ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[Elmira Guy]

Some discussion of our LRT project over at SSP starting with the page in the link below.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthre...29&page=65

SSP can be a very good site but some members can be a bit... bitey.

[Markster]

On the bright side, the proposal would reduce the Trip of Maximum Inconvenience:
As current
241 Traynor Ave to 560 Fairway (Swiss Chalet): 1.2km  (80m before LRT)
As proposed
Reyburn Ave @ Traynor to 666 fairway (McDonald's): 700m (80m before LRT)

So, I expanded on the comments I made earlier in this thread about Traynor-Vanier!

You can read about it in blog post form!
http://www.tritag.ca/blog/2017/02/16/fai...ng-update/

Here's an excerpt:

Another way to rate a proposal for a crossing is by comparing the Trip of Maximum Inconvenience. Of trips that were being made before ION, which are being the most negatively impacted? We get this by doing the following:

   Choose destinations that are across the ION tracks from each other.
   Note the minimum walking distance between them before ION.
   Note the minimum walking distance between them after ION.
   The Trip of Maximum Inconvenience is the trip that has the biggest difference between the walking distances before and after ION.

Here we test out three trips:

   Reyburn Ave @ Traynor to 666 Fairway (McDonalds)
   241 Traynor Ave to 560 Fairway (Swiss Chalet)
   Balfour Cres to Running Room

And compare them under 4 scenarios:

   Walking distance before ION, using the informal crossings of the Hydro Corridor
   Walking distance after ION, with no mid-block crossings
   Walking distance after ION, with a crossing as proposed at 500-560 Fairway (Swiss Chalet)
   Walking distance after ION, with a crossing at an alternate location of 652 Fairway (Fresh Burrito)

[Chicopee]

Regarding train numbering, my assumption (and that's all it is), is that they will follow a similar nomenclature to GRT; year then unit number, such as "1701".

[tomh009]

Here's an excerpt:

Another way to rate a proposal for a crossing is by comparing the Trip of Maximum Inconvenience.

I think really we should compare the average (or median) trip length.  But it's more difficult as we really don't know how many people are going from where to where.

[timc]

From article posted above.
"One of the companies pursuing legal action is grocery giant Loblaw, whose Valu-Mart store in uptown Waterloo is along the Ion route and was impacted by construction."

I think a letter to Loblaws and a cessation of shopping at Zehr's will be my response to this.

OK.

[JJTL]

Since this train will be used for testing and then I assume retrofitted with any updates required, is that why there are no ION logos or other decals? Anyone have an idea of the numbering system for the trains? Interesting so far there is no way to track which train is which (at a glance anyways).

I too am wondering about the numbering!  It would seem a little basic to just have "1" through "14".    But it's not like we'll ever have over 100 trains, so "01", "02" etc.. is quite conceivable.

The train will be finished off at the OMSF, which includes fitting it with all the system-specific signaling equipment, plus all the minor details, like the decals (logos, etc.).  Originally (I think I can share this now...) they were going to take delivery of the first train a month or two earlier, with more of this fitment work being done here by Bombardier's team... but a decision was made to delay delivery, so that the majority of the heavy work could take place in Thunder Bay.

...and they'd better not forget to put the embossed "BOMBARDIER" logo on nose cones, or I'll be pretty miffed.  

Ah, that makes sense to fit the system specific stuff at the OMSF. As always appreciate the info and knowledge, Canard! Even double digit numbers seem a bit odd to me. If Chicopee's assumption turns out to be true (year + number), 1701 to 1714 would be neat.

[Elmira Guy]

@ timc

Should I infer that you also think my doing so is unwarranted? Do you support Loblaws' legal action?

I'm at a loss to understand what is wrong with what I wrote.

[Markster]

Ah, that makes sense to fit the system specific stuff at the OMSF. As always appreciate the info and knowledge, Canard! Even double digit numbers seem a bit odd to me. If Chicopee's assumption turns out to be true (year + number), 1701 to 1714 would be neat.

Incrementing numbers is so passe.
Should just stick with a batch number "01" and use a letter on the end instead.

1701-A
1701-B
1701-C
1701-D
1701-E
...

[JJTL]

Ah, that makes sense to fit the system specific stuff at the OMSF. As always appreciate the info and knowledge, Canard! Even double digit numbers seem a bit odd to me. If Chicopee's assumption turns out to be true (year + number), 1701 to 1714 would be neat.

Incrementing numbers is so passe.
Should just stick with a batch number "01" and use a letter on the end instead.

1701-A
1701-B
1701-C
1701-D
1701-E
...

So your saying we should just go to QR codes then?! Barcodes are what the cool kids use these days...

[timc]

Incrementing numbers is so passe.
Should just stick with a batch number "01" and use a letter on the end instead.

1701-A
1701-B
1701-C
1701-D
1701-E
...

Maybe the first one could just be 1701?

[Section ThirtyOne]

Legal notices filed over business losses during LRT construction - CTV Kitchener

Can we expect these same businesses to offer up a share of the profits once they start to reap the rewards of LRT? I'm guessing not.

The list of businesses should also be named, as the settlement proceeds are coming out of taxpayer pockets.

[JoeKW]

We obviously need to use hex numbering.
0x6A50-0x6B2

[timc]

After looking more closely at GRT nomenclature, it appears to have changed again in the last 5 years. In the 70's/80's/90's, it was always year, then unit #. In the 2000's, it appears to have reversed to unit #, then year. Now it's a five character # like 21322. In this case I assume the 13 is still the year, and the first number may differentiate models, such as hybrid for example.

I think we've gone over this before, and I remember Canard cringing:

* I can't remember what numbers were like in the 1970s/1980s, but we also didn't have as many buses to deal with then
* For Kitchener Transit, in the 1990s, it was year + unit #, like 9501 in 1995
* In the 2000s (except for 2008!), it was 2 + one digit year + unit #, like 2401 in 2004
* 2008 was special, and the numbers started with 80, like 8001; I believe this is because other regional vehicles were already using the numbers in the 28xx range
* In the 2010s, numbers started with 2 + two digit year + unit #, like 21301 in 2013

Cambridge Transit numbers were different, although some of them were retronumbered after GRT was formed.

[chutten]

But I want the bikeshed to be periwinkle!

[tomh009]

Since the late 60s the Kitchener Transit (and before that, PUC) buses also had the year plus a unit number, but it was single digit: 731 for the first bus delivered in 1973. Before that, it was sequential numbering.