Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[TransitJack]

A few thoughts, having been away for a while.
The comment about Cline operating costs, this includes the debt servicing and is shown as one cost borne to Tlink... The actual operating cost minus debt is obviously less than M and E lines combined.

I thought we read somewhere thAt the new 300series Bombrdier cars would like serve the Expo Line. Obviously they can interline but I thought that was the operating plan. Do they not have issues at the OMC with regards to servicing 4car trains? I wonder how they will work around this with a 4 car married-consist.

I would think a more sensible approach would be to order 3car trains that could then be mated to 2car MKIIs to maximize platform length. This is an idea TLink describes in one of their capacity upgrade plans yet they seem to have gone another route.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot of MkIs on the Evergreen segment with higher capacity MKIIs and 300-inovias ( can we call these MKIIIs?) on Expo line.

Lastly, it is great to see that after years of talk this segment of Skytrain is FINALLY being built.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I thought we read somewhere thAt the new 300series Bombrdier cars would like serve the Expo Line. Obviously they can interline but I thought that was the operating plan. Do they not have issues at the OMC with regards to servicing 4car trains? I wonder how they will work around this with a 4 car married-consist.

I would think a more sensible approach would be to order 3car trains that could then be mated to 2car MKIIs to maximize platform length. This is an idea TLink describes in one of their capacity upgrade plans yet they seem to have gone another route.

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot of MkIs on the Evergreen segment with higher capacity MKIIs and 300-inovias ( can we call these MKIIIs?) on Expo line.

Lastly, it is great to see that after years of talk this segment of Skytrain is FINALLY being built.

Since we haven't heard anything about the OMC being expanded to fit a 4-car train - that's why I'm still wondering if the new trains will be 2 x A-B or 1 x A-C-C-B. I think that we did hear the newest trains would be used on the Expo Line - that makes sense from an operational perspective.

WRT that capacity report - it also contained the caution not to buy too many 2-car pairs, as it would constrain future configurations as 5-car trains.

I think that adding a "C" car is more trouble than it is worth (unless for a complete refit) - as systems need to be rewired - on-board computers are at both ends of the pair, plus the on-board software would heve to be updated to account for the longer length of the train, added weight, stopping distance, etc. and as mentioned above, you are dealing with older components.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

...the on-board software would heve to be updated to account for the longer length of the train, added weight, stopping distance, etc. and as mentioned above, you are dealing with older components.

I'm no expert on this, but I'd expect "C" cars to have LIM motors and conventional braking systems just like the "A" and "B" cars. If true, then the additional weight won't have any effect on acceleration or stopping distance.

But you're right, there does still need to be software updates.

[officedweller]

I'm not an expert either, but it would also depend on whether the C car (if it has motors) contributes the same level of propulsion to the train as the A and B cars or whether it is just a "booster" (in which case it may place added load on the other cars).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by officedweller

I'm not an expert either, but it would also depend on whether the C car (if it has motors) contributes the same level of propulsion to the train as the A and B cars or whether it is just a "booster" (in which case it may place added load on the other cars).

If an A-C-B trainset had poorer performance specs than our existing trains, then it would impact the entire system. I really can't see Bombardier trying to pitch lower-performance trainsets, nor could I see how Translink would be willing to buy them.

Therefore, I strongly believe that "C" cars will contain exactly the same propulsive and braking technology as "A" and "B" cars. Not only does that maintain performance, but the parts commonality also lowers manufacturing and maintenance costs.

[nname]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I would think a more sensible approach would be to order 3car trains that could then be mated to 2car MKIIs to maximize platform length. This is an idea TLink describes in one of their capacity upgrade plans yet they seem to have gone another route.

They are not needed yet. We still haven't max out the 6-car MkI trains, and most station upgrade that would require for running 5-car train have not even started. Just imagine when you are entering Metrotown station platform, and hit with a wall of people waiting at the train door just 1m away from the escalator.

The capacity study report state that a decision would not be required before 2015.

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a lot of MkIs on the Evergreen segment with higher capacity MKIIs and 300-inovias ( can we call these MKIIIs?) on Expo line.

Not really possible to have 4-car MkI on Evergreen Line as we do not have enough train to run such configuration. Evergreen Line will be run with 26x 2-car MkIIs. A total of 28 (14 married pairs) cars will transfer over from Expo Line, and when the new train arrives, they'll transfer 28 more. Expo and Millennium would have 150 MkIs, 52 MkIIs, and 28 MkIIIs to make up the 32 and 16 trains, respectively.

This would be my prediction:

Evergreen:
26x 2-car MkII = 52 MkII

Expo:
6x 4-car MkIII = 24 MkIII
11x 4-car MkII = 44 MkII
6x 6-car MkI = 36 MkI
9x 4-car MkI = 36 MkI

Millennium:
16x 4-car MkI = 64 MkI

Expo Short-turn:
2x 2-car MkII = 4 MkII

Spare:
4 MkIII, 8 MkII, 14 MkI

See how there's not even enough train to fully run the Expo Line with 4-car MkII/III and 6-car MkI. And even with 6x 6-car trains, its a bit stretching as I recall they want to have 18 spare MkI (12% spare ratio) and they want more than 2 short-turn trains by 2016...

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

A few thoughts, having been away for a while.
The comment about Cline operating costs, this includes the debt servicing and is shown as one cost borne to Tlink... The actual operating cost minus debt is obviously less than M and E lines combined.

Just an addendum to this, I actually got an e-mail from a member here earlier that explained this and referenced the values as they were stated in TransLink's 2011 annual report. The 30-year amortization mandates that approx. $23.3 million in Canada Line capital debt servicing is paid each year, which adds up to approx. $700 million in 2011 dollars at the end of the 30 year term (the amount of cash borrowed by InTransit to finance the capitals).

The Canada Line's actual annual operating cost is approx. $75.17 million a year. That's compared to $94.45 million a year for the existing Expo/Millennium Lines (also excluding capital asset amortizations) and $10 million a year for the future Evergreen.

When you divide per revenue service km, Expo/Millennium Lines costs $2.01 while the Canada Line costs $11.78. Discounting the $20m/year or so portion of that operating cost that is contributed by the province, TransLink's Canada Line liability cost per revenue service km is just $8.76. Still, it's pretty high, and my guess is that the much higher costs have to do with tunnel expenses; though it is also rotary motor vs linear motor. I don't know, maybe there are some more costs in there that haven't been explained? (i.e. more debt servicing costs, for TransLink's public sector contribution portion).

See how there's not even enough train to fully run the Expo Line with 4-car MkII/III and 6-car MkI. And even with 6x 6-car trains, its a bit stretching as I recall they want to have 18 spare MkI (12% spare ratio) and they want more than 2 short-turn trains by 2016...

Well, remember... the order is for 28 cars, but with an option for yet another 28 cars.

[Mac Write]

Aren't the second order for 28-cars supposed to be for 2018? How many more cars do we need to goto all 6-car Mark I trains?

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Just an addendum to this, I actually got an e-mail from a member here earlier that explained this and referenced the values as they were stated in TransLink's 2011 annual report. The 30-year amortization mandates that approx. $23.3 million in Canada Line capital debt servicing is paid each year, which adds up to approx. $700 million in 2011 dollars at the end of the 30 year term (the amount of cash borrowed by InTransit to finance the capitals).

The Canada Line's actual annual operating cost is approx. $75.17 million a year. That's compared to $94.45 million a year for the existing Expo/Millennium Lines (also excluding capital asset amortizations) and $10 million a year for the future Evergreen.

When you divide per revenue service km, Expo/Millennium Lines costs $2.01 while the Canada Line costs $11.78. Discounting the $20m/year or so portion of that operating cost that is contributed by the province, TransLink's Canada Line liability cost per revenue service km is just $8.76. Still, it's pretty high, and my guess is that the much higher costs have to do with tunnel expenses; though it is also rotary motor vs linear motor. I don't know, maybe there are some more costs in there that haven't been explained? (i.e. more debt servicing costs, for TransLink's public sector contribution portion).

You forgot one thing, the interest. InTransitBC borrow money to build the line, and will need to pay the interest when repaying the load. So they'll need to get this interest from TransLink, and probably add a bit of interest of their own - they need to get a profit from doing all these, right?

I'm not sure what's the rate InTransitBC is borrowing at and what's the rate they're charging, but TransLink typically borrows at 3-5%. So assuming 5% interest, they would need to repay 45.8M/year for 35 year for the initial loan of 750M.

And the provincial contribute of some 14.9M on the Canada Line operation.. Well, that doesn't remove it from operating cost. Its still being included as the non-recovered portion of operating cost when comparing the efficiency.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If an A-C-B trainset had poorer performance specs than our existing trains, then it would impact the entire system. I really can't see Bombardier trying to pitch lower-performance trainsets, nor could I see how Translink would be willing to buy them.

Therefore, I strongly believe that "C" cars will contain exactly the same propulsive and braking technology as "A" and "B" cars. Not only does that maintain performance, but the parts commonality also lowers manufacturing and maintenance costs.

True, but that assumes they are running to maximum spec, which they may not be and may never do in regular service.

*************

Evergreen Line building begins in Port Moody

By Diane Strandberg - The Tri-City News
Published: January 31, 2013 11:00 AM
Updated: January 31, 2013 3:55 PM


After months of preparatory work, construction is set to begin on the $1.4 billion Burnaby to Coquitlam Evergreen Line this month and the executive project director says it will start in Port Moody.

Amanda Farrell said excavation work will begin in the area of the north portal, east of the Barnett Highway in PoMo, to accommodate a tunnel boring machine which has been ordered and will take a year to build.

The remaining details, such as when and where along the route the guideway foundations will be laid and when the stations will be built, will be spelled out when the contractor EGRT Construction, which is made up of SNC Lavalin plus eight partners or subsidiaries, has refined its detailed construction schedule. "There will be ample notice of what's about to happen," Farrell promised, adding that communicating with business, commuters and residents will be a top priority and a job that the province is retaining for itself.

While EGRT will be responsible for sending out alerts, the province is taking the lead in communications throughout the length of the construction project, she said, and some early work has already been done.

...

Residents in areas where tunnel drilling will take place will also be contacted when work is about to begin and every effort will be made to reduce noise, Farrell said, "we'll be talking to those communities right away," she pledged. However, the only disruption is expected at the tunnel entry (south of Kelsey Avenue) and the exit point, near Short Street in PoMo.

...

"What we plan to do is just roll out a higher level description. You can expect to see [information about] guideway foundations in this quarter, and station-building starting in this season… we think that will help people picture when and where they are going to see some work."

With a design-build contract, many aspects of the work will take place at the same time, integrated with municipal work, and while some of the details have to be nailed down, what is already well underway is planning for the tunnel which runs approximately 2 km in from under Clark Road to Mt. Royal Drive, and then northeast under the Seaview neighborhood to the exit.

It will be constructed with a specially-built earth balance pressure tunnel boring machine, a type that is typically used for soft ground or soil conditions.

Farrell said the machine will tunnel south up through Clark hill, and more information will be made available closer to the date of construction.

http://www.tricitynews.com/news/189240961.html

I there must be a typo and "Kelsey" should be "Kemsley" - in Burquitlam.
She also does not mention 2 boring runs (one each way or moving the TBM back to PoMo).

Looking at Google, it really is a short tunnel run (2 km) -
so I could see (on pure speculation) the cost of removing the additional spoil (due to a single, larger diameter tunnel) balancing out with the cost of disassembling and moving the TBM for a 2nd run for 2 smaller diameter tunnels. More thinking outside the box to keep costs down(?).

[nname]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Aren't the second order for 28-cars supposed to be for 2018? How many more cars do we need to goto all 6-car Mark I trains?

Convert the 25x 4-car MkI into 16x 6-car trains, we still short of 9 trains, which is 36 cars. Add 4 more if we are converting the shurt-turn trains into 4-cars MkII. Add another 56 if we are converting Evergreen Line as well.

[queetz@home]

Amanda Farrell said excavation work will begin in the area of the north portal, east of the Barnett Highway in PoMo, to accommodate a tunnel boring machine which has been ordered and will take a year to build.

Awww...a year!!! But I want it NAO!!!

Well, since the actual tunneling will still be a year from now, based on experience, can we assume that at the very least, some of the elevated guideways can begin construction on February...which is tomorrow?

I wasn't here when Canada Line was being built, but I vaguely recall during the Millenium Line days, we see nothing visible being built until the tunnel from Columbia to the train tracks in New West was pretty much done. But once that was done, the guideways went along pretty fast....or did the guideways happen while tunnel work was still being done?

Not really sure but can someone refresh our memories?

[officedweller]

I would have thought they would have worked on multiple fronts.

It says they will start digging the TBM pit - that's really the start of the tunnel.
I could see the at-grade segment through Port Moody being easy to start work on.
I do recall that the elevated sections can go up very quickly (i.e. Canada Line on No. 3 Rd.)

[xd_1771]

I wasn't here when Canada Line was being built, but I vaguely recall during the Millenium Line days, we see nothing visible being built until the tunnel from Columbia to the train tracks in New West was pretty much done. But once that was done, the guideways went along pretty fast....or did the guideways happen while tunnel work was still being done?

Most (if not all) of the guideways are precast sections... work was probably going on in the background while Millennium Line construction appeared to be as if at a standstill.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Since we haven't heard anything about the OMC being expanded to fit a 4-car train - that's why I'm still wondering if the new trains will be 2 x A-B or 1 x A-C-C-B. I think that we did hear the newest trains would be used on the Expo Line - that makes sense from an operational perspective.

WRT that capacity report - it also contained the caution not to buy too many 2-car pairs, as it would constrain future configurations as 5-car trains.

I think that adding a "C" car is more trouble than it is worth (unless for a complete refit) - as systems need to be rewired - on-board computers are at both ends of the pair, plus the on-board software would heve to be updated to account for the longer length of the train, added weight, stopping distance, etc. and as mentioned above, you are dealing with older components.

You raise good points. There is no specific info about operating a-c-c-b set up. It's not wrong to assume this is possible, especially since many older metros world-wide seem to adopt trains that allow passing through all cars. Obviously here that would cause some issues.

It would be kind of weird to board a 5 car train that you could only walk through 2 or 3 of the cars but not all the way.

I agree with the c-car dilemma. Placing a brand new car in between 2 older ones could be a big issues. More likely, as mentioned any c car use would be brand new 3-car train set likely coupled to existing (or new) 2 car sets.

The c-car potential problems could also be the case on Canada Line if they ever expand.

It's like an old car, sometimes it's easier and cheaper and better to just buy a new one rather than modify your existing one.

[nname]

It was stated in the RFEOI document that TransLink want 4 cars per base unit and 1 base unit per train, instead of 2 cars per base unit and 2 base units per train. Not sure if this is what they got in the end, but this is what they want initially.

[xd_1771]

^ There was also mention of the desire for 'centre cars' (so C-cars) in Q12-007.
My guess, by the way, is that the new Coquitlam OMC facility may have some ability to service the MK III trains.

[officedweller]

Interesting - could be A-C-C-B trains - we'll have to wait and see, I guess.
The Coquitlam facility is described as "light maintenance" - which to me means a train wash.

BTW - the capacity report also indicated that a A-B + A-C-B train configuration would provide more flexibility to provide frequent service during off-hours (by splitting up the trains and running shorter trains), rather than running fewer A-C-C-C-B trains at lower frequency. i.e. no need to pay to run a long train if the passengers aren't there.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

You raise good points. There is no specific info about operating a-c-c-b set up. It's not wrong to assume this is possible, especially since many older metros world-wide seem to adopt trains that allow passing through all cars. Obviously here that would cause some issues.

It would be kind of weird to board a 5 car train that you could only walk through 2 or 3 of the cars but not all the way.

I agree with the c-car dilemma. Placing a brand new car in between 2 older ones could be a big issues. More likely, as mentioned any c car use would be brand new 3-car train set likely coupled to existing (or new) 2 car sets.

The c-car potential problems could also be the case on Canada Line if they ever expand.

It's like an old car, sometimes it's easier and cheaper and better to just buy a new one rather than modify your existing one.

The only issue really is maintenance. The current maintenance facility can only handle 2-car MarkII trainsets (or 4-car MarkI trainsets) - so any trains purchased using the current facility have to be some combination of 2 - otherwise the train won't fit inside the maintenance facility. (A-B,A-B)

With Evergreen, a new facility will be built and hopefully it designed for longer trains. If this is the case, then new trainsets could be longer - so walk-through permanently coupled trainsets may be an option. (A-C-C-B expanded to A-C-C-C-B).

Seems to me that Translink should order the (A-C-C-C-B) trainsets and run them on the Expo Line and cascade the A-B, A-B) trainsets to Evergreen until traffic builds.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Aren't the second order for 28-cars supposed to be for 2018? How many more cars do we need to goto all 6-car Mark I trains?

There are 150 Mark 1 cars in service. That would make up 25 6-car trains. So we would need 100 Mark III cars to make up 25 4-car trains.