Trillium Line (O-Train) Updates

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The likelihood of HSR in the next 50 years is beyond negligible.

Maybe, but VIA is definitely increasing their conventional rail service. Every year they add more trains on the Toronto-Ottawa route.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Either way; not much thought is put into these temporary stations. Is what happens when the system is run by people who don't actually use it.

Lebreton's temporary station sucks because it's temporary. Very little point spending money for a good station that's going to be torn down after 2.5 years. And RTG would have designed it, not OC Transpo.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

Either way; not much thought is put into these temporary stations. Is what happens when the system is run by people who don't actually use it.

To be fair, there wasn't much thought put into any of the O-train stations.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

In fact, with demand on VIA's Ottawa-Toronto line skyrocketing, they may in fact push for a grade separation of the Ellwood diamond before the City of Ottawa does.

Though, right now it seems the Ellwood diamond interferes minimally with both lines... having been on both the O-Train and VIA through it many times I've never actually been on a train that had to stop. I suppose VIA is probably carefully timing their trains to get there in between O-Trains. That might get harder with 9-minute frequency.

The Ellwood diamond works on a first come-first served basis. The interlocking is usually all stop. When the signals detect a train getting close, it gives that direction a clear (or clear to stop) signal. The detection point on the VIA tracks is far enough back that train crews likely just slow down at the advance clear to stop signal, and then by the time they reach the stop signal the O-Train has already crossed. With the new signalling on the O-Train however, the detection point for Northbound trains has to be north of the Brookfield passing siding, so trains are now regularly slowing and frequently even stopping while they wait for signal 23 to clear them through the interlocking. You don't notice this heading southbound, because the detection point is north of Confederation, and the train stops either way.

With the way the system is setup now, VIA could add a lot more trains before the interlocking became an issue for them, but more VIA trains would quickly become a problem for Capital Rail, who has a much tighter schedule.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Catenary

The detection point on the VIA tracks is far enough back that train crews likely just slow down at the advance clear to stop signal, and then by the time they reach the stop signal the O-Train has already crossed. With the new signalling on the O-Train however, the detection point for Northbound trains has to be north of the Brookfield passing siding, so trains are now regularly slowing and frequently even stopping while they wait for signal 23 to clear them through the interlocking. You don't notice this heading southbound, because the detection point is north of Confederation, and the train stops either way.

Now that you mention it, VIA trains I've been on do often seem to do this.

Not sure it's becoming more frequent for VIA trains to stop... I've been on VIA trains through Ellwood diamond 12 times since early November, and never once has VIA ever stopped there. Perhaps I'm just getting lucky.

[Uhuniau]

Originally Posted by ACmodels

A spur to Hurdman

Spurdman, obviously!

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Uhuniau

The likelihood of HSR in the next 50 years is beyond negligible.

With HSR, even 50 years means the right of way needs to be protected.

[lrt's friend]

I just looked at the satellite view of the Billings Bridge area, which confirms that when they built the Transitway through this area in the mid 90s and rebuilt the Bank Street railway overpass, the new overpass only accommodates one set of tracks. Furthermore, the right of way may have room for two sets of tracks if they are lucky but no more, where it is parallel to the Transitway.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I just looked at the satellite view of the Billings Bridge area, which confirms that when they built the Transitway through this area in the mid 90s and rebuilt the Bank Street railway overpass, the new overpass only accommodates one set of tracks. Furthermore, the right of way may have room for two sets of tracks if they are lucky but no more, where it is parallel to the Transitway.

The protections may have been designed for two track LRT and not two track DMU transit. Dado, Caternary or another of our resident rail experts should confirm, but I think that with electric LRT, the tracks can be closer together than with conventional rail, meaning a narrower ROW for 2 tracks. It does make me wonder if there's structures along the route that can accommodate 2 tracks only if converted to electric LRT.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The protections may have been designed for two track LRT and not two track DMU transit. Dado, Caternary or another of our resident rail experts should confirm, but I think that with electric LRT, the tracks can be closer together than with conventional rail, meaning a narrower ROW for 2 tracks. It does make me wonder if there's structures along the route that can accommodate 2 tracks only if converted to electric LRT.

Is the track guage any different? If it is, it is a small difference. There is no way to have two tracks over Bank Street using the current bridge. The same applies to the bridge over the Transitway.

It will be a tight squeeze for two sets of tracks between the Transitway and adjacent housing near the Billings Estate.

[Catenary]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Now that you mention it, VIA trains I've been on do often seem to do this.

Not sure it's becoming more frequent for VIA trains to stop... I've been on VIA trains through Ellwood diamond 12 times since early November, and never once has VIA ever stopped there. Perhaps I'm just getting lucky.

I was referring to O-Trains stopping, not VIA. Their setup hasn't changed.

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The protections may have been designed for two track LRT and not two track DMU transit. Dado, Caternary or another of our resident rail experts should confirm, but I think that with electric LRT, the tracks can be closer together than with conventional rail, meaning a narrower ROW for 2 tracks. It does make me wonder if there's structures along the route that can accommodate 2 tracks only if converted to electric LRT.

An LRT does have a narrower ROW requirement, but the track gauge is the same. The difference is something like 4 feet for double track mainline rail vs. double track LRT. This isn't a huge factor for a bridge, but is a bigger cost when widening the O-Train cut north of the Canal.

There was also discussion a few days back about capacity of the Talents and LINTs. I have found a capacity number for the BR643 Talent the O-Train uses, 287 Passengers. The new LINTSs have a stated capacity of 260 passengers.

[silvergate]

Originally Posted by Catenary

There was also discussion a few days back about capacity of the Talents and LINTs. I have found a capacity number for the BR643 Talent the O-Train uses, 287 Passengers. The new LINTSs have a stated capacity of 260 passengers.

So with expansion to RSS, during rush hour, with a full capacity Confed line going to Bayview every 3-4 minutes, and the Trillium line only arriving every 8 minutes, do we foresee any problems on the line? Especially if a full train leaves Bayview and cannot load students from Carleton on it?

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by silvergate

So with expansion to RSS, during rush hour, with a full capacity Confed line going to Bayview every 3-4 minutes, and the Trillium line only arriving every 8 minutes, do we foresee any problems on the line? Especially if a full train leaves Bayview and cannot load students from Carleton on it?

The Trillium Line is projected to be within capacity at least until the 2030s. The boost from 15 minute service to 9 minute service does lead to a pretty big capacity increase.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by silvergate

So with expansion to RSS, during rush hour, with a full capacity Confed line going to Bayview every 3-4 minutes, and the Trillium line only arriving every 8 minutes, do we foresee any problems on the line? Especially if a full train leaves Bayview and cannot load students from Carleton on it?

It is highly unlikely a westbound Confederation train will be full leaving Bayview because if the train is full downtown, some of those passengers will exit the train at Bayview to take the Trillium line south in both the morning and afternoon rush hour. If the southbound train headed towards Carleton is full when the Confederation train arrives then the southbound passengers will have to wait a maximum of 9 minutes and be the first ones on the next train. As the Trillium line is not expected to reach capacity until 2030 then this should not be an everyday problem. During Blues Fest or if the Senators move to LeBreton it is quite conceivable that the southbound demand could exceed capacity for limited time periods.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

It is highly unlikely a westbound Confederation train will be full leaving Bayview because if the train is full downtown, some of those passengers will exit the train at Bayview to take the Trillium line south in both the morning and afternoon rush hour. If the southbound train headed towards Carleton is full when the Confederation train arrives then the southbound passengers will have to wait a maximum of 9 minutes and be the first ones on the next train. As the Trillium line is not expected to reach capacity until 2030 then this should not be an everyday problem. During Blues Fest or if the Senators move to LeBreton it is quite conceivable that the southbound demand could exceed capacity for limited time periods.

Plus even when the westbound train is about to pull into Bayview it won't be anywhere near full. The Confederation Line will be significantly below capacity for the foreseeable future.

The initial 'out of the box' Confederation Line will have a capacity of 18,000pphpd. Roughed-in enhancements (lengthening of surface platforms & installation of ATC), can grow that to 30,000pphpd. Demand on opening day will be about 10,700pphpd.

[RTWAP]

Originally Posted by ac888yow

Look no further than Reagan airport in DC for a perfect example of an airport as a stop on not one but two metro lines. When the station opened more than 30 years ago the airport served approx. 11M pax. Today we're at approx. 5M.

An extension of Trillium line south which avoids the airport would constitute a monumental planning failure. Loop or tunnel or spur, I don't really care as long as it's built.

Interesting thread. To summarize:

Tunnel is expensive and doesn't align with need to service area SE of airport. Also it adds stopping time at Airport and EYC for all RS passengers, which is sub-optimal.

Spur provides seamless arrival to Bayview, but departing travelers need to get on Airport train not Riverside South train. And it displaces capacity to RS and points SE, S or SW.

Loop has least impact on the rest of the system, but introduces another transfer.

Personally, I'd go with loop, on the condition that the tracks and schedules are aligned so travelers step off one train and directly across a level platform to the other train. In a heated and covered station.

Whatever rolling stock is chosen (monorail!!!11!) the airport loop should have few seats to emphasize it is a local people-mover to connect to the transit system. That is a design vernacular that indicates to passengers that they are on a very short connecting trip. Airports around the world have connectors like this. Getting on and off one is not considered a 'transfer' in the most negative sense of the term. But it needs to feel tightly integrated and 'airporty'. Don't expect people to walk through the parking garage to get to it. Passengers should be protected from the elements at all times.

Heck, if you wanted to get really smart you'd put in Presto vending machines on the airport loop trains so people could tap n' go with the credit cards and obtain trip passes, day passes, or whatever tourist-friendly options Tourism Ottawa can pry out of OCTranspo. The same vending machines should be at both ends of the loop too.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by RTWAP

Interesting thread. To summarize:



Whatever rolling stock is chosen (monorail!!!11!) the airport loop should have few seats to emphasize it is a local people-mover to connect to the transit system. That is a design vernacular that indicates to passengers that they are on a very short connecting trip. Airports around the world have connectors like this. Getting on and off one is not considered a 'transfer' in the most negative sense of the term. But it needs to feel tightly integrated and 'airporty'. Don't expect people to walk through the parking garage to get to it. Passengers should be protected from the elements at all times.

I certainly like the idea of a people mover. The terminal is about 3km (or about double the Toronto LINK) from South Keys and a people mover technology is much lighter on infrastructure than the heavy rail Alstom trains, and it would give people multiple options when they got to South Keys (train to Bayview or bus to Hurdman) and it would not be dependent on what the longer term future of Trillium is (conversion to tram, current use indefinitely, commuter rail, etc) or how Riverside South is served in the longer term, and could provide access to other destinations (EY centre, Hilton, long term parking). Plus getting on a little people mover would be a lot less creepy for visitors than getting on a giant 4 car trillium train that was 98% empty).

Airport authority would hate it though (they would lose big time on cab fees and short term parking).

[ACmodels]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I certainly like the idea of a people mover. The terminal is about 3km (or about double the Toronto LINK) from South Keys and a people mover technology is much lighter on infrastructure than the heavy rail Alstom trains, and it would give people multiple options when they got to South Keys (train to Bayview or bus to Hurdman) and it would not be dependent on what the longer term future of Trillium is (conversion to tram, current use indefinitely, commuter rail, etc) or how Riverside South is served in the longer term, and could provide access to other destinations (EY centre, Hilton, long term parking). Plus getting on a little people mover would be a lot less creepy for visitors than getting on a giant 4 car trillium train that was 98% empty).

Airport authority would hate it though (they would lose big time on cab fees and short term parking).

To shorten the route I would terminate the Monorail at Lester Road. Make the city build a station/kiss and ride there. You would require a Transfer in a wooded area but it's cheaper than your plan. And there could be an extension to Albion Rd to serve residents of Blossom Park which would be highly unlikely...

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I certainly like the idea of a people mover. The terminal is about 3km (or about double the Toronto LINK) from South Keys and a people mover technology is much lighter on infrastructure than the heavy rail Alstom trains, and it would give people multiple options when they got to South Keys (train to Bayview or bus to Hurdman) and it would not be dependent on what the longer term future of Trillium is (conversion to tram, current use indefinitely, commuter rail, etc) or how Riverside South is served in the longer term, and could provide access to other destinations (EY centre, Hilton, long term parking). Plus getting on a little people mover would be a lot less creepy for visitors than getting on a giant 4 car trillium train that was 98% empty).

Airport authority would hate it though (they would lose big time on cab fees and short term parking).

With this setup, I wouldn't worry at all. Taxis will lose very little business and people will continue to use short-term parking.

Let's be realistic. This is a two transfer system to reach downtown and most parts of the city. It isn't exactly handy for anybody no matter the claimed easy transfers. That is only a perception of those familiar with the system, not to visitors. If I am here on business and want a quick and hassle free trip to my hotel after all the frustration of air travel these days, I am taking a taxi. As is the case in many cities, people movers are white elephants. Their best applications are within multi-terminal airports.

[ACmodels]

Ok here's another one of my awesome plans for rail to the airport...

PRT:

First off I'd like to say this would not affect the airport's short term parking and cab fees as the PRT would only travel to the EY Center/Hilton hotel.
And it's there when you need it so you don't have to wait for some train with 8 minute service. So its always waiting like this:


And if the city does want the PRT to connect with the Trillium line it can connect with it at the EY center with a loop like this:



And look at this:
http://www.queensu.ca/surp/sites/web...013-14comp.pdf


Tell me what you think....