Canada Line | Completed

[CBeats]

Originally Posted by mr.x

Yeah those seats are definitely just in the way.

[mezzanine]

Nice pics, everyone!

Went to the open house. Agree with all the comments so far about how expansive the station is compared to the modest entrance. A few opinions:

-I am impressed with the level of finishing in the station. The tile work is impressive and sleek. As you can see by the pics, it is a simple yet elegant way to demarcate certain areas (safe waiting zones) and to add color. I do think that it will be fairly resilient with use and abuse over time.

-the glass elevators look high-end and provide safety (others can look into the car). you have to take 2 elevators to get to platform level. the elevator from mezzanine to platform is in the fare-paid zone.

-the 'do not enter' sign still doesn't make sense. 'keep right' would make more sense, but the international 'do not enter' logo is widely recognized by non-english speakers and may have been picked for that reason. even if there were fare gates, modern ones work in both directions.

-the C-line cars are larger in real-life. (my firsrt time seeing it in real-life!). The little metal loop that i think will be for bikes is useless. expect fights for that space for luggage and standees versus the bikers. sorely missed will be an overhead rack for small carry-on bags.

-the station chairs are as uncomfortable as they look

-the room below according to staff will house in addition to mechanical stuff a small transit police office.


overall, a good time by all, and we drank our fill of the smoothie samples from jugo juice!

[gillty]

a longtime lurker this is probably somewhere in this thread just wondering the vancouver centre wall sign says it connects to expo line and the bay, but where in pacific center does the lowkey pacific center entrance lead to?

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by tGill

a longtime lurker this is probably somewhere in this thread just wondering the vancouver centre wall sign says it connects to expo line and the bay, but where in pacific center does the lowkey pacific center entrance lead to?

it comes out next to the Sony Store or that RW & Co store - close to the sears entrance anyway - the old entrance or link between pac and van centres has been closed off and will become a store apparently

[gillty]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

it comes out next to the Sony Store or that RW & Co store - close to the sears entrance anyway - the old entrance or link between pac and van centres has been closed off and will become a store apparently

ah thanks! now that i think about the location of the ground entrance it makes sense, hopefully they'll put some sort of pacific center sign next to the entrance

[trofirhen]

Overall, compared to other North American cities of the same size, Vancouver is developing a modern and comprehensive rapid rail system. Just compare it to Seattle, which has nearly 1,000,000 more people than Vancouver. They have some elegant downtown stations, but their system is only light-rail. San Diego metro is about the size of Vancouver, and has a comparable system is size, except that theirs is entirely ABOVE-GROUND, making for a less aesthetic, and more awkward interchange downtown.

...... Now, as to that question: Whereas the trains on the Canada line (although only two cars long) are reasonably wide, as in most subway systems, the trains on the Expo and Millenium Lines - and here I am referring to the original Mk II trains - are, to be honest, almost like toys. They're on the scale of something you would see at a large world's fair to get you around the site, or perhaps on a tram line using only Light Rail .....
..... SO: does the track width on the EXPO and Millenium lines allow for the eventual replacement of the small trains we have now with larger, wider, "second-generation" trains one would find in a city like Montreal or Washington DC?

Let's hope so, because after spending over a billion dollars on the track lines, it would be pitiful if it could carry trains no wider (or longer) than it does now.

In 20 years, give or take, the town centres and their respective populations will have grown to the point where more train capacity will be needed. Will this be achieved simply by making our small trains longer, OR by phasing them out and replacing them with standard-size, wider-bodied trains such as those on the Canada Line?

Anybody know anything abouth this? If yes, tell me please.

[deasine]

Beautiful photos... However, I see one rather weird problem. Clearly, the person installing the signs did it incorrectly:



The first closest sign has an escalator icon on it, the sign behind it doesn't. They were installed the wrong way.

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

...... Now, as to that question: does the track width on the EXPO and Millenium lines allow for the eventual replacement of the small trains we have now with larger, wider, "second-generation" trains one would find in a city like Montreal or Washington DC?

Anybody know anything abouth this? If yes, tell me please.

Short answer: No. We'll increase capacity by using longer more frequent trains.

Long answer: The two current SkyTrain lines (Expo and Millennium) cannot accept wider train cars. The diametre of the tunnels, station platform widths, and curve geometry all preclude their introduction.

The low hanging fruit for increasing capacity starts with rearranging the interior configuration of seats within the cars. The newest delivery of MKII Bombardier SkyTrain cars have fewer seats and, thus, marginally increased passenger capacity. Next comes longer trains.

Currently during rush hour and sepecial events some four-car MKII trains (two two-car trains) are used in addition to more frequent overall service. As more of the newest order of MKII Bombardier cars arrive most trains will begin operating as four-car MKII trains, while the current four-car MKI trains will run as six-car, and possibly eight-car MKI trains. Frequency is already quite good during rush hour with trains arriving/departing downtown about every 90 seconds and it may be sped up a bit further in time. Next comes even longer trains.

Bombardier manufactures versions of the MKII train with multiple cars all linked by accordian gangways. In Kuala Lumpur a four-car MKII train is going into operation with two "C unit" cars strung between an "A" and "B" car at either end. Translink may very well purchase an order of three-car MKII trains. Another possibility is that the eventual replacement of the MKI fleet, coupled with another major round of train procurement, may be a large enough order to warrant Bombardier designing a new MKIII trainset. Who knows. Lastly comes station renovation to accomodate even longer trains.

All of the SkyTrain stations on the Expo and Millennium lines were designed to be lengthened by 10 metres without any additional structural work. This will allow for ten-car MK1 trains (someone correct me if I'm wrong) to operate. There may be enough room to run six-car MKII trains (three two-car sets), with the ends of the trains hanging off the ends of the station and only the doors lining up, but I think the concensus on this board is that six-car MKII trains aren't possible even with the platform extension. These platform extensions would allow a mixed five-car MKII train to operate with a two-car MKII paired up with the previously-mentioned three-car MKII. It is also possible that a train made of up two three-car MKII sets could fit with its doors lining up with the platform but the ends of the train overhanging. Perhaps a handful of hypothetical "rush-hour special" six-car MKII trains could be built with four "C" cars sandwiched between an "A" and a "B" car at each end. Again, who knows. At this point we're talking a good twenty to thirty years out and if capacity still cannot meet demand it might very well be time to begin building parallel lines.

'Hope that helped.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Overall, compared to other North American cities of the same size, Vancouver is developing a modern and comprehensive rapid rail system. Just compare it to Seattle, which has nearly 1,000,000 more people than Vancouver. They have some elegant downtown stations, but their system is only light-rail. San Diego metro is about the size of Vancouver, and has a comparable system is size, except that theirs is entirely ABOVE-GROUND, making for a less aesthetic, and more awkward interchange downtown.

The fact that they only have light rail doesn't really matter. In todays transportation standards, technology doesn't really dictate the capacity. Their LRT system is quite expandable in terms of capacity and they've done an excellent job to provide provisions for expansion. Also, LRT was chosen, despite the fact that most of it is fully segregated anyway, is because Seattle wants to expand their rapid transit system East towards Bellevue, where it would be either at-grade or segregated. LRT provides a lot of different choices.

.

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Now, as to that question: Whereas the trains on the Canada line (although only two cars long) are reasonably wide, as in most subway systems, the trains on the Expo and Millenium Lines - and here I am referring to the original Mk II trains - are, to be honest, almost like toys. They're on the scale of something you would see at a large world's fair to get you around the site, or perhaps on a tram line using only Light Rail .....
..... SO: does the track width on the EXPO and Millenium lines allow for the eventual replacement of the small trains we have now with larger, wider, "second-generation" trains one would find in a city like Montreal or Washington DC?

Let's hope so, because after spending over a billion dollars on the track lines, it would be pitiful if it could carry trains no wider (or longer) than it does now.

I think jlousa has said that the capacity of the Canada Line could be potentially that of the Expo Line today. Just looking at the length of the train is shallow thinking.

The Expo and Millennium Line trains already have wider trains... they are called MK II. You can't just place wider trains on a track that can only fit smaller ones. Unlike the Canada Line, the SkyTrain network has room to expand a lot longer.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

...... Now, as to that question: Whereas the trains on the Canada line (although only two cars long) are reasonably wide, as in most subway systems, the trains on the Expo and Millenium Lines - and here I am referring to the original Mk II trains - are, to be honest, almost like toys. They're on the scale of something you would see at a large world's fair to get you around the site, or perhaps on a tram line using only Light Rail .....
..... SO: does the track width on the EXPO and Millenium lines allow for the eventual replacement of the small trains we have now with larger, wider, "second-generation" trains one would find in a city like Montreal or Washington DC?

Let's hope so, because after spending over a billion dollars on the track lines, it would be pitiful if it could carry trains no wider (or longer) than it does now.

In 20 years, give or take, the town centres and their respective populations will have grown to the point where more train capacity will be needed. Will this be achieved simply by making our small trains longer, OR by phasing them out and replacing them with standard-size, wider-bodied trains such as those on the Canada Line?

Anybody know anything abouth this? If yes, tell me please.

The Canada Line trains may be a little wider, but the platform lengths/train lengths are absurdly shorter than SkyTrain. Most importantly, SkyTrain's system capacity (~30,000 passengers per hour per direction) is at least double that of the Canada Line (~15,000 pphpd).

If anything, the short length of the Canada Line trains would make them toy trains in my opinion...not SkyTrain.

The guideway of SkyTrain does not allow for a wider track to allow wider trains, the columns are not capable of supporting that...especially the older stype columns on the Expo Line. There's still plenty of capacity to take advantage of with the SkyTrain system, by lengthening trains and increasing train frequency.

And if we want to increase the capacity of each car, we could rearrange the seating arrangements. The current row seating arrangement on the Mark II's is extremely inefficient....something like this, parallel side seating that is common in worldwide metros, would increase each train's capacity substantially as standing capacity (with sufficient bars to hold onto) is much more efficient:



If you're talking about the older Mark I cars, that's different....they've been around since the 1980's and early 1990's, and will likely stay around for another 20 years. We simply can't afford to replace the entire Mark I fleet, it would be more economical to use up the Mark I's entire lifespan.


Note that the new Mark II cars come with a new seating arrangement that increases standing capacity, thus increasing overall train capacity:

[mr.x]

^ the ones at yesterday's open house were covered with bird crap.

[alta-bc]

Will someone in a wheelchair be able to transfer from Vancouver City Centre station to Granville station without going to street level?

[CoryHolmes]

A few weeks back I took a Skytrain ride on a new style of train. It had an electronic map, with lights to show which station the train was at and a new style of seat. IIRC, it was blue as well. Is this a Canada Line train or something else?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by alta-bc

Will someone in a wheelchair be able to transfer from Vancouver City Centre station to Granville station without going to street level?

No, because VanCC wasn't made to be a transfer point with Granville. Not yet at least. Give it a few more months (okay... maybe yeras) and I'm sure COV or TransLink will build that underground walkway.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by CoryHolmes

A few weeks back I took a Skytrain ride on a new style of train. It had an electronic map, with lights to show which station the train was at and a new style of seat. IIRC, it was blue as well. Is this a Canada Line train or something else?

Canada Line train. Too bad the Canada Line trains won't have the electronic maps but that can be easily installed later on down the road. Technically, the electronic maps could be installed on the current MK IIs as it's' just an extended light box with LED lights on.

[mr.x]

^ i highly doubt an underground connection would ever be built, it would be decades away.

You'll just have to use Vancouver Centre Mall to get to the Expo Line, that is during store hours.

[CLC]

wheelchair has to use the Dunsumir Street entrance, and I remember there are stairsteps between Vancouver Centre and the Bay ? (so not accessible for wheelchair)
repost pic from page 1 of this thread:

[mr.x]

Awesome 10-minute walking tour of Vancouver City Centre Station:

• Video Link



And a shorter 5-minute walking tour of Oakridge from the last open house:
• Video Link

[SFUVancouver]

Originally Posted by CoryHolmes

A few weeks back I took a Skytrain ride on a new style of train. It had an electronic map, with lights to show which station the train was at and a new style of seat. IIRC, it was blue as well. Is this a Canada Line train or something else?

^ Actually that would have been one of the newest Bombardier MKII SkyTrain cars. The Canada Line is not in service yet.

[Xerx]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Overall, compared to other North American cities of the same size, Vancouver is developing a modern and comprehensive rapid rail system. Just compare it to Seattle, which has nearly 1,000,000 more people than Vancouver. They have some elegant downtown stations, but their system is only light-rail. San Diego metro is about the size of Vancouver, and has a comparable system is size, except that theirs is entirely ABOVE-GROUND, making for a less aesthetic, and more awkward interchange downtown.

...... Now, as to that question: Whereas the trains on the Canada line (although only two cars long) are reasonably wide, as in most subway systems, the trains on the Expo and Millenium Lines - and here I am referring to the original Mk II trains - are, to be honest, almost like toys. They're on the scale of something you would see at a large world's fair to get you around the site, or perhaps on a tram line using only Light Rail .....
..... SO: does the track width on the EXPO and Millenium lines allow for the eventual replacement of the small trains we have now with larger, wider, "second-generation" trains one would find in a city like Montreal or Washington DC?

Let's hope so, because after spending over a billion dollars on the track lines, it would be pitiful if it could carry trains no wider (or longer) than it does now.

In 20 years, give or take, the town centres and their respective populations will have grown to the point where more train capacity will be needed. Will this be achieved simply by making our small trains longer, OR by phasing them out and replacing them with standard-size, wider-bodied trains such as those on the Canada Line?

Anybody know anything abouth this? If yes, tell me please.

I read that Skytrain could take on wider cars but the tricky part was cost and logistics

Although a wider car was desired at the time, the 1986 opening deadline for Expo ’86 precluded major
structural changes to UTDC’s then-designed “ALRT” (Mark I) vehicle, which was 12.7 m. in length, and
2.5 m (8 feet) in width. To provide future options, the guideway structure was specified to take a 25%
heavier axle loading, and the alignment clearances were designed to accommodate a 2.75 m (9 feet) width
car. Platform edges were designed to be unbolted so that a 6 inch strip could be removed for the wider
car.
The logistics and cost of implementing the wider car body with an in-service system were daunting, and
the compromise Mark II vehicle was created, and delivered in 2002. This preserved the Mark I width at
floor/platform level, while achieving greater loading through a slight widening of the car body above the
floor sill in the seat-to-shoulder range of seated passengers, allowing for a wider aisle. The new car also
incorporated more of the vehicle equipment beneath the floor, reducing the footprint of lockers at the car
ends. The Mark II car is 35% longer than a Mark I (17.1 m. vs 12.7) but can carry 63% more passengers
per car (42 seats plus 88 standees) under comparable conditions. A 4-car Mark II (68.4 m. overall length)
can thus carry 520 passengers, comparable to the initial assumptions for a 6-car Mark I.