Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
In fact the only place in the system that lacked a redundant elevator was one part of Blair station that was from the original transitway. It's now getting two new elevators
|
|
|
- Thread starter Reecemartin
- Start date
reaperexpress
Senior Member
It does seem like overkill. I think there's a good case for each platform to have at least 2 elevators (or an elevator + a ramp), so people can always exit/enter the platform despite an elevator failure. But it doesn't seem like too big of an issue to just have one elevator at each end of an island platform, since the worst case scenario is that you need to walk/roll from one entrance to another at street level.
Obviously more elevators is better for accessibility but that benefit needs to be weighed against the other accessibility improvements that could have been made with the same amount of money.
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
You'd be surprised what a difference it makes to accessibility to always have a redundant elevator. Elevators break down surprisingly often. I never really appreciated them until I tried pushing my kids in a stroller years ago through the very inaccessible Montreal underground. Making a person go to another entrance can be a much bigger imposition then you think if they have limited mobility. The redundant elevators are something the Otrain system did very right.
Trimming them wouldn't have made enough difference in the budget to fix any of the systems actual flaws, such as too much single track on Line 2 which limits headway and travel time, or using Low floor LRTs for Metro level service on Line 1 and all the vehicle headaches that came out of that
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
Allandale25
Senior Member
reaperexpress
Senior Member
I rode the REM Deux-Montagnes line this weekend and benchmarked its speed against the Trillium line travelling a similar distance. Needless to say the REM is way faster than the O-Train. The average speed of the REM is faster than the maximum speed the O-Train achieved between stations.
I'm working on a video going into this in more detail, but the top items causing the low speeds on O-Train Line 2 are:
1) 25 km/h restriction at platforms
2) low switch speeds (in this case 50 km/h)
3) short passing tracks
4) low track speeds (in this case 55 km/h)
5) diesel power
I'm working on a video going into this in more detail, but the top items causing the low speeds on O-Train Line 2 are:
1) 25 km/h restriction at platforms
2) low switch speeds (in this case 50 km/h)
3) short passing tracks
4) low track speeds (in this case 55 km/h)
5) diesel power
Last edited:
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
I mean yes it's true, but it kind of feels like you're kicking it when its down. The results are fairly obvious, and the 25kph is a transport Canada thing Ottawa has no choice over.
Given the commuter rail like nature of Line 2 it's more fair to compare it to a Go train traveling similar distance which would also have to follow all the same TC rules
Kennedy to Agincourt is 6.2km and takes 10 minutes according to Google maps
Leitrim to Walkley is 6.7 km and takes 12 minutes, but the train makes two intermediate stops at Greenboro and South keys.
That actually kind of shows what GO could be if it used something like a KISS or a Flirt instead, even if it remained diesel. Not going to happen of course as there's too much shared track with freight and Via trains
reaperexpress
Senior Member
It feels to me like you're deflecting responsibility for the project's conscious design decisions that have severely undermined the line's utility.
The 25 km/h limit is imposed by Transport Canada because they chose not to install sufficient track securing brackets. Metrolinx recently lifted their speed restrictions at UP high level platforms by adding bracing between the ties and the platform. You can also see those braces under the REM platform at the end of the video.
They chose to install low-speed switches even though 70 km/h turnouts are very common on other regional rail lines in Canada.
They chose to build to a track speed lower than the geometric potential of the line.
They chose not to extend the passing track at Walkley, leaving a tight timing between trains with no margin for error.
And of course they chose not to electrify the line.
The commuter rail nature of the line is not an excuse. Who cares if it's faster than the GO Train? The GO Train's acceleration is absolutely atrocious. When my city spends billions of dollars on a rapid transit system, I want it to be rapid. Accelerating faster than the slowest accelerating train in the country is not an accomplishment.
Besides, being regional rail is not a reason to accelerate slowly. The Stadler FLIRT is one of the fastest accelerating trains of any type. Or at least the electric version is.
The NS Stadler FLIRT EMU accelerates more quickly than the REM:
Last edited:
bearcat
Active Member
I wish we had this on the GO lines
reaperexpress
Senior Member
Agreed. I think it would be a great fit for services like the Bramalea-Unionville local service. The North-American variant of the FLIRT has the same floor height as GO's BiLevel coaches (610mm) so it could interoperate with them if GO ever gets around to raising platforms and modifying coaches to provide level boarding.I wish we had this on the GO lines
Thaboss
Active Member
Been on these bad boys several times and can confirm that they accelerate and deaccelerate very aggressively such that they're called "sprinter" trains whose sole purpose is to stop at every station, linger for what feels like 1 min and move on quickly.
In the netherlands what they call "intercity" trains are bilevel and stop only at major stations.
Sprinter train setup in ottawa and toronto would be a HUGE gamechanger.
Last edited:
Kyle Campbell
Senior Member
Not quite, I'm just saying it's already a done deal. What's the point of the comparison ? They built what they built. We know REM and many other electric lines are faster. REM was also quite a bit more expensive, though it's the gold standard I'd say in bang for buck.
The REM is faster than the Metro, itself a fairly speedy system.
Many new systems are slower than Line 2 as well, such as apparently the soon to be open Line 6, or Ion. Are they even worse decision by this measure?
reaperexpress
Senior Member
It's not a done deal because:
- If we don't criticize what went wrong in the project planning process they will keep making the same mistakes in future projects
- Many of those things can still be fixed by additional investment. Like you said, the Line 2 upgrade was fairly cheap by Canadian standards and that's because they omitted so many useful upgrades. To the point that there are multiple items in the Ottawa Transportation Master Plan that are to fix up Line 2/4. Notably extending the second track through Walkley station to improve headways to 10 minutes and reduce travel times by a couple minutes. The best time to do that work would have been while the line was shut down, but since that didn't happen we should be talking about when we would like to go back and do it.
Yes! Those systems are even worse than Line 2! The Finch LRT is slower than the local bus it's replacing, despite having half as many stops and a dedicated ROW!
Bojaxs
Senior Member
smallspy
Senior Member
If Transport Canada has placed an edict on platform speeds, then that's specific to Ottawa as there is no such regulation on any other system anywhere in Canada.
Dan