Talk:C-Train

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Trains Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rapid transit.
Former FA This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination did not succeed. For older candidates, please check the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations.
Canada Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada and related WikiProjects, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Canada-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project member page, to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Alberta
Alberta Portal
This article is part of the Alberta WikiProject (Discuss/Join).

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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 [1] in the statistics/LRT technical data section of the site. --Arch26 00:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

  • Slide 12 of this presentation confirms that Line 202 is to be extended northeast by two stations from McKnight/Westwinds to Saddletowne. Martindale Station has been a statutory component of the community development plan for donkey's years, as shown on page 14 of this PDF. Beltliner (talk) 06:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • All right, thanks — I’m making a new map, and just wanted to check before I included it. David Arthur (talk) 15:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)
    • Thanks - I’ve updated the map accordingly. David Arthur 16:44, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

  • I wouldn't sweat it, really. The user seems to be plumping his own system map, that's all. Beltliner (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 3rd U2 DC train lost

I've updated the article to reference the 3rd U2 Train lost [2] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Rates

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

[edit] 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)