artvandelay
Active Member
I like that the seats face each other like the old school C-Trains.
Is it true that these are actually made of wood?
Is it true that these are actually made of wood?
Green Line LRT | ?m | ?s | Calgary Transit
- Thread starter Surrealplaces
- Start date
ByeByeBaby
Active Member
The facing seats can be tough; I'm a big and tall guy and it's hard for me to not take up too much space in a configuration like that; someone who is interested in sprawling can easily block off four seats for themselves (and their feet). But with that said, I assume that those seats and the big under-seat cabinets are where the wheels and stuff that make the train go* have to be located, since the train is much lower to the rails than our existing high-floor fleet. Not every space has to work for everybody, and I like the design overall. I do miss the rotating hand-holds that are on some current trains rather than the straps; they are much better for bracing against the train's jerk. Also, whoever designed the curve of those seats needs to look less at anime and more at actual human anatomy; if your butt curves like that, see a doctor.
* apologies if I got the technical terminology wrong, I'm not a mechanical engineer
* apologies if I got the technical terminology wrong, I'm not a mechanical engineer
accord1999
Active Member
I'm assuming that only the mockup is using wood (and probably cheaper grades of steel) since it's only intended to show what a real LRV would look like and will never be used operation and need to handle that stress.
outoftheice
Active Member
Correct. Only the mock-up is made of wood. I'm not sure what the actual trains will be made out of. In terms of the seating arrangement, the facing quad seating arrangement is definitely a bit tight. I'm tall (6'2") and sat directly across from another person (6'0") and our knees didn't touch but it definitely felt like someone was in your personal bubble. In terms of the curvature of the setbacks, they were actually extremely comfortable but I'm taller and so it matched the curve of my back nicely. I'm not sure if someone who is a bit shorter would say the same. Speaking of being tall, the interiors have a lot of head room, which is great. I have to duck out of the way of the video screens that are hanging down from the ceiling on the new S200s but on the Green Line LRV I could walk underneath the screen easily. The suspended sections (no wheel bogies) are the ones that have the bench of 3 seats on one side and the leaning post on the other. The mock-up only had 1 set of doors but each suspended section will actually have 2 sets of doors with the 3 bench seats in between so there should be lots of standing room by the doors during the rush hour crunch.
Reminds me a lot of the Alstom LRVs for Ottawa's LRT. One thing I like better on these ones is the floor incline to the raised level doesn't look to be as pronounced or sharp. The Ottawa LRVs had kind of a sharp incline that gave it an awkward feel.
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Speaking of the Ottawa LRT...
As we suffer through the long process of the Green Line you hope the actual construction isn't rushed.
I had no idea it has had two derailments!
A light rail train derailed at Tunney's Pasture in August 2021 after a wheel broke off the axle due to a bearing issue.
There were no passengers on the train — unlike the second derailment on the main line that happened the following month —and no injuries. The derailments were a key reason the province called the public inquiry a year ago.
But while we learned that the second derailment that September was due to human error, there is no "root cause" known for the first derailment, 16 months after the fact.
Still, the commission found that "evidence suggests that the August 2021 derailment was related to the ongoing issues with the wheel/rail interface," a known problem before the Confederation Line was launched.
In a preliminary report from last May, train-maker Alstom blamed the design of the track for causing excess stress to the train parts.
In particular, the sharp curves on the track in the eastern side of the system — which where laid too flat, the company testified during the inquiry public hearings — cause friction underneath the bearing of the axle, leading to premature failure.
I mean, damn, the curves of the track cause the wheels to break off!
Between that and Edmonton's pillars... yikes. Good luck to the Green Line folks. We're pretty good at building roads, maybe we just stick with that (tongue firmly planted in cheek).
MichaelS
Senior Member
Don't forget what has also happened with the Ontario Line recently:
www.cp24.com
'It is quite a shock:' Cost of building the Ontario Line has nearly doubled
The cost of building the Ontario Line has nearly doubled from initial estimates and could end up coming in at more than $1 billion per kilometre.
www.cp24.com
And the crazy thing about the Ottawa LRT and it's issues, is that it's not used...at least from what I've seen. Part of that may be due to the pandemic, and people working from home but part of it is due to it's unreliability. I work some people who started taking it when it opened, but after a few too many times of it breaking down they decided not to use it as part of their routine. Aside from the derailments, I was told it gets stuck or has malfunctions when ever it snows.
As for the Ottawa ridership issue, that could pick up once people start working back in the office more, and I'm assuming they'll eventually work out the design/mechanical issues. I took it twice, once from a downtown station at around 7:30pm on a Tuesday and was literally the only person in the station. I thought maybe it wasn't running after hours or something. When the train did arrive there were only two other passengers in the whole three car system. I also took it on a Thursday at 4:30pm in the heart of rush hour from Rideau station, which is one of the busiest. There were at least some people, but really not very many. Again, it may pick up later, but for now it feels like it might be a lot of money for little bang.
Wow, those are some crazy costs for the Ontario Line. Makes me feel like the green line is a bargain. I haven't seen costs for other transit projects around North America, but I bet spiraling costs are becoming a common theme.
As for the Ottawa ridership issue, that could pick up once people start working back in the office more, and I'm assuming they'll eventually work out the design/mechanical issues. I took it twice, once from a downtown station at around 7:30pm on a Tuesday and was literally the only person in the station. I thought maybe it wasn't running after hours or something. When the train did arrive there were only two other passengers in the whole three car system. I also took it on a Thursday at 4:30pm in the heart of rush hour from Rideau station, which is one of the busiest. There were at least some people, but really not very many. Again, it may pick up later, but for now it feels like it might be a lot of money for little bang.
Wow, those are some crazy costs for the Ontario Line. Makes me feel like the green line is a bargain. I haven't seen costs for other transit projects around North America, but I bet spiraling costs are becoming a common theme.
MichaelS
Senior Member
The Ontario line makes me HOPE the Greenline is a bargain, but I am starting to have my doubts if we will even be able to build it at the current (already increased) budget.
accord1999
Active Member
The Route Ahead update documents have been published on the City website. For the first time, they've scored and ranked Green Line extensions.
pub-calgary.escribemeetings.com
RouteAhead 10-Year Update, IP2022-1354 - Infrastructure and Planning Committee - December 08, 2022
MichaelS
Senior Member
Just looking at that table, how could "Green Line N - 96 Ave to North Point" rank below "Green Line N - North Point to 160 Ave"? I am sure there is some nuance in the detailed report that explains this, but a quick glance at the table makes it seem like they feel an actual, sperated segment of LRT is more important than the connected piece.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
I think it's a product of their evaluation model :
The possible project list assumes some logic on phasing, which they broke Greenline north of 64th Ave into chunks. The chunks are then evaluated with the criteria, so North Point to 160 Ave is a marginally better leg than 96 Ave to North Point (in reality, these multi-criteria exercises being a few points apart is pretty meaningless, particularly for long-term projects). Best guess on a quick glance at land uses as the low - density, existing 1990s era sprawl with limited infill potential. North Point to 160 Ave has newer development planned for better densities and mix of uses more 2020 era sprawl. Slightly more transit friendly.
In reality you can't do the North Point to 160 Ave without already having built the 96 to North Point section, but you'd probably want to know the relative benefit of each section independently so you can always review it against any other option once you get around to it.
EDIT - thinking about this again, many transit projects will have a tough go to push through that 1970s - 2000s ring of low-density sprawl. We need to build a lot of kilometres of expensive infrastructure with limited immediate benefit, ridership or new destinations (and low redevelopment potential, at least for now) before you get into the newer, better designed sprawl on the other side. The Green Line South and North have this problem. Blue Line NE also has a big gap in development for whatever reason so the areas farther north that could benefit from a Blue extension need to build a few kilometres through undeveloped land just to get there. Red Line will always struggle given it's rail corridor/freeway adjacencies that stretch things out - need lots of kilometres of LRT just to reach each new neighbourhood.
Unsurprisingly, car-dominated sprawl patterns is strangling transit - making each project less effective due to distances and lower returns, plus making the potential project list longer that competes for limited funding. This goes back to the criticality of getting TOD going and network speed/quality improvements - the best transit projects are the ones we already have built in areas that are somewhat promising to service with competitive transit.
Last edited:
CalgaryTiger
Senior Member
Do we think there's any benefit to building the rail but maybe skipping some stations in less dense areas? You can go back and add stations, running the rail to places that LRT could better serve seems logical to me. Either way IMO extensions to existing lines on anything but the Blue Line in the NE should be very far off.
It's not a bad idea. My only concern would be whether it saved enough money to be worth it. I'm not sure how much a station costs, and how much it would cost to build it in after the fact.
CBBarnett
Senior Member
Context specific for sure you could skip some stations to save a few dollars (but probably not a lot), but even more important any infill station - or any built station for that matter - should be really focused on preparing for boosting those intensities at the station areas from Day 1.
The amount of low density zoning along existing lines is already a problem - even on relatively new extensions such as the NE to Saddletowne, there's plenty of R-1 directly adjacent to the stations, which is a waste of valuable transit investment. It's not as if theses areas can't have demand for higher intensities - plenty of apartments and townhome developments are existing everywhere in the burbs - just counter-intuitively all the higher intensity stuff is located away from the rapid transit and main activity centres.
So infill or not, setting it up right from Day 1 can make the transit investment far more attractive and you don't have to go as far to reach far more stuff.