News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 11K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 43K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 6.7K     0 
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.
 
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.
You can't just multiply the travel time by two to get the round trip time. You need to add terminal time at both ends to account for the time required for the operator to go to the other end of the car and set up for the other direction, as well as the recovery time required to neutralize delays.
 
Even if you include the, layover time (6-7 min) depending on direction, the overall story does not change much

For 10 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m+6m)/10m = 9.8 train (rounded to 10 ) [prev 8.6 trains (rounded to 9 )]
For 7.5 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m+6m)/7.5m = 13.0666666667 trains (rounded to13) [prev 11.4 trains (rounded to 12 )]
For 5 min peak frequency: we need 2*(43 m+6m)/5m = 19.6 trains (rounded to 20) [prev 17.2 trains (rounded to 18 )]

note: most of that layover time is to maintain a clock face schedule and it could be reduced given the ION rarely faces delays.

In other news: https://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/the-mi...llion-land-deal-for-new-transit-hub-1.6758684
 
Last edited:

From the above:

1707316920975.png


****

Region doesn't yet have all the ducks lined up to get shovels in the ground on this, but at least there is progress.
 
From the above:

View attachment 538775

****

Region doesn't yet have all the ducks lined up to get shovels in the ground on this, but at least there is progress.

The Region already owns everything that they needed for the transit hub to go ahead, the platforms as well as the transit hub is on land the Region previously owned between King and Duke. Everything for the transit hub was self contained to that site.

Phase 1 which includes the bus infrastructure, station platforms as well as various other pieces of infrastructure and Phase 2 is the actual transit hub. Both of those phases can occur on those previously owned lands. The most likely reason they ended up purchasing these new lands was because of the legal fallout from the encampment at Weber/Victoria, the Region was planning on using that site for staging and an off site parking lot, but due to the court ruling they cannot evict those at the encampment. The Region is likely planning for the new Duke/Victoria property to be for the staging/parking lot.
 
From the Finch West LRT thread:

My fear is the LRT would end up like the ion LRT ,which is a great project, but runs at a snail pace.

I keep seeing this, but it actually doesn't. It's faster than the iXpress bus it replaced at all times of the day; waaay faster during peak times.

The signal priority works well, southbound from the hospital to Central Station is magic, and anyone demanding priority for Finch West, Eglinton, or Hurontario should treat themselves to this peek at what their world could be. That said, there are some issues that should be solvable:

- For nearside stops, the signal should trigger and the pedestrian crosswalks start counting the moment the operator closes the doors. Trains shouldn't have to inch a few meters from the platform to stop on a loop and then wait for the signal to start cycling. This would resolve a lot of the issues in downtown Kitchener. Better yet, put the loop at the stop and trigger the light when the train pulls in. By the time the ped countdown's finished and the cross traffic stopped, the train should be departing. If it's not and it misses the 10 second window for its transit signal, well; then it waits a cycle. If this happens consistently, tune it with with the necessary extra seconds delay to where missed cycles become a true exception rather than the rule. This should be a solvable problem.

- The magical priority waves should be able to continue around a corner. For whatever reason though, it feels like the programmers treat each corner as a reset button that blows the wave.

- There's a mysterious southbound slowdown at the facing point freight crossover in Waterloo Park. This is a movable frog switch; trains should NOT have to crawl through it, and the northbound train certainly doesn't. If it's the track geometry, rework it. If it's an ATP glitch, debug and resolve it. This has been going on since a few months after the line opened (perhaps since the day they enabled ATP), why has it not been fixed?

- There's another mysterious slowdown southbound after clearing the expressway tunnel and crossing the creek bridge 600 metres ahead of Hayward. I get that the Hayward S is an awkward situation forced by CN/CP not giving up the border of their interchange yard, but this happens well ahead of it, and in another ATP section just like Waterloo Park. Fix it. Heck, add a new signal block if that's what it takes.

I'd bet that simply resolving these could shave 5 minutes from the end-to-end trip time.

As a car driver, I also take issue with the signal programming: The gates for the Courtland Ave crossing drop far too early, holding up a lot of traffic unnecessarily and even backing up onto Manitou. Other gated crossings have developed similar issues, although there's still the odd one that's stellar in its brevity. I don't understand why these aren't measured *, evaluated, and the predictors tuned on an annual basis. If that's not in the current contract with Keolis, then it bloody well better be in the next one...

---

* Just shoot some video and note the time stamps, or do frame counts + 1 if you need absolute accuracy without undershooting, but there's no need to mobilize the expensive stopwatch and clipboard crews that were used during commissioning.
 
The ION takes longer between Fairway Station and Downtown Kitchener than the former 200 iXpress; 17-20 minutes vs 11-16 minutes. Marginal difference, but it exists.

Coupled with the concerns you raise and the average user is more than entitled to express their disappointment in a project that was sold to the public as “Rapid Transit” throughout its entire planning stage.

At least it achieved its objective in other areas..

Between downtown and Fairway there's more than a few improvements they could make to speed up the route, the entire section from Mill to Block Line comes to mind, the slow down before the bridge in the train corridor, the slow order on either side of the Hayward S bend etc. Alot of it has to do with ATP, those issues didn't exist when the route operated without it.

Another thing to realize is the Region would be entirely crippled from a public transit perspective if the LRT didn't exist, there is no way the 200 would be able to carry the peak demand that's being seen, the LRT during peak (UW to DTK) is getting really close to capacity, and many other routes are in very similar situations (12, 201). The 200 and other routes would not be able to carry the loading we're seeing today without running 5 minute frequencies and at that point it cannot carry any increased loading.

The LRT still has capacity for a significant increase in riders which it's going to need considering the thousands of unbuilt units without parking. The 200 or any equivalent would not have capacity for that.
 
Between downtown and Fairway there's more than a few improvements they could make to speed up the route, the entire section from Mill to Block Line comes to mind, the slow down before the bridge in the train corridor, the slow order on either side of the Hayward S bend etc. Alot of it has to do with ATP, those issues didn't exist when the route operated without it.

Another thing to realize is the Region would be entirely crippled from a public transit perspective if the LRT didn't exist, there is no way the 200 would be able to carry the peak demand that's being seen, the LRT during peak (UW to DTK) is getting really close to capacity, and many other routes are in very similar situations (12, 201). The 200 and other routes would not be able to carry the loading we're seeing today without running 5 minute frequencies and at that point it cannot carry any increased loading.

The LRT still has capacity for a significant increase in riders which it's going to need considering the thousands of unbuilt units without parking. The 200 or any equivalent would not have capacity for that.

I think you're entirely on point above; but I would encourage you and others to lobby to make the ION better, specifically faster, and more frequent, so as to drive the modal split in the right direction, and to make sure service is proactively provided rather than reactively.
 

Back
Top