Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[officedweller]

Here's what's currently planned -
(recall that the criss-cross switch replaces the PMC Line's basket weave)

Each platform has a designated destination.

Green - to Coquitlam
Red - to Vancouver
Blue - to New Westminster (and beyond)

This provides a cross-platform transfer from Coquitlam to New Westminster (i.e. Surrey), but an up-and-down transfer from New West to Coquitlam.

I think Deasine's suggestion would have the Coquitlam platform located between the red and green lines (?)



Here's the PMC Line brochure (RTPO 2000) posted by SteelWheels a few years ago:

[officedweller]

From the Leader:

Bond agrees to meet on TransLink issues

Transportation Minister Shirley Bond has now agreed to meet with the chair of Metro's mayors council before making changes to TransLink.

By Jeff Nagel - BC Local News

Published: March 12, 2010 3:00 PM
Updated: March 12, 2010 4:13 PM

Regional mayors' council chair Peter Fassbender has been summoned to meet with transportation minister Shirley Bond Monday to discuss TransLink's future.

The Langley City mayor calls it a "door opener" meeting he hopes will be the first of a series of talks to negotiate how best to fund transit expansion in the region.

"We need to do this together, we need to find the solutions together," Fassbender said.

The call from the province came just after Metro Vancouver mayors met behind closed doors Thursday to discuss their approach to dealing with the provincial government on the issue of TransLink.

Metro mayors had complained that the province showed no sign of even talking to them before arbitrarily unveiling a new formula to fund construction of the $1.4-billion Evergreen Line to Coquitlam.

That's expected to come down in the form of new legislation this spring to amend TransLink's governance structure.

TransLink and the mayors are under pressure to find at least $40 million a year to fund TransLink's share of Evergreen construction.

But Fassbender said the mayors remain united that increased sustainable funding is needed to finance a much more ambitious package of transit expansion all over the region, not just in the Tri Cities.

They fear an Evergreen-only funding solution forced on them by the province may scuttle plans to build other rapid transit extensions for the foreseeable future.

Line extensions through Surrey to Langley and White Rock and west in Vancouver to UBC are under consideration and TransLink also wants more money for more buses, to run its third SeaBus and increase West Coast Express service.

Fassbender said he hopes to reach an understanding with Bond on the various ways local residents already contribute to TransLink, including property tax, gas tax, parking taxes and fares.

"Then we have to say if this one is maxed out or that one is maxed out and there is no more room left, then where do we go from here?"

Road pricing and a share of future carbon tax increases could be potential new sources, he said.

The mayors last year staked out a united position that property taxes cannot be raised higher for TransLink, because civic property owners are at their limit.

But Fassbender said he will listen to Bond's proposals.

"You can't go into a negotiation saying we won't ever talk about that," Fassbender said.

He also noted the region could look again at other sources tentatively explored by TransLink but not pursued.

Those included a cellphone levy, a container shipping tax or a hotel room surcharge to fund regional transportation.

"Those are ideas that have been floated," Fassbender said.

"I've also heard people say the ICBC surplus should go to transportation. That's another idea, but the government took that money and put it into general revenue because they're trying to balance their books."

Bond told reporters this week Metro mayors have so far been unable to deliver the share of funding needed so TransLink can afford its $400 million commitment to the Evergreen Line.

"The mayors have certainly had their chance to move the Evergreen Line forward more quickly than they have," she said. "We're going to move this project forward."

[jlousa]

Shipping container tax would only hurt us. Hope they take my idea of increasing the hotel tax by about a couple dollars a night and in exchange provide free transit tickets to guests. Work the numbers so they are revenue positive, tourists won't complain about the additional cost as they'd feel they are being compensated.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I don't see why UBC - Broadway/Commercial - Lougheed - Douglas College can't be one line (EverMillenium?), and Waterfront - Broadway/Commercial - Metrotown - Columbia - King George - Langley can't be the Expo line.

Since Lougheed has a 2nd platform (currently unfinished), some of the Expo trains can be Waterfront - Broadway/Commercial - Metrotown - Columbia - Lougheed, with the Lougheed 2nd platform as the terminal station. Having a train sitting at the 2nd platform waiting to return to Columbia, Metrotown and Waterfront won't block the EverMillenium trains using the main platform at Lougheed.

This is exactly the arrangement I would prefer, two clear and separate lines but with New Westminster - Lougheed operated as a branch rather than a shuttle to reduce transfers.

On a seperate note, given the arrangement at Lougheed, might we see Evergreen operated with left hand running? It would eliminate the requirement for all the trains to use the crossover and would simplify the operation there quite a bit at no cost to anyone.

So, on the left we have the proposed and on the right we have the left hand option, with one fewer conflicting movement for each Evergreen train to make.


Either way though there doesn't seem to be any good way for a train from New Westminster to reverse and no simple way to add a pocket track (the best of the bad options looks to me like directly reversing out of the Vancouver bound platform, which at least avoids clogging up the crossover for trains heading toward Coquitlam)...

In any case this station is going to be rather busy, and possibly a great example of the advantages of automation.

[Zassk]

I'll be totally honest - I don't know why we need to build Lougheed any more complicated than Bridgeport. One flyover, two switches, every transfer is cross-platform. If that's good enough for 90-second headways on the C-line, then it's good enough for 90-second headways on Evergreen/Millennium. Save some money to build an extra station on Evergreen or something.

[officedweller]

I don't think that the Evergreen Line should be left running - it goes against convention (i.e. same as roadways) and would cause confusion among passengers and be a safety hazard for track workers.

I think that a shortturning train at Lougheed (from New West) would use the mainline (M-Line) as a tail track, and head back to New West along the blue routing. On the right, below.

BUT - come to think of it, it could take this routing which wouldn't interfere with the trains to/from Coquitlam very much.
This has no dwell-time on the Vancouver platform. On the left, below.
This would still allow Vancouver-bound passengers to have a cross-platform transfer to continue their trip.



You can also see that if frequencies were low enough:
- a train could be through-routed from New West to Coquitlam by entering and reversing out of the Coquitlam platform, and
- a train could be through-routed from Coquitlam to New West by entering and reversing out of the New West platform.
This routing has no reversal or dwell-time on the Vancouver platform, which would have the highest frequency of trains. Shown on left, below.

Alternatively, a through-running train could also use a tail-track route so as to drop off passengers on the Vancouver-bound platform before reversing. Shown on right, below.

[Bureaucromancer]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I'll be totally honest - I don't know why we need to build Lougheed any more complicated than Bridgeport. One flyover, two switches, every transfer is cross-platform. If that's good enough for 90-second headways on the C-line, then it's good enough for 90-second headways on Evergreen/Millennium. Save some money to build an extra station on Evergreen or something.

Agreed; the separate platforms seem to complicate things much more than any benefit is worth, although it should be kept in mind that Bridgeport doesn't have trains reversing. 90 second headways through the single island with trains reversing on the mainline seems like a bit much to ask for even with computerized operation.

[arashi_1987]

Originally Posted by deasine

Well it can. Back then, I wished the Canada Line had a distinction between the airport and Richmond branches just to make it more consistent with the Expo/Millennium Line configuration. Now, interestingly, I wish the SkyTrain system branded like the Canada Line.

Expo Line: Waterfront to King George via Columbia
Millennium Line: Waterfront to Douglas College (Tricities Branch) and Waterfront to Columbia (New Westminster Branch)



I love how we always talk about what the Lougheed Stn platform configuration is. I'll explain what the plan was originally for this station.

Let "Platform 1" be the unused and unfinished platform
Let "Platform 2" be the current inbound/westbound platform to VCC-Clark
Let "Platform 3" be the current outbound/eastbound platform to Waterfront via Columbia

Because of the rather confusing cross-track configuration east of the station, trains from Columbia will cross over to the track for Platform 1. Trains from Douglas College will also go to Platform 1.

There is a little more flexibility with Platform 2 and 3, as both can be easily used for trains to Columbia and trains to Douglas College.

Officedweller has a few diagrams which makes it a lot more simpler. I'm too lazy to dig it out again.

I think it's worth investment to reconfigure Lougheed Stn though. Currently, the station uses a centre dual platform with an island platform on the side:

Platform 1 (not used)
--------------------------Track
--------------------------Track
Platform 2/3
--------------------------Track

IfI think they should rebuild Platform 1 and the unused track so that the station uses two centre dual platforms instead with the following train configuration:

--------------------------Track: Inbound/Westbound to VCC-Clark
Platform 1/2
--------------------------Track: Outbound/Eastbound to Columbia
Platform 2/3
--------------------------Track: Outbound/Eastbound to Douglas College

This layout makes a lot more sense for the shuttle configuration between Lougheed and Columbia. Transfers between trains really occur on the platform level. Let's say you are on a train going at Columbia. Trains from Columbia enter the centre track. If you want to go to VCC-Clark, simply transfer across the platform. Similarly, if you want Douglas College, you also transfer across the platform. This layout works for both directions!

The shuttle train can be timed to work with trains from both or either directions, so that when you make a transfer, the train will already be there waiting for you.

Your ideas area always so brilliant. The reconstructed platform would be the same as the Tanah Merah Station in Singapore. People coming in to transfer would have to know which side to get off to transfer to the correct train (VCC or Coquitlam). It's confusing but it might just work.

[officedweller]

Thanks for the Singapore reference.

***
WRT Bridgeport -
A requirement of the Canada Line was for the tracks to allow a through-routing of trains between YVR and Richmond. Whether that is feasible in practice is a different story.

[Vonny]

Originally Posted by Zassk

I'll be totally honest - I don't know why we need to build Lougheed any more complicated than Bridgeport. One flyover, two switches, every transfer is cross-platform. If that's good enough for 90-second headways on the C-line, then it's good enough for 90-second headways on Evergreen/Millennium. Save some money to build an extra station on Evergreen or something.

fully agree...Not sure the flyover is absolutely necessary, but the same platform transfer (for people doing the route Coquitlam-New Westminster) is certainly a very strong positive point...

Forget the third platform, no need for it unless train coming from New Westminster are short turned at Lougheed and then it should be rebuild like suggested by Deasine (again same platform transfer)...

In any case, Lougheed is currently badly designed and one shouldn't try to make use of bad design.

[Millennium2002]

I actually wonder... can't they tack on a track and platform to the north of the station? (e.g. a four-track two-platform station?) I know it might bulldoze the bus loop but it seems all the configurations that I'm seeing right now are quite messy (mainly due to how they built it in the first place).

[jsbertram]

I made some drawings a few months ago when I was trying to understand Lougheed's configuration.

Here is what the current configuration could be with the current main platform, and the finished north platform. This layout eliminates the 'twisty track' or crossover on the Evergreen tracks east of Lougheed on the way to North Road, and also drops the 'wrong-rail' or 'left-rail' running on these same tracks.

Green is the Evergreen westbound track, Brown is the Evergreen eastbound track to Douglas College. Red and Blue is the Millennium westbound track (to VCC and UBC), and Black is the Eastbound track to Braid and Columbia.




Here is the track configuration currently used when eastbound and westbound Millennium trains pass through Lougheed. (unused tracks at Lougheed are greyed out)




Here is the track configuration used when Evergreen trains are running between UBC - VCC and Douglas College. Trains running Westbound and Eastbound through Lougheed use the main platform, with Eastbound trains using the yellow switchover to the blue & brown tracks that are already in place; Westbound trains use the new light-blue switchover that will have to be added to the structure. Because these switchovers are parallel, Westbound and Eastbound Evergreen trains can pass without interfering with each other, and don't need 'wrong railing' or a flat crossover east of Lougheed to get to their proper side of the station on North Road.




Here is the track configuration used when Evergreen is run as a shuttle between Lougheed and Douglas College. Trains running westbound to Lougheed use the north platform, and can rest there without interfering with 'mainline' traffic running from UBC & VCC through Lougheed to Braid & Columbia. When the shuttle is ready to leave, it heads east from this platform & takes the Red crossover track to the Evergreen eastbound tracks. Being an automated system, this can be done without interfering with other train movements in and out of Lougheed.




Here is the track configuration used when Millennium trains from Columbia & Braid terminate at Lougheed. Trains running westbound to Lougheed use the north platform, and can rest there without interfering with 'mainline' traffic running through Lougheed. When the shuttle is ready to leave, it heads east from this platform & takes the Red crossover and purple crossover to the Millennium eastbound tracks. Being an automated system, this can be done without interfering with other train movements around Lougheed.




With the addition of the light-blue switchover, this has simplified the movement of trains through Lougheed because every Eastbound and Westbound train (not terminating at Lougheed) can use the main platform. If you are going from Poco to New West, leave the train at Lougheed, walk across the platform to catch the next Columbia train. If you are going from Edmonds to Burquitlam, you can also leave the train at Lougheed, walk across the platform to catch the next Douglas College train.


I realise there are some other switches west of Lougheed that tie these three tracks together, but I haven't had enough time to think about whether they would be useful for normal train movements.

[STEELWHEELS]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I made some drawings a few months ago when I was trying to understand Lougheed's configuration.

Here is what the current configuration could be with the current main platform, and the finished north platform. This layout eliminates the 'twisty track' or crossover on the Evergreen tracks east of Lougheed on the way to North Road, and also drops the 'wrong-rail' or 'left-rail' running on these same tracks.

In my discussion with the Project staff at the preliminary design open house, I was told they were leaning towards removing the crossover guideway configuration. Instead they would place a double switch arrangement further north up the Coquitlam guideway to correct the "wrong side of road" travel.
They said this would save about $10 million. They would need to place caution signage on the short section of wrong way travel for maintenance workers accessing the guideway. This, in my opinion, is short sighted, as it would slow trains arriving and departing Lougheed Station as they cross these new switches (every trip - both ways - forever).

[jsbertram]

[QUOTE=STEELWHEELS;4744530]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I made some drawings a few months ago when I was trying to understand Lougheed's configuration.

Here is what the current configuration could be with the current main platform, and the finished north platform. This layout eliminates the 'twisty track' or crossover on the Evergreen tracks east of Lougheed on the way to North Road, and also drops the 'wrong-rail' or 'left-rail' running on these same tracks.





In my discussion with the Project staff at the preliminary design open house, I was told they were leaning towards removing the crossover guideway configuration. Instead they would place a double switch arrangement further north up the Coquitlam guideway to correct the "wrong side of road" travel.
They said this would save about $10 million. They would need to plac e caution signage on the short section of wrong way travel for maintenance workers accessing the guideway. This, in my opinion, is short sighted, as it would slow trains arriving and departing Lougheed Station as they cross these new switches (every trip - both ways - forever).

I saw that in one of the drawings, but by adding the light-blue switchover near Lougheed, you can eliminate the need for a long stretch of "wrong rail" running with the inherent dangers to workers, and you eliminate the need for a cross-over east of Lougheed and another cross-over North Road (on either end of the "wrong rail" guideways).

If a cross-over section costs $10 Million, then eliminating both can save $20 Million, but you'll have to add in $5 Million for the new light-blue switch-over section - for a net savings of $15 Million. By simplifying the new guideways between Lougheed and North Road you can save more because they are being built just like the rest of the North Road guideways.

The slow running over the switches immediately east of Lougheed is already happening when westbound M-Line trains enter Lougheed, and hasn't been an issue that I've heard about. Evergreen trains will run at the same speed when using the Lougheed switches, so eastbound trains leaving Lougheed (to either Coquitlam or New West) will accelerate up to the switch-crossing speed, and after clearing the Lougheed switches accelerate to top speed to the next station. Westbound Evergreen trains will decelerate from running speed to switch-crossing speed, but this deceleration is needed anyhow because the train is entering the Lougheed station.

By eliminating the "wrong rail" running and the two cross-overs, you've also eliminated any interference between eastbound and westbound Evergreen trains (where one train has to wait for another train to clear one of the cross-over sections), and the resulting deceleration to cross-over speed before resuming top speed to the next station.

I wouldn't want to read that some worker was injured or killed because they were working on the "wrong rail" running tracks and didn't see a train coming from the 'wrong' direction.

[jsbertram]

Thinking more about the routes available after Evergreen is done, there can be 3 routes.

Two already running:
a) Waterfront - Broadway - Metrotown - Columbia - King George (aka Expo Line)
b) Waterfront - Broadway - Metrotown - Columbia - Lougheed - Commercial -VCC (aka Millennium line)

and the new route:
c) VCC - Commercial - Lougheed - Douglas College (aka Evergreen line)

Outside rush hours, the Millennium line could be cut back to terminate at Lougheed so it still provides service between Lougheed and Columbia, and also provides the extra service needed with Expo line between New West, Burnaby and Vancouver.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

the Millennium line could be cut back to terminate at Lougheed so it still provides service between Lougheed and Columbia, and also provides the extra service needed with Expo line between New West, Burnaby and Vancouver.

Based on the analysis document that we've seen from Translink, I think we can assume this will be the configuration all day every day, and we can discuss Lougheed station based on this. There will be no more trains running from Waterfront around the loop to VCC-Clark. Only empty trains will travel that way to get to/from the OMC.

[Mininari]

I think we need a new poll for this promised project:

1) Project will proceed using a rabbit-out-of-the-hat funding solution. Possible elements include parking rates of $10.00/hr, $7.75 one-zone bus fares, or morning bakesales at skytrain locations.

2) Project will proceed without full funding and end up as a graffiti-soaked, abandoned guideway with no rails, or train cars.

3) Project will NOT proceed, and the government and translink will point fingers at each other over "who mismanaged their money" and who is "accountable" for another 5-10 years. 2021, NDP gets elected and the whole cycle starts over again.

4) None of the above. Translink gets dissolved, and transportation issues go to dictatorship.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I saw that in one of the drawings, but by adding the light-blue switchover near Lougheed, you can eliminate the need for a long stretch of "wrong rail" running with the inherent dangers to workers, and you eliminate the need for a cross-over east of Lougheed and another cross-over North Road (on either end of the "wrong rail" guideways).

My guess is that your light blue switch was not built when Lougheed was built because at the time, there would have been a grade separation between those two tracks (in order to basket weave). Since that is no longer going to be built, the blue switch may be feasible - depending on whether the ramp aspect of the unfinished guideway (already built) will be demolished and levelled out or continued as-os with a slight bump in the guideway then levelling out).

The other factor to consider however, is the proximity of the other existing switches and whether a switch can be installed that close to the "backside" of the other two switches (because of the movable parts of the rails in the switch), and east of that, you enter the curve (where a switch probably isn't feasible).

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Mininari

I think we need a new poll for this promised project:

1) Project will proceed using a rabbit-out-of-the-hat funding solution. Possible elements include parking rates of $10.00/hr, $7.75 one-zone bus fares, or morning bakesales at skytrain locations.

2) Project will proceed without full funding and end up as a graffiti-soaked, abandoned guideway with no rails, or train cars.

3) Project will NOT proceed, and the government and translink will point fingers at each other over "who mismanaged their money" and who is "accountable" for another 5-10 years. 2021, NDP gets elected and the whole cycle starts over again.

4) None of the above. Translink gets dissolved, and transportation issues go to dictatorship.

I pick number 3! I guarantee this will happen (though I sincerely hope I am wrong). As a matter of fact, the money that was supposedly set aside for Evergreen Line from both the Federal and Provincial governments will somehow magically help alleviate their budget deficits as a result with both levels claiming credit for sound fiscal management.

Its 2010 and sadly, still no progress on this project and consistently still get delayed and the political bickering from all sides of the political spectrum is never ending. Sad isn't it..

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

My guess is that your light blue switch was not built when Lougheed was built because at the time, there would have been a grade separation between those two tracks (in order to basket weave). Since that is no longer going to be built, the blue switch may be feasible - depending on whether the ramp aspect of the unfinished guideway (already built) will be demolished and levelled out or continued as-os with a slight bump in the guideway then levelling out).

The other factor to consider however, is the proximity of the other existing switches and whether a switch can be installed that close to the "backside" of the other two switches (because of the movable parts of the rails in the switch), and east of that, you enter the curve (where a switch probably isn't feasible).

The location of the red and light-blue cross-overs was measured from the similar relationship between the yellow and pink cross-overs. Once that minimum separation was known, it became a simple matter of taking the red cross-over and 'mirroring' it to become the light-blue cross-over.

Where the blue @ light-blue switch, and the green @ light-blue switch are located, the track beds are vertically even with each other, but the blue section of guideway starts to rise east of the pink @ blue switch which was the beginning of the basket-weave guideway heading to North Road. Rather than spend money demolishing this section of guideway, I would just join the new eastbound guideway to it, leaving it slightly higher than the westbound guideway at that location, but use incline in the curved section and the natural rise to North Road to let the guideways level out beside each other. It can be another of the oddities of SkyTrain that transit buffs will talk about (another one is why Main St station is such a different design than all the other original Expo outdoor stations).