Calgary Public Transit - Discussion

[Table 5]

Honestly, I would totally be ok with having standing-room-only cars during rush hour. Chances are, if you're a guy you're not going to sitting down during that busy time anyway....so might as well get a little more room to work with (or at least the ability to fit on a train).

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Take this with an "occasional rider who doesn't mind standing grain of salt", but this configuration doesn't bother me. There are almost as many seats (4 less, IIRC), but more capacity for standing. Because the system in Calgary sees huge swells at rush hour, these cars are better equipped to handle the increase in riders. I'm not saying that you have to like 'em, though, and since they are seeking input you're probably not the only one that doesn't.

The problem is the seats are nowhere near wide enough except when you use urinal etiquette (and I'm no fatty, but I do have arms and shoulders). If they replaced the seats with a flat bench the configuration would be much better.

Edit: beaten.

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

Hopefully, when the next order comes in (non-siemens), they don't waste space with gaps between cars and with redundant operator cabs. That will do more to increase capacity than any seating configuration.

This redundancy serves an important purpose from a fleet management perspective. As it is, if one vehicle is down for maintenance or is unusable for some other reason, it doesn't take a whole consist out of the rotation. Units can be combined in many combinations to fulfill revenue service needs.

About the seating, I say make it a flat bench without grooves. I also think the middle-of-aisle three-pronged poles need to either be thinner by being a single pole or removed altogether. As it stands, they impede flow within the cars just a bit too much.

[frinkprof]

Construction officially started today at Chinook Station. The area of the parking lot where the site trailer/staging and the new utility substation will be was fenced off. A bit more will be fenced off soon to accomodate some electrical work.

Station closes January 14th, 2013 for 8 months.

[jroc]

^^^ When the station closes, is that just for the platform, and trains will still pass through? or will there be a terrible bus transfer from Heritage to 39 Ave?

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by jroc

^^^ When the station closes, is that just for the platform, and trains will still pass through? or will there be a terrible bus transfer from Heritage to 39 Ave?

The trains will still drive through.

On some weekends or overnight, there might be a "terrible transfer."

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

This redundancy serves an important purpose from a fleet management perspective. As it is, if one vehicle is down for maintenance or is unusable for some other reason, it doesn't take a whole consist out of the rotation. Units can be combined in many combinations to fulfill revenue service needs.

Married pairs would help if that's an issue. Then only half the train would be out of commission, in stead of the whole thing. However, the advantages far outweigh the negatives I think. It would add far more capacity to the system than the capacity you would lose by having to take out extra cars when one breaks down.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by frinkprof

This redundancy serves an important purpose from a fleet management perspective. As it is, if one vehicle is down for maintenance or is unusable for some other reason, it doesn't take a whole consist out of the rotation. Units can be combined in many combinations to fulfill revenue service needs.

The fleet of cars is big enough now that this could be managed effectively. You wouldn't necessarily want 1/3 of total cars to be "middle only" cars, so if an "end car" went down you'd have additional replacement stock. This would result in some of the cars dispatched in the middle of the train having the operator cabs, but many wouldn't, resulting in additional space.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by bizaro86

The fleet of cars is big enough now that this could be managed effectively. You wouldn't necessarily want 1/3 of total cars to be "middle only" cars, so if an "end car" went down you'd have additional replacement stock. This would result in some of the cars dispatched in the middle of the train having the operator cabs, but many wouldn't, resulting in additional space.

The reason for the purchase of these new LRVs is to start 4 car service, so they would have 2 "middle" cars in each train. Otherwise, yes.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The reason for the purchase of these new LRVs is to start 4 car service, so they would have 2 "middle" cars in each train. Otherwise, yes.

Sorry, excellent point. That actually would increase the number of middle cars you could purchase and still have robust reliability. For example, if 60% of the cars were the current type with the cabs on both end and 40% were higher capacity "middle" cars, you would never run out of "end" cars. 1 out of every 3 end cars could be out of service and you'd still have enough to run the train sets you had left. (40% end type 40% middle type remaining)

And if 20% of the total fleet is out of service, there are going to be problems no matter what.

[Knalus]

The reason Calgary has a transit service in the first place is because we made the decision we could live with a system built on the cheap. It is a strategy that has worked incredibly well - unlike Edmonton, Ottawa, ect. It's the same strategy that WestJet went with - only one type of plane, period, no matter which type of route they fly. It may seem more efficient to have different planes that are built for different routes, but it doesn't always work that way.

Having every car the same is cheaper than multi-car setups. That extra 6 people you can fit in between the cars is not worth the added hundreds of thousands in cost.

A subway would have worked better downtown, too. But if we had waited for the subway to be built before we tried any train service, we would still be waiting for the subway in the first place, instead of just for added lines to the SE.


The fancy cars are the Cadillac solution, and are unnecessary.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by You Need a Thneed

The trains will still drive through.

On some weekends or overnight, there might be a "terrible transfer."

I'm hoping that it won't prove to be that bad of a situation for people who work or go to Chinook via transit. If the train is going to pass right through Chinook station then hopefully they have shuttle buses for Chinook mall from the station before and after it.

Eight months is a long ass time for such a busy station though.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by Knalus

The fancy cars are the Cadillac solution, and are unnecessary.

If you're buying new LRVs anyway, how much more could one's without an operator's cab possibly cost. That seems like it should be cost neutral. Passenger seats should be cheaper than the control equipment, but it would be a new design.

The system is saturated right now, and going to 4 cars adds capacity. That capacity will absolutely get used up, and after that what's our next plan? Switching the middle cars to a higher capacity choice would be a fraction of the cost of doing the 8th avenue subway.

It wouldn't add as much capacity, but it'd be a potentially inexpensive way to add capacity. Sort of like doing it on the cheap so it actually happens.

[getbak]

Do they even manufacture cars without the operator cabs?

[AR_Six]

^Even ridden the skytrain in Vancouver?

[morgin]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^Even ridden the skytrain in Vancouver?

The Canada line is by far the best LRT line in Canada. Stations are super bright and clean, cars feel huge, you can easily move around even when they are jam packed, and the whole thing just feels really modern.

It makes me hate the Ctrain every time I use it.

[getbak]

Originally Posted by AR_Six

^Even ridden the skytrain in Vancouver?

No, that's why I asked. Every light rail system I've seen (Calgary, Frankfurt, San Diego, Edmonton) has the same style cars as the CTrain, with the driver cab at both ends of each car.


Vancouver's are completely driverless, aren't they? That would never work in Calgary because the trains run on surface streets. You'd never be able to have a driverless CTrain.

[SebC]

I've often wondered if we could have two-level cars that would still fit through the tunnels. Shrink the height of the electronic contacts, and have the bottom level floor be below the platform height. Would this work? Would the space used for stairs defeat the purpose?

[J epworth]

Originally Posted by morgin

The Canada line is by far the best LRT line in Canada. Stations are super bright and clean, cars feel huge, you can easily move around even when they are jam packed, and the whole thing just feels really modern.

It makes me hate the Ctrain every time I use it.

I'm working here in Vancouver for the summer, take the Canada line every day. Love the frequency of service, but I don't understand why they only made the trains two cars long.

Also, absolutely no one ever takes their g-damn backpack off when they ride the train. You could fit so many more people if they just realize how much room they are taking up!!!

[AR_Six]

Originally Posted by getbak

Vancouver's are completely driverless, aren't they? That would never work in Calgary because the trains run on surface streets. You'd never be able to have a driverless CTrain.

True, I'm just saying they do manufacture them without operator cabs.

And the Canada line is the best LRT line in Canada largely because it's the newest. The next time someone builds an LRT line from scratch it'll probably be the best, too.