Canada Line | Completed - Page 341

deasine · #**6801** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 4:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get to BC for awhile after this opens and I've been wondering, does Waterfront have the same single track platform as the other terminals?

nope. two platforms. see construction photos.

hollywoodnorth · #**6802** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 5:30 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I found an article with some interesting information:

There were worries about the automated train killing people (apparently a teenage boy was hit?)

anyone know the details on this? I remember the news story as a kid but not the full details.

Also there was a situation with a street sign/pole being tossed over and into the guideway that was on the news near the opening if i remember correctly.

lightrail · #**6803** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bureaucromancer

Oh yeah, I'm not going to be able to get to BC for awhile after this opens and I've been wondering, does Waterfront have the same single track platform as the other terminals?

No - two centre island. Waterfront will see trains terminating every 3 minutes, whereas YVR Airport and Richmond will see trains terminating every 6 minutes each.

Gordon · #**6804** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 2:16 PM**

In the future when more capacity is needed on the C line won't the single tracking in Richmond create a significant limitation?

metroXpress · #**6805** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 3:00 PM**

^ that "future" point on the timeline, to me, would be right after the opening.

Bureaucromancer · #**6806** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 3:38 PM**

I don't exactly love the single track or the platform lengths, but I haven't seen anything yet that suggests the C-line will be any more overcrowded than new lines in the States at opening. That aside, it doesn't look like adding another track in Richmond is actually all that hard (although I wonder if extending platforms for double unit trains might happen first).

deasine · #**6807** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 3:49 PM**

I honestly don't think overcrowding would be a big problem. Yes, we can't expand our platforms by a lot, but it's not like the initial ridership of 98 B-Line + other suburban buses exceed what the Canada Line can handle on opening date.

Expanding Richmond isn't as easy as it looks... there isn't a lot of room. What might be needed to be done is to close off Richmond-Brighouse and tear down the C-Line portion and install double track guideways instead. Oh well, at least then during the process, we have a double tracked terminus =P

flight_from_kamakura · #**6808** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 4:06 PM**

did someone already post this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4KTIASW318

the buzzer has posted several. looking pretty good, all told, though the trains obviously look absurdly short, cute little baby trains, vegas monorail style.

i like this one a lot:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtaKep-48T0&feature=related

deasine · #**6809** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 4:09 PM**

Yes they have been posted already.

lightrail · #**6810** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 4:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gordon

In the future when more capacity is needed on the C line won't the single tracking in Richmond create a significant limitation?

Yes. And if a train stalls in the single-track station, there is no bypass track. There are no sidings on the route to store spare trains, meaning a breakdown or replacement train has to travel to and from the OMC.

crazyjoeda · #**6811** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 4:26 PM**

The single track shouldn't be a problem at YVR because any expansion there will see the track to loop around.

mr.x · #**6812** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 5:30 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

The single track shouldn't be a problem at YVR because any expansion there will see the track to loop around.

Is there even enough space for that?

mr.x · #**6813** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 5:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by flight_from_kamakura

the buzzer has posted several. looking pretty good, all told, though the trains obviously look absurdly short, cute little baby trains, vegas monorail style.

twoNeurons · #**6814** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 5:55 PM**

Does anyone think it's ironic that SkyTrain was called a "Toy" train because it was so short, and now that we're not using the "proprietary" SkyTrain system, we have even shorter trains?

(Shorter than a 4-car MkI)

The platform length suits the airport perfectly. It will never wrap around. It wouldn't really serve much of a purpose and there isn't room. YVR-3 Station will be a future station and probably be situated at the end of the double tracked section. This will allow greater frequency as well. If you look at the track at YVR, there are two cross-track segments at the end. This will give them options as to what they want to do regarding the station (extend the track, create a centre platform or side platforms, position the station to integrate into the new building, etc.)

It will be right in the vicinity of the transition to single track. The Airport's 20-year plan shows no curved track. Canada line trains also have a larger turn radius than SkyTrain.

WarrenC12 · #**6815** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 6:07 PM**

All this talk about C-Line trains and platforms kills me. If there is any C-Line station that is busier than Broadway within 5 years I'll eat my hat.

mr.x · #**6816** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 6:13 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

All this talk about C-Line trains and platforms kills me. If there is any C-Line station that is busier than Broadway within 5 years I'll eat my hat.

That's the problem. Short-term thinking instead of long-term thinking.

We've basically built ourselves a much bigger Scarborough RT.

SpongeG · #**6817** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 6:28 PM**

there's enough stations in richmond - only one is single tracked - the population can't grow that much - its not in the growth plan for the region and one earthquake and everyone will bail anyway

Metro-One · #**6818** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 6:35 PM**

I just wish they were opening at the full 50m length with the middle C cars already in place. To me that will actually make the trains look a lot larger as well (the fact that it is not just two brain cars connected)

As I have been saying, if the train line is seriously overcrowded 30 or 40 years in the future that will give us the best excuse ever to do a major renovation and we will essentially get a new line!

Also as a side note, in Kobe Japan there actually were a few JR lines that only had 60m platforms and 3 car trains serving them, and this is in Japan!

mr.x · #**6819** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 6:44 PM**

^ i'd rather do it right now, and use the billions that would have been otherwise spent on expanding the line on something else.

I would have been satisfied if they had built platforms (~60-metres), enough for a 20,000 pphpd capacity rather than the 15,000 pphpd we have now. We should have started out with 50-metre platforms today and then extend it in the future to 60-metres. There also should have been more track switches and some STORAGE TRACKS.

20 years from now, we are going to regret that we built the Canada Line this way.

Metro-One · #**6820** Posted **Jul 14, 2009, 6:53 PM**

Well 60 meters would not have been enough for another C car i believe, but i do agree it would have been better if they built it to open with 50m with 1 c car, and expandable to 65m and adding another c car. And some storage tracks would have been a good idea (at least one in the underground region) and no single tracking in Richmond. The YVR single tracking is okay because there really is no room for expansion there.