Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I know, but they were asking about the deseil buses just retired last month. The Trolleys were sold 2 years ago.

Last stop Argentina for Vancouver's old trolley bus fleet
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=0244a0ed-2dbf-415d-bfd8-411ad353013a

[Waders]

The cost of MKI refurishment may not be as cheap as we would expect, otheriwse Translink wouldn't need to study the refurish vs replace option.
- The electronic component in the 114 1984–1986 MKI skytrains is very old(may even still use vacuum tube). I read in some blogs long time ago that there is no replacement part available. That means that the whole control system in the train may need to be replaced.
- There were a few incidents that control centre lost the signal from some trains, causing the safety system to kick in to shutdown the whole Skytrain system as a safety precaution. Aging system in the skytrain might have been a factor.
- Even the linear induction motor will need to be tested and recertified. Even though the fundamental technology is the same, the motor on the latest MKII is much improved.
- Quite a few MKIs are shaking really bad from side to side, causing motion sickness. This means some work needs to be done to the suspension system.
- The seating would need to be rebuilt to increase the train capacity to meet the expected reidership increase.

So it is possible the cost of MKI refurishment + annual maintenance cost may still be higher than the cost of new MKII + annual maintenance cost for the next 25 years. It is expected maintenance cost for a new car is cheaper than an old one.
The total 25 years cost for each option would be what Translink is trying to determine.

[Mac Write]

Uh I already know that and said that. The person was talking about the D40HF's.

[Gordon]

If Translink does decide to to get Mark 2s instead of refurbishing The mark 1s, I wonder if Translink will get some three car units to bring Skytrain closer to full capacity? ( I think this is being looked at.)

[Mac Write]

Drool 3-car or better yet 4 car units. I assume they would only be replacing the 114 original cars, while keeping the remaining 36, which have between 5-10 yeas of life before MLU is required.

[Waders]

Cost is definitely the issue. Translink may be forced to use both options: replace some of the 114 MKIs that are not cost-effective to refurish. For some trains that are in better condition, refurishment may be OK. Spare part can come from the replaced train?
I don't think the newer MKIs purchased after 1990 need to be looked at this time. They still have a few more years before reaching mid-life.
This refurish/replace program can be spread out to 5+ years to fit into available budget.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Waders

The cost of MKI refurishment may not be as cheap as we would expect, otheriwse Translink wouldn't need to study the refurish vs replace option.
- The electronic component in the 114 1984–1986 MKI skytrains is very old(may even still use vacuum tube). I read in some blogs long time ago that there is no replacement part available. That means that the whole control system in the train may need to be replaced.
- There were a few incidents that control centre lost the signal from some trains, causing the safety system to kick in to shutdown the whole Skytrain system as a safety precaution. Aging system in the skytrain might have been a factor.
- Even the linear induction motor will need to be tested and recertified. Even though the fundamental technology is the same, the motor on the latest MKII is much improved.
- Quite a few MKIs are shaking really bad from side to side, causing motion sickness. This means some work needs to be done to the suspension system.
- The seating would need to be rebuilt to increase the train capacity to meet the expected reidership increase.

So it is possible the cost of MKI refurishment + annual maintenance cost may still be higher than the cost of new MKII + annual maintenance cost for the next 25 years. It is expected maintenance cost for a new car is cheaper than an old one.
The total 25 years cost for each option would be what Translink is trying to determine.

vacuum tubes?
Are you KIDDING ME??!?!
These skytrain cars were built in the 1980s not the 1950s.
Was it even possible to buy a TV or radio in the early 1980s that was still using vacuum tubes? (Soviet-built consumer products don't count, because their high-tech stuff like transistors went to the military) Any manufacturer at the time was proudly advertising their "Solid State Circuits" and "All Transistor" designs to show how modern they were.
Even the mainframe computers (Amdahl, IBM) and Personal Computers (Commodore, Cromemco, Apple, RadioShack, Heathkit) of that era weren't using vacuum tubes.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Gordon

If Translink does decide to to get Mark 2s instead of refurbishing The mark 1s, I wonder if Translink will get some three car units to bring Skytrain closer to full capacity? ( I think this is being looked at.)

Or they can order just the Mk II "C" middle cars to expand the 2-car Mk II married pair to 3-car 'married triplex' units (is there a better term?) The downside is that before you can run 5-car (2+3) or 6-car MK II trains (3+3), all the Expo and Millennium platforms need to be long enough to accommodate the longer trains. The original Expo platforms can only handle 6-car Mk I or 4-car Mk II trains so far.

Apparently that's also an option for the Canada Line when the time comes to expand capacity - add a 10M middle car to the 2-car Rotem trains, but lengthening the platforms beyond their current 50M length will be very expensive.

[usog]

The beijing airport express thing uses 4-car MKIIs so its doable, unless there's some limitation on the ones we have...

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The downside is that before you can run 5-car (2+3) or 6-car MK II trains (3+3), all the Expo and Millennium platforms need to be long enough to accommodate the longer trains. The original Expo platforms can only handle 6-car Mk I or 4-car Mk II trains so far.

Incorrect.
M-Line platforms and Expo line platforms are the same length: 80m.

Both Expo line and M-Line can handle the 3+2 configuration with all doors on the platform. The ends would stick out.

MKI - 12.5m ( 6-car train = 75m )
MKII - 17m ( 5-car train is less than 84m. The C-car is shorter )

Expansion of the platform to 100m would allow 6-car MKII trains.

[Waders]

No. I don't mean the big vacumm tube.
I remembered the old TV my grandparents had during mid 70's still used some big vacumm tube. When they burned out, they made big popping sound, pretty scary.
For the skytrain built around 80's, most likely the small semiconductor diode or vacuum tube diode would be used. They are still very backward in today's standard.
You will be surprised to know how backward technology were in the 70's and even 80's. The first space shuttle flight was in 1981 and the computer system it used originally only had 424 KB of memory.

[jsbertram]

I remember my Granddad bought a 'huge' console Colour TV just to watch the moon landing - "All Transistor Design" and "Solid State Circuits" was plastered on the front so everyone would know this TV was Space Age Modern.

He was quite p*ssed off that when Neil stepped on the moon, the live video from the moon was only in Black and White. The family joked about that for years.

Being new technology, as the TV aged the colours would go 'off kilter' so he would always be futzing to get the colours 'just right'. I'm not sure if he was joking or not, but my uncle told him that if you get Yellow just right, the other colours will be perfect too. I remember seeing Kraft Singles sitting on top of the TV so when a Kraft Singles commercial came on, Granddad would run to the TV & hold the cheese slice in front of it & fiddle with dials to get the perfect Cheese Yellow to match the slice in his hand.

Gramma put an end to that by not buying Kraft Singles anymore.

[WarrenC12]

I still adjust the convergence on my rear projection TV, and it's even Hi-Def!

[Zassk]

SkyTrain cars from the 80's were most likely using early 70's technology for the control system. They might have been solid state, but just barely. That is how it goes with industrial electronics. You would be surprised what is considered "current gen electronics" in places like sawmills and factories.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Waders

No. I don't mean the big vacumm tube.
I remembered the old TV my grandparents had during mid 70's still used some big vacumm tube. When they burned out, they made big popping sound, pretty scary.
For the skytrain built around 80's, most likely the small semiconductor diode or vacuum tube diode would be used. They are still very backward in today's standard.
You will be surprised to know how backward technology were in the 70's and even 80's. The first space shuttle flight was in 1981 and the computer system it used originally only had 424 KB of memory.

Are you referring to the CRT as " the big vacumm tube"?
CRT - Cathode Ray Tube - is the techie name for what the general public calls the TV screen, and they were still quite common up until the last few years when flat plasma and LCD screens became as cheap to manufacture as glass CRTs. It always amused me to see 'high tech' systems with state-of-the-art electronics still using a CRT that wasn't so different from what Farnsworth was using when he was developing television.

It was only 4 years ago that an engineering client spent a truckload of money to 'upgrade' all their CAD workstations to 30" CRT screens, and now 40" and 50" LCD and Plasma screens are available with higher resolution and cheaper prices.

[officedweller]

It's pretty normal to cannibalize spare parts from decommissioned units when spare parts cannot be sourced. I could easily see them doing that.

As for inserting a C car into an A-B married pair - not sure if that is possible. Remember that each A-car and B-car carry different onboard computer systems -that communicate with each other - so the connections between the A and B cars would need to be severed and then reconnected through the C-car. Depends on whether they were originally designed to be separated to insert a C-car or not.
Also, if the trains have embedded software they could be specifc to the physical characteristics (length, weight) of the A-B married pair (i.e. for functions such as braking, speed, etc.)

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by officedweller

It's pretty normal to cannibalize spare parts from decommissioned units when spare parts cannot be sourced. I could easily see them doing that.

As for inserting a C car into an A-B married pair - not sure if that is possible. Remember that each A-car and B-car carry different onboard computer systems -that communicate with each other - so the connections between the A and B cars would need to be severed and then reconnected through the C-car. Depends on whether they were originally designed to be separated to insert a C-car or not.
Also, if the trains have embedded software they could be specifc to the physical characteristics (length, weight) of the A-B married pair (i.e. for functions such as braking, speed, etc.)

I'm with you on this. It would be far more productive to just order 3-car sets from now and pair them with existing 2-car sets.

[CLC]

TransLink to shuffle bus service

By Jeff Nagel - Surrey North Delta Leader
Published: May 04, 2010 11:00 AM
Updated: May 04, 2010 11:50 AM
TransLink will "rationalize" transit service by boosting the frequency of bus runs in some areas at certain times and reducing it in others.

The aim is to wring more revenue out of the transit system by trimming service hours in areas or time slots with low ridership and running buses more often where more riders can be served.

TransLink estimates that by reallocating 4.5 per cent of total service hours, the system could generate an extra $10 to $15 million per year in fares.

"We're challenged with limited resources to make the best use of those resources," CEO Ian Jarvis said.

The first such changes kick in this month, with buses connecting to Bridgeport Station on the Canada Line out of South Surrey and South Delta running more often between 7 and 8 a.m. – every six to eight minutes for some runs – but less frequently earlier in the morning before 7 a.m.

Officials says that reflects a trend of riders there leaving later for downtown now that the Canada Line provides them a faster, more reliable trip.

Service is also being reduced on Cambie Street, where the Canada Line now runs, and reapportioned to other areas.

More shifts in bus service are expected in September but the bulk of changes will come in 2011.

"Service rationalization does not necessarily mean whole routes will be cut or truncated," TransLink planning vice-president Michael Shiffer said.

"It may simply mean adjusting how frequently buses run at certain times on various segments depending on demand."

If it works as billed, the winners should be bus riders on congested routes who often watch one or more full buses pass them by without stopping.

Conversely, anyone who's often one of the only passengers on board may find their route targeted for a trim.

Right-sizing routes raises questions over how much time emerging areas with low transit ridership will be given to use more of their service before it's pulled and reallocated to where it's deemed more productive.

TransLink has laid out principles it says will guide service rationalization.

They call for the protection of service to transit-dependent riders who don't own cars; maintaining runs that are strategic in connecting the network; and protecting growing markets that are experiencing substantial ridership increases.

"If they're moving in the right direction, you want to pay attention to that," Shiffer said.

"If it's the only route that's connecting two communities that wouldn't otherwise be connected, then you need to look at what it takes to improve that route."

Areas with multiple parallel bus routes – such as some arterials in Vancouver – may be reduced ahead of areas where there is only one route.

TransLink is using automated counters, surveys and other methods to estimate local transit use – data that will be key in deciding where to cut and where to add service.

Mayors council chair Peter Fassbender, Langley City's mayor, said he's satisfied the changes are being made carefully and won't unfairly punish communities historically underserved by TransLink.

"We're totally comfortable," he said. "We want to ensure we have the most efficient, effective organization possible."

Service rationalization is part of TransLink's strategy to make due for now with $130 million more in new tax and fare revenue approved by area mayors last year.

Further system expansion, including new rapid transit lines, will only happen after TransLink proposes and mayors approve further revenue increases – a decision that also hinges on further talks with the province.

Pressure to restructure routes has come from the TransLink Commissioner's office, which says TransLink's service expansions have not generated enough revenue.

Fares covered 49.8 per cent of operating costs in 2009, down from 52 per cent in 2008.

TransLink plans to hold meetings to consult the public and local politicians on service rationalization in the coming months.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

I'm with you on this. It would be far more productive to just order 3-car sets from now and pair them with existing 2-car sets.

that way 5-car trains (2+3) or two types of 6-car trains (2+2+2) or (3+3) made up of Mk II cars can be used.

[SpongeG]

• Video Link