ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[nms]

When the LRVs are acting as pair, will there only be one driver, or will there be a need a driver in the trailing unit?

[taylortbb]

When the LRVs are acting as pair, will there only be one driver, or will there be a need a driver in the trailing unit?

Just one driver. Their controls will control the motors/doors/etc in both vehicles. The vehicles support longer trains too, up to 6 vehicles I think, not that we have the platforms for that.

[ijmorlan]

When the LRVs are acting as pair, will there only be one driver, or will there be a need a driver in the trailing unit?

Just one driver. Their controls will control the motors/doors/etc in both vehicles. The vehicles support longer trains too, up to 6 vehicles I think, not that we have the platforms for that.

This is why almost all subway expansion proposals for Toronto are idiotic. Any underused subway could be built as LRT for less, but later expanded gradually as traffic levels increase. The only exceptions would be places where the demand almost immediately will require long trains and grade separation. At present as far as I can tell that means the Relief line and only the Relief line. Certainly not the Richmond Hill extension, Scarborough, or Sheppard. Or even Vaughan, for that matter, but that construction project is an unrecoverable sunk cost.

[Canard]

I think that's the first I've seen of a concrete number.

We also finally have dates for the art installations:

• Spinal Column at the Hospital (June)
• Tall Tales of Mill St. at Mill St. (June)
• Because Cats Can’t Fly at Kitchener Market (June)
• Three Sisters at Block Line (June)
• Shaping Residency at Fairway (June)
• Continuum at Conestoga (June)
• Fabric of Place at Old Albert St. (June)
• Arras at Fairway (July)
• The Passenger at Research and Technology (September)
• The Network at Research and Technology (October)

An upcoming event where the public is being invited to help out and try their hand at blacksmithing reminded me of the above.  So, we've blown past basically all of these. 

[Canard]

The vehicles support longer trains too, up to 6 vehicles I think, not that we have the platforms for that.

   

[KevinL]

There's also 7-segment vehicles (Edmonton); can they go as long?

[Canard]

Maybe - anything is possible.

As fun as it is to pretend it’s a standard product, at the end of the day, a supplier or equipment manufacturer will build whatever is required. 

Nobody is going to practically couple four, 7-modules LRV’s together, however. At that point, you’re building a metro.

[KevinT]

Of course at that point you're exceeding the limits of the region's Traction Electrification System:

From Schedule 15-2 Article 6, 6.4 Traction Power Systems (TPS) Design Requirements, a) ii) A. :

The design of the TES shall validated be [sic] 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.

[danbrotherston]

Of course at that point you're exceeding the limits of the region's Traction Electrification System:

From Schedule 15-2 Article 6, 6.4 Traction Power Systems (TPS) Design Requirements, a) ii) A. :

The design of the TES shall validated be [sic] 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.

It's interesting that this is validated through simulation only.  It seems like it should be easy to test in a practical situation--simply setup the specific required scenarios, and measure voltage drop, heat load at substations, vehicle performance, etc.

I would be curious as to how much margin there is.  There was an article I read a while back whose author (who claimed to have electrical engineering credentials) was claiming that traction power systems on new LRT systems like ours were massively over provisioned leading to more wires (double wires) and resultingly, heavier more expensive cat poles.

This seems quite believable to a non-expert such as myself given that TTC is running similar vehicles with lower headways (but only single trains I believe) on a much lower gauge system, which I would expect would have lower capacity.  Now I'm not an electrical engineer so I cannot know for sure, but it does seem curious how much more substantial our system is than TTC streetcar wires.

[KevinT]

It's interesting that this is validated through simulation only.  It seems like it should be easy to test in a practical situation--simply setup the specific required scenarios, and measure voltage drop, heat load at substations, vehicle performance, etc.

The simulation is part of the design requirements, i.e. the design must be validated by simulation before any purchasing or construction begins. A highly sensible requirement!

I would be curious as to how much margin there is.  There was an article I read a while back whose author (who claimed to have electrical engineering credentials) was claiming that traction power systems on new LRT systems like ours were massively over provisioned leading to more wires (double wires) and resultingly, heavier more expensive cat poles.

This seems quite believable to a non-expert such as myself given that TTC is running similar vehicles with lower headways (but only single trains I believe) on a much lower gauge system, which I would expect would have lower capacity.  Now I'm not an electrical engineer so I cannot know for sure, but it does seem curious how much more substantial our system is than TTC streetcar wires.

Our system and the TTC's are quite different in this regard. They use a single wire system, with buried underground feeders that connect to the overheard every few poles or so to prop up the voltage. Our system is dual wire with a contact wire suspended from a messenger wire. The benefits of this are two-fold:

a) The messenger wire works like the cables in a suspension bridge to keep the contact wire level and ensure good electrical connection with the pantograph at all speeds.
b) The messenger wire is sized larger than the contact wire and connected to it with regularly spaced 'droppers', so that together the two can carry the full load current for the scenarios described above without expensive underground feeders.

I think our dual wire system was a great compromise. With single wire and underground feeders like the TCC, our system would have cost over a billion and probably never would have been approved/passed/built!

[Canard]

[Canard]

[KevinL]

Which Charles Street station? I presume Vic Park or Queen, but there are four in total!

[Canard]

Kitchener City hall, 11-1:30ish.

[KevinL]

So, not Charles at all then. Thanks, Tom.