntlet tracks along the spur are built to permit freight trains to bypass a platform that is long enough for two trains coupled together.

They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains.  Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them.

But hopefully they will increase frequency before they start even thinking about adding a third car to the trains.

[KevinL]

I honestly don't think there's any plan or evidence that they're planing on platforms being long enough to couple 3 trains together. It's not anywhere on the 30-year operations plan.  The gauntlet tracks along the spur are built to permit freight trains to bypass a platform that is long enough for two trains coupled together.

They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains.  Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them.

But hopefully they will increase frequency before they start even thinking about adding a third car to the trains.

There are physical limitations at a number of the stations that would not allow three-car trains. Notably, both of the core stations on Charles Street: Victoria Park would not have enough space between Gaukel and the Manulife building; Queen would not have enough between Queen Street and the slope up to Benton. Others have less restrictive geometry but lengthening the platforms would require rebuilding roadways a second time to allow enough space, on top of realigning many stretches of track (which would shut down the line, at least partially). I don't think this would be a straightforward undertaking.

[BuildingScout]

Flexity Freedom have capacity for 150 people. A two car configuration is 300 passengers. LRT would have to be a wild success for this not to be enough at 5 min intervals.

[Canard]

They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains.  Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them.

Oh, I know all about planing for future capacity - I'm a designer  My point is, all this 3-LRV's coupled together thing is coming from is one picture from the UoW bridge where you can see there's a gap that looks about as long as one train between the end of the current platform and the next pedestrian road crossing.  It's a bit of a wild jump in my mind that this automatically means the Region is planing for it.  You could just as easily say "Oh, they're planing on making 401 20 lanes wide through Cambridge" because the nearest house just happens to be set way back or whatever.  Can Conestoga's Terminal accommodate 3 LRV's coupled together?  Is there enough space between the buffer stops at the tail tracks and the crossover at the other end of the platform?

But hopefully they will increase frequency before they start even thinking about adding a third car to the trains.

Correct - the 30-year operations plan in the Project Agreement has a very detailed roll-out plan for coupling 2 LRV's together, and also on how they will increase service frequency.  At the end of the 30 year projection, each train is two LRV's coupled together, 14 in total, exercising the future additional 14 LRV purchase option from Bombardier, running at 7.5 minute headways.  Schedule 15-3 Appendix D Baseline Service Plans 2017 to 2047

I really really really hope that any consideration to increase capacity beyond that would involve running trains closer together, rather than longer - 7.5 minutes is still too long in my mind.

While we're talking about long trains - Chongqing built their entire Monorail system (both lines) to handle 8-car trains.  When the system opened ~10 years ago, they were running 4 car trains.  They've just started rolling out 8 car trains due to the wild success of the system.

[ijmorlan]

They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains.  Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them.

But hopefully they will increase frequency before they start even thinking about adding a third car to the trains.

Correct - the 30-year operations plan in the Project Agreement has a very detailed roll-out plan for coupling 2 LRV's together, and also on how they will increase service frequency.  At the end of the 30 year projection, each train is two LRV's coupled together, 14 in total, exercising the future additional 14 LRV purchase option from Bombardier, running at 7.5 minute headways.  Schedule 15-3 Appendix D Baseline Service Plans 2017 to 2047

I really really really hope that any consideration to increase capacity beyond that would involve running trains closer together, rather than longer - 7.5 minutes is still too long in my mind.

Very much agreed. I think it really ought to run every five minutes all the time (except maybe overnight). Of course the vehicles would be by no means full late at night but the point of running service like this is to provide service that everybody knows they can rely on and will therefore use. This is how it works in Toronto with the subway. Even if it dropped off to every 10 minutes late at night that wouldn’t be too bad. But the idea of spending all the money for the track and vehicles and then only operating them every 30 minutes at some time periods seems questionable.

I had a thought about how the base service level was determined however. Remember that more service will cost more to operate, and will increase the cost of the contract. The headline contract price ($1.9G, oh my!) includes 30 years of operation at the service levels detailed in the RFP. So one cannot help but wonder if one factor determining the proposed service levels was what the final headline contract price would appear to be. While none of this makes any difference to some people — as far as I can tell, there are people who would consider it a bad thing even if it got built and operated for free — there may be people at the margin who can be kept onside with a more moderate contract cost. In future years we can decide, as a Region, to run more service, and the headline expense at that point will be only the increment to do so.

Of course this is another example of non-motor-vehicle transport being treated differently. What road project has its 30-year maintenance and operations cost splashed across every newspaper headline when it is proposed or when the contract is signed? Or worse yet, first has its capital expense publicized, then the 30-year all-in cost, then people write letters to the editor about how the cost has ballooned from just the capital expense number to the 30-year all-in, as if the difference is due to obvious oversights and corruption?

[Canard]

Toronto is a bit of an exception, when it comes to service frequency and headways. At rush, they aim for 2:26 headways between trains (and automating the YUS line, which is what they're doing now, will bring that down even further!) - which is about the lowest of any rapid metros in the world, certainly that I've ever ridden. Exceptions are SkyTrain (Vancouver) where I've actually been standing on the platform, watching the train I just got off leave and before it's even cleared the platform, the next train is coming in, and automated systems like VAL, where small trains run extremely frequently to get the capacity up to a reasonable level:



But all other heavy metros and subways I've ridden do something closer to 5 minutes in rush and 10+ minutes non-rush. Growing up with Toronto as our nearest subway we kind of hold others up to a higher standard. So when I got older and started going off and exploring the world I was shocked that so many systems have such dismal headways between trains in off-peak. DC drops to something like 20 minutes off-peak! It's a beautiful system but the service frequency can be brutal.

There's going to be a balance obviously between the number of trains we run here, which dictates how close they'll be together, and I'm sure the first few years there's going to be a lot of balancing done to try and optimize wait times with operational costs (more trains running = more expense, both from an operations standpoint and a maintenance one as well). It's no different than going to a theme park and getting annoyed at one-train operations on a light day. Yeah, I hate it, but it makes sense because why wear out the wheels on 2 trains when you can just make your guests wait twice as long and cut your ops cost in half?

[Markster]

They can still design for three-car trains, even if they only build for two-car trains.  Ensure that all platforms etc can be extended to handle a third car, when the time comes to extend them.

There are physical limitations at a number of the stations that would not allow three-car trains. Notably, both of the core stations on Charles Street: Victoria Park would not have enough space between Gaukel and the Manulife building; Queen would not have enough between Queen Street and the slope up to Benton. Others have less restrictive geometry but lengthening the platforms would require rebuilding roadways a second time to allow enough space, on top of realigning many stretches of track (which would shut down the line, at least partially). I don't think this would be a straightforward undertaking.

I pointed out the example of Victoria Park, which agrees that extendability to 3 platforms is not a mandated requirement.  We shall see about Queen, as there is nothing there yet. The block is long enough.  Cedar and Borden appear to be able to extend without such massive rebuilding of track, which was my point.

 My point is, all this 3-LRV's coupled together thing is coming from is one picture from the UoW bridge where you can see there's a gap that looks about as long as one train between the end of the current platform and the next pedestrian road crossing.  It's a bit of a wild jump in my mind that this automatically means the Region is planing for it.  

That was the picture I posted yes.  However my "wild" statement is based on consistent observations at Conestoga, R&T, UW, Seagram, Caroline, Cedar, and Borden. Especially Borden, where Charles St has been drastically realigned, and there is now a nice long 120m straight stretch where there wasn't one before.


I agree with you that there's no obligation for Grandlink to extend the platforms. That platform extension is probably 30 years away at least. That one station, Victoria Park, would have to be scrapped/moved. But you're replying to my observations by pointing at a piece of paper, saying that it's not written down.  I'm pointing at concrete and saying it's there.  

You could just as easily say "Oh, they're planing on making 401 20 lanes wide through Cambridge" because the nearest house just happens to be set way back or whatever.

The size of a road's right of way, coupled with advantageous property acquisition is the same kind of "we don't need it yet, but we might in the future, so let's make decisions now to make it easier" is the exact kind of planning for the future I'm talking about.


Anyway, taylorbb confirmed that it was thought about, which would explain why there are many considerations in place, but they are not universal.

Markster, to answer your comment about three car trains, when I spoke to Nancy Button years ago she said they were designing to allow for future expansion to three car trains. I've never seen any reference in the project agreement, and a lot has changed since she was in charge, so who knows what that means now. But it definitely was on their radar at some point.

[Canard]

\But you're replying to my observations by pointing at a piece of paper, saying that it's not written down.  I'm pointing at concrete and saying it's there.  

To be fair, that's not really accurate - your argument is using the lack of concrete as a basis.    I think we both agree that some significant rework would have to happen in order to accommodate platforms long enough to couple 3 LRV's together, and a lot can change in 30 years.

(I'll let it go, of course.  Just ribbing you.)

The weather has just been awful for photos. I can't motivate myself to get out and walk any portion of the line when it's like this...

[Markster]

To be fair, that's not really accurate - your argument is using the lack of concrete as a basis.    I think we both agree that some significant rework would have to happen in order to accommodate platforms long enough to couple 3 LRV's together, and a lot can change in 30 years.

(I'll let it go, of course.  Just ribbing you.)

The weather has just been awful for photos.  I can't motivate myself to get out and walk any portion of the line when it's like this...

Some amount of mutual agreement; I think that's a good place to leave the debate!

Yeah photos are not terribly interesting in this weather.  I posted a bunch to the Light Rail facebook group, and they're... okay.

Here, have an in-focus version of the pic KevinL posted earlier:
   


Oh, here are some notable things.
New power poles in midtown:
   

And the foundation for the (infamous) "dome".
There's a lot of concrete to rip back out when they're done.
   

[tomh009]

But all other heavy metros and subways I've ridden do something closer to 5 minutes in rush and 10+ minutes non-rush.  Growing up with Toronto as our nearest subway we kind of hold others up to a higher standard.  So when I got older and started going off and exploring the world I was shocked that so many systems have such dismal headways between trains in off-peak.  DC drops to something like 20 minutes off-peak!  It's a beautiful system but the service frequency can be brutal.

Yamanote line 2:30 peak, 4 minutes off-peak.  11-car trains, 3.7M passengers per day!   And while Marunouchi Line doesn't carry as many passengers, it runs at 1:50 intervals during peak times.

Now, this is in super-train-oriented Tokyo, so not exactly a valid comparison to Kitchener.  I think 5-minute peak intervals would be good for ION, hopefully we can get to that sooner rather than later.