Jump to content
t_harris01

2016 Edmonton and Area spotting and news

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, LRT said:

BBC's from Plovdiv Bulgaria perhaps?

I love how they want to go 'all electric' yet they killed a very good and quite extensive electric system. Hypocrites.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Innuendo said:

I've never seen a U2 on the Metro Line before??? Train shortage? 

 

20180416_152836.jpg

20180416_152836.jpg

20180416_153831_HDR-1.jpg

20180416_152834-1.jpg

Maybe could be an advancement in the signal system???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Innuendo said:

I've never seen a U2 on the Metro Line before??? Train shortage? 

They started on Saturday. Presumably making sure that they work in advance of the requirement that Thales basically has everything up to snuff before the end of April. ETS is supposed to have a report on basically what to do if Thales doesn't have the CBTC up and running 100% by that time and that could include scrapping CBTC. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, M. Parsons said:

They started on Saturday. Presumably making sure that they work in advance of the requirement that Thales basically has everything up to snuff before the end of April. ETS is supposed to have a report on basically what to do if Thales doesn't have the CBTC up and running 100% by that time and that could include scrapping CBTC. 

Personally I hope they scrap CBTC and go with an improved ABS (kinda like CTs system) for the intire system. That would be a huge undertaking..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LRT said:

Personally I hope they scrap CBTC and go with an improved ABS (kinda like CTs system) for the intire system. That would be a huge undertaking..

How does CT's system differ from the existing block system used in Edmonton? From my observations they are generally quite similar, expect for the West LRT. That seems a bit more of an elaborate signal system, although, that could also just be how the signal logic is set up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, M. Parsons said:

How does CT's system differ from the existing block system used in Edmonton? From my observations they are generally quite similar, expect for the West LRT. That seems a bit more of an elaborate signal system, although, that could also just be how the signal logic is set up.

Calgary Transit's System doesn't really differ that much from Edmonton but...

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've heard in the past that the existing single system that they use wasn't intended or designed to work with two intersecting lines.

I might be being a little bit biased here but I like the way Calgary's system is setup... with the addition of the VTAG system.. its is awesome!

As operators, we can enter the trains key number and destination code, operators can select routings in the comfort of their own cab (not that comfortable actually) cancel routings, call traffic gates on and cancel them, and a bunch of other cool things (with controls authorization of course) ETS does not have that option from the cab however both Calgary and Edmonton do have a track wayside selector box.

From what I understand Edmonton Transit doesn't use approach signal indications, instead a yellow light means if the crossing ahead is protected or not and if you go past a yellow light the train will shut down. Calgary uses lunars to indicate if the intersection is protected or not and if you go past an in favorable lunar the train will not shut down. Edmonton Transit uses speed dumps and Calgary Transit does not... Trains in Edmonton approach stations at 40 kph and trains in Calgary approach stations at 65 kilometers an hour (although the rule book says no faster than 55 kilometers per hour) and don't get dumped (no train stops prior)

All in all Calgary Transit signal system is based off of CP Rail's Signals system.. our blocks are approximately a kilometer apart. 

Calgary Transit's track speed is 80 kilometers per hour, if Edmonton Transit was to tighten up their blocks, bump up there track speed, eliminate speed dumps, time there station stops more consistently and have some kind of VTAG system I have no doubt in my mind the system would be greatly improved it's extremely limited the way it is now. 

I love to see double signal towers at interlockings in Edmonton! 

Anyway Rocky Mountain Railroad is on Discovery right now got to run!😆

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LRT said:

Calgary Transit's System doesn't really differ that much from Edmonton but...

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've heard in the past that the existing single system that they use wasn't intended or designed to work with two intersecting lines.

It all depends upon your definition of "existing single system". Sure, the original Siemens system wasn't configured for multiple lines, however, with the NE Signal upgrades that brought in the GE equipment to replace the Siemens equipment, that was designed from the start to include the Churchill junction, and of course it is the GE equipment that controls the junction today. How exactly it controls the junction, I'm not sure. Presumably there's an automatic mode which does know which train is which and handles routing. 

2 hours ago, LRT said:

I might be being a little bit biased here but I like the way Calgary's system is setup... with the addition of the VTAG system.. its is awesome!

As operators, we can enter the trains key number and destination code, operators can select routings in the comfort of their own cab (not that comfortable actually) cancel routings, call traffic gates on and cancel them, and a bunch of other cool things (with controls authorization of course) ETS does not have that option from the cab however both Calgary and Edmonton do have a track wayside selector box.

VTAG would be relevant perhaps if ETS didn't go with CBTC. Who knows what capabilities full CBTC would allow ETS. That we don't know yet. Should ETS have gone with something other than CBTC, it's possible they would have gone with some or all of those features. It's also possible that even with that capability, ETS might have simply maintained a philosophy that takes those options away from operators. 

2 hours ago, LRT said:

From what I understand Edmonton Transit doesn't use approach signal indications, instead a yellow light means if the crossing ahead is protected or not and if you go past a yellow light the train will shut down. Calgary uses lunars to indicate if the intersection is protected or not and if you go past an in favorable lunar the train will not shut down. Edmonton Transit uses speed dumps and Calgary Transit does not... Trains in Edmonton approach stations at 40 kph and trains in Calgary approach stations at 65 kilometers an hour (although the rule book says no faster than 55 kilometers per hour) and don't get dumped (no train stops prior)

Those are call on signals. Seems to me it would be a bad thing for a train to enter a crossing that isn't protected! This is more of a philosophy thing again rather than anything related to what type of signal system is in use. It might even stem from the original design of Edmonton's signal system which was quite minimal. Ditto on the speed dumps and 40 kph into the stations. Speed dumps are simply a feature Edmonton uses and Calgary doesn't, and Edmonton is a bit more restrictive on speeds. Edmonton's also had at least one incident of an impaired motorman which may have contributed to certain decisions about some of the features of the signal system!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CT actually had a speed dump installed on 7th ave at 7st station after the big accident they had on opening weekend. It was later removed when 10th Street opened up..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, LRT said:

All in all Calgary Transit signal system is based off of CP Rail's Signals system.. our blocks are approximately a kilometer apart. 

Calgary Transit's track speed is 80 kilometers per hour, if Edmonton Transit was to tighten up their blocks, bump up there track speed, eliminate speed dumps, time there station stops more consistently and have some kind of VTAG system I have no doubt in my mind the system would be greatly improved it's extremely limited the way it is now.

I can't imagine any of Edmonton's blocks are more than a kilometre long. The 2005 LRT design guidelines called for the signal system to support 2.5 minute headways. I'm sure that was factored in the NE Signal upgrades were designed. Can't find the document right now that would confirm that unfortunately. Some time ago I timed the time it takes to traverse a signal block and most were under 2 minutes at track speed, so, I don't really see the need to tighten blocks up. Certainly, without CBTC, or if CBTC gets scrapped, they might have to tighten up some Downtown blocks so that they are designed for headways of closer to 1.5-2 minutes rather than 2.5 minutes.

Certainly, I don't think that Edmonton's signal system is in anyway extremely limited the way it is. Yes, Edmonton has some somewhat conservative speeds and it has more restrictive elements of the signal system than Calgary, but that seems to be the overall philosophy ETS has adopted for whatever reason, rather than actual limitations. In fact, having speed dumps and the call on signals is actually probably making greater use of the signal system than Calgary is, and arguably perhaps ETS's system is safer. The GE equipment in use on Edmonton's S-NE LRT actually looks very similar to the equipment Calgary uses on their WLRT. 

Long term, CBTC should be good for Edmonton. There's a lot of potential in it I gather and at this point I think the best thing is just to get it running. On the other hand, I don't think we should have bought it in the first place. I think the existing track circuit based ABS system with perhaps some adjustments would have been just fine and  A LOT cheaper. I also don't get why they just didn't install CBTC along the whole line. Or why they required the existing ABS system would be maintained to act as a back up system.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, M. Parsons said:

and arguably perhaps ETS's system is safer....

Maybe...

20170924_133002.jpg

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bus is coming 1965 said:

Are these pretty much the same as 4880s?

Yeah I'd say so. The 4880's doesn't have A/C, These new one does.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×