Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion II

[cganuelas1995]

Hopefully a modification can be done

[madog222]

Translink has purchased 9150 Bentley St, the 5 acre lot immediately to the west of Vancouver Transit Centre, no doubt for future TC expansion to support a larger trolley fleet.

Originally Posted by Mac Write

All trains have the height gap 2inches. I always thought it was horizontal gap between platform and train, but it's a vertical gap. for every 1inch a 1ft ramp is required by ADA. I get on at Gilmore and the gap on the Mark II originals is a big drop when dis-embarking. I am also left handed, legally blind/visually impaired, autistic, and also have Cerebral palsy, along with a few other things. This is why I am building a business around this stuff. Being disabled is a living hell. and I am not religious.

I can only guess that this was overlooked as they are "the same" design as earlier models but as slight changes to the design happen the dimensions creeped up to the point that we now have an issue.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by madog222

Translink has purchased 9150 Bentley St, the 5 acre lot immediately to the west of Vancouver Transit Centre, no doubt for future TC expansion to support a larger trolley fleet.

They've been renting this lot for a few years now and it's already used for bus storage.

[jollyburger]

Storeys article on the purchase last month

https://storeys.com/translink-vancouver-transit-centre-9150-bentley/

They applied to do the parking lot back in 2009

Mr. Orr, TransLink – Project Manager, further described the application and noted that at the end of 2007, TransLink Directors made the decision to order 74 more trolley buses. A study of existing transit centres determined that additional land for bus parking was required. With minor upgrades to the VCT facility, maintenance for 50 more buses could be done on the site but there would not be enough parking. As a result of the study, the Real Estate division of TransLink started negotiations with the land owner of the adjacent property. Mr. Orr added that the application is a key project for TransLink to provide for additional bus service.

TransLink’s intention is to purchase the land from Southgate Holdings; however their
original offer was not successful.

It will be up to the current owner to decide if they would sell the property to TransLink.

There is an existing shortfall for staff parking. Additional parking is needed for
maintenance and operating staff as many of their employees live on the outskirts of the
lower mainland.

TransLink does have the power to expropriate but would rather not.

https://vancouver.ca/files/cov/development-permit-board-jan-26-09.pdf

[madog222]

^Thanks, that article clarifies that it's land that was already used for VTC under a lease.

[officedweller]

Marpole Transit Centre

Pics by a friend Aug 17, 2025.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Spr0ckets

Yeah, it's a tricky situation.

The obvious fix here might be to address the platform at the station where the problem is most pronounced and from the looks of it it seems to be the Burrard station.

But then if you do that (like say,...replacing the warning strip with a "wedge" strip that slopes up to the train), aren't you just creating a problem in reverse for the other current generations of trains that don't have the problem and effectively creating a tripping harzard?

The bigger obvious fix would be to inform the assembly plant in Quebec of the problem and have them fix the train floorboard heigh to match the station heights and also make sure any gap between the door and platform is tolerable, but doing so could potentially cause a delay in the delivery of the remaining train cars.

It's mostly a non-issue. As the wheel profiles wear down they will get closer to the original height of the platform. The temporary fix would be to get the wheel set from a MK II, put it on the MK V and see if it matches the platform height. If it does, then have Bombardier-Alstom reduce the profiles of the wheels shipped. Maybe Alstom uses the same manufacturer for the wheels for the MK V as they use for their other trains. It may be standard gauge but maybe didn't take into account the difference in vehicle weight


Or innovate and make the trains have an dynamically adjustable suspension. Like there are cars out there that have this as a feature. It should not be an unreasonable ask to to have 2" of adjustable suspension give to compensate for wheel wear.

For all I know, maybe they can do this without doing anything at all, maybe there are adjustment features on the train and we just aren't privy to that.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Kisai

It's mostly a non-issue. As the wheel profiles wear down they will get closer to the original height of the platform. The temporary fix would be to get the wheel set from a MK II, put it on the MK V and see if it matches the platform height. If it does, then have Bombardier-Alstom reduce the profiles of the wheels shipped. Maybe Alstom uses the same manufacturer for the wheels for the MK V as they use for their other trains. It may be standard gauge but maybe didn't take into account the difference in vehicle weight


Or innovate and make the trains have an dynamically adjustable suspension. Like there are cars out there that have this as a feature. It should not be an unreasonable ask to to have 2" of adjustable suspension give to compensate for wheel wear.

For all I know, maybe they can do this without doing anything at all, maybe there are adjustment features on the train and we just aren't privy to that.

There might be some tolerance in the suspension as well, although the LIM requires pretty close adjustment. I'm not sure how much springs like that would soften as they get worn in. There would be a little bit of fatigue as they break in.

[officedweller]

Strange that it would be off though.
There's supposed to be a consistent spacing between the LIM and the reaction rail (1cm or so?).
So they can't really lower the chassis of the car.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Strange that it would be off though.
There's supposed to be a consistent spacing between the LIM and the reaction rail (1cm or so?).
So they can't really lower the chassis of the car.

Possibly but I reckon with all measurements there is a tolerance.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

There might be some tolerance in the suspension as well, although the LIM requires pretty close adjustment. I'm not sure how much springs like that would soften as they get worn in.

The LIMs are fixed in place on the bogies and are not affected by the suspension.

[trofirhen]

Reflecting on what it will be like when the Broadway Arbutus extension is up and running, I thought of the City Hall station, and what a key interchange that will be, and of the numbers of commuters transiting into downtown during morning rush hour, and vice-versa at evening rush hour. The trains on the Canada line going inbound in the morning wil be as jammed as something out of Tokyo (quite possibly, anyway). What to do? Tightening the headways by providing more trains seems the most obvious thing, but are there any other solutions, like building side tunnels to house trains-in-waiting to be deployed at peak times? (This would be done on the Millenium too, though the trains thee are more capacious) Maybe this sounds unfeasible and off-the-wall, but I think the mass of commuters and concommitant crowding is something unexpectedly coming down the pipe. Just an opinion.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The LIMs are fixed in place on the bogies and are not affected by the suspension.

Cool! You learn something new every day! Here I've been working on the civil side of the infrastructure for years and I didn't know that.

That would make even more sense then.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

The LIMs are fixed in place on the bogies and are not affected by the suspension.

Thanks!

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

...trains on the Canada line going inbound in the morning wil be as jammed as something out of Tokyo (quite possibly, anyway). What to do? Tightening the headways by providing more trains seems the most obvious thing, but are there any other solutions, like building side tunnels to house trains-in-waiting to be deployed at peak times?

It seems to me that the obvious thing to do would be to short-turn every other train, either by using the crossover north of Broadway/City Hall or the one north of Oakridge/41st Ave. Compared to the points south of that it would double the capacity of the line where it will doubtless experience the highest volumes.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

It seems to me that the obvious thing to do would be to short-turn every other train, either by using the crossover north of Broadway/City Hall or the one north of Oakridge/41st Ave. Compared to the points south of that it would double the capacity of the line where it will doubtless experience the highest volumes.

Good idea! It is an option to keep when the time comes. I had a vague nebulous idea of something akin to that, but had not the pecise enough knowledge base to post it.

[officedweller]

First, buy more trains to allow higher frequency.
Those could also be longer trains.

If you short-turn trains from the existing service levels, you'd be reducing capacity on the southern parts of the lines which are already crowded at peak times.

Physical infrastructure (other than planned platform extensions) would be far far down the list in fantasy territory. Add more trains to increase the frequency.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Yeah, it'd just be robbing suburban Peter to pay downtown Paul (Richmond and YVR are already 10-12 minutes off-peak, at that) and forcing everybody out at Oakridge adds unnecessary confusion, so short-turning should probably be the absolute last resort.

And the law of diminishing returns nixes pocket tracks. The simplest answer is "more trains."

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

If you short-turn trains from the existing service levels, you'd be reducing capacity on the southern parts of the lines which are already crowded at peak times.

You'd only be reducing capacity if the line was already running trains every 3 minutes south of the short turn point. I don't think that's the case, is it?

If you ADD short turning trains that run every 90 seconds between Broadway and downtown, then you don't affect running the capacity of the trains running at 180 seconds or less capacity south of that.

You limit future capacity, it's true. But you're not reducing the service you already provide. And if the bottleneck in capacity is really between Broadway and downtown, then that's where you need to add the extra capacity.

Yes, enough additional trains to run the entire line at maximum capacity would be great. But until that happens a stopgap measure is better than nothing.

Originally Posted by officedweller

forcing everybody out at Oakridge adds unnecessary confusion, so short-turning should probably be the absolute last resort.

Nobody will be forced off their train, they just have to board the correct train for their destination - same as they need to do now when choosing between trains heading toward Richmond Centre vs. the airport.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You'd only be reducing capacity if the line was already running trains every 3 minutes south of the short turn point. I don't think that's the case, is it?

That is very much the case; all trains run straight to Bridgeport every 3 minutes at peak, then they branch off to YVR and Richmond every 6 minutes. Short-turning would reduce a branch to up to 12 minutes at peak.

It might work if you're planning to (with additional trainsets) get extra trains running from Waterfront to King Ed, thereby having 1.5-minute peak headways for Broadway/downtown and 3 minutes as normal on to Bridgeport, but otherwise officedweller seems to be right on the money.