ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[taylortbb]

These are supposed to be experts...they should know about this before hand.

There was an interesting comment on Reddit in reply to Cory, https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/commen...?context=1 . I have no idea if it's true, and 50% increase in capital cost seems like an exaggeration, but I do remember that there's some sections of the route (at least King/Victoria) that are right at the maximum possible grade for the Flexity Freedom. So it seems at least somewhat plausible.

The comment in full is:

My (unofficial) understanding is that the route itself is problematic for adverse weather. Specifically, that the grade in places is steeper than the trains can be expected to climb in icing conditions. Fixing this would have required a route change which would have increased the entire ion cost by 50% or more.

The decision was made that the local economic cost of shutting it down for a day or every year or two was more palatable than increasing the project cost by that amount. Also, since they expected to be shut down in icy weather due to the grade, they didn't initially invest in other features which would allow operation in those conditions if the grade weren't an issue (ie. catenary scrapers).

Assuming this isn't exaggerated (I heard it during a casual conversation), it actually all seems pretty reasonable to me. The economic case for increasing capital expenditures by 50% in order to increase reliability from 98% to 98.25% (or whatever it would have been) is pretty weak.

However, it seems like the grade has actually been less of an issue than they originally thought, meaning that the bottleneck to operation in these conditions has been the other equipment they chose not to buy. This has the appearance of poor planning, when they actually just made a reasonable decision based on operating expectations.

[ac3r]

So the trains are garbage as well as the engineering. No surprise given that they were from Bombardier and overall the project leaders tried to save every cent they could, resulting in a "rapid transit" system that shuts down in the winter, can't climb minor inclines and moves extremely slowly.

You get what you pay for.

[danbrotherston]

These are supposed to be experts...they should know about this before hand.

There was an interesting comment on Reddit in reply to Cory, https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/commen...?context=1 . I have no idea if it's true, and 50% increase in capital cost seems like an exaggeration, but I do remember that there's some sections of the route (at least King/Victoria) that are right at the maximum possible grade for the Flexity Freedom. So it seems at least somewhat plausible.

The comment in full is:

My (unofficial) understanding is that the route itself is problematic for adverse weather. Specifically, that the grade in places is steeper than the trains can be expected to climb in icing conditions. Fixing this would have required a route change which would have increased the entire ion cost by 50% or more.

The decision was made that the local economic cost of shutting it down for a day or every year or two was more palatable than increasing the project cost by that amount. Also, since they expected to be shut down in icy weather due to the grade, they didn't initially invest in other features which would allow operation in those conditions if the grade weren't an issue (ie. catenary scrapers).

Assuming this isn't exaggerated (I heard it during a casual conversation), it actually all seems pretty reasonable to me. The economic case for increasing capital expenditures by 50% in order to increase reliability from 98% to 98.25% (or whatever it would have been) is pretty weak.

However, it seems like the grade has actually been less of an issue than they originally thought, meaning that the bottleneck to operation in these conditions has been the other equipment they chose not to buy. This has the appearance of poor planning, when they actually just made a reasonable decision based on operating expectations.

Yeah, the 50% increase seems silly. If the incline at King/Victoria was really a problem it could have been reduced significantly by making the King/Victoria station a centre of the road station, then by restricting cross and turning traffic at Moore and Wellington (something that would have had minimal impact on car trips given Weber and Agnes), and then sinking the tracks into the road up to Agnes to make the slope more gradual.

More expensive...sure....425 million...uhh...not even close.

But I'm guessing this is more to do with the in-feasibility of restricting cars than the actual cost.

In any case, it sounds like the problem is not the incline anyway...but other operational issues.

Again, I would like to know what the point of hiring an expensive contractor to handle these things.....it's supposed to be expertise, but we don't seem to be getting that.

[plam]

Again, I would like to know what the point of hiring an expensive contractor to handle these things.....it's supposed to be expertise, but we don't seem to be getting that.

Plausible deniability and the lack of belief that a government can actually develop operational expertise, based on neoliberal ideology?

[jwilliamson]

So the trains are garbage as well as the engineering. No surprise given that they were from Bombardier and overall the project leaders tried to save every cent they could, resulting in a "rapid transit" system that shuts down in the winter, can't climb minor inclines and moves extremely slowly.

You get what you pay for.

That quote sounds like the trains are outperforming expectations. Other than the initial construction and teething issues, and how hard they are to see, what are your complaints with the vehicles?

[Bytor]

These are supposed to be experts...they should know about this before hand.

There was an interesting comment on Reddit in reply to Cory, https://www.reddit.com/r/waterloo/commen...?context=1 . I have no idea if it's true, and 50% increase in capital cost seems like an exaggeration, but I do remember that there's some sections of the route (at least King/Victoria) that are right at the maximum possible grade for the Flexity Freedom. So it seems at least somewhat plausible.

The comment in full is:

My (unofficial) understanding is that the route itself is problematic for adverse weather. Specifically, that the grade in places is steeper than the trains can be expected to climb in icing conditions. Fixing this would have required a route change which would have increased the entire ion cost by 50% or more.

The decision was made that the local economic cost of shutting it down for a day or every year or two was more palatable than increasing the project cost by that amount. Also, since they expected to be shut down in icy weather due to the grade, they didn't initially invest in other features which would allow operation in those conditions if the grade weren't an issue (ie. catenary scrapers).

Assuming this isn't exaggerated (I heard it during a casual conversation), it actually all seems pretty reasonable to me. The economic case for increasing capital expenditures by 50% in order to increase reliability from 98% to 98.25% (or whatever it would have been) is pretty weak.

However, it seems like the grade has actually been less of an issue than they originally thought, meaning that the bottleneck to operation in these conditions has been the other equipment they chose not to buy. This has the appearance of poor planning, when they actually just made a reasonable decision based on operating expectations.

There's a few problems with what SmallBig1993 said.

The decision was made that the local economic cost of shutting it down for a day or every year or two was more palatable than increasing the project cost by that amount.

But that directly contradicts the part where Goetzke says "and Keolis, the system operator, has not met its contractual requirements in the latest weather event".

Also, since they expected to be shut down in icy weather

That, too, is contradicted by what Goetzke says, because if that were the case then provisions in the contract about abut acceptable shutdowns would cover incidents like this and therefore GrandLinq would not been in violation of the contract. But given that they were deemed as not meeting contractual requirements, it says that continuing to run in relatively minor (as in not a state of emergency massive ice storm) freezing rain was expected.

Specifically, that the grade in places is steeper than the trains can be expected to climb in icing conditions. Fixing this would have required a route change which would have increased the entire ion cost by 50% or more.

Slope is a wheels on rails problem, a traction issue, not a catenary problem, which this was. None of these ice problems since 2019 have been a traction issue. They have all been problems with the catenary wires.

Combine that with plenty of places with trams a similar or worse winter conditions to us having trams have routs with gradients of 8-10% with little to no problem, and I believe our steepest gradient is 6% along King St. West the other side of the rail bridge from Central Station, leads me to think that this claim about a 50% more expensive route to be wildly exaggerated, if not completely bogus.

[ac3r]

So the trains are garbage as well as the engineering. No surprise given that they were from Bombardier and overall the project leaders tried to save every cent they could, resulting in a "rapid transit" system that shuts down in the winter, can't climb minor inclines and moves extremely slowly.

You get what you pay for.

That quote sounds like the trains are outperforming expectations. Other than the initial construction and teething issues, and how hard they are to see, what are your complaints with the vehicles?

That we bought trains that immediately started having welds crack. The constant wheel slippage or whatever it is when the train is just riding along like normal even on a normal day on fairly level ground, starts to shake/make noise then the driver has to slam on the brakes and speed up again. Then come first winter, we realized they couldn't make it up very minor grades.

It's clearly both an economic problem and a train/equipment problem. The region/cities were too cheap to invest in a good system (let's be honest here, this thing sucks for the most part and was approved because it was going to make developers a shit load of money with transit-oriented development plans; as a rapid transit system it blows and anyone who disagrees has no idea what they're talking about), too cheap to invest in good equipment and we went with Bombardier who have always been problematic. Let's not forget that they took 2 years longer than expected to deliver our trains, then when we finally got them they began to literally crack apart and had to be sent back.

Hundreds of millions of dollars were spent and hundreds of millions of dollars more (and, ultimately, billions more in the coming decades) so simple failures and cheaping out on basic things is unacceptable. It's no wonder so many in Cambridge don't want to spend the money on it. If getting up the grade at Courtland (near Hayward) is a challenge even without ice - on a perfectly warm summer day the train is moving, braking, moving, braking because the wheels are slipping or something - then how is it expected to navigate the Grand River Valley where the grade will be equal to dozens of meters in height?

It usually works fine, but when it doesn't, it's due to the most ridiculous reasons that should not have been allowed to be signed off on in the first place. But it all went back to spending as little as we could so we could have a bit of a renaissance in the region and make a handful of developers extremely rich, while doing nothing to improve housing or non-LRT related transit for everyone else. It was a tool for an easy mode economic boom, not a real investment in rapid transit. As such, it's pretty crap.

[Bytor]

The constant wheel slippage or whatever it is when the train is just riding along like normal even on a normal day on fairly level ground, starts to shake/make noise then the driver has to slam on the brakes and speed up again.

I've never experienced that, in spite of frequently riding ION.

Then come first winter, we realized they couldn't make it up very minor grades.

And where did you hear that, specifically? All reported winter problems have been about ice on the catenary wires.

I ride ION frequently, including in the major snowstorms, and not one tram has ever had trouble on a slope. As I mentioned in another comment our steepest slop is about 6% on King St. W. just past the rail bridge from Central Station. Plenty of tram systems in similar winter climes to ours have 8% to 10% slopes and they have no problems going up hills. Not to mention that modern trams, ours included, have grit spreaders for winter weather.

as a rapid transit system it blows and anyone who disagrees has no idea what they're talking about)

I'd say that same about you.

Except for these rare (if frustrating) incidents, ION LRT is clearing running far better than the busses it replaced, and pre-pandemic it resulted in a huge increase in transit use.

too cheap to invest in good equipment and we went with Bombardier who have always been problematic.

No, they were not "always problematic". Thy were one of the biggest rail manufacturers on the planet before being bought by Alstom, and very popular with a good reprutation.

Serious cracks in the Bombardier façade did not appear until after the RMOW had committed to joining Metrolinx's contract.

[ac3r]

The constant wheel slippage or whatever it is when the train is just riding along like normal even on a normal day on fairly level ground, starts to shake/make noise then the driver has to slam on the brakes and speed up again.

I've never experienced that, in spite of frequently riding ION.

I'm honestly not sure what it is. You notice it more so if it's moving at a slow speed, on a grade however minor or speeding up/slowing down...but a lot of the times it is entirely random. The train will be going along like normal, then you'll notice a vibration (or something?) and the driver immediately lets off the throttle. You then hear the sand dispensers activate and then it speeds up again...until it does this again. It's definitely unrelated to actual designated points where they must lower the speed or ATC. It's frequently just random. You can be gunning it down the portion between Mill and Block line where it's entirely flat and straight, but once it gets closer to the station or the turn at Hayward, this occurs. But it's not just there, it's anywhere along the system.

[danbrotherston]

The constant wheel slippage or whatever it is when the train is just riding along like normal even on a normal day on fairly level ground, starts to shake/make noise then the driver has to slam on the brakes and speed up again.

I've never experienced that, in spite of frequently riding ION.

I have also never experienced this. I have never seen wheel slipping or stalling on the ION. I do hear the grit spreaders running (I assume this is in response to minor detected wheel slippage same as traction control in a modern car) but this is normal and the system working as it should.

The ION does experience occasional minor hunting oscillations as all trains do, but it's pretty minor, and I've never seen an operator respond to it with heavy braking.

[ac3r]

Spotted this on Reddit:

[dtkvictim]

Spotted this on Reddit:

[...]

[bravado]

If both trains hit it, would the Reddit crash counter go up by 2 or just 1?

[panamaniac]

To be fair, they avoided the lane where turns are prohibited ....

[allknowing2012]

He saw the diamond on the sign and thought it was the HOV lane.