Posts: 7,979
Threads: 39
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
213
(10-16-2016, 02:17 PM)GtwoK Wrote: I think most of the hostility comes form the fencing. If they were
A) not grey chianlink fences, or at least covered by some shrubs / trees, and
B) didn't have the 2 perpendicular pieces and the opening that look like they are "funnelling" people though,
it would look a lot nicer.
I agree for the most part, the chain link fences, and the "funnels" are quite hostile looking. But I don't think much of the gates either. They aren't quite as hostile, but are still out of place. On a pedestrian ROW there is no need for giant lights and bells, with an enormous car sized gate arm. Something pedestrian sized would function the same (or even better as the lights would be at eye level) and look far better IMO.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
10-16-2016, 03:48 PM
(This post was last modified: 10-16-2016, 03:59 PM by Canard.)
(10-16-2016, 02:11 PM)KevinL Wrote: So here's what I don't get. if this new issue has nothing to do with the grounding of the rebar, why are they removing concrete so far back? Can't they just bring in a cutter and shave off those few errant millimetres?
If it was too close, maybe - though you can't really cut the concrete accurately and keep a smooth surface. And some of the edge may be too far away. They have to cut back to the rebar so the new concrete bonds properly, otherwise it would just fall off. The tolerance is 1400 +5/-0 mm from track CL to platform edge, which is very tight for "bridge building" techniques.
Posts: 54
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
0
To your knowledge Canard, how susceptible to heaving in northern climates are these tolerances.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Since the embedded track slab and platform are touching/one body, once it's together I don't imagine there will be any issue. The nominal gap will be 75 mm between the platform edge and the wear strip on the train, so even though they're doing all this rework it's not like a train would have crashed or scraped on its way in - they weren't out that much.
Posts: 14
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2016
Reputation:
1
(10-16-2016, 08:50 AM)Canard Wrote: That 12 km/h sign is going to drive my OCD nuts every time I pass by it. It's because of the curves (C12-3 and C12-4) immediately prior to it, but still... could we not have rounded this up or down to a nice nominal 5 km/h increment? 
That 12 km/h limit is quite an interesting quirk!
What's more concerning to me though is the 35 km/h signs past that and then the 30 km/h sign in the background. I suppose those limits are there to take into account the curve in the road and the resulting track geometry, but that seems very slow. The rest of the traffic along that stretch of King will be going 50 km/h (or at least that was the limit pre-construction, haven't driven there since then so don't know if it's changed), but the LRVs will be plodding along 15-20 km/h slower. How will we encourage people to leave their cars at home and try out our new system when it will appear so much quicker to drive? I realize that in the grand scheme of a journey a 15-20 km/h difference isn't that huge, but perceptions are such an important part of encouraging transit use.
The 25 km/h stretch along Charles between Manulife and Victoria is another one that seems unreasonably slow.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Nope, these signs all match up with the design limits for the curves. They're final!
http://rapidtransit.regionofwaterloo.ca/..._Part1.pdf
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
Woo-hoo!
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Production of roof modules for <a href="https://twitter.com/Metrolinx">@Metrolinx</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/yegvalleyLRT">@yegvalleyLRT</a> and <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt">@rideIONrt</a> LRV projects now underway, as scheduled, in our Kingston site. <a href="https://t.co/CE9nt1zOA7">pic.twitter.com/CE9nt1zOA7</a></p>— BombardierRail (@BombardierRail) <a href="https://twitter.com/BombardierRail/status/788005412381548545">October 17, 2016</a></blockquote>
Posts: 4,475
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
208
(10-16-2016, 07:43 PM)midriser Wrote: (10-16-2016, 08:50 AM)Canard Wrote: That 12 km/h sign is going to drive my OCD nuts every time I pass by it. It's because of the curves (C12-3 and C12-4) immediately prior to it, but still... could we not have rounded this up or down to a nice nominal 5 km/h increment?
That 12 km/h limit is quite an interesting quirk!
What's more concerning to me though is the 35 km/h signs past that and then the 30 km/h sign in the background. I suppose those limits are there to take into account the curve in the road and the resulting track geometry, but that seems very slow. The rest of the traffic along that stretch of King will be going 50 km/h (or at least that was the limit pre-construction, haven't driven there since then so don't know if it's changed), but the LRVs will be plodding along 15-20 km/h slower. How will we encourage people to leave their cars at home and try out our new system when it will appear so much quicker to drive? I realize that in the grand scheme of a journey a 15-20 km/h difference isn't that huge, but perceptions are such an important part of encouraging transit use.
The 25 km/h stretch along Charles between Manulife and Victoria is another one that seems unreasonably slow.
What I really want to see is how the signals work. Will LRVs always go first at a signal? Or will regular traffic get its green first. I have seen footage of other LRT systems where the LRVs don’t get priority. This will make a difference. Even if the actual speed of the LRVs is low, they will still have good performance overall if they can use their exclusive lane to pass traffic stopped at the red and then get the first turn to go at the light.
Posts: 4,589
Threads: 16
Joined: Aug 2014
Reputation:
147
LRT had damned well better get priority, that's what's been promised.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
What's been promised is they'll keep their schedule. If it's behind, it'll get priority. But it won't necessarily always get green lights.
Posts: 2,163
Threads: 17
Joined: Sep 2014
Reputation:
77
And the baseline schedule in the project agreement is not exactly pushing any speed records. It's got about the same end-to-end time that the iXpress initially launched with. Considering that this now cuts off the King/University corner, has a dedicated lane, and several intersections have been removed from both King and Charles Streets, it's safe to say that it should make the trip in time without any signal priority at all.
Posts: 6,905
Threads: 32
Joined: Oct 2014
Reputation:
224
For what it's worth, I've always wanted full-priority, but it was pointed out to me early on that accuracy in arriving at a scheduled time at a station is more important than just blasting end-to-end as fast as possible. Which, as a train guy first and foremost, is what I wanted.  But I see the logic in keeping an integrated schedule, especially when it ties in with Bus.
Posts: 4,475
Threads: 1
Joined: May 2015
Reputation:
208
(10-17-2016, 11:04 AM)Canard Wrote: For what it's worth, I've always wanted full-priority, but it was pointed out to me early on that accuracy in arriving at a scheduled time at a station is more important than just blasting end-to-end as fast as possible. Which, as a train guy first and foremost, is what I wanted. But I see the logic in keeping an integrated schedule, especially when it ties in with Bus.
It should get full priority, and the schedule should be planned to use the priority, with a reasonable buffer so that minor problems don’t immediately put the schedule off for the rest of the day. But yes, there should be a schedule and no transit vehicle should ever run “hot” (meaning, leaving a pickup point before the scheduled time).
What I would say is that the schedule should be as fast as possible, subject to being realistic in the face of reasonably foreseeable and reasonably common circumstances.
Posts: 7,979
Threads: 39
Joined: Jun 2016
Reputation:
213
(10-17-2016, 10:53 AM)Markster Wrote: And the baseline schedule in the project agreement is not exactly pushing any speed records. It's got about the same end-to-end time that the iXpress initially launched with. Considering that this now cuts off the King/University corner, has a dedicated lane, and several intersections have been removed from both King and Charles Streets, it's safe to say that it should make the trip in time without any signal priority at all.
Keep in mind however, there are now a couple more stations than the 200 iXpress had, and more turns I think. Although saving time not winding through the terminal. Who knows where it evens out.
That being said, keeping a schedule is only important when headways are >= 10 minutes. Less than that, and a schedule becomes pointless because you run +/- 3 mins anyway, and all of a sudden, nobody bothers to check the schedule.
Posts: 103
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2016
Reputation:
2
10-17-2016, 11:23 AM
(This post was last modified: 10-17-2016, 11:27 AM by bpoland.)
ijmorlan Wrote:What I would say is that the schedule should be as fast as possible, subject to being realistic in the face of reasonably foreseeable and reasonably common circumstances.
Totally agree. I certainly hope that would be faster than iXpress -- hopefully they can monitor real-world timing after the trains start running and tweak the schedule accordingly.
And regarding the <= 10 minute headways -- excellent point, but you still want the trains running on a sensible schedule to avoid trains bunching up.
|
