Daveography said:
@ChazYEG Diesel units aren't very environmentally friendly, nor efficient with a lot of stop-and-go operation, and a third-rail system for a surface line is a big no-no. Not sure what other options are feasible?
Click to expand...
My thoughts were in the third rail option, which I know are used in other places, even for surface lines (Rio being my primary example), but I didn't account for the effect of cold and snowy weather on such system, as @darwink pointed out.
It is kinda sad, as I really believe the overhead cables look horrible, but between that and not having the lines (or having several reliability issues), I'll take the cables 11 out of 10 times.
But thank you both for the clarification, it was a simple and silly question that have been bothering me for quite some time, now.
 
@ChazYEG What? You can have your opinion I guess but I personally love the look of overhead cables, makes our system more interesting and cool rather than a simple 3rd Rail
 
Platinum107 said:
@ChazYEG What? You can have your opinion I guess but I personally love the look of overhead cables, makes our system more interesting and cool rather than a simple 3rd Rail
Click to expand...
Opinions on aesthetics are just that, opinions, and everyone is entitled theirs, hahahahahahahaha
I like the clean, unobstructed aspect of the third rail, I find it that overhead cables are distracting and that they ruin pictures taken at street level, especially if you're trying to capture certain aspects of streets and/or buildings. It's the same argument I would make for having underground power/phone/internet cables.
 
I think the system that you are most likely referring to @ChazYEG is either LSM (Linear Synchronous Motor) or LIM (Linear Induction Motor), both of which could work in Edmonton, exposed to weather or not. It is the conservative mindset that has led to the overhead system (in practice for at least 100 years versus LSM and LIM being more recent -- 20 years. LSM is roughly 5 times as efficient as overhead power lines which need to be charged continuously (or the train doesn't run). For LSM, the propulsion is magnetic induction and, as you note, is only charged segment by segment so remains uncharged everywhere except where the train is active. Again, FAR, FAR more efficient. There is nothing, however, preventing all lines from being converted to LSM in the future. Someday Edmonton will catch up to current (double entendre) standards of technology.

I had a recent discussion about Cities and the fact that they under-perform when it comes to capital cost expenditures and over-perform vis a vis maintenance and operating costs. So a non-forward thinking City would go cheap on Capital Costs even though the operational costs of a project would completely subsume and overrun the total of the two combined. Edmonton is going to pay dearly for operational costs on the current design of LRT, granted that an LSM-propulsion system is more expensive up front as a capital expense. Taxpayers gripe about Capital Costs and shrug their shoulders when it comes to operational costs -- good leaders are able to explain the two and differentiate the economics therein.
 
Last edited:
Then why, when the city was making all the decisions about future LRT lines back in 2020-2012, was there no strong push for a different type of system to link up the city? Don't get me wrong, I like the Valley Line and think it'll do its job well, but in all honesty if I could've been at city council meetings and other events and given my opinion about what kind of LRT the city should build, I can't say that I would've advocated for a system like the Valley Line. in fact, I probably would've gone the complete opposite way and advocated and a high-floor line with more grade separation and farther spaced stops. Once again, I understand and support the reasoning for the low-floor and community-oriented system we have now, but yeah the city sure doesn't have a great track record with increasing the initial costs of projects to ensure they'll last longer and cost less down the line, but I hope that can change as more people around the city get used to the LRT.
 
^ totally agree.. and now we’ve got goofy situations where, if the full build out as proposed occurs, a new bridge adjacent to the dudley menzies and high level will need to be created just because of the low floor technology. it’s redundant. and high floor light rail can still have the ‘urban’ fetish city council was on about when the valley line was originally being proposed.
 
Well, I guess that we'll see how efficient the low-floor system will be once it opens next year 🤷‍♂️ I hope it is and that the trains can move at a good speed.
 
dunno said:
^ totally agree.. and now we’ve got goofy situations where, if the full build out as proposed occurs, a new bridge adjacent to the dudley menzies and high level will need to be created just because of the low floor technology. it’s redundant. and high floor light rail can still have the ‘urban’ fetish city council was on about when the valley line was originally being proposed.
Click to expand...

The proposal for a new bridge, which is actually not really on the table anymore at the moment, has nothing to do with using low floor technology, and everything to do with the age and condition of the High Level Bridge.
 
Daveography said:
The proposal for a new bridge, which is actually not really on the table anymore at the moment, has nothing to do with using low floor technology, and everything to do with the age and condition of the High Level Bridge.
Click to expand...

i was referring to using a new LRT bridge more or less next to the current LRT bridge which works perfectly fine (and the high level also happens to be there).
 
@dunno Sure, except that the costs of tunneling and adding switches to the existing tracks and upgrading the signaling systems yet again would probably match or exceed the cost of a new bridge, while also further constraining headways on the Capital and Metro Lines that already use those tracks.
 
Some people will never like the Valley line and I accept that, but I think it will be one of the most revolutionary changes in how this city looks and gets around. Edmonton desperately needs more walkable, pleasant and vibrant neighbourhoods and we can see from the capital line just how poorly a separated line with distant stations promotes that type of development.

Quote me in 5 years, but I bet that the neighbourhoods along the SE portion of the Valley line are going to get much more expensive as they become more desirable to live in.
 
The one thing I like most about the SE Valley Line LRT is another access into downtown across the river., without significantly impacting any routes like Connors Road or 99 Street. The real time savings for the LRT will come crossing over Argyll Road and the CPR tracks, saving congestion and the wait for a train.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top