Moose Rail (National Capital Region)

[Allandale25]

Talk of 'interrupting frequency of service' is ridiculous in today's world of 2-3 minute headway intervals. Done in Europe in a number of nations, done in the Far East, done in NY Penn and Grand Central stations.

I think the reason there's talk of it is because others have read the Moose proposal and the current and future headways on the Trillium Line aren't what Moose is proposing. Sure, there might be 2-3 minute headways elsewhere but from what I gather reading the comments here, that's not what Moose is proposing and that's what people have concerns with. Unless Joseph comes back and says, those details haven't been confirmed yet, just trust me. I think people who are commenting about the potential decrease in frequencies are saying they don't have any specific commitments of offer any kind of trust.

 

[steveintoronto]

Plus no guarantee that after the suburban sprawl happens in the villages that MOOSE will not shut down their service. They have made their money on the sale of the land so no point providing this service anymore.

This is pretty much the story of the Metropolitan Railway of London a century ago. The corporate entity no longer exists, the stations and services, save a very few branches, not only still exist, they thrive as part of TfL operations. Moose would continue to exist serving the various regional and municipal governments in some form.

Metro-land (or Metroland) is a name given to the suburban areas that were built to the north-west of London in the counties of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Middlesex in the early part of the 20th century that were served by the Metropolitan Railway (the Met). The railway company was in the privileged position of being allowed to retain surplus land; from 1919 this was developed for housing by the nominally independent Metropolitan Railway Country Estates Limited(MRCE). The term "Metro-land" was coined by the Met's marketing department in 1915 when the Guide to the Extension Line became the Metro-land guide. It promoted a dream of a modern home in beautiful countryside with a fast railway service to central London until the Met was absorbed into the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land

I think the reason there's talk of it is because others have read the Moose proposal and the current and future headways on the Trillium Line aren't what Moose is proposing.

Interlining and interoperability have been discussed prior in this string. It's not a problem save for those who wish to make it one. It's done in many nations, even in Canada with VIA and local commuter services sharing track and timetables.

You try to make REM's argument sound rational on their claimed need for exclusive use of Mount Royal Tunnel...except it isn't.

Germany, for instance (and this is done in many other nations) shares and interoperates trams with heavy rail trains on the same tracks.

Here's an example:

 

[Allandale25]

Interlining and interoperability have been discussed prior in this string. It's not a problem save for those who wish to make it one. It's done in many nations, even in Canada with VIA and local commuter services sharing track and timetables.

And in this specific case and the purpose of this thread, it's not the concept of interlining or interoperability that's the concern of some. It's the reality that frequencies would drop under the Moose plan compared to the City's plan.

 

[steveintoronto]

And in this specific case and the purpose of this thread, it's not the concept of interlining or interoperability that's the concern of some. It's the reality that frequencies would drop under the Moose plan compared to the City's plan.

Really? And where exactly do the OCTranspo projected timetables for this line come even close to 2-3 minute headways?

Feel absolutely free to produce some evidence of your claims.

Here's a quick reference:

The new service can operate four cars at a time, due to two new passing tracks near Brookfield and Gladstone, which will allow the O-Train Trillium Line to carry more people. Service from Monday to Saturday will start at 6 a.m. and run every 10 to12 minutes, and Sunday service will start at 7:30 a.m. and run every 10 to15 minutes.

Customers will be able to take advantage of more frequent service, reduced waiting times, increased capacity, better travel connections and improved comfort, convenience and reliability.

“With the expanded O-Train Trillium Line service OC Transpo is once again demonstrating its commitment to offering world class transit service in Ottawa,” said Chair Blais.

With the expanded service, the signals and operations will be adjusted further. The service frequency will gradually increase and travel time will be reduced — when trains will run approximately every 8 to 10 minutes.

In addition to purchasing the six new trains, upgrades have been made to the signal system, train controls, stations, tracks and train yard. A Centralized Traffic Control system has also been installed for enhanced safety and improved efficiency. New passenger information systems will be added to the trains, along with security cameras and passenger counters. This project is a critical component of the City’s plans to accommodate transit customers travelling to and from the south end of Ottawa while Transitway service is adjusted during the construction of the O-Train Confederation Line project. The City of Ottawa is the first city in North America to use these Alstom Coradia Lint trains.

https://ottawa.ca/en/news/new-trains-improve-o-train-trillium-line-service

As part of a certification process for Moose, VIA or anyone else to use the tracks, adding capacity and sharing the cost of doing so might indeed be part of the CTA requirements.

 

[Allandale25]

Really? And where exactly do the OCTranspo projected timetables for this line come even close to 2-3 minute headways?

Feel absolutely free to produce some evidence of your claims.

I never said 2-3 minute headways. Not sure how you got that impression. Instead, I was mentioning the concerns raised by some, like @kEiThZ who commented above in this post: https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/moose-rail-national-capital-region.25806/page-34#post-1308926

Sure, the CTA could require Moose to build more parallel tracks beside the routes where the City already has a plan to offer this Moose service, but that could severely disrupt Moose's financial model. Building new track is not cheap.

 

[steveintoronto]

I never said 2-3 minute headways.

Then that's your shortcoming, because that's the workable limit established with modern signalling and control systems to handle competing train companies in "world class" cities elsewhere. Even in some second and third world instances. Which one is Canada?

but that could severely disrupt Moose's financial model.

Not to mention their having to pay for matching socks and toques.

 

[Allandale25]

There is no shortcoming in what I'm saying. We're talking about two different things. You're commenting on the theoretical potential and examples from around the world, which I don't dispute at all. I'm simply mentioning the concerns raised here by others for what it appears Moose has proposed for what they would actually do, or not provide.

It's the difference between the theoretical and the proposed. If Joseph or others take issue with the concerns by some because they haven't publicly released their plans, this is another example of how Moose's lack of detail at this point is a challenge.

 

[steveintoronto]

^Here's what you wrote:

It's the reality that frequencies would drop under the Moose plan compared to the City's plan.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Yes, I'm aware of what I wrote. Thanks for quoting it back to me. Here's the full version of the post which you didn't include: "And in this specific case and the purpose of this thread, it's not the concept of interlining or interoperability that's the concern of some. It's the reality that frequencies would drop under the Moose plan compared to the City's plan."

Again, I am just pointing out the concerns raised by some. Maybe because you're blocked from seeing this you didn't notice it: "Between here and SSP they've been clear. They are not bound by existing station locations and they don't give a s*** about existing Trillium Line users. They will locate stations where their customers (read real estate investors) stand to benefit the most. It would indeed be great to have rural rail service. But not at the cost of completely demolishing urban transit in Ottawa-Gatineau. Giving up 10 min frequencies on the Trillium Line (and probably better if the line is double tracked later) for 30 mins or worse rural rail service is not a good trade."

 

[kEiThZ]

Sure, there might be 2-3 minute headways elsewhere

Nobody said anything about 2-3 min headways.

I think the reason there's talk of it is because others have read the Moose proposal and the current and future headways on the Trillium Line aren't what Moose is proposing.

I was very specific. The current Stage 2 proposal for the Trillium Line will see the line move to 8 min frequencies in 2021:

http://spacing.ca/ottawa/2015/01/19/lrt-trillium-line-extension-enters-stage-2/

Moose's proposal has never promised to match or better that for riders inside the Greenbelt. Heck, Mr. Potvin won't commit to using current station locations, where all the existing bus services connect. So my contention is clear: there's no reason for any Ottawa resident currently living inside the Greenbelt (the majority of Ottawa's population) to support Moose's proposals at all.

Stage 2 will provide substantially better service on day one than Moose will ever commit to providing. And those shovels are going in the ground this year. Why pass all that up to enable sprawl and favour hypothetical rural residents (the ridership to justify Moose does not exist in these communities today)? And that's exactly why you see the only politicians who have come out in favour of Moose have been those with a riding/ward outside of Ottawa. No politician wants to run on a platform that says, "I am going to give you substantially worse service than planned to help a guy selling real estate 50km away to residents who will never pay taxes here."

What's more, if they twin track the Trillium Line in a somewhat putative Stage 3, those frequencies improve dramatically. At that point we're talking 3-4 minutes.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Thanks for the additional comments @kEiThZ. Just so you're aware, when I said 2-3 minute headways "elsewhere" I meant in the world. Maybe it's theoretically possible or happens in other places but I never suggested it for what's proposed for Stage 2 or by Moose. It was in response to Steve's comment to me of "Really? And where exactly do the OCTranspo projected timetables for this line come even close to 2-3 minute headways?". I responded with "I never said 2-3 minute headways. Not sure how you got that impression." and "We're talking about two different things. You're commenting on the theoretical potential and examples from around the world, which I don't dispute at all. I'm simply mentioning the concerns raised here by others for what it appears Moose has proposed for what they would actually do, or not provide."

I appreciate the specifics you are providing for what's actually being discussed - or not discussed - in Ottawa.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Thanks for the additional comments @kEiThZ. Just so you're aware, when I said 2-3 minute headways "elsewhere" I meant in the world. Maybe it's theoretically possible or happens in other places but I never suggested it for what's proposed for Stage 2 or by Moose. It was in response to Steve's comment to me of "Really? And where exactly do the OCTranspo projected timetables for this line come even close to 2-3 minute headways?". I responded with "I never said 2-3 minute headways. Not sure how you got that impression." and "We're talking about two different things. You're commenting on the theoretical potential and examples from around the world, which I don't dispute at all. I'm simply mentioning the concerns raised here by others for what it appears Moose has proposed for what they would actually do, or not provide."

I appreciate the specifics you are providing for what's actually being discussed - or not discussed - in Ottawa.

This is exactly why I don't bother with Steve. Mile wide. Inch deep. Notice how all he can ever bring up is some international comparison? He never discusses the specifics of a given situation.

He's clueless about transit in Ottawa. I would put money on the fact that he's never actually used OC Transpo. And definitely never ridden the O-Train, which is why he doesn't get what the frequencies there are, or how they will be changing after Stage 2. He just wants to comment out of some sake of self-importance. If he took a single ride on the O-Train, what I'm saying would be blatantly obvious: there's no reason why anybody living in Ottawa should favour Moose over Stage 2.

 

[steveintoronto]

Well Allandale, if your reference is Keithz, it goes a long way to explaining how you can't divide "The service frequency will gradually increase and travel time will be reduced — when trains will run approximately every 8 to 10 minutes" by "2-3 mins". And that's with the existing track geometry.

As you were...

 

[Allandale25]

^ I still don't get what you're taking issue with in what I've said. I'm merely noting a concern on the Stage 2 plan vs Moose. You posted an example from Germany about interlining.

I get it, you passionately support the Moose plan. That's fine and good for you. I just hope you're aware some in Ottawa have concerns that if the line was turned over to Moose, the frequencies would not be helpful for commuters. What's wrong with mentioning that concern? It's fine if you're dismissive of the concern but I'm going to note it in this conversation as necessary.

 

[steveintoronto]

Allandale25 said: ↑

It's the reality that frequencies would drop under the Moose plan compared to the City's plan.

Do the math, and stop the obfuscating.