Trillium Line Upgrades & Extension (Stage 2) [Greenboro to Airport/Limebank] | U/C

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I guess that means we could end up with another north American first... CAF Civity trains http://www.caf.net/en/productos-serv...odularidad.php
Whoever wins i kind of hope they choose to go with longer trains rather than two coupled together. They could use the current Lint trains for the airport shuttle

Would we not retain the existing O train equipment?

[waterloowarrior]

If I'm reading this correctly, the City will pre-select two DMU options for the three teams to choose from...

http://www.merx4.merx.com/cityofotta...upId=149352201

FVSO No. 09717-55800-P01
This Request for Vehicle Supply Offer (“RFVSO”), including all annexes, is issued by the City of Ottawa ("City" or "Sponsor") for the selection of up to a maximum of two (2) suppliers (“Designated Vehicle Suppliers”) for the supply and delivery of Diesel Multiple Unit (“DMU”) Vehicles for the Trillium Line Extension Project (the “Project”).

The purpose of this RFVSO is to allow the City to pre-select the Designated Vehicle Suppliers, whose DMU Vehicles will be eligible for inclusion in the proposals of the DBFM Prequalified Parties. In the event that a Designated Vehicle Supplier is included in the DBFM proposal of the party that is chosen by the City to be the DBFM Project Co, that Designated Vehicle Supplier will become the vehicle supplier (“Vehicle Supplier”) and will enter into a revenue vehicle supply contract (“Revenue Vehicle Supply Contract”) with the construction contractor, a member of the DBFM Project Co responsible for delivery of the Project elements (“Construction Contractor”), and will be responsible for the supply and delivery of Vehicles to the Construction Contractor under the terms of the Revenue Vehicle Supply Contract.

The RFVSO process will be managed by the City, and shall conform to By-law respecting the purchasing of goods, services and construction for the City of Ottawa, By-law 50 of 2000, as amended.

Closing Date: Friday August 18, 2017

Inquiries:
Trillium Line Extension Project RFVSO

[zzptichka]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Would we not retain the existing O train equipment?

I believe we still have three original Bombardier Talent trains sitting in the yard. I vaguely remember the City wanted to auction them off a few months ago. Not sure if they did.

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

[B]City releases shortlist of builders vying to extend Trillium Line
The finalists are:

• Trillium Link (made up of eight companies, including Spanish infrastructure builder ACCIONA, Spanish railway vehicle and equipment maker CAF, Ottawa construction firm Thomas Cavanagh and Ottawa’s GRC Architects)
• Trillium Extension Alliance (made up of seven companies, including Australian infrastructure builder Plenary, French road and rail company Colas and local construction firm Tomlinson)
• TransitNEXT (made up of Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin)

Interesting that RTG is not on the short-list. The procurement strategy council report mentioned that they would be allowed to build on the Trillium extension. I wonder if they didn't bid or if their bid didn't make the short list?

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Interesting that RTG is not on the short-list. The procurement strategy council report mentioned that they would be allowed to build on the Trillium extension. I wonder if they didn't bid or if their bid didn't make the short list?

SNC-Lavalin is one of the three RTG partners. Wonder if the others will be involved as subcontractors, didn't bid, or were part of a different team.

Here's a few more names

Trillium Link: Acciona, Fengate, CAF, CIMA+, Momentum, Thomas Cavanagh, Cobalt Architects and GRC Architects
Trillium Extension Alliance: Plenary, Colas, R.W. Tomlinson, Plan Group, WSP, Bird Construction, and Mass Electric
TransitNEXT: SNC Lavalin

[waterloowarrior]

comparison to Confederation Line extension shortlist. Looks like Trillium Extension Alliance and Confederation Transit Group (CTG) have some overlap.

Confederation Transit Group (CTG): Ferrovial, Colas and Tomlinson;
East West Connectors (EWC): Kiewit and Vinci;
Confederation Line 2 Partners (CL2P): Betchel, Aecon, Pomerleau and EBC.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

I believe we still have three original Bombardier Talent trains sitting in the yard. I vaguely remember the City wanted to auction them off a few months ago. Not sure if they did.

I doubt they'd bring back the talents. But assuming the same lint 41 model is used, to do double length trains plus maintain frequency on the much longer route the train fleet would have to increase from six to at least 16 . Or they could use less trains but longer

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by kmcamp

I doubt they'd bring back the talents. But assuming the same lint 41 model is used, to do double length trains plus maintain frequency on the much longer route the train fleet would have to increase from six to at least 16 . Or they could use less trains but longer

Good Day....

correct.... they will not be bringing back the 2-and-a-half Talents (one car got damaged in the switch derailment at Carleton just before the Lint's went on-line), and they are now just too old and not in-service maintained. It would cost too much for too little return to re-use them now. And the 6 Alstom Lint trains are not up to modern N.A. rail crash standards, and running them in mixed service is problematic. And per my post on page 1 of this thread Nov. 9, 2016 , the T-Line TPAP stated that a minimum of 12 additional trains (for 18 total) would be required. So... at this point, we are probably looking at a whole brand-new fleet, and unless they can get permission from TC to use the original Alstom 6 on the airport spur, they also get let go to consolidate costs.
(Hence my suggestion in that post of, for looking GREEN, Jimmy may want to check the possibility of using the new Alstom iLint trains - hydrogen powered, and quieter than diesel. But, in the normal, stay-in-the-box way of things, probably not going to happen now, unless one of the consortia, or the RFVSO, get creative. SIGH.)

EnJoy!

[Dado]

The way the City is carrying on with shortlisted consortia and whathaveyou, you'd think that extending the Trillium Line (over three quarters of it along an existing RoW, with 2/3rds of that still having rails in place) was some kind of challenging undertaking. Do we go through this palaver every time we build a segment of busway?

FFS. Issue a contract to extend the railbed itself. Basically anyone who builds rural roads can do this, and if there's one thing besides bureaucratic idiocy Ottawa isn't short of it's road-building contractors. Even with the wholly-unnecessary grade separations this isn't anything that's not been done in Ottawa hundreds of times.

Then issue one to replace the existing rails with CWR (as well as any tie replacements) and to extend new trackage out along the new RoW. Then issue a contract for extending the signalling system. Regular rail contractors like RailTerm could do these two.

Meanwhile, issue another contract (or contracts) for station building (or retrofitting for South Keys). Finally, one other contract to supply DMUs. I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that that one is separate.

No large multi-national consortia with large mono-contracts necessary.

[kmcamp]

Originally Posted by PHrenetic

Good Day....

And the 6 Alstom Lint trains are not up to modern N.A. rail crash standards, and running them in mixed service is problematic.

EnJoy!

None of the trains (Talents or Lints) met the battleship-like FRA requirements, which is why they all had an exception from transport canada. The FRA rules are really why we can't have nice things, since we generally can't use trains used elsewhere in the world. The Lints are still compatible with the same Euro rules the newere Lint versions use. That being said, this is Ottawa, so we'll probably throw away the barely used Lints

[J.OT13]

For both the Confederation and Trillium Line extensions, how will it work in terms of station designs? Don't they pretty much have to follow BBB's stage 1 design cues? Will they be completely rebuilding the Trillium Stations to Confederation Line standards (or at least general aesthetics and flow)? I don't think BBB could complain about their plagiarism since I believe the City now owns the concepts...

[TransitZilla]

Originally Posted by Dado

The way the City is carrying on with shortlisted consortia and whathaveyou, you'd think that extending the Trillium Line (over three quarters of it along an existing RoW, with 2/3rds of that still having rails in place) was some kind of challenging undertaking. Do we go through this palaver every time we build a segment of busway?

FFS. Issue a contract to extend the railbed itself. Basically anyone who builds rural roads can do this, and if there's one thing besides bureaucratic idiocy Ottawa isn't short of it's road-building contractors. Even with the wholly-unnecessary grade separations this isn't anything that's not been done in Ottawa hundreds of times.

Then issue one to replace the existing rails with CWR (as well as any tie replacements) and to extend new trackage out along the new RoW. Then issue a contract for extending the signalling system. Regular rail contractors like RailTerm could do these two.

Meanwhile, issue another contract (or contracts) for station building (or retrofitting for South Keys). Finally, one other contract to supply DMUs. I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that that one is separate.

No large multi-national consortia with large mono-contracts necessary.

The city already tried the approach of acting as its own general contractor with the $60M "upgrade" that was months late and never met the original frequency goals.

I'm all for bringing on someone who the city will be able to hold accountable to performance standards.

[waterloowarrior]

Originally Posted by Dado

The way the City is carrying on with shortlisted consortia and whathaveyou, you'd think that extending the Trillium Line (over three quarters of it along an existing RoW, with 2/3rds of that still having rails in place) was some kind of challenging undertaking. Do we go through this palaver every time we build a segment of busway?

FFS. Issue a contract to extend the railbed itself. Basically anyone who builds rural roads can do this, and if there's one thing besides bureaucratic idiocy Ottawa isn't short of it's road-building contractors. Even with the wholly-unnecessary grade separations this isn't anything that's not been done in Ottawa hundreds of times.

Then issue one to replace the existing rails with CWR (as well as any tie replacements) and to extend new trackage out along the new RoW. Then issue a contract for extending the signalling system. Regular rail contractors like RailTerm could do these two.

Meanwhile, issue another contract (or contracts) for station building (or retrofitting for South Keys). Finally, one other contract to supply DMUs. I suppose we should thank our lucky stars that that one is separate.

No large multi-national consortia with large mono-contracts necessary.

The project budget is around $550 million, 8-10x bigger than the City's typical large capital projects like the Hospital Link, Hunt Club extension, Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and West Transitway extension. I am glad they aren't trying to emulate the TTC and take on these massive capital projects themselves (e.g. Spadina subway extension - two years late and $600 million over budget)

[mykl]

Originally Posted by bradnixon

Interesting that RTG is not on the short-list. The procurement strategy council report mentioned that they would be allowed to build on the Trillium extension. I wonder if they didn't bid or if their bid didn't make the short list?

I read somewhere within the last month or so that RTG wouldn't be bidding on Stage 2 in order to avoid any perception of favouritism if they did win.

[J.OT13]

The deal was that RTG woudn't bid on stage 2 of the Confederation Line (CL) portion. In exchange, they would automatically get the contract to provide additional train sets, expand Belfast Yards and maintain the CL extension. They were however, allowed to bid on the Trillium Line extension.

[Dado]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

The project budget is around $550 million, 8-10x bigger than the City's typical large capital projects like the Hospital Link, Hunt Club extension, Strandherd-Armstrong Bridge and West Transitway extension. I am glad they aren't trying to emulate the TTC and take on these massive capital projects themselves (e.g. Spadina subway extension - two years late and $600 million over budget)

The fact we're contemplating spending $550M to get 12 km of unelectrified single track (only half of it actually along brand new RoW) in undeveloped and largely unencumbered terrain, a few sidings and about half a dozen each of stations and grade separations is a big part of the problem. This is quite probably going to be the most expensive bit of mainline railway per track-mile in the country. This shouldn't be a "massive capital project" at all.

Indeed the very fact you can even compare its costs to an 8 km subway extension in the middle of urban Toronto should be the first clue that something is amiss.

Another rail project in Toronto we could compare it to is the Union-Pearson link, which cost $450M a few years ago: they had twice as much distance to build/upgrade, fully double tracked (or more) incorporating RoW widening for track additions on an active line, several major grade separations and even a ~3 km section of viaduct and elevated station at Pearson.

The two projects shouldn't even be in the same ballpark in terms of costs, nevermind ours being more. All perspective between what is being proposed and what it's going to cost relative to anything remotely comparable seems to have been lost.

Even the earlier $60M capacity expansion is out of line. The six DMUs cost $34M (so $5.7M each), leaving $26M for two sidings and a miscellany of other minor improvements. Adjusted for inflation, the original O-Train pilot with its 3 DMUs included cost about $36M. With the CWR replacement, call it $40M. So how did we manage to spend what amounts to $10M on each ~500 m siding just a decade and a half later?

We've been getting hosed on the Trillium Line ever since the original O-Train pilot project group was disbanded.

[J.OT13]

The Trillium Line should have been out-right rejected in favour of extending the Confederation to Kanata (and maybe still have enough for Barrhaven). Stage 3 could have been extending from Barrhaven to Riverside South Town Centre (reverse Chiarelli plan) and converting the Trillium to full double track, direct airport to downtown service.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by J.OT13

The Trillium Line should have been out-right rejected in favour of extending the Confederation to Kanata (and maybe still have enough for Barrhaven). Stage 3 could have been extending from Barrhaven to Riverside South Town Centre (reverse Chiarelli plan) and converting the Trillium to full double track, direct airport to downtown service.

Besides the fact that we are not yet prepared for a Kanata extension and we will not be far enough advanced for a few years, I agree that what we do with the Trillium Line should be done properly and that is double tracked and electrified. Whether it is interlined into the tunnel or use a separate surface right of way, it needs to go downtown if we really want people to use it.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Dado

The fact we're contemplating spending $550M to get 12 km of unelectrified single track (only half of it actually along brand new RoW) in undeveloped and largely unencumbered terrain, a few sidings and about half a dozen each of stations and grade separations is a big part of the problem. This is quite probably going to be the most expensive bit of mainline railway per track-mile in the country. This shouldn't be a "massive capital project" at all.

Indeed the very fact you can even compare its costs to an 8 km subway extension in the middle of urban Toronto should be the first clue that something is amiss.

Another rail project in Toronto we could compare it to is the Union-Pearson link, which cost $450M a few years ago: they had twice as much distance to build/upgrade, fully double tracked (or more) incorporating RoW widening for track additions on an active line, several major grade separations and even a ~3 km section of viaduct and elevated station at Pearson.

The two projects shouldn't even be in the same ballpark in terms of costs, nevermind ours being more. All perspective between what is being proposed and what it's going to cost relative to anything remotely comparable seems to have been lost.

Even the earlier $60M capacity expansion is out of line. The six DMUs cost $34M (so $5.7M each), leaving $26M for two sidings and a miscellany of other minor improvements. Adjusted for inflation, the original O-Train pilot with its 3 DMUs included cost about $36M. With the CWR replacement, call it $40M. So how did we manage to spend what amounts to $10M on each ~500 m siding just a decade and a half later?

We've been getting hosed on the Trillium Line ever since the original O-Train pilot project group was disbanded.

You compare this to the original $900M project that was going to reach Barrhaven Town Centre and included the Vimy Bridge and double tracking from downtown to Bowesville, you have to wonder. Of course, a good portion of the additional costs are going towards grade separating every road along the route including along the airport spur.

The end result is going to be a system that is subject to failure because of all the track switching that trains need to accomplish along the entire route and scheduling problems.

One question remains unclear, is the Ellwood diamond going to separated as part of this project?

If the airport spur will not be interlined in the forseeable future, why don't we buy a few standard streetcars for the spur. That is likely all that we will need to meet the demand.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Besides the fact that we are not yet prepared for a Kanata extension and we will not be far enough advanced for a few years, I agree that what we do with the Trillium Line should be done properly and that is double tracked and electrified. Whether it is interlined into the tunnel or use a separate surface right of way, it needs to go downtown if we really want people to use it.

Double tracked and electrified, yes. Going downtown isn't really necessary. If the Trillium line is upgraded to proper high-frequency service the Bayview transfer doesn't matter anymore. You don't need one-seat rides everywhere.. that was one of the big fallacies of the city's old Transitway-era thinking.-