News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.5K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 39K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 4.8K     0 

I can't remember. What's the latest on the transit hub project? Would be great to have a direct VIA/GO-LRT connection.
 
Screenshot_2024-01-31_110718.jpg
 
5 minute frequencies before double length trains. Frequency is always better.
Frequency is always King, but as pointed out above the region may not want to spend on more service. Might actually be easier for Waterloo to order more trains for double-length service with one of the Fed’s electric transit vehicle programs.
 
My understanding is that for the region to order more service they’d have to reopen the contract, and it’s very likely that the overall rate would rise significantly - for a major financial hit. Isn’t that why they were trying to rejig the off-peak schedules?

If that’s the case, ordering extra trains won’t solve the problem. I also don’t even know how much power exists to ask for double-length trains.
 
People may want 5-minute headway which is great, but are there enough drivers on hand today to do this 7 days a week???

Quality of service is necessary to get people to use transit, but the person doing the driving eats up the operation cost to do it to the point where there aren't enough funds to do it.

With transit systems finding it a lot harder these days to find staff, the quality of service is the first to go as well cutting service using what staff they have on hand.

Adding a second car while dealing with staffing issues along with the current headway is the best option than trying to get to that 5-minute headway. I don't know of a system where 5-minute headway is used for single car unit. I know of a lot of systems where 100-foot cars are running as 2–3-unit LRT trains on 10-minute headway in NA and have ridden them.

Depending on funding and drivers on hand, you may get it under 10 minutes to the point and then one day it could be 5-minutes service. At the same time, are there enough cars and spares on hand to handle 5-minute service with 1 or 2 car trains?? Need 20-30% spare ratio.
 
People may want 5-minute headway which is great, but are there enough drivers on hand today to do this 7 days a week???

Quality of service is necessary to get people to use transit, but the person doing the driving eats up the operation cost to do it to the point where there aren't enough funds to do it.

With transit systems finding it a lot harder these days to find staff, the quality of service is the first to go as well cutting service using what staff they have on hand.

Adding a second car while dealing with staffing issues along with the current headway is the best option than trying to get to that 5-minute headway. I don't know of a system where 5-minute headway is used for single car unit. I know of a lot of systems where 100-foot cars are running as 2–3-unit LRT trains on 10-minute headway in NA and have ridden them.

Depending on funding and drivers on hand, you may get it under 10 minutes to the point and then one day it could be 5-minutes service. At the same time, are there enough cars and spares on hand to handle 5-minute service with 1 or 2 car trains?? Need 20-30% spare ratio.

Another thing is that the contract that the RoW signed with Grandlinq only mentioned peak headways of around 7.5 minutes, there are currently enough trains for doubles. The region has 15 trains and during peak times there are 5 sitting in the yard so they could certainly run doubles. However increasing frequency would require changing the contract which the Region does not want to currently do. If ridership keeps increasing it's inevitable that there will be an increase in frequency but with the current contract that isn't going to happen.
 
It takes 43 minutes to go from Conestoga to Fairway station [google maps]. There are 15 trains available. if we take 3 trains for spares (roughly 20% spare ratio), roughly speaking:
For 10 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m)/10m = 8.6 trains (rounded to 9 trains)
For 7.5 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m)/7.5m = 11.4 trains (rounded to 12 trains)
For 5 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m)/5m = 17.2 trains (rounded to 18 trains)

You could have 10 frequency with some double unit trains though thats probably not advisable. As we can see here, 7.5 min is the max frequency with 1 unit trains. This makes sense as 7.5 minute frequencies were the original planned launch frequency in 2019 though it never was in place due to the pandemic.

I believe GRT's main concern is with bus availability rather than operator resources - all of the existing buses are used for service with very few spares+ buses for expansion.
 
I mean I agree but if the region is struggling to financially justify that extra service, longer trains is a fine stop gap.

I don't think 'struggling' is a fair characterization.

The issue as noted below is reopening/amending a contract.

On a straight-line basis, the region can certainly find funds for more service.

My understanding is that for the region to order more service they’d have to reopen the contract, and it’s very likely that the overall rate would rise significantly - for a major financial hit. Isn’t that why they were trying to rejig the off-peak schedules?

If that’s the case, ordering extra trains won’t solve the problem. I also don’t even know how much power exists to ask for double-length trains.

This is also my understanding; however, I fail to see why a contract amendment has to jack costs out of sight. The region has carrot and stick to get cooperation.

They can choose to offer a contract extension on a no-bid basis, with lower future pricing than would otherwise be the case in exchange for a bit more now..........

They can also choose to offer a small increase for existing service in the contract in exchange for more service; and why would any sensible provider leave extra $ on the table?

I'm sure the contractor would love a vast increase, but I suspect they will take any material increase over what they are contractually tied to....

Alternatively to the carrot, the Region can choose to expressly deny any future contract extension due to lack of cooperation and can be a stickler at enforcing contract terms in a very annoying and costly way.

If the region wants better service, and it should, then it can find some additional money and a beneficial path for the contractor at a cost the region can afford.
 
Last edited:
It takes 43 minutes to go from Conestoga to Fairway station [google maps]. There are 15 trains available. if we take 3 trains for spares (roughly 20% spare ratio), roughly speaking:
For 10 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m)/10m = 8.6 trains (rounded to 9 trains)
For 7.5 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m)/7.5m = 11.4 trains (rounded to 12 trains)
For 5 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m)/5m = 17.2 trains (rounded to 18 trains)

You could have 10 frequency with some double unit trains though thats probably not advisable. As we can see here, 7.5 min is the max frequency with 1 unit trains. This makes sense as 7.5 minute frequencies were the original planned launch frequency in 2019 though it never was in place due to the pandemic.

I believe GRT's main concern is with bus availability rather than operator resources - all of the existing buses are used for service with very few spares+ buses for expansion.
I don't think 'struggling' is a fair characterization.

The issue as noted below is reopening/amending a contract.

On a straight-line basis, the region can certainly find funds for more service.



This is also my understanding; however, I fail to see why a contract amendment has to jack costs out of sight. The region has carrot and stick to get cooperation.

They can choose to offer a contract extension on a no-bid basis, with lower future pricing that would otherwise be the case in exchange for a bit more now..........

They can also choose to offer a small increase for existing service in the contract in exchange for more service; and why would any sensible provider leave extra $ on the table?

I'm sure the contractor would love a vast increase, but I suspect they will take any material increase over what they are contractually tied to....

Alternatively to the carrot, the Region can choose to expressly deny any future contract extension due to lack of cooperation and can be a stickler at enforcing contract terms in a very annoying and costly way.

If the region wants better service, and it should, then it can find some additional money and a beneficial path for the contractor at a cost the region can afford.
Unless someone has firsthand knowledge of the Region contract, this is a guessing game.

It is very possible there are several options in the contract that will allow the Region to request lower headway at x dollars when the time comes to do it as well adding a second car to deal with ridership and headway for them as well. It may also call for additional cars to be purchased by the Region to deal with not only ridership and headway, but the extension of the line itself.

Phoenix was operating two and three car trains at the same time of day, all day long when we were there in 2019 on an10 minute headway schedule for weekday and 15 minutes on the weekend. Minneapolis ran three car trains on the Blue and Green Line every 10 minutes in 2019 compared to 10 minutes for the Blue line in 2018. The Green line saw 12 minutes in 2018 that was down from 15 minutes when it first opened as ridership had exceeded projected numbers within the first year and was still increasing. It was a hostile line from the very start that most did not want to see the line built or expect to see in ridership numbers being used. It has proven everyone wrong who was against the line to the point they love it now. Both systems run 30m cars like ION system but are only three section S70 cars.

From what I know of the Mississauga LRT contract, there are several options to deal with headway, adding more stations, lengthening the existing one for two cars compared to one car now as well as several types of service. There is no firm operating cost that the cities must pick up once service starts around 2026 now. ML drew up their LRT systems contracts like the Region, but with a lot of different requirements since they will be overseeing all their lines while the Region will be looking after one line at this time. Those extra requirements came at an additional cost, but there are a few now that will require rewriting of the contract or making contract amendment at an agreed price/cost now the two extensions are in the picture.

The difference between the ION system and the Hurontario Line is the size of the cars, ION cars are 30m and Hurontario will be 48m that are the same car as Ottawa cars.

Based on the numbers above, the 7.5-minute headway for peak time is pushing it for single cars. Using 10-minute headway will allow every other train to be 2 cars set and still be pushing it. It could be time for the Region to order more cars to allow two car sets for peak time and extraordinary events, let alone for the extension. It only takes an accident or two, let alone a problem with a car or two, to use up the 20% spare ratio that something on the system will have to change for the worse.
 
I also don’t even know how much power exists to ask for double-length trains.

I have the project documents cached from way back when, and Schedule 15-2 Article 6 Section 6.4 states that:

The design of the TES [Traction Electrification System] shall be validated based on a computer-aided load flow simulation. Operation of the trains along the alignment shall be simulated and all necessary parameters for the electrification system design verified and confirmed. The ultimate train length is a two-car train. All simulations shall use the ultimate train operating at the minimum projected headway of five (5) minutes, under normal and individual substation outage conditions, with the cars loaded to their normal service capacity of 200 passengers. Under normal operating conditions two trains should be able to start simultaneously at any station stop and maintain their rated acceleration. Under contingency conditions of one substation out of service, one ultimate train should be able to start at any passenger station in the affected area and maintain its rated acceleration as if the system was operating with all substations on-line. However, under these same conditions, two ultimate trains shall be able to start simultaneously at a reduced acceleration and operating level. Under these operating conditions the TES design shall be shown to operate successfully within the required design parameters and the voltage at the trains shall not fall below 525 Vdc.

The power is definitely there.

Edit: Just re-read what I quoted from you... You probably meant politically, lol.
 

Back
Top