ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[SammyOES]

There's a lot of room between "total disaster" and "everything is going well" and I don't think its accurate to say that its gone really well. I guess you can make the argument that many projects like this are total disasters and so if you grade us on a curve we're actually doing really well...

[tomh009]

I think the project has gone "reasonably well", certainly not perfectly, but a decent grade nevertheless. It's definitely a "success" rather than a "failure" if we need to use black-or-white terminology.

[Markster]

D’AMATO: The seven things you most want to know about light rail - The Record

The questions asked:

•How much is it going to cost to ride?
•Drivers worry about confusion where the rails cross over a lane of traffic. And why is it so difficult to make a left turn in so many places along the route?
• How will snow be cleared?
•Why weren't proper bike lanes built along the route?
•How are emergency vehicles on King Street going to get to Grand River Hospital, now that there are curbs on either side of the tracks? Will they be stuck in traffic?
•What about "park and ride" lots so that people from the suburbs are included?
•How will bus service change?

Very little new information.

[SammyOES]

I think the project has gone "reasonably well", certainly not perfectly, but a decent grade nevertheless. It's definitely a "success" rather than a "failure" if we need to use black-or-white terminology.

I don't think we do need to do that. I guess my point is just that I think a lot of the media coverage is valid (while sure a little dramatic).

[DHLawrence]

1. Rapid Transit team said "We're going to do a pull-through test on Thursday"

2. Thursday arrives, nothing happens

3. Media crucifies LRT

4. Politicians decide "That's it, we're not telling anything to anyone anymore"

The phrase "Al Capone's vault" comes to mind. Can't blame the region for not wanting that to happen again.

[Canard]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Can’t quite sort out what this is for - first thought was driver exchange platform, but no break in the fence (yet?). Any clues, <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rideIONrt</a>? <a href="https://t.co/hKVr5le2dw">pic.twitter.com/hKVr5le2dw</a></p>&mdash; ? Iain Hendry ? (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/926871139519008768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2017</a></blockquote>

Confirmation that this is a driver-exchange platform for shift changes and meal breaks (hat tip to Michael Joudrey). Project team must have evaluated that it made more sense to do this than to formalize a path between the OMSF and the platform at Northfield.

[Pheidippides]

I was reading in the Project Agreement this morning to try and learn more about the testing and commissioning process when I came across this paragraph:

"Guaranteed completion date for issue of Vehicle Final Acceptance Certificates Each of the Vehicles in the Initial Fleet shall achieve a Vehicle Final Acceptance Certificate by January 31, 2017, provided that such date shall be postponed to the extent that any Vehicle Acceptance Testing activities are affected by any delay in achieving OMSF/Test Track Readiness Completion and/or by any failure by Project Co to comply with its obligations in respect of Vehicle Acceptance Testing set out in this Schedule 35 – Vehicles. For planning purposes, Project Co can assume that the first Vehicle will be delivered to the OMSF no earlier than May 1, 2016 and not later than August 15, 2016. Subsequent Vehicles will be delivered at the rate of approximately two per month."

That means that originally they had budgeted 169 days for vehicle acceptance testing (August 14, 2016 to January 31, 2017). So if May 1, 2018 is the target for the start of revenue service then the vehicle acceptance testing on vehicle 14 would have to begin on November 13, 2017 to meet that deadline (provided they need all 169 days).

It also explains what is considered a successful burn-in test:
"The test shall simulate revenue service, to the extent reasonably possible, and include regular cycling of doors, PA announcements, and automatic passenger announcements, PEI operation, radio communication as well as any other feature normally encountered in revenue service. Such simulation may include manual activation of certain features. In the event that the A, B, and C fault‐free continuous 600 km is not achieved the “burn‐in” will be repeated until the requirement is met."

Where the fault types, A, B, C, and D are described as:
"The 600 Km “Burn‐In Test" will be run on each Vehicle prior to final acceptance and shall be free of class A, B, and C failures, as generally defined below; the only permissible fault shall be of class D:
(a) Rescue towing/pushing is required ‐ Failure Mode Category A = Severe vehicle impairment
(b) Out‐of‐service to carhouse ‐ Failure Mode Category B = Vehicle impairment
© In service to end of the line ‐ Failure Mode Category C = Minor vehicle impairment
(d) In service to end of the day ‐ Failure Mode Category D = No vehicle impairment"

Lots of interesting facts in Schedule 35 - Vehicles, 14 - Commissioning, and Schedule 15-2 Article 19 Project Schedule. Like apparently achieving LEED silver status for the OMSF is part of the commissioning process and according to this website the OMSF is a registered project, but not yet certified.

[MacBerry]

Sure, absolutely.  The project is a total disaster.

Lazy Saturday twitter photo update:

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">People have already made a mess of the weeks-old concrete at R&amp;T Park. (Cc: <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rideIONrt</a>) <a href="https://t.co/FV3x8QkVKo">pic.twitter.com/FV3x8QkVKo</a></p>&mdash; ? Iain Hendry ? (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/926870777282138112?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2017</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-conversation="none" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Can’t quite sort out what this is for - first thought was driver exchange platform, but no break in the fence (yet?). Any clues, <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rideIONrt</a>? <a href="https://t.co/hKVr5le2dw">pic.twitter.com/hKVr5le2dw</a></p>&mdash; ? Iain Hendry ? (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/926871139519008768?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2017</a></blockquote>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Forgot to mention, <a href="https://twitter.com/rideIONrt?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@rideIONrt</a> - several of the platform signs have broken off at Allen. <a href="https://t.co/MWM8zGNSIp">pic.twitter.com/MWM8zGNSIp</a></p>&mdash; ? Iain Hendry ? (@Canardiain) <a href="https://twitter.com/Canardiain/status/926875652711768066?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 4, 2017</a></blockquote>

Are there video cameras at each station to help limit this type of vandalism? (sign breakage) and the RT stop is the most isolated station on the entire line.... hence graffiti

[Canard]

Yes, there are several cameras at each station.

Sadly, they usually have a fairly wide field of view (ie, not zoomed in), so anyone doing the graffiti at the R&T Park entry area wouldn’t be visible enough to get any sort of information out of the footage. They’d just be little blurry dots on the screen at that distance (the last camera is at the South end of the platform, at the crossing).

I had assumed the signs at Allen we’re broken by the wind. Several of them had also spun around and were not parallel with the platform edge. The metal clamp is a poor design - it’s length is very short compared to the long moment of the sign.

[panamaniac]

I was reading in the Project Agreement this morning to try and learn more about the testing and commissioning process when I came across this paragraph:

"Guaranteed completion date for issue of Vehicle Final Acceptance Certificates Each of the Vehicles in the Initial Fleet shall achieve a Vehicle Final Acceptance Certificate by January 31, 2017, provided that such date shall be postponed to the extent that any Vehicle Acceptance Testing activities are affected by any delay in achieving OMSF/Test Track Readiness Completion and/or by any failure by Project Co to comply with its obligations in respect of Vehicle Acceptance Testing set out in this Schedule 35 – Vehicles. For planning purposes, Project Co can assume that the first Vehicle will be delivered to the OMSF no earlier than May 1, 2016 and not later than August 15, 2016. Subsequent Vehicles will be delivered at the rate of approximately two per month."

That means that originally they had budgeted 169 days for vehicle acceptance testing (August 14, 2016 to January 31, 2017). So if May 1, 2018 is the target for the start of revenue service then the vehicle acceptance testing on vehicle 14 would have to begin on November 13, 2017 to meet that deadline (provided they need all 169 days).

It also explains what is considered a successful burn-in test:
"The test shall simulate revenue service, to the extent reasonably possible, and include regular cycling of doors, PA announcements, and automatic passenger announcements, PEI operation, radio communication as well as any other feature normally encountered in revenue service. Such simulation may include manual activation of certain features. In the event that the A, B, and C fault‐free continuous 600 km is not achieved the “burn‐in” will be repeated until the requirement is met."

Where the fault types, A, B, C, and D are described as:
"The 600 Km “Burn‐In Test" will be run on each Vehicle prior to final acceptance and shall be free of class A, B, and C failures, as generally defined below; the only permissible fault shall be of class D:
(a) Rescue towing/pushing is required ‐ Failure Mode Category A = Severe vehicle impairment
(b) Out‐of‐service to carhouse ‐ Failure Mode Category B = Vehicle impairment
© In service to end of the line ‐ Failure Mode Category C = Minor vehicle impairment
(d) In service to end of the day ‐ Failure Mode Category D = No vehicle impairment"

Lots of interesting facts in Schedule 35 - Vehicles, 14 - Commissioning, and Schedule 15-2 Article 19 Project Schedule. Like apparently achieving LEED silver status for the OMSF is part of the commissioning process and according to this website the OMSF is a registered project, but not yet certified.

Where does that May 1, 2018 date come from?  I thought it was still "Spring, 2018".  The last day of Spring is June 21, 2018 ...

[MidTowner]

His point still stands and is interesting, though. If June 21, 2018 is the target date, vehicle testing on the last vehicle would have to start on January 1st. If August 22nd, 2018 is the target date, vehicle testing would have to start at the beginning of March 2018. How likely does any of that sound right now?

[Canard]

The “May 1st” date came from a CTV interview with Tom a month or two ago. I don’t think it’s a valid or formal date, just something he threw out on the spot. May 1st is a Tuesday.

Generally, systems have their launch on weekends, so the opening ceremonies are better able to be attended by all.

[KevinL]

I had assumed the signs at Allen we’re broken by the wind. Several of them had also spun around and were not parallel with the platform edge. The metal clamp is a poor design - it’s length is very short compared to the long moment of the sign.

It works well enough when a pole has a single sign, but when there's something like three on a single set of clamps it doesn't hold up.

At least they can see this being a problem now - they should have all winter to find a more solid mounting solution.

[ijmorlan]

His point still stands and is interesting, though. If June 21, 2018 is the target date, vehicle testing on the last vehicle would have to start on January 1st. If August 22nd, 2018 is the target date, vehicle testing would have to start at the beginning of March 2018. How likely does any of that sound right now?

It’s still hard to say. If the LRVs that aren’t arriving yet are having minor adjustments and fixes done so that they are completely ready to drive when they get here, and if assembly of the remaining vehicles is continuing, conceivably we could suddenly have a vehicle arriving every week. I thought the last news was that everything up to vehicle 9 was in a reasonably advanced stage of assembly.

Then as to the testing, I’m not worried about the burn-in. 600km is something like 15 round trips, so running regular service for a week would be amply sufficient for burn-in. What is much less clear to me is how much other testing is required, especially on each car — things like safety systems and procedures that aren’t meant to be used regularly (indeed, like car airbags, we hope they end up being utterly useless). And of course if the burn-in uncovers sufficiently serious problems then we could be in a very bad shape indeed.

I assume and hope they don’t feel a need to do a pull-through test on each vehicle. If one vehicle can be successfully pulled-through and if the new vehicles fit through a loading gauge plate, then per-vehicle pull-throughs would be superfluous. In general, tests of “the system” shouldn’t need to be repeated 14 times. But other tests will need to be done on each vehicle.

[panamaniac]

His point still stands and is interesting, though. If June 21, 2018 is the target date, vehicle testing on the last vehicle would have to start on January 1st. If August 22nd, 2018 is the target date, vehicle testing would have to start at the beginning of March 2018. How likely does any of that sound right now?

Well, I'm sceptical that "Spring, 2018" will be met, I just wanted to point out that they seemed to have given themselves a bit of wiggle room on the launch timing.