Canada Line | Completed

[metroXpress]

^ I think we want to stand safely on the platform...that would just make us have to install platform doors.

[Yume-sama]

Originally Posted by 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!

It's not that squeezed on the platform, considering the average length is 225 meters on the Yamanote line, with the train itself being 220 meters.

It's only squeezed on the train because there are many other stations with about the same amount of people wanting on, everywhere you go, on the way to a Central station.

[BCPhil]

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.

I think it's part wear and tear that affects frequency, but more because the LIM is more efficient and effective at accelerating and decelerating the train than the conventional electric motors on C-Line.

I've been on the Skytrain when it's pulled an emergency stop before. It comes to a stop in a hurry, thank the maker for handrails.

Just look at the videos posted on the Buzzer blog. The C-Line train looks almost painfully slow when compared to the zippiness of the Skytrain. The C-Line just kind of saunters into the station then leisurely pulls out (it might just be the way it looks on video). It might have a similar top speed, but it looks like it takes longer to get to and from that top speed than Skytrain.

That longer emergency stopping distance is I think what affects headways as it's unsafe to get the trains closer together, and because of their slower acceleration, they would start to bunch up and take longer than 25 minutes to do the route.

I bet if the Canada Line was built with LIM we would be talking about less than 20 minutes between Waterfront and Richmond Center. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the average speed on the Expo Line is about 45km/h, on the Canada Line it looks to be about 35km/h.

[jlousa]

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…

Skytrain is designed to be able to achieve an operational frequency of 72seconds. Those 18seconds represent a 25% improvement over a 90sec frequency. As a transit geek I'm positively confident that the RAV line will be able to handle the demand for the duration of the contract.

[Bureaucromancer]

I agree about the contract term, the problem is, and I think its what I'm getting from people here, that the line as built is going to be neither simple nor cheap to upgrade, which it quite likely will need to be (though yes, not immediately).

Also, the thing to keep in mind about capacity and train size is that 2 minute service is pretty d*** impressive; we don't even run that (very often at least) in Toronto, and the typical LRT line in the US now has 10-15 minute service (actually, thats more or less what a lot of lines in NYC run too).

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I think it's part wear and tear that affects frequency, but more because the LIM is more efficient and effective at accelerating and decelerating the train than the conventional electric motors on C-Line.

I've been on the Skytrain when it's pulled an emergency stop before. It comes to a stop in a hurry, thank the maker for handrails.

Just look at the videos posted on the Buzzer blog. The C-Line train looks almost painfully slow when compared to the zippiness of the Skytrain. The C-Line just kind of saunters into the station then leisurely pulls out (it might just be the way it looks on video). It might have a similar top speed, but it looks like it takes longer to get to and from that top speed than Skytrain.

That longer emergency stopping distance is I think what affects headways as it's unsafe to get the trains closer together, and because of their slower acceleration, they would start to bunch up and take longer than 25 minutes to do the route.

I bet if the Canada Line was built with LIM we would be talking about less than 20 minutes between Waterfront and Richmond Center. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the average speed on the Expo Line is about 45km/h, on the Canada Line it looks to be about 35km/h.

Yea, LIM has always been known for its quick acceleration. It's unfortunate it wasn't used for the new line.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Yea, LIM has always been known for its quick acceleration. It's unfortunate it wasn't used for the new line.

See I don't see any point in making the Canada Line LIM since there is no need to connect the two systems anyway. And even if with all this these concerns of overcrowding, I finding it a good thing actually. I really want to see the Arbutus corridor used... not for streetcar and/or LRT, but more for commuter rail. Playing Sim City here, I really want underground rail underneath Burarrd St. from Waterfront Station, up using the second deck of Burrard, then continuing with existing ROW down Arbutus with stations at King Edward, Kerrisdale, and Marople continuing across to Bridgeport through Richmond across a new bridge to Burnaby in the upcoming Market Crossing area, and continuing following the tracks making its way across the Fraser River to the Interurban and continuing it from there. This way, you can solve the problem for longer distance commuters travelling from the South of Fraser to Bridgeport, so they have a more comfortable one seat ride into downtown. The WCE in this case would be more smaller more community friendly one using Bombardier Talents instead of the current double deckers.

[red-paladin]

I think the fact that LIM was not used is regrettable, for purposes of economies of scale, but it is minor at this point. The real problem is that the Canada Line platforms CANNOT be extended past 50m. All Skytrain platforms could be extended longer if necessary, with Burrard being super expensive, but possible.
Making 50 m the maximum was just stupid. No one here would complain much about the platforms if they were 40m extendable to 80m.
Canada Line people keep saying 'Higher Frequency is more important than long platforms and trains.'
I keep saying 'Leave both options open damn it!'

[LeftCoaster]

Am I missing something? Since when were the Canada line stations not expandable?

[mr.x]

^ well, also consider that the Canada Line trains are wider (though it's not THAT much as they seem to really promote it...you don't see them telling everyone how much shorter it is though, eh?)....so, 80-metres even for the future may be a little excessive even for the future. I'd say 65-metres would be most ideal, allowing two additional C-car/15-metre cars.

Canada Line 2-car train: 41-metres (334-passengers)

(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)


future Canada Line 3-car train: 55-metres (~450-passengers)

(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)


ultimate, future Canada Line 4-car train: 65-metres (~575-passengers)


(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)




It just seems to me that they're trying to make the best out of the situation. I'm quite sure they know of the limitations of what they've been designing and building for the last 6 years.


Note: the true capacity (or the normal standard for North America) for the Canada Line's two-car train is 334 passengers....the 400-passengers figure that InTransitBC has been advertising is the crush load figure (most often used in Asia), which even Translink doesn't use for its vehicles. The 334-passenger figure is from here, when the trains were first announced in November 2005: http://www.canadaline.ca/uploads/NewsReleases/News17.pdf



Yet, this is what they showed us two-years later for the train unveiling in December 2007...the magical 400-number:

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by LeftCoaster

Am I missing something? Since when were the Canada line stations not expandable?

By just 10-metres.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Yea, LIM has always been known for its quick acceleration. It's unfortunate it wasn't used for the new line.

Another advantage to LIM is no adhesion problems. C-line trains require the wheels to adhere to the rail for traction. to help, the trains will carry sand that the system will automatically lay on the rail ahead of the wheel as needed. This is normal for any train propelled by its wheels - but light rail vehicles need it more due to the lighter weight.

Let's see how well C-train climbs the hills when the rails are wet or have mulch from falling leaves on them.

Skytrain will never have this problem because the train is pulled up the hills by magnets, and brakes on the downhill by the same magnets - it doesn't matter if the wheels slip or not - the wheels just guide the train on Skytrain.

[metroXpress]

Originally Posted by mr.x

^ well, also consider that the Canada Line trains are wider (though it's not THAT much as they seem to really promote it...you don't see them telling everyone how much shorter it is though, eh?)....so, 80-metres even for the future may be a little excessive even for the future. I'd say 65-metres would be most ideal, allowing two additional C-car/15-metre cars.

Canada Line 2-car train: 41-metres (334-passengers)

(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)


future Canada Line 3-car train: 55-metres (~450-passengers)

(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)


ultimate, future Canada Line 4-car train: 65-metres (~575-passengers)


(|||||||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||-|||||||||||||||||||)

C-Cars are 15-m each. 40+15+15 should give you 70-metres. Unless you are talking about the plaform for the stations.


??

[metroXpress]

FINALLY, TAFYRN POSTED SOME NEW PICS....
For complete photo update, visit:
http://canadalinephotos.blogspot.com/


Vancouver City Centre

























==================================================

Sea Island





































============================================

YVR

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

It's not that squeezed on the platform, considering the average length is 225 meters on the Yamanote line, with the train itself being 220 meters.

It's only squeezed on the train because there are many other stations with about the same amount of people wanting on, everywhere you go, on the way to a Central station.

And to be fair, it's only squeezed during the rush and only in the major cities, mostly Tokyo.

I found Osaka a lot more tolerable than Tokyo.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Just look at the videos posted on the Buzzer blog. The C-Line train looks almost painfully slow when compared to the zippiness of the Skytrain. The C-Line just kind of saunters into the station then leisurely pulls out (it might just be the way it looks on video). It might have a similar top speed, but it looks like it takes longer to get to and from that top speed than Skytrain.

It could be that way because it's testing as well.

Originally Posted by BCPhil

That longer emergency stopping distance is I think what affects headways as it's unsafe to get the trains closer together, and because of their slower acceleration, they would start to bunch up and take longer than 25 minutes to do the route.

I bet if the Canada Line was built with LIM we would be talking about less than 20 minutes between Waterfront and Richmond Center. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the average speed on the Expo Line is about 45km/h, on the Canada Line it looks to be about 35km/h.

I'm not sure it would really save THAT much time. The Canada line's average speed has more to do with station spacing than unit speed.

I can't calculations that were done before, but basically, it was calculated that Canada line stations were about 1000m apart, as opposed to 1500 for current SkyTrain. This doesn't allow the trains to get to full speed... so it's pointless to have a train that goes really quickly.

[CLC]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Note: the true capacity (or the normal standard for North America) for the Canada Line's two-car train is 334 passengers....the 400-passengers figure that InTransitBC has been advertising is the crush load figure (most often used in Asia), which even Translink doesn't use for its vehicles. The 334-passenger figure is from here, when the trains were first announced in November 2005: http://www.canadaline.ca/uploads/NewsReleases/News17.pdf

in fact Roger Woodhead (the technical director of Canada line construction) even told media that two-car train can take even more than 400, and he also quoted 380-400 is the ideal maximum load

[CLC]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I'm not sure it would really save THAT much time. The Canada line's average speed has more to do with station spacing than unit speed.

I can't calculations that were done before, but basically, it was calculated that Canada line stations were about 1000m apart, as opposed to 1500 for current SkyTrain. This doesn't allow the trains to get to full speed... so it's pointless to have a train that goes really quickly.

If that's the case , then I certainly don't want to see the three future stations being added, as that would mean a end-to-end trip duration would increase to near 30 minutes

[Spork]

Re: Acceleration

It is also a psychological effect on the riders. The faster that the train seems, the more word of mouth as to how "fast" the train is, and the more riders it has.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Allen

C-Cars are 15-m each. 40+15+15 should give you 70-metres. Unless you are talking about the plaform for the stations.


??

The entire train won't fit the platform, but all the doors will. That's the plan for the future 55-metre/3-car train for a 50-metre platform.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Spork

Re: Acceleration

It is also a psychological effect on the riders. The faster that the train seems, the more word of mouth as to how "fast" the train is, and the more riders it has.

It's also relative....i.e., riding Hong Kong's MTR in one of its dark tunnels seems quite fast because the tunnels are hardly lit like ours. But, the trains travel at the same speed as ours for the most part (except that they only slow down as they approach stations...the tunnel tracks don't spontaneously curve like ours, allowing for high travel speeds to be achieved). With SkyTrain, even in the tunnels (which are lit), we know how fast we are going (especially when we're faster than the cars below :p).