Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[fever]

I don't know that the propulsion system for skytrain is proprietary. I think Hitachi uses a similar system. Any IP for the original skytrain would have expired by now.

The big difference between skytrain and typical lrt is grade separation. I was on a surface light rail last week with prepaid boarding and an exclusive ROW, but it still stopped at traffic lights.

[officedweller]

Remember that the Canada Line trains are 40cm wider than MKII cars. - That's 3.0 m versus 2.6m.
So you should be calculating relative capacities of the trains rather than just length.

[ssiguy]

Here's a question/request.
That above diagram helps the length really weel so it there a similar graph comparing those lengths for TTC subway/ montreal Metro cars?

Say 6 cars for the subway/Metro and 6 MK11.
If not any sitting standing numbers for all the train types for comparison?

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

Here's a question/request.
That above diagram helps the length really weel so it there a similar graph comparing those lengths for TTC subway/ montreal Metro cars?

Say 6 cars for the subway/Metro and 6 MK11.
If not any sitting standing numbers for all the train types for comparison?

Sorry, i've got no idea about these lengths. I think the TTC has 17.5 metre cars and they run 8-car trains on most lines except the Sheppard Line, which they run 4-car trains.

[SFUVancouver]

SkyTrain technology was originally developed by the Urban Transport Development Corporation (Of Ontario), a provincial Crown (State) corporation. UTDC developed the technolog, which consists of linear induction motors, in the 70s and early 80s and it was first put to use on the Scarborough Rapid Transit line in Ontario. It was a debacle.

The route was supposed to be an inexpensive extension of the TTC subway system utilising high-speed streetcars/light rail similar to the Evergreen Line. The route was nearly complete and the streetcar infrastructure was installed when the provincial government decreed that the route would use UTDC technology. They ripped out the $47 million (1982) dollars worth of streetcar infrastructure and put in $150 million dollars worth of SkyTrain track, utilising the elevated guide ways that were originally intended for a high-speed streetcar. The requirement to use the existing (brand new) guide ways that had been intended for streetcars led the UTDC to build lightweight Mk.1 cars, a type significantly lighter, and narrower, than conventional subway cars.

Ontario also hurried the project to ensure the Scarborough RT line was up and running before the SkyTrain line in Vancouver, which was due to open in time for the 1986 World's Fair (EXPO86). The accelerated schedule added costs and to everyone's surprise the SkyTrain technology didn't work so well in a very cold climate, necessitating the installation of heaters on the Scarborough RT line. Also, the corners that the streetcar could take were tighter than the UTDC cars could handle at speed and they were slowed in parts until the guide way was modified to be banked and more gradual, adding even more cost. The final nail in the coffin, beside a handful of derailments, was the iffy nature of the automated software. The Scarborough RT line is capable of being run fully automatic as it is in Vancouver but the TTC opted to have it be driven by people all the time, completely eliminating the operational cost-savings of automation.

The Ontario Gov't washed its hands of the fiasco by selling off UTDC at fire-sale prices. Bombardier bought the whole damn company, factory, royalty rights, patents, and everything. Now "SkyTrain" is now a proprietary name and technology suite owned by Bombardier. SkyTrain = Linear Induction Motor. Everything else is off-the-shelf. The "moving block" automated computer software was developed first in France for their VAL line in Lilles.

SO...

The Evergreen Line is essentially a high-speed, high capacity streetcar, similar to what the TTC was planning for the Scarborough RT line in the first place. In its place the UTDC (SkyTrain) technology was tailored to fit a number of pre-existing specifications that were partially based on essentially the Evergreen Line.

For more information of the history of SkyTrain check out Wikipedia's entries on it, Scarborough RT, and the Urban Transport Development Corporation.

[mr.x]

^ I don't think Bombardier owns the name "SkyTrain". I think that's just used for Vancouver's system, so it's owned by Translink.

[officedweller]

That's rght. Skytrain is a trademark (or official mark) of BC Rapid
Transit Co , GVTA (Translink) or BC Transit.
++++

On the train diagram, the 6car MKI should be a bit longer -> 6x12.8m=76.8m
If they ever ordered it, the 80m platforms could fit a 5 car MKII
A+B-A+C+B train.
++++

WRT the Scarborough SRT, while the original plan was for a high speed
streetcar -it would have been at-grade, not on a guideway. I don't
think that any of the SRT infrastructure was "retro-fitted" for the
SRT. The plan for the streetcar was for a platform at-grade - which
commentators lament the loss of, because it would have eliminated a
bank of escalators from the transfer from underground subway to
streetcar (as opposed to elevated SRT). Even if the streetcar was
built, there would have still been a transfer at Kennedy - but it
would have been an easier transfer.
The tight loop at Kennedy was to test the limits of the system on this
"demonstration track". The MKI cars (not sure about the MKII cars) have steerable bogies (a
hinge in the middle) which enables them to takes extremely tight turns
- which was supposed to be a selling feature for a system to be built elevated in
in dense/tight urban environments (such as downtown Detroit and Vancouver). The
loop turned out to be too tight for evryday use and derailments
occurred. The loop was rebuilt a considerable cost and then the
Kennedy platform was extended over one of the tracks to make a single
track platform.
Other teething pains in Vancouver included "overefficient braking" -
which caused flat spots on the wheels and also ruts in the running
rails. The rails are grinded regularly as a result to smooth them
out. This also makes for a smoother ride by removing rust from the
rails, since the braking is linear induction, not friction based (i.e. even when braking,
the wheels are free moving - they only lock closer to the time of the actual stop), the
rails are not shiny smooth like on gear driven/friction braked
systems.
Note that when the Skytrain was built, the builders knew that a larger
MKII car was in the works, so the clearances in the tunnels etc. on
the Expo Line were made big enough for the new cars - back then called
"Fat Albert".
On the SRT a curved underpass tunnel can't fit a MKII car, so it will
have to be rebuilt to upgrade to MKII cars.

The best resource for TO transit is James Bow's "Toronto Transit"
website (though he and lots of other TO commentators, hate the SRT).

[SpongeG]

how come they call it skytrain in thailand?

[officedweller]

SNC Lavalin was involved in the original project which was to use the same Bombardier technology - someone over there probably dubbed it Skytrain (trademarks are only registered nationally and BC Transit/Translink wouldn't be protecting it overseas). The Thai government cancelled the Lavalin contract and built it using different technology. The project name stuck.

[SpongeG]

ah

cause when you do a google image search for skytrain there is usually one or two from thailand

[SpongeG]

Clock ticking on LRT


The proposed route for the Evergreen Line, from Lougheed Town Centre to Coquitlam.

At a closed-door TransLink meeting last Saturday, Tri-City mayors and their Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge counterparts vowed to ramp up their lobbying efforts to get the light-rail line on track.

TransLink is short $400 million for the $970-million Evergreen Line, which is planned to run from Lougheed Town Centre in Burnaby to Douglas College in Coquitlam, and requires cash from senior governments.

TransLink spokesperson Ken Hardie said the regional transportation body will push the Evergreen Line as a “ready-to-go” project when the federal government tables its budget, expected in March.

TransLink has issued an April 1 deadline to get extra funding from Ottawa and Victoria. Otherwise, the line is dead.

Pressure from area mayors comes as TransLink faces growing opposition to the line and as the provincial government is poised to re-organize TransLink under a new governance model.

Port Moody Mayor Joe Trasolini said the northeast region could lose the $400-million TransLink has budgeted for the line.

“If senior governments don’t help us with the funding,” he said, “there are other areas in the Lower Mainland that are just waiting to pounce on the $400 million TransLink has put aside for Evergreen.

“We have been battling for 20 years for a line,” Trasolini said, “and I know the TransLink board is going to look at it as a defeat if, by April 1, we don’t have the funding because it will be dead.”

Coquitlam Mayor Maxine Wilson said the clock is ticking.

“Decision time is soon. My sense is that we have good relationships with both levels of government on this,” she said.

“Clearly, from all indications to date, we’ve not hit any barriers,” Port Coquitlam Mayor Scott Young said. “But we’ve yet to receive a green light either, and that’s what we find most troubling at this particular juncture as we get down to the wire. We need to get some positive feedback that would clearly indicate that we can advance with the project.”

Maple Ridge Mayor Gordon Robson said he’s pressing MPs and MLAs “to make sure they understand the area wants this done. Maple Ridge can’t have an extension to the Evergreen Line until it’s built.”

Trasolini also said development in the Tri-Cities, which has been building in anticipation of the rail transit, may slow if Evergreen fails.

Last fall, Trasolini suggested if senior government funding didn’t come through, he would stop development in his city, thereby holding up the GVRD’s plan to double the population in every city in the Lower Mainland by 2020.

Conservative Tri-City MP James Moore said the mayors are doing the right thing by joining forces to support the line.

“I have always strongly believed in rapid transit to our community,” he said. “With our growing density and the number of residents who commute outside of the Tri-Cities daily, rapid transit is in our best interest.”

The mayors’ renewed pleas came as TransLink held an open house for Tri-City residents on the Evergreen Line last Saturday. The meeting, which took place at Coquitlam city hall, featured presentations from international transportation experts Troy Russ and Alan Jones, both consultants on the Evergreen Line.

Russ said the Evergreen Line “isn’t just to get people from A to B but also to serve the community’s needs.”

He said 70% of all car journeys are to make errands three miles from home.

“LRT is the perfect match for ridership demand in the northeast sector,” added Fred Cummings, TransLink vice-president of major construction projects.

Still, residents raised concerns about the impact of Evergreen, especially when construction is set to start in September. Business owners at the meeting said building Evergreen would have a severe effect on their bottom line.

“It’s not going to be a completely zero impact,” Cummings said of construction, adding, “A traffic management plan is critical to address the concerns. We are going to do everything in our power to mitigate [the impact].”

TRANSLINK Q&A


The Tri-City News asked TransLink:

• If there are 400 LRT lines in the world, why are Montpelier, Strasbourg, Nottingham and Portland always used as examples?

“Tri-Met in Portland is often used as a North American example as their system closer resembles the European-type system we anticipate for the Evergreen Line... Montpelier and the other examples are often used because of their similarities to northeast sector (i.e., population) and are the better examples from many that best fits our vision of the Evergreen Line.”

• What efforts are being made to obtain private funding?

“TransLink is assessing the opportunity to include private equity in the project, either through direct investment or through development opportunities along the Evergreen Line. We are in the very early stages on this assessment and have not even determined if these options are viable or not. But the goal is to decrease the funding gap and lessen the dependence on senior governments.”

http://www.tricitynews.com/

[SFUVancouver]

Officedweller; thanks for the clarification on SkyTrain. Any indication as to whether the Canada Line will be branded by Translink as "SkyTrain"?

[Canadian Mind]

I hope evergreen dies so it can be reserected as skytrain. that was we can have a line branch off into millennium heading downtown, and the other branching off into surrey. hopefully that would help kill some more of the traffic over port man.

[officedweller]

There is a section in the Canada Line Concession Agreement (see link below on Canada Line website) that said that the line would be called the "Canada Line". See Section 8, page 47 entitled "Naming, Signage and Intellectual Property".

There's a definition of "Skytrain" in the definitions section - "Skytrain" means the Skytrain system operated by GVTA on its Millennium Line and Expo Line."

There is no licensing of the "Skytrain" trademark to IntransitBC in the Concession Agreement.

http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc448.pdf

The only reason I can think of Translink not allowing IntransitBC to use the Skytrain trademark for the Canada Line is to distinguish the two operators of the two lines. At law, trademarks are meant to distinguish the source of goods or services. Following that through, the services on the Skytrain system and on the Canada Line are being provided by different corporate entities. From a PR perspective, Translink may not want to be associated with the operation of the Canada Line - esp. if there are problems with it.
I suppose branding them differently will keep it clear in the public's mind that the two lines are are integrated, but operated by different entities.

EDIT - the FEDS required it......

ALSO - at the top of page 6 of the Federal Funding Agreement (link below), the following requirement appears:

"The parties agree that the line will be named the "Canada Line" and will be so referred to in public announcements, signs, plaques and the like."

http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc442.pdf

[cornholio]

^ Yes but is that not the same as calling the expo line expo line and millenium line millenium line. I mean you wont normaly hear a anouncment that says we will be renovating so and so station on the skytrain line. What im trying to say is that from what I understand there is nothing signed or negotiated that would prevent the Canada line being also called skytrain just as if it were part of the skytrain network, which it is. Although I do understand posibel reason from both sides why not to do this I still believe that this line is built for the comuters for mostly goverment money and its in the best interest of all comuters to have it called skytrain canada line.

[Mininari]

Given that we are fast approaching the April "close the funding gap" deadline, and also that the Provincial and Federal Governments seem to have no interest in providing the missing funds.... I think a particular selection from the Final Fantasy VII soundtrack may now apply.

http://bluelaguna.net/downloads/mp3s/ff7music/65+-+The+Great+North+Cave.mp3

In anycase, good luck. I'm no longer living in the GVRD, but I will continue to follow the GVRD development threads. I was never a true fan of the LRT, but I do agree its better than nothing, and that the NES needs some form of higher capacity transit.

[ssiguy]

The reality is that the stations on both the M & E lines are far too small and should be doubled. That would not make them too large but only the size of every other system in the world.
Until they can handle 4 MK11 or 12 MK1, the stations are simply too small.
The frwuences are great but they cannot increase the frquencies anymore so more trains and much bigger stations to accomodate them is a necessity not an option.
Lets say it takes 25 years to double the passenger ridership levels. What are they going to do? They can't double the cars running as they are now.
All the new cars in the world won't make a hoot of difference if they can't accomodate them.
By that time the lines will be so busy people will begin to avoid them because even when in a SkyTrain people still have breath.

[SFUVancouver]

At the risk of repeating what other have already said, I think there is significant room of capacity expansion of SkyTrain with the existing platforms. Running exclusively 4 car Mk.II and six car Mk.I trainsets will increase capacity while retaining current headways. I think that there is also room to tighten up the headways and a second system of radio arrays has been installed to give the system's "moving block" command and control software greater fidelity. What is needed now are more Mk.II cars, lots of them. There is also the potential to expand the Mk.II trainset to utilise the entire 80m platforms by using Bombardier's Mk.II "C" car. The "C" is a centre unit with articulated ends that connects to two normal Mk.II cars. I don't know what the capacity of the combined trainset would be, but combined with minimized headways I would imagine we have several decades left. To add to that capacity could see a new trainset that would extend significantly beyond the train platforms but with the doors, perhaps oversized doors, at the very ends of the platform.

I'm still a huge fan of the Evergreen Line as it is proposed and I truly hope that funding comes through to get it built. Brinksmanship is a part of politics and it is never fun to be coming down to a deadline and waiting for someone to blink.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by cornholio

^ Yes but is that not the same as calling the expo line expo line and millenium line millenium line. I mean you wont normaly hear a anouncment that says we will be renovating so and so station on the skytrain line. What im trying to say is that from what I understand there is nothing signed or negotiated that would prevent the Canada line being also called skytrain just as if it were part of the skytrain network, which it is. Although I do understand posibel reason from both sides why not to do this I still believe that this line is built for the comuters for mostly goverment money and its in the best interest of all comuters to have it called skytrain canada line.

I agree that "Skytrain" is the generic name for rapid transit in the GVRD - but to date there hasn't been any indication that the marketing, etc. by either Translink or InTransitBC will describe the Canada Line as "Skytrain".
The definition of Skytrain in the Concession Agreement (see above) - which differentiates "Skytrain" from the Canada Line by operator (i.e. they could have defined it as "Existing Lines", "Expo Line", "Millennium Line" which would have allowed all lines to exist under the umbrella of "Skytrain") - suggests that they may be kept separate even for marketing. In legal agreements, those distinctions have a purpose and would not happen by accident. The absence of a license from Translink to InTransitBC granting IntransitBC the right to use the Skytrain name is also noteworthy - but they can always grant that later - or Translink could be simply retaining marketing rights (without granting InTransitBC the right to use the Skytrain trademark).
We'll have to wait and see what happens.

[The_Henry_Man]

^So, in legal terms, would Canada Line be called subway, or just simply "train"? Because right now, that's really confusing. Plus, it's pretty lame just to call it simply "Canada Line" without mentioning skytrain/train/metro/subway or what not.