Waterloo Region Connected

Thanks, Bombardier.

(04-13-2018, 08:55 PM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]For all those “I told you so” types - just what is your pessimistic foreshadowing based on?

Politicians who are trying to sell the idea's that they have and giving us the 'best case' scenario rather than more realistic outcomes.

What I would prefer is politicians giving the details as 'worst case' scenario and when things come under budget and earlier than thought, then everyone is happy.

I want this LRT more than anything, I am just frustrated that it's getting further and further behind schedule. RoW should be telling us Spring of 2020 and when it's available summer of 2019 everything is great. Bottom line is, this won't be ready before summer 2019. Though I truly hope I am wrong on that.

Last we were told spring of 2018, now it's winter 2018. That's huge.

(04-13-2018, 07:50 PM)Pheidippides Wrote: [ -> ]Thinking about the new proposed schedule, December 2018 seems unattainable.

Even if they ship one every two weeks, which they haven't done yet, the 14th vehicle would arrive in mid-August. Adding 6 months puts it at February 2019.

Even if they ship one every per week the 14th vehicle would arrive in late-June. Adding 6 months puts it at late December 2018; and that is if everything goes absolutely perfectly, which is highly unlikely given.

Do we know if 501 will be the last to be (re) delivered? It will be unfortunate if that is the hold up when it sat here for nearly a year.

But why should we need to run that very last train for eight (or six) months? Can someone explain this to me?

All trains delivered need to be broken in the same amount, but IIRC that's a kilometer amount (600km?), not a time amount. I would think they could get 600km of testing in in less than 6 months, but I'm not doing any math.

(04-14-2018, 02:28 AM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]All trains delivered need to be broken in the same amount, but IIRC that's a kilometer amount (600km?), not a time amount. I would think they could get 600km of testing in in less than 6 months, but I'm not doing any math.

It's not just the vehicle break-in they need to do in that 6 months. They have  to do testing on the yet to be implemented ATP system and cab signals. as  well as the grade  crossings from Mill to Fairway and the traffic signals as well. They need all 14 here to do the ATP and cab signal part as it's the most complex and needs to be tuned for the proper headways with the vehicles.

I'm not feeling optimistic about this re-revised timeline either.

Quote:"We have an aggressive schedule, but we're going to do our absolute best to get there for a December start," said Thomas Schmidt, the region's commissioner of transportation and environmental services.

Spring/Summer is far more desirable to me than an opening ceremony in the dead of winter (so gross). I really hope it does slip to well into next year.

Run the LRT system with whatever amount of trains have been tested as of September 2018. The remaining vehicles that have not been tested can be run close behind the ones that are in service. The service wouldn't have full compliment but it would be in service, less frequently, but in service.

Just a thought.

(04-14-2018, 02:40 AM)trainspotter139 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2018, 02:28 AM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]All trains delivered need to be broken in the same amount, but IIRC that's a kilometer amount (600km?), not a time amount. I would think they could get 600km of testing in in less than 6 months, but I'm not doing any math.

It's not just the vehicle break-in they need to do in that 6 months. They have  to do testing on the yet to be implemented ATP system and cab signals. as  well as the grade  crossings from Mill to Fairway and the traffic signals as well. They need all 14 here to do the ATP and cab signal part as it's the most complex and needs to be tuned for the proper headways with the vehicles.

The ATP system can be tested without all the vehicles. In fact, everything can be tested without all the vehicles, except for each specific remaining vehicle — obviously they can’t test the cab signals in 510 without 510 on property. Previously they indicated that 3 vehicles were enough to test the system as a whole, and this makes sense because one could run the 3 vehicles through the line, maintaining headway, and thereby test all the signalling, scheduling, and whatever else there is.

Also I should point out that with 7 minute minimum headway, there is no interaction between vehicles under normal circumstances. The only time you should see 2 vehicles near each other is in the OMSF and when two opposite-direction vehicles pass each other. So headway management etc. can be done with a sheet of paper printed with the schedule in each vehicle. It doesn’t matter whether any related automated systems are working, other than safety signalling. This is not downtown Toronto or New York.

As far as I’m concerned, the system should open about 2 weeks after vehicle 12 gets here, on the assumption that 13 and 14 are “on the way” and will be present well before there is likely to be a need to withdraw one of 1-12 from service for any reason.

Any schedule slower than this does not qualify as “aggressive”. “Aggressive” would mean crews out every day doing stuff, not this sort of interminable dribble of work happening once in a while.

(04-14-2018, 02:28 AM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]All trains delivered need to be broken in the same amount, but IIRC that's a kilometer amount (600km?), not a time amount. I would think they could get 600km of testing in in less than 6 months, but I'm not doing any math.

It’s about 20 round trips of the line, or a few days’ of normal operation. Somebody said that they would be operating the system for 2 weeks on a normal schedule prior to opening it to passengers, so this would easily take care of the “burn-in” requirement. This is not a significant blocker on opening the system. This is why I say the system should open 2 weeks after car 12 gets here: to give car 12 time to be burned in, with everything else already fully tested and operational.

(04-14-2018, 08:05 AM)kitborn Wrote: [ -> ]Run the LRT system with whatever amount of trains have been tested as of September 2018. The remaining vehicles that have not been tested can be run close behind the ones that are in service. The service wouldn't have full compliment but it would be in service, less frequently, but in service.

The Region has ruled out this option - they want the full level of service at launch.

(04-14-2018, 09:20 AM)KevinL Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2018, 08:05 AM)kitborn Wrote: [ -> ]Run the LRT system with whatever amount of trains have been tested as of September 2018. The remaining vehicles that have not been tested can be run close behind the ones that are in service. The service wouldn't have full compliment but it would be in service, less frequently, but in service.

The Region has ruled out this option - they want the full level of service at launch.

I do think that is a mistake.

(04-14-2018, 08:55 AM)ijmorlan Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-14-2018, 02:28 AM)GtwoK Wrote: [ -> ]All trains delivered need to be broken in the same amount, but IIRC that's a kilometer amount (600km?), not a time amount. I would think they could get 600km of testing in in less than 6 months, but I'm not doing any math.

It’s about 20 round trips of the line, or a few days’ of normal operation. Somebody said that they would be operating the system for 2 weeks on a normal schedule prior to opening it to passengers, so this would easily take care of the “burn-in” requirement. This is not a significant blocker on opening the system. This is why I say the system should open 2 weeks after car 12 gets here: to give car 12 time to be burned in, with everything else already fully tested and operational.

Right. Even if we need full service, two months after train 14 is delivered should be plenty for testing. Based on train deliveries (and assuming BBD is ready to deliver them every few weeks now) we could have LRT service in time for Oktoberfest.

But we don't know (yet) what other factors are influencing the delay.

(04-14-2018, 08:01 AM)Canard Wrote: [ -> ]Spring/Summer is far more desirable to me than an opening ceremony in the dead of winter (so gross). I really hope it does slip to well into next year.

Totally disagree... at this point what matters is that the system opens as soon as possible even if the opening ceremony is not in the best weather. We need ION badly

Part of the reason that 6-8 months is required after the final vehicle is delivered is that the, "The vehicles also require the installation of specialized equipment that will allow them to operate at higher speeds, provide vehicle arrival time information, activate traffic signals when necessary, and better integrate with the transportation network. Installation of this equipment was also anticipated to occur in the eight months between delivery of the last vehicle and start of service. GrandLinq and Bombardier will be installing the equipment once construction of the base vehicles is complete. Testing of specialized equipment equipped trains is also required."

Which is interesting, because according to the project agreement it seems like that specialized equipment was supposed to be installed at the factory, "Project Co shall functionally test the integrated operation of all LRT Stop and wayside Train Control equipment prior to its shipment from the factory."


The burn-in test is required for the final acceptance certificate and is different from the simulated service testing; they are separate tests and are not intended to run simultaneously. One is a test of individual vehicles, the other is a test of the system.

As mentioned before the burn-in test is not as simple as accumulating 600km on the odometer. They have to be 600 problem free kilometers or else the odometer goes back to 0km and the test repeated until 600 is reached - problem free.

As much as I would like to see the Ion up and running I think starting it at anything but the intended service level would be a mistake. You want every user's first experience to be a good (and lasting one). If it isn't even as good as existing bus service that will just fuel the nay-sayers and dampen momentum toward phase 2 (and 3).

The only analogy I can think of at the moment is a Broadway show opening without the full cast with the NYT theatre critic in the audience and needing a good review and word-of-mouth recommendations to be successful enough to convince investors to fund the next big show in development.