Canada Line | Completed

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Metro-One

Everything is relative, there is no need for Vancouver to have Hong Kong, New York or Osaka sized trains. Also I am willing to bet that before seeing the trains you have already built up in your friends minds that the C-line stations/trains are short.

But we’re not even comparing it to New York, HK, or Japanese train lengths….which are about 6x the length of a Canada Line train. The point is: we want what Vancouver needs, and what has been built isn’t what our city needs in the future. But since you brought up relativity, the two-car Canada Line train is about the same length of two articulated buses put together.

Actually, I didn’t bring it up – they brought it up as they will either have to use it to get to work or to school when it opens.....or they pass by elevated stations daily.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by mr.x

The max. platform length is 50-metres, some stations are already at that length...but most aren't, for instance the Broadway-CH Station. Those tha aren't have 40-metre platforms.


I've had about a dozen friends talk to me about the Canada Line, and their first question is: "why is it so short???"

I've had many friends talk about the Canada Line. None mention platform lengths because they aren't transit nerds.

Seriously, people won't care! We have many other transit issues right now, nevermind some line that doesn't exist and it's potential growth over the next 20 years.

[nname]

Bridgeport bus loop:

Bay 1
  Unload Only
Bay 2
  Unload Only
Bay 3
  480 Brighouse Station
  620 Tsawwassen Ferry
Bay 4
  480 UBC
Bay 5
  407 Bridgeport
  430 Metrotown Station
Bay 6
  602 Tsawwassen Heights
  603 Beach Grove
  604 English Bluff
Bay 7
  311 Scottsdale
  601 South Delta
  601 Ladner Exchange
  601 Boundary Bay
Bay 8
  351 Crescent Beach
  351 White Rock Centre
Bay 9
  352 Ocean Park
  354 White Rock South
Bay 10
  403 Three Road
  407 Gilbert
  430 Brighouse Station
Bay 11
  C90 Airport North
  C92 Airport South

No diagram

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by nname

I remembered somewhere in the RTM document they predict close to 100% capacity in King Edward-Broadway by 2010, and the section between Olympic Village and Oakridge will be well over capacity by 2021. I assume they're using the current train configuration and headways.

I'm not sure who these eggheads are, but I'll be eating another one of my hats if that section is at 100% capacity by 2010. (not including the Olympics of course )

I rode my bike up Cambie yesterday. The density along there is sad next to our other rapid transit lines. Not to mention a lot of the people on that side of Vancouver are higher income people, and hence probably use a lot less rapid transit. I hope it will meet some of the ridership estimates, for the P3 to make sense if nothing else. Same hopes I have for the GEB.

[crazyjoeda]

The C-line platforms should have been longer, its would have been cheaper to build them a bit longer now than come back in 30 years and expand them. Because the line is automated it can run more frequently than most other transit systems; most larger cities with much longer trains don't run as frequently.

We should just be thankful they didn't build light rail like in Seattle.

[BCPhil]

I asked similar questions about capacity on the Translink forum before they shut them down. This is the reply I got from Colleen Sondermann, at TransLink.

Hey BCPhil -- So I've got some answers to your questions from one of the technical staff at InTransitBC, the company contracted to design, build, partially finance, operate and maintain the Canada Line for a 35-year period -- yes, I'm sure you know this : )

=========
BCPhil wrote:
I wonder what the actual max capacity of the Canada line is. The main problem I see developing will be a result of the single track used near Richmond center at the end of the line.
=========

At a 3.75 minute headway, you're looking at 6,000 people per hour, per direction. If the headway was reduced to 2 minutes, you're looking at just over 10,000 people per hour, per direction. The ultimate capacity on the Bridgeport to Waterfront section is 15,000 people per hour per direction. With every second train going to Richmond this means the capacity of that section would be 7,500 people per hour per direction. Note though that 'ultimate capacity' is referring to three-car trains.

==========
BCPhil wrote:
What's the maximum frequency of trains you can get in and out of Richmond Center due to the single track and no runoff.
==========

It's estimated that the current single track configuration would permit a headway of 3.0 to 3.5 minute headway. Ultimately the track can be doubled which would permit 2.0 minute or slightly less headway. A complicating factor is the mixing of trains on the Bridgeport to Waterfront section.

==========
BCPhil wrote:
How many trains an hour maximum can you get out of the single track?
==========

Approximately 20 trains an our in each direction at a 3 minute headway.

There are some interesting things said about ultimate capacity is achieved using 3 car trains, and they can squeeze 3 minute headways out of the single track if needed.

I think if you look at the numbers for an entire day, yes C-Line can handle it. The problem is that I don't think at current Headways it will meet demand out of the Richmond Branch during peak hours. Bridgeport -> North I bet will be OK, but 7,500 per hour out of Richmond during peak sounds rather low.

It also sounds like they have a "plan" to double the track through Richmond Center station if it's needed to extend the system further. I don't really see how, but I guess it could be done if they tear down that Bank next to Richmond Center Station that's right next to the Guideway, or I guess they can put the new track on the West side of No 3 Road and have the East Station be North bound and West Station be South Bound.

I hope they do have it planned so they can double the track, because I would bet that within 10 years people in Richmond will want it extended past Richmond Center. I have a feeling as people there get used to it they are going to love it and are going to be disappointed it takes so long to get TO the C-line from other places in Richmond due to traffic.

[NetMapel]

While Canada Line cars are smaller, we can always increase the arrival frequency in the future if there is a demand for it. Therefore, I don't see the smaller size of Canada Line as a problem.

[metroXpress]

^ Canada Line cars are larger (both wider and longer) than the SkyTrain Mark I and II's. It's only the # of cars in each set that's less than SkyTrain.

[NetMapel]

^ I realize that It is obvious that the total capacity of a Canada Line train is smaller than the existing skytrain. However, that won't be a problem because we can always increase the frequency of the train in the future to compensate increase demand. There may be a time in the far future where Canada Line train frequency is every 1 minute which should be more than capable of handling any huge crowd.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I've had many friends talk about the Canada Line. None mention platform lengths because they aren't transit nerds.

Seriously, people won't care! We have many other transit issues right now, nevermind some line that doesn't exist and it's potential growth over the next 20 years.

transit geeks, not nerds

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

The C-line platforms should have been longer, its would have been cheaper to build them a bit longer now than come back in 30 years and expand them. Because the line is automated it can run more frequently than most other transit systems; most larger cities with much longer trains don't run as frequently.

We should just be thankful they didn't build light rail like in Seattle.

Cheaper, absolutely. but then those who made these decisions will be long since retired... the next generations problem.

[Millennium2002]

Apparently CTV reported that the Canada Line WILL open early...
Go to http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/ and find "Peter Grainger on 'greening' Vancouver"

Midway through the video they briefly mention the Canada Line =O

- Allan Kuan

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by NetMapel

^ I realize that It is obvious that the total capacity of a Canada Line train is smaller than the existing skytrain. However, that won't be a problem because we can always increase the frequency of the train in the future to compensate increase demand. There may be a time in the far future where Canada Line train frequency is every 1 minute which should be more than capable of handling any huge crowd.

You speak as if the Canada Line can increase its frequency infinitely. That’s quite far from the case. With SkyTrain, the max. design frequency of the system is 90-secs…and that is partially allowed by the LIM motors requiring less moving parts. As the Canada Line runs on standard rail technology, there are quite a bit of moving parts – unlike SkyTrain. The max. frequency the Canada Line an achieve is 2-minutes – certainly not 1-minute as you suggested.

And any increase in frequency would only be a slight increase in capacity. This train is gonna be full!

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by mr.x

You speak as if the Canada Line can increase its frequency infinitely. That’s quite far from the case. With SkyTrain, the max. design frequency of the system is 90-secs…and that is partially allowed by the LIM motors requiring less moving parts. As the Canada Line runs on standard rail technology, there are quite a bit of moving parts – unlike SkyTrain. The max. frequency the Canada Line an achieve is 2-minutes – certainly not 1-minute as you suggested.

And any increase in frequency would only be a slight increase in capacity. This train is gonna be full!

I don't think having fewer moving parts affects headway... at least I don't see how it would. It may have a small affect on acceleration but acceleration is limited by comfort anyhow.

[mr.x]

^ i believe it was officedweller that mentioned that, specifically wear and tear.

Regardless, the folks at Translink have also said the max. frequency is 2 mins.

[metroXpress]

^ once that's achieved, they will still have to add cars to the train set in order to have a higer capacity... (that's just obvious)

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ i believe it was officedweller that mentioned that, specifically wear and tear.

Regardless, the folks at Translink have also said the max. frequency is 2 mins.

Don't think I mentioned that moving parts wear and tear affects max. frequency.

The LIM means less maintenance because of less wear and tear, but shouldn't affect frequency - that would be a function of the automatic train control system. Both SkyTrain and Canada Line use the same ATC system (different versions). Their max frequencies should be similar - although, with the Canada Line, braking is friction braking and wheel slip could be an issue - so maybe wider vehicle spacing (lower frequency) could be used as a precaution. LIM braking is electromagnetic so they can stop on a dime.

[Bureaucromancer]

I've heard a few times that LIM doesn't really make a difference in the performance of trains since, although it can accelerate and deccelerate faster, both LIM and conventional systems hit the limit of what passengers can handle standing sometime before they get into any problems with wheel slip.

[officedweller]

The wheel slip issue is apparently more due to either leaves on the rails or ice on the rails - not the inherent loss of friction from steel on steel due to sudden acceleration (spinning your wheels). There was a crash in Washington DC a long time ago (i.e. not the recent one) that resulted from wheel slip due to leaves on the tracks.

http://mic-ro.com/metro/driverless.html
http://citytransport.info/Automation.htm

Aside:
Came across this interesting website:
http://www.leaelliott.com/conference-papers.html

[David]

Given that so many on this forum LOVE Japan so much, I'm surprised people don't love the idea of shorter platforms so that commuters can all be squeezed onto the platform, just like in Japan!