Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed - Page 73

DKaz · #**1441** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 7:40 PM**

Why would you have VCC bound trains on two different platforms? That makes absolutely no sense.

officedweller · #**1442** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 7:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by STEELWHEELS

Image from Rapid Transit Project 2000

The unfinished north platform was always referred to as
the "Coquitlam platform". One would assume it would be
for trains bound for Port Moody/Coquitlam. At least this
was how the station layout was presented back around
1999.

Steelwheels set us straight on the platform configuration for the PMC Line (the curve to/from North Road involves a basket weave to bring trains from Coquitlam to the "Vancouver Platform" at the middle of Lougheed Station) - we can assume that's what will play out for the Evergreen line too - no need to rehash all sorts of combinations and permutations.

See page 6 of this thread:
http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=165814&page=6

twoNeurons · #**1443** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 8:50 PM**

Makes sense. A cross platform transfer from Coquitlam to Surrey. If desired a one-seat ride could go from Columbia to Coquitlam.

metroXpress · #**1444** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 10:12 PM**

Does that mean M-Line would terminate at Lougheed instead. People going to VCC would have to stop and transfer to the VCC<--> Coquitlam train?

officedweller · #**1445** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 10:42 PM**

Probably - at least according to one study that was discussed last year - check back in the thread.

twoNeurons · #**1446** Posted **Jul 10, 2009, 11:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Allen

Does that mean M-Line would terminate at Lougheed instead. People going to VCC would have to stop and transfer to the VCC<--> Coquitlam train?

It wouldn't have to be:
VCC-bound M-Line trains could go to the center platform. Outgoing originates on the NW(New West) Platform (left on the diagram).

The alternative OD is speaking of would probably put:
VCC->Coquitlam trains on the "Middle" Platform
Coquitlam ->VCC on the "Coquitlam Platform"
M-Line Shuttle on the "New West" Platform, would would need to make one cross-over

I think the way the tracks are laid out could make either possible. It would even allow a seamless New-West Coquitlam transfer.

officedweller · #**1447** Posted **Jul 11, 2009, 12:58 AM**

The option I was referring to was the M-Line "shuttle" mentioned in the report. A through route is feasible though.

The platforms in the diagram above are labelled by destination.

If the M-Line shuttle is implemented, the transfer to get to VCC I would see would be a transfer to the "Vancouver Platform" from a train from New Westmnster (whether it stops at the same platform (if the train reverses to the west of the station) or requires a cross platform transfer from the "New Westminster platform (if the train reverses at the platform)).
The transfer that would require going up and down stairs would be Coquitlam <-> New Westminster (transfers either way).

Dave2 · #**1448** Posted **Jul 12, 2009, 5:23 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DKaz

Why would you have VCC bound trains on two different platforms? That makes absolutely no sense.

Unless there was a sign indicating which platform has the next train leaving for VCC-Clark.

officedweller · #**1449** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 1:41 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dave2

Unless there was a sign indicating which platform has the next train leaving for VCC-Clark.

But even then, you'd have the person who didn't quite make it up the escalator in time of that platform's train and either has to wait an extra lng time on the patform he/she is on or go down and up to the other platform where the next train will arrive.

BCPhil · #**1450** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 8:45 AM**

I don't think it should be a shuttle. People going from Surrey to SFU are going to have to make 2 transfers on the Skytrain alone. It's not really the number of transfers, but the number of stairs you have to go up and down that's a pain. I think even if it were 1/4 trains on the Expo Line were Millennium line trains it would still work.

Not only that, but I find that sometimes it really impacts the service at Columbia with trains going down the track backwards and turning around when they run the shuttle service now on days when things aren't working right. It really affects the headways on the Expo Line. I think everything would just flow smoother if the trains didn't have to stop and turn around at Columbia and Lougheed.

metroXpress · #**1451** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 1:21 PM**

^ So, M-Line should still run the Waterfront <--> VCC route and stop by to say hi to Lougheed and Columbia station

deasine · #**1452** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 6:04 PM**

I don't mind it as much if it's a Waterfront-Lougheed route. I wish we built Columbia with a three platform layout from the beginning... sigh.

officedweller · #**1453** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 6:13 PM**

I could see the M-Line/Expo lines running the Y routes - termini at Lougheed and at King George. That would make the most sense with the lack of an extra platform at Columbia, especially if platform extensions on the Expo Line reduce the need for the optimizing the train frequency.

twoNeurons · #**1454** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 6:36 PM**

When platform extensions are done, why not spend a bit more and add another track at Columbia. I believe there is still room there (albeit, not much)

DKaz · #**1455** Posted **Jul 13, 2009, 7:31 PM**

^^^ This was one of the options being explored, realistically to be implemented by 2020.

Jared · #**1456** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 2:30 AM**

If they do add a third platform, hopefully it will facilitate cross platform transfers, rather than the "down and around". It's probably especially annoying for people beause there's no escalator to take you up to the east platform (I assume the original designers thought everyone would go west to downtown in the morning (up the escalator), and return east in the evening (and go down the stairs). Plus, Columbia was never intended to be a transfer station, so it's understandable there are some operational issues.

metroXpress · #**1457** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 1:43 PM**

How would the plans look like if you were to draw it on this diagram?

deasine · #**1458** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 4:03 PM**

Even though a third platform has been built already, I much rather see them fill in that space and put a third track on the other side of the extra platform, making that platform larger and able to facilitate a transfer:

Platform 3-VCC-Clark or UBC
Platform 2-Waterfront via Columbia (or Columbia depending on how TransLink configures it)
Platform 1-Douglas College

Platform 3 and Platform 1 can easily be changed. I still wish, however, that we went with a fly-over or fly-under design.

DKaz · #**1459** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 5:40 PM**

The top option is what's likely going to happen.

The bottom option would make transfers just so much easier. Deasine it's a bit different from what you've described but I think this works as well. Unfortunately this option also requires extensive (and expensive) reconfiguration of the third platform.

metroXpress · #**1460** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 7:12 PM**

^ yes, I think the bottom option would be the best. The roughed 3rd platform is set up for what's going to happen in the top option, right?