retiredfire
Active Member
Starting to come together downtown
- Thread starter Daveography
- Start date
Starting to come together downtown
ronron
Active Member
^ Gonna be fun watching the cool new trains go on by 
I see bike lanes taking shape!
Platinum107
Senior Member
Oh yeah side note: how do you guys think the new LRT station map is gonna look after the Valley Line is in operation? I wonder if they'll try to stick with the straight line sorta thing or completely revamp it 
I hope we would go with something like The Underground uses, where these boards would only show the line(s) that you access from this platform (or within the train you're on), with transfer points shown and clear wayfinding at those points. Full system maps can be made available on larger boards.
cliffapotamus
Active Member
The map question is really important, especially given how assymetrical the system is going to become (at least until the castle downs line opens). As much as i wanna be petty and not endorse something Calgary has, the way they've made their LRT map incorporate the BRT system as well seems like it would work really well for Edmonton, and justify the much larger 2-d maps we'll need (versus the linear maps we currently use). These maps show both the LRT and BRT max systems, which are intended to function together as the transit system 'skeleton' integrating them on the same map makes it really easy to navigate the two as a single system, and makes it clear to casual users that the buses can, in fact, be used to take the train.
In Edmonton's context, the Regional Transit Authority Thingamajig will be operating high-frequency high-capacity lines to integrate and compliment the LRT; why not put these lines on the same map? I know we're a couple years out from that still, but putting the proto-BRT that the RTAT (I know that's not the name but whatever) will operate on the same map as LRT will illustrate how the gaps in the train system are filled by buses. We need buses to be taken seriously, used, and operated punctually. Putting them in the same realm as trains, on the same map, would help with this. Especially given the Valley Line's known capacity limitations, ensuring buses operate to augment/relieve the line, and ensuring people know they do this, is hugely important.
Here's Calgary's map. we won't have as clear a system as Max, but maybe showing more lines will look like there's more options?
PS awesome photos Retiredfire, the sunset reflections are stunning!
In Edmonton's context, the Regional Transit Authority Thingamajig will be operating high-frequency high-capacity lines to integrate and compliment the LRT; why not put these lines on the same map? I know we're a couple years out from that still, but putting the proto-BRT that the RTAT (I know that's not the name but whatever) will operate on the same map as LRT will illustrate how the gaps in the train system are filled by buses. We need buses to be taken seriously, used, and operated punctually. Putting them in the same realm as trains, on the same map, would help with this. Especially given the Valley Line's known capacity limitations, ensuring buses operate to augment/relieve the line, and ensuring people know they do this, is hugely important.
Here's Calgary's map. we won't have as clear a system as Max, but maybe showing more lines will look like there's more options?
PS awesome photos Retiredfire, the sunset reflections are stunning!
Platinum107
Senior Member
@cliffapotamus Totally agree! I think if the future Rapid and Crosstown routes were incorporated into the map it would be very beneficial for transit users 
Kaizen
Senior Member
"It won't go in!"
"Did you try flipping it the other way?"
"Yes!"
"Try flipping it again."
*flips cable around*
*it fits*
"Well I'll be damned."
ronron
Active Member
Looks like that weather abused tarp will be the happiest when the two ends finally meet 
danimori
Active Member
From Tuesday. Lots being done!
Edmonton to launch LRV procurement tender
The City of Edmonton, Alberta, will launch a procurement tender in October for the supply of 40 low-floor LRVs for Valley Line West.
www.railjournal.com
cliffapotamus
Active Member
NEW TRAINS NEW TRAINS NEW TRAINS
I was talking with a neighbour a couple weeks ago. First time talking, didn't realize what they did. Apparently they work for CoE, and are involved with the current Transed part of the line, helping coordinate the operation of the line. This is super interesting and complicated stuff (I got a few details, but i didn't want to bug them about work etc) and includes things like 'where does transed pile the snow they plow from the line, and where does CoE pile the snow from the adjacent road, etc. One interesting detail i learned from this conversation was that the new Churchill Connector has its own fire alarm system separate from the rest of the station, despite being the same building when complete.
Related to this post, they said that it's currently up in the air (and I guess out to RFQ/RFP) as to how to operate the Valley Line West. As it's being procured differently, and separate from Transed, CoE has the option to operate it itself via ETS, via a different private vendor, or use Transed. They were saying that there is no preference right now to any method, and we didn't get into the minutae about how each option would work, but the sense i got is that CoE is looking at all options to operate Valley line West, mainly dependent on how well they can integrate with Transed.
I must say i wonder how the line will operate under 2 separate operators, potentially 2 operators and 2 owners, should CoE contract out Valley Line West to another vendor beyond ETS. Would trains stop at 102 Street, would they continue through, and some strange incarnation of the Victorian-era Railway Clearinghouses system be brought in to pay for mileage? Even if ETS is the operator, how will the line operate continuously, and/or how convoluted does that contract become, to ensure seamless operation?
The overarching theme i got from my neighbour was that there is an insane amount of planning and contractual things being ironed out right now to make the Valley line integrate seamlessly with ETS, to the point that the average user won't notice the difference in operators. I am curious and excited to see how this new order integrates with all this. Do we just get 40 more mutant 7-segment Bombardier Flexities and call it a day? i think that could work!
I was talking with a neighbour a couple weeks ago. First time talking, didn't realize what they did. Apparently they work for CoE, and are involved with the current Transed part of the line, helping coordinate the operation of the line. This is super interesting and complicated stuff (I got a few details, but i didn't want to bug them about work etc) and includes things like 'where does transed pile the snow they plow from the line, and where does CoE pile the snow from the adjacent road, etc. One interesting detail i learned from this conversation was that the new Churchill Connector has its own fire alarm system separate from the rest of the station, despite being the same building when complete.
Related to this post, they said that it's currently up in the air (and I guess out to RFQ/RFP) as to how to operate the Valley Line West. As it's being procured differently, and separate from Transed, CoE has the option to operate it itself via ETS, via a different private vendor, or use Transed. They were saying that there is no preference right now to any method, and we didn't get into the minutae about how each option would work, but the sense i got is that CoE is looking at all options to operate Valley line West, mainly dependent on how well they can integrate with Transed.
I must say i wonder how the line will operate under 2 separate operators, potentially 2 operators and 2 owners, should CoE contract out Valley Line West to another vendor beyond ETS. Would trains stop at 102 Street, would they continue through, and some strange incarnation of the Victorian-era Railway Clearinghouses system be brought in to pay for mileage? Even if ETS is the operator, how will the line operate continuously, and/or how convoluted does that contract become, to ensure seamless operation?
The overarching theme i got from my neighbour was that there is an insane amount of planning and contractual things being ironed out right now to make the Valley line integrate seamlessly with ETS, to the point that the average user won't notice the difference in operators. I am curious and excited to see how this new order integrates with all this. Do we just get 40 more mutant 7-segment Bombardier Flexities and call it a day? i think that could work!
_Citizen_Dane_
Active Member
^ I don't have much to add, but this has been something I've thought about quite a bit too. It'll be interesting to see, especially if another consortium ends up operating the western portion of the line. Likewise with the article Dave posted above. I'd have to assume the City would be choosing Bombardier again to match the current Valley East fleet, but with what sounds like open bidding there's the chance we could end up with two separate sets of vehicles running on the line. Not that that's completely out of left field — in the old days the Edmonton Radial Railway ran streetcars from a couple different manufactures simultaneously — but it seems like a much rarer thing among systems today.
Given that the trains for the West line are being required to meet the exact same specs as the SE line, I can't imagine they would do anything but have a single operator for the entire line. To do otherwise would frankly be asinine.