Jump to content

Talk:CTrain/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

West Leg of the Train

Heard on the radio this morning that some councile has approved the construction of the west leg of the train finally, though it isn't planned now to go to Mount Royal due to the increase in cost; Cost is expected to be around $200 million from what I heard. --68.145.96.105 (talk) 14:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The cost of the West leg is estimated to be approx. $700 million. It would cost another $200 million to go via Mt. Royal College, and the ridership would most likely be less, so it's more likely to go via Bow Trail and 17 Av. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Plans for an Underground Track

Is it true that new buildings along 8th ave are incorporating future plans for underground stations? --Sometimesthinking 06:42, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. All new structures built along the 8th Avenue corridor have to make accomodations for the C-Train, as this will be its future alignment. The municipal building is the most obvious example as it already has tunnel infrastructure beneath it. --Tyson2k 20:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
The original plan has always been to have underground stations downtown. However, when the city started creating the tunnels, an economic recession hit and the ciy dramatically slashed the CTrain construction budget. So, they sealed the portions of the tunnels that they made and started laying track above ground.
* How long is the tunnel under Cemetery hill? I doubt the downtown line would be much longer than this. 68.147.242.17 06:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
During that time, there was a great deal of controversy surrounding the development of the CTrain infrastructure, including many in City Council that firmly believed that a public rail system was completely unnecessary(!). So, there could have been (and probably was) quite a bit of political pressure applied that contributed to the slashing of the budget, using the recession as an excuse. I'll have to find some internet sources for citations. :) --68.147.190.137 01:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
* You are going to probably need to find dead-tree sources for this, remember, this was all pre-internet, even pre-ARPAnet. 68.147.242.17 06:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)


I read that the new Pennylane development on 8th is going to have an underground station built into it. I think I read that in the Herald.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.144.125.98 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 2 June 2007

would you have a link to the article, or at least the publishing date? --67.142.130.29 21:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Track length

This site gives the total length of the CTrain as 35.7km. Does anyone know why it's put as 42.1km here? TastyCakes 17:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

42.1km is the accurate number. This comes from several sources including, I believe, the Calgary Transit website (obviously somewhere else on the site... I will try to find it). The figure of 35.7km is obsolete and does not reflect the recent south expansion to Somerset and the NW expansion to Dalhousie. --Arch26 00:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Here it is [3] in the statistics/LRT technical data section of the site. --Arch26 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

two line maps

It's not necessary to have two line maps. I removed the official map because it is more visually unpleasing. The unofficial map, however, is still accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.1.128 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 30 October 2006

The problem with the unofficial one (if you mean Image:CalgaryAB-map-CTrain.png) is ... it's butt ugly. (I can say that, I drew it myself). One of these days I'm going to make a cleaner one.--Qyd 01:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:CTransit.png

Image:CTransit.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 03:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

New paint design

Any pictures for a the new paint-job/livery of the C-Trains? (The new livery is supposed to be for the entire Calgary Transit fleet, not just the trains)

Wikipedia article name - CTrain vs C-Train

I searched on "CTrain" and was redirected to "C-Train". From the links provided on the bottom of the article, it's clear that Calgary Transit's branding is CTrain, not C-Train. So why is this article the latter and not the former?--D P J 04:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • One possible reason is that, despite Calgary Transit's attempt at rebranding the system, which originated in about 2001-2002, it has not been adopted by media (who still mandate C-Train in their style guides -- I work in local media in Calgary and they do not accept CTrain) nor by the public. It is worth noting in the article that CTrain is the current branding, but since the vast majority of users interested in this topic will look for C-Train, it makes sense to avoid an overused redirect. 68.146.47.196 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

--The article should be titled with the correct spelling. This would be CTrain as this is what it is actually called. A redirect should be in place from C-Train to CTrain. Just because people are lazy and stubborn, it does not mean that accuracy should be sacrificed. Dale-DCX 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Map needs to be corrected

Crowfoot Station is labelled way too far south on the map and needs to be shifted closer to Nose Hill Drive. 68.146.47.196 03:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Qyd 05:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Martindale station

What is the source for the name and location of the planned Martindale station? The council minutes cited describe an extension from McKnight-Westwinds to Saddleridge, but do not appear to name an intermediate station. David Arthur (talk) 23:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Saddleridge/Saddletowne

The council minutes for 6 November 2007 cited in this article repeatedly refer to ‘Saddleridge station’. What is the source for ‘Saddletowne’, and when is it from? David Arthur (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • The station is referenced by name as Saddletowne on page 4 of the West LRT report, and marked as such on the system map on page 5. A lot of people originally supposed it would be named Saddle Ridge after the community as a whole, but they settled on Saddletowne because the station will sit in the northwest corner of Saddletowne Circle NE, which in addition to being an overgrown roundabout funnelling auto traffic through the neighbourhood serves as a commercial and multifamily residential area. Hope this helps you out and keeps things straight. Beltliner (talk) 17:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Out of date?

Recent edits have labelled my map ‘out of date’ without explanation, and added a new (non-SVG) map. What has changed? The portions in service still match the map appearing on Calgary Transit’s web site — has one of the future station names been changed yet again? David Arthur (talk) 16:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

3rd U2 DC train lost

I've updated the article to reference the 3rd U2 Train lost [4] and fact that there's a U2 car sitting covered on the small siding just north of anderson station. I can't find any reference to when the car was in an accident though. I think it was early 2008, but i'm not 100% sure. Anithira (talk) 06:54, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  • 2050 was involved in a collision with a stolen car at 58th Avenue in late 2007, though it hasn't officially been retired according to sources I've talked to within CT. LRV #2019 (which was retired a few years ago) is suspected to be the one under the tarp, likely heading for scrap now that its been stripped of all its usable parts. Cochranealtaguy (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Highest ridership?

The claim that the CTrain has the highest ridership of any light rail system in North America is dubious. The Toronto streetcar system (which is indeed light rail) carries 328,000 passengers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.163.23 (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Toronto streetcar system is a streetcar system, not a light rail system. It does indeed have a higher ridership than the Calgary light rail system. The proposed future Toronto light rail system will be a light rail system instead of a streetcar system. Thanks, I was glad to be able to clarify that for you.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem with this claim is that there is no clear definition of how ‘light rail’ differs from streetcars; both the Calgary and Toronto systems involve both street running and off-street lines. The most this article can reasonably do is to note that Calgary’s officials claim the highest ridership in North America by their definition. David Arthur (talk) 16:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Modern streetcar systems may meet the technical definition of "light rail", but the operating characteristics and target market are different. They operate load from street level, operate in the street mixed with traffic at slow speeds, and usually operate as single units. The Calgary LRT system, although it does have street-running sections, loads from high platforms, is never mixed in traffic with private cars, operates 3-car trains (soon to go to 4) and for the most part runs at high speeds on a private right of way. It's operating characteristics are closer to that of the Scarborough RT (TTC) system than the Toronto streetcar system. Neither TTC nor CT are confused about the difference. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Certainly there are a number of differences between the Toronto and Calgary systems, but none of them are category-breaking. The high platforms have more to do with the particular age of the system than anything else (most U.S. ‘light-rail’ systems use low-floor vehicles), and as for multi-unit trains, Toronto had those before it replaced its highest-volume routes with underground railways. The Scarborough RT is an automated system with no level crossings, a far cry from C-Train trams running along 7 Avenue. The C-Train is indisputably built to a higher standard than most of Toronto’s network, but that doesn’t mean that Toronto’s system can be simply ignored. David Arthur (talk) 23:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The category-breaking characteristic of the Toronto streetcar system is that 89% of its right-of-way is shared with automobiles, whereas the Calgary C-Train shares 0% of its space with private cars - resulting in average speeds that are twice as fast. Toronto is just thinking about going to multiple-unit streetcars again - it's a bit of a conceptual leap for them - whereas Calgary operated multiple units from the start. Most US light rail systems use the same "generic" Siemens LRVs as Calgary does. A few of the newer US systems use the latest low-floor models, but Calgary is thinking about those for new lines, too. The Scarborough RT system is more of a technological dead-end than anything else - the proverbial pig in a poke. They can't even buy new vehicles for it any more. I suppose it is worthwhile noting that the Toronto streetcar system does have a higher ridership than the Calgary LRT system, but then I'd have to mention that is a "classic"-style streetcar system and not a modern LRT system. Not that there's anything wrong with that, classic-style streetcars are making a comeback in the US as well. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The Scarborough RT, for what it’s worth, is based on the same technology as Vancouver’s highly successful SkyTrain — which is the type of system meant by ‘light rail’ in many parts of the world (see Docklands Light Railway, or the Kelana Jaya Line, formerly known as ‘Putra LRT’). David Arthur (talk) 22:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Vancouver Skytrain has about 5 times the ridership of Scarborough RT, so they can afford a more expensive system. Vancouver built its line for the new, bigger Mark II cars, but they will not fit through the tunnels nor handle the curves on the Scarborough line, so Toronto is stuck with a Hobson's choice of rebuilding the line for different vehicles. Vancouver runs its trains in fully automatic mode, whereas Toronto has to use drivers because of union rules. Also, the Scarborough system is sometimes immobilized by snow and ice on the power rail - which happened last Wednesday. It does snow in Toronto, more so than in Vancouver, so you'd think the designers would allow for that. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm I can't find anywhere that says ridership is 271,000 as of 4th quarter 2007. Highest figure I've come across is an average of 248,200 boardings per day here. Where did the other number come from? TastyCakes (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

That came from the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) web site, as did the Toronto statistics. However, APTA appears to have rearranged its web site and current Canadian data does not seem to have a link to it any more. The Canadian Urban Transit Association (CUTA) web site seems to think that transit ridership numbers are confidential, so I don't know where you can get comparable statistics now. The 248,200 number was reported for 2006, and C-Train ridership has been growing like Topsy so the 271,000 number APTA gave for late 2007 seemed reasonable. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I found the link to the 2007Q3 APTA report for Canada using Google: http://www.apta.com/research/stats/ridership/riderep/documents/07q4can.pdf
There's also a 2008Q1 report, but Calgary is missing from it. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Rates

How about including rates or cost for a pass? 128.83.167.129 (talk) 00:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Costs

Is any information available as to capital costs of the various stages of the C-Train development? How about operating costs? Is it true that the C-Train is now profitable? TastyCakes (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

A good source is the Calgary Transit Reports Studies and Surveys page at http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/reports_surveys.html
CT has estimated its operating costs on the C-Train at 29 cents per ride, which since they charge $2.50 for a ride, probably means they are making an operating profit on it. However, they are using the revenues to subsidize their feeder bus system, and buying new vehicles by the score, and laying new track as fast as they can, so it doesn't flow to the bottom line. Capital costs are mostly sunk costs, since they built the expensive part of the system and paid for it long ago. Laying new track down the middle of a freeway isn't that expensive. They don't segregate C-Train revenues from bus revenues, or do a discounted cash-flow analysis on the capital costs, so you can't do a real economic analysis on it, but it looks fairly cost-effective. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

one question

I have a question.On the map under the topic of future lines in the article of "C-Train",i see that the 7 Street Southwest Station is in the line of Route 201.Does it mean that i can only take the train from the south to the southwest.Because i think the train can only go to west,but can't go to the east.--218.103.157.150 (talk) 13:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There are two routes. Route 201 runs from Dalhousie to Somerset-Bridlewood, while route 202 runs from 10 St SW to McKnight-Westwinds; if you want to travel between a station on the blue line and a station on the purple line, you'll need to transfer in the city centre. The stations between 8 St SW and City Hall are shared by both lines, but each is served only by one direction, so if you want to travel between the south and the north-east, you'll need to cross the street and walk a short distance to make your connexion. David Arthur (talk) 16:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
so can i take the train from 8 St SW to the south or to the east?Does route 201 only run from the south to north-west but not from north-west to the south? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.157.67 (talk) 12:54, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, from 8 St SW you can get a southbound route 201 tram or an eastbound route 202. Both routes are bidirectional; it's the stations that are one-way (in the city centre). So, if you were at 8 St SW and wanted to go north, you would have to cross the street and walk to 7 St SW station, where you would catch a northbound route 201. Outside the city centre, every station serves both directions. (Really, the whole 'one-way station' concept is an unnecessary complication: most cities would give the same name to the platforms on both sides of the street.) David Arthur (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
David,thank you every much for your help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.103.157.67 (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2008 (UTC)


picture of accident ticket?

Is there a good reason to include a photo of a ticket from a passenger on the train involved in the recent crane accident? CalgaryWikifan (talk) 04:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see one - it's debatable whether it would be notable even if tickets were tied to a specific departure, and in Calgary they aren't. David Arthur (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Paying at the park and ride

Does anyone know the details of the parking fees people have to pay at the park and ride now? As in how much, when and which stations? I think that would be a good addition to the article. TastyCakes (talk) 19:58, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

You'll find all your information at Calgary Transit: Park and Ride HistoryMaker2001 (talk) 06:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I added it. TastyCakes (talk) 14:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Airport Spur

Is there any timeline proposed for expanding the train to the airport? I've heard mixed things from different people. Is there a reason it's been put off so long? It seems like it would be a relatively easy section to build - it looks like empty fields there now on the google map. TastyCakes (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

TastyCakes, one of the delays in question is the airport itself. Construction plans need to be laid out for the new parallel runway, for starters. The second complication is placement of track. When the new runway begins construction, Barlow Trail north of McKnight will have to be permanently closed, moved east, or moved underground, as the runway will be built east of Barlow Trail. The same would be true for the proposed C-Train line. The additional question of station placement, design and integration is also a complication. It would have to be done so that it is easy to get to the gates and/or parking lot from the station, but not add unnecessary traffic tie-ups and such. It has been suggested to put the station under the terminal, but that poses huge costs in itself, not to mention that the tunnel leading to the station would have to start off of airport property.
Hopefully this helps a bit, and anyone who has any further insight is welcome to chime in! HistoryMaker2001 (talk) 01:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Accidents section - Need References

I have been searching for references regarding those accidents mentioned in said section, and while I know in my mind that they happened on these days, I could find nothing on any news websites that could verify the particulars. As such, I have tagged the section as unreferenced, and if no reputable sources are found in a week, it should be re-edited to include dates only. If someone can provide such a source, feel free to remove the tags I have put.

Thanks! HistoryMaker2001 (talk) 06:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for success

Could we add something about supposed reasons for the C-Train's success? I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the city doesn't authorize (as many parking spots as other cities (or in any case it doesn't have as many per capita), which drives up parking prices to (notoriously) high levels and encourages C-Train use. Could that be added as a factor? What other reasons are there for its high ridership? TastyCakes (talk) 15:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It would probably be a good addition to the article. In the past I tried to add some reasons to the main light rail transit article, but unfortunately much of it got deleted by people (most of them Americans) who 1) didn't believe that it could possibly have as many riders as it does, and 2) didn't believe the reasons for its success (since the implication was that it could also work in many U.S. cities). A lot of the flak was politically motivated. However, if we can establish a consensus we should be able to create a list here. Some of the reasons that I can think of:

  1. Controlling costs to build a larger system (more track for the buck).
    1. Avoiding expensive elevated and underground construction (unlike e.g. Edmonton)
    2. Not trying to provide true rapid transit system, but just fairly rapid transit
    3. Using basic, proven, off-the-shelf equipment (unlike e.g. Toronto)
    4. Sharing freight railway rights-of-way and using major road medians
    5. Using common, utilitarian station designs
    6. Using a downtown transit mall instead of a subway
    7. Using a self-serve payment system
    8. Minimizing park-and-ride spaces
  2. The structure of the city
    1. Major head office center with strong downtown core
    2. Narrow downtown streets (at least compared to Edmonton)
    3. Lack of downtown freeways
    4. Lack of downtown parking
    5. Bottlenecks in the road system (e.g. MacLeod Trail)
    6. Rapid growth outrunning the road system
  3. Good forward planning
    1. Strategic location of LRT lines where the most ridership is likely to be
    2. Reserving rights-of-way well in advance of LRT construction
    3. Planning land use around LRT routes
    4. Building ridership with bus rapid transit, then replacing it with LRT
    5. Building track as far into the suburbs as possible
  4. The attitude of the people
    1. Widespread opposition to freeway expansion in many areas (particularly downtown)
    2. Widespread support for non-automobile commuting (e.g. transit, walking, bicycling)

These are some of the ones I can think of. What do you think? RockyMtnGuy (talk) 02:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I think all of that stuff sounds great and would make a good section in the article. I'm wondering where we could find published sources so people don't write it off as original research though... TastyCakes (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This link seems to support a lot of it. TastyCakes (talk) 15:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

All true, but

Some Edmonton commentators have said Calgary's above-ground system causes more traffic delays because of all the road-rail crossings, and that in the long run the underground system chosen by Edmonton is worth the extra expense. Comments like this also need to be in the article, for the sake of prespective. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, do you have a link? TastyCakes (talk) 22:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I read an interview with one of the designers of the Edmonton system, in which he said he realized during construction that they made a mistake putting it underground. They closed some of the main streets completely to build the stations, and it didn't seem to cause much of a delay in traffic. Edmonton has quite a lot of surplus lane capacity in its streets.
As you probably know, Calgary has a short stretch of underground tunnel that they have never used. They originally intended to put the downtown section underground when the ridership got high enough, but then they discovered they didn't need to because they could control the traffic interference by carefully staging the traffic lights.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Route diagram
Legend
 Tuscany
Crowfoot
69 Street
Dalhousie
Sirocco
Brentwood
45 Street
University
Westbrook
Banff Trail
Shaganappi Point
Lions Park
Sunalta
SAIT/AUArts/Jubilee
Downtown West–Kerby
Sunnyside
Blue Line
Red Line
8 Street SW
7 Street SW
6 Street SW
4 Street SW
3 Street SW
1 Street SW
Centre Street
City Hall/Bow Valley College
Red Line
Blue Line
Victoria Park/Stampede
Bridgeland/Memorial
Erlton/Stampede
Zoo
39 Avenue
Barlow/Max Bell
Chinook
Franklin
Heritage
Marlborough
Haysboro Yard
Rundle
Southland
Whitehorn
Anderson
Oliver Bowen Yard
Anderson Yard
McKnight–Westwinds
Canyon Meadows
Martindale
Fish Creek–Lacombe
Saddletowne
Shawnessy
Somerset–Bridlewood
7th Avenue free fare zone
Westbound only stop
Eastbound only stop

Handicapped/disabled access All stations are accessible

This diagram:

I have noticed that an unknown user has been putting in the start of the Calgary LRT route using the Wikipedia route diagram methodology. However, I have already managed to put together a sizable portion of the North and Downtown routes. Prior to noticing this change I had been working on it on my talk page, but given that someone else is working towards this I have moved it to the main wiki under the template CT LRT route. TheIguana (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The diagram now has all of the stations listed on it; however, there are pieces missing still namely major roads in the South and Northeast; and the Anderson storage yards as an out of passenger spur of the track. TheIguana (talk) 05:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

After a recent visit to Calgary, I noticed some inconsistencies in the route diagram:

  • Some highwyas (Trails) use the German symbol, while others the British;
  • Tunnel and bridge names don't match the ones posted on the structures;
  • Only a couple of the level crossings are indidicated; shouldn't it be all or none?

And I know it would screw up the visual balance, but I still find it confusing to have the Northeast line running down the page…
Useddenim (talk) 18:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

42nd Ave tunnel

Does anyone know what's up with the trains slowing down considerably just before entering 42nd Avenue Tunnel southbound en route to 39th Ave Station? Just wondering if it's something that should be mentioned in the article.--Kalsermar (talk) 16:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The Edmonton LRT slows down when it goes underground too. My guess is air pressure. 117Avenue (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Air pressure is one reason. Just try standing very close to the yellow line at the point where the train eneters a station (northbound at Anderson is a good example. You'll feel the bow wave of air pressure!
One other reason could be that it allows the driver's eyes to adjust to the lower lighting in the tunnel (the last thing you want as a train driver is to hightail it into a tunnel and meet an unfortunate youth in a very unpleasant - and violent - way. HistoryMaker2001 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
@both, thanks for the info, that does sound plausible. --Kalsermar (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Signalling

Any thoughts about a section on this? The C-Train seems to use an unusual mixture of railway signals (with the colours inverted) for interlocking, traffic lights (that don't conform to the (–) (▲) ( | ) light rail standard[1]) in the fare-free zone; and positional dwarf signals elsewhere. Useddenim (talk) 18:42, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I have some guesses based on my observations.
Single traffic lights are probably block signals: red (next block is occupied), yellow (next block is clear, but the following block is occupied), green (next two blocks are clear)
For interlocking signals, red over red almost certainly means stop and stay. Green/yellow over red seems to mean that the track is to straight. Red over flashing green seems to mean that the track is set to diverge. Some dwarf signals (with three lights) seem to indicate the interlocking settings, and some seem to indicate when to pass the pedestrian crosswalks.
In the free-fare zone downtown, the transit lights, which are also used by buses, are green (go), green with flashing yellow (warning before yellow), yellow (stop if possible), then red (stop). --96.51.69.195 (talk) 22:12, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
ABS Signals: Red = Stop (block is occupied), Yellow (Maximum 60km/h)= Approach (next light is red/next block is occupied), Green (Maximum posted track speed) = Clear (atleast next 2 blocks are unoccupied)
Interlocking signals: Red over Red = Stop (no routing selected, block of selected route occupied), Yellow over Red (Maximum 60km/h) = Approach (straight through routing selected, next light is red/next block is occupied), Green over Red = Clear (Maximum 80km/h (straight through routing selected, at least next 2 blocks are unoccupied, Red over Yellow = Restricted (No signal protection), Red over Flashing Yellow = Slow Approach (cross over routing selected, next signal is red/next block is occupied), Red over Flashing Green = Slow Clear (cross over routing selected, atleast next 2 blocks are unoccupied
In Street Traffic Signals (SAME AS TRAFFIC SAFETY ACT): Red = Stop, Yellow = Prepare to stop, Flashing Yellow = Do not proceed, Green = Go
But in the Traffic Safety Act, doesn't "flashing yellow" mean "proceed with caution"? Also, the flashing yellow seems to be combined with the green light in downtown.
Also, what do dwarf signals (like the ones at http://www.panoramio.com/photo/10199025 and http://www.panoramio.com/photo/40501461) mean? I'm guessing vertical means straight routing, slanted indicates cross over routing, and horizontal means stop.
--96.51.69.195 (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The flashing yellow on 7 avenue is tied the operations of the pedestrian signal, and intended for same meaning flashing hand = do not proceed, flashing yellow= do not proceed. The traffic safety act governs all trains in "in street limits". A train will not clear an intersection on time if entered on a flashing yellow at in street limits track speed (40km/h).
Lunar signal is the appropriate term. Dwarf signals are a type of interlocking signal. At a rail crossing, Horizontal means "level crossing not protected", Vertical means "level crossing protected". When gates are broken or a gate arm stuck up, they will remain horizontal. You are not governed to stop at an unfavorable lunar signal but must proceed at a restricted speed and watch for probable cause.
Lunar signals are also found at manual switches. Vertical means "straight through movement", diagonal (in either direction) means "cross over movement". More modern Lunar signals are found on new parts of the right of way. At 45 street level crossing, solid lines replace the dual lights.
I wonder why there isn't a section about signals on this article; there is a main article and a section in the Toronto subway and RT article about their signals. --96.51.69.195 (talk) 03:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the speedometer has color codes. I'm not completely sure, but based on my memory, I think in km/h, Red = 0 to 5, Yellow = 5 to 30, Green = 30 to 50, Blue = 50 to 80. I'm guessing that red is the "restricted speed" you were talking about. --96.51.69.195 (talk) 03:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Green and Blue should be swapped: Red = 0-5, Yellow = 5-30, Blue = 30-50, Green = 50-80 136.159.49.116 (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen an older train car having a speedometer with an orange section from 80 to 100 km/h, even though that train did not exceed 80 km/h. The other colors were the same: Red = 0-5, Yellow = 5-30, Blue = 30-50, Green = 50-80, Orange = 80-100 205.206.19.187 (talk) 20:53, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/htm/2009/part8/fig8c_03_longdesc.htm USDoT/FHA Light Rail Transit Signals

Northeast Platform Extensions

Hey guys. I was up in the northeast along 36th on Sunday, and noted that the Whitehorn station is undergoing a platform extension. The end-of-platform "bail-out" ramps have been closed off, and there is a great deal of wood in place for concrete pouring. The extension's length approximates the length of one U2 or SD-160, which makes me wonder if Calgary Transit has bumped the target date for running 4 car trains at all? With the west line being built with 4 car platforms and the Downtown station refurbishment, it would make at least some sense to have the west-northeast line run 4 car trains first.

Anyways, can anyone confirm or provide more insight on these platform extensions, and if so, should it not be added to the article? HistoryMaker2001 (talk) 18:37, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

North, SE and NE extension LRT routes already finalized?

I just bought the 2011 edition of MapArt's Calgary & Southern Alberta street map book and I spotted something unexpected: the complete routes for the North and SE legs of the C-Train are shown in full, complete with a new LRT route down 2nd Street up to Eau Claire Market downtown, and the North route (which appears to suggest the C-Train will be required to execute 90-degree turns in a few locations); also, the NE route is shown extended almost to the Balzac commercial area around CrossIron Mills mall. I don't believe any of these routes are anywhere near finalized (I'm not sure where the list of stations for the SE route comes from), especially since just today there's a big debate at the city as to when planning will begin on the SE route and the N route isn't even expected to be planned out in this decade. The NE route as far as I know is only mapped out as far as Saddle Ridge. So I'm not sure where MapArt got its information from. But I thought I'd mention this just in case the previous city administration got something pushed through we didn't know about (wouldn't be the first time). 68.146.64.9 (talk) 21:57, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure where those maps got those data, but there is a fairly detailed plan available at the calgary transit website[5]. It looks like a pretty good plan to me: useful routes through undeveloped areas. Of course by the time they build them there will be even greater demand. -- Kevin Saff (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Length of West Leg?

Does anyone know how long the West leg will be when it opens? I read 8km somewhere, but that doesn't seem very long. Might be something worth putting in the article, and will be handy to have for when it opens and the total length increases. TastyCakes (talk) 17:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It is 8km, according to this booklet. I'll put it in there. TastyCakes (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Inconsistency About Total LRT System Length

There seems to be inconsistent numbers, when it comes to the total length of the LRT system in general. One most recent Calgary Transit page says it is 44.9 km.[1] However, another OLDER Calgary Transit page has it at 47.1 km[2] and that is BEFORE the latest NE extension to Martindale and Saddletowne in late August 2012 (which is about 2.9 km more track). Rockies77 (talk) 06:26, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Call 262-1000 Gsgeek540 (talk) 22:07, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, but I got an e-mail stating that this information will be revised, in about the conjunction of the West LRT's opening. Rockies77 (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Well until that information is revised, we have to base this page on what is currently posted on the site. Wikipedia works on a source basis, not word of mouth to page basis. Otherwise, it is speculation Gsgeek540 (talk) 01:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Article needs updating

The article is in need of a major update to reflect the fact the West LRT line opened to the public today (Dec. 8), with the official start of operation on Dec. 10. All length-of-route numbers need to be updated accordingly. 70.72.211.35 (talk) 04:23, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The grand opening celebration is not opened to the public. It's closed today (December 9) so that statement would be 100% false. As for length of route numbers, all numbers posted are straight from the source. Myself or Rockies77 are very diligent as to what is posted on this page. More more route information, please see List of Calgary Transit bus routes — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gsgeek540 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
Updating is definitely required here. The map is dated 2009! The city map also needs to be updated. Colipon+(Talk) 22:58, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
You need to keep in mind, you can not just go to Calgary Transit's website and take and the map on there. Been there, done that. Its a matter of finding/creating maps that do not breech copyrights of Calgary Transit/City of Calgary. For example, the LRT line map posted was designed by an outside source. Maps of LRT and Subway lines have been posted on Wikipedia directly from their websites and instantly removed by bots because of said copyright issues. What i will do, since i do have inside connections to this section, is talk to a few of my guys and see if they have anything, up to date, that will work on this page.Gsgeek540 (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I'd be interested in designing one from scratch in Illustrator. Would that be useful?Verheytb (talk) 21:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
That's basically what we need to avoid copyrights. Feel free to and post, certainly.Gsgeek540 (talk) 05:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I've posted a new image to the article. Let me know if you have any feedback.Verheytb (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)
Westbrook is spelled wrong and the legend is confusing and unnecessaryGsgeek540 (talk) 17:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Fixed. Verheytb (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Help With the Infoboxes for West LRT line...

How does one add the terminal station (69 Street Southwest) name on all the Route 202 infoboxes? Those infoboxes still has the old 10 Street Southwest station name as the terminal. Can someone correct this for me? Rockies77 (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Station naming convention

See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for details. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

References Why?

  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]

Red/Blue Line

Is there a reason that this article makes reference to routes instead of the Red Line and Blue Line, as it currently does on the Calgary Transit website? Is this a relatively new thing? --Natural RX 20:59, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently Calgary Transit has recently decide to emulate the ancient Boston Subway, which has always had colored lines, by designating certain lines to be the "Red Line", "Blue Line", and "Green Line". I was in Calgary when they first planned the system, and they haven't changed the plans, just added colors. The system was conceived as six spokes radiating in most directions out of the downtown core - the already built South, West, Northwest, and Northeast legs and the soon to be implemented North and Southeast legs. Calgary Transit designated the S and NW legs to be Route 201, and the NE and W legs to be Route 202. The soon to be built N and SE lines will be route 203. However, all the trains run through the downtown core on a common set of tracks so they can switch any train to any track. If they had designated the routes S, SE, NE, N, NW, and W all the passengers would know where they are going without caring about route number. That apparently is too easy to understand, so instead they put the final station on the front of the train, e.g. "Somerset Bridlewood", as if a lot of people know where that is, and call the routes the "Red line", "Blue line" and "Green line" so people will have no idea where they are going. It's some kind of bureaucratic standard, never do anything that a normal person can figure out. That way they can pretend to be much smarter than they really are because nobody else understands the system, although it is basically quite simple.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay. Ranting aside, should we not be updating the article to reflect current information? --Natural RX 01:07, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, ranting completed and put aside, we should do that. In fact, I was thinking of doing so. It mostly involves changing the headings, e.g. Route 201 - Red Line, Route 202 - Blue Line, and Route 203 - Green line. The latter falls under Future lines, but is now fairly well defined. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 18:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool. I am working on a route diagram template for the Green Line (see here). I'll be happy to insert it once you make your changes. I am not being bold because I don't understand the CTrain as well as some of you folks. --Natural RX 18:52, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm done with updating titles for the Red, Blue, and Green Lines. A lot of what is still there is no longer relevant, though. In particular, the funding is basically committed for the Green Line from the federal and provincial governments as a result of election promises, so all the commentary about "no funding" is history. Planning seems to be quite far advanced, too, but I didn't update it. No time.RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on CTrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on CTrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:34, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 26 external links on CTrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:13, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on CTrain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CTrain/Archive_1&oldid=1245048164"