Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[trofirhen]

People have expressed concern over four-car MKII trains recently, especially in the light of accidents. There is a space between the "married" pair of cars that is potentially dangerous, that people can fall through or get caught under.

Here in Paris (as elsewhere) many stations are installing a glass panel at the platform edge, the doors of which open only when the train is loadiing/unloading. Would it not make sense to do the same here?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

People have expressed concern over four-car MKII trains recently, especially in the light of accidents. There is a space between the "married" pair of cars that is potentially dangerous, that people can fall through or get caught under.

Here in Paris (as elsewhere) many stations are installing a glass panel at the platform edge, the doors of which open only when the train is loadiing/unloading. Would it not make sense to do the same here?

Ummm... I believe only one forumer posted this in light of the Calgary train accident and I personally haven't heard it be a problem here in Vancouver. Either way, platform doors are expensive to install and cannot be installed on the Expo and Millennium Lines because of the different rolling stock.

The big reason why Paris is finally installing PEDs is because crowding is a continuous issue and that many of the lines are automated and do not have a track intrusion system.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

People have expressed concern over four-car MKII trains recently, especially in the light of accidents. There is a space between the "married" pair of cars that is potentially dangerous, that people can fall through or get caught under.

Here in Paris (as elsewhere) many stations are installing a glass panel at the platform edge, the doors of which open only when the train is loadiing/unloading. Would it not make sense to do the same here?

It could be done if all the trains were MkI or Mk II, but because Expo/Millennium (and later Evergreen) are running both MkI and Mk II cars in combinations of 2- or 4-car trains (and also 6-car MkI trains), doors on the platforms can't line up with the doors on the trains. Fortunately, Skytrain doesn't make up trains that are a mix of MkI and MKII cars, so that is one headache they don't have to deal with.

Furthermore, the doors themselves on the MkII cars are wider than the doors on a MkI, so your first issue is what is the width of the platform doors? Using the MkI door width means people exiting a MkII car will hit the platform door jambs. Using the MkII door width means people entering a MkI car will hit the cars' door jambs.

Once the MkI cars are retired, it becomes easier to build platform doors that line up with just one model of Bombardier cars (the MkII) that has just one width of door, but a 2-car or 4-car MkII train would likely stop with the first door at the far end of the platform, rather than be centred on the platform because the doors on the cars aren't evenly spaced along the length of the cars & the length of the trains.

[MechMike]

How about, not pretending the space between the two cars is a door and walking into it.

[red-paladin]

Platform doors are dumb. In addition to the above reasons, the trains seem to stop at different places at different stations. Some stop right at the western or eastern end of the platform, some stop in the middle, depending on where the main exits are. So if we made platform doors, they would probably all be the same and we would lose that. Also, if we upgrade to 6 car Mk II trains, it would have to all be re done.

There was that compromise thing we saw in a picture from Asia where a movable barrier blocked the entire platform, and then it rose when the trains came. If we really have a problem with people dying then we could use that instead. But has anyone ever been confirmed to die on the skytrain while walking between the the gaps between the trains, thinking it's a door since they are blind? I'm all for saving lives, but I think this is a red herring argument. I'm sure the first thing they tell blind people about train platforms is to use the cane to make sure the train is there before you step otherwise you're going to die. I would rather see the fund going to buy every blind person at risk a dog than platform doors.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by deasine

These are initial operation plans and I'm quite definite they won't be running 2 car trains when the Broadway extension kicks in. As for why aren't we running short trains at higher frequencies today? Well, current operation plans are restricting us from doing this. Because the Expo Line and Millennium Lines are interlined with one another, the Columbia-VCC portion can only run trains every 5 minutes. If it wasn't interlined and the Millennium Line had its own platform and set of tracks at Columbia station, it could be ran at shorter frequencies.

It sounds like Columbia really should be a priority for an upgrade. I'm curious as to why it might have been neglected before now. Was it ever mentioned in any of the Expo Line renovations announcements? I don't recall it ever coming up.

Anyway, starting with 2-car high-frequency trains seems like a very awkward way to commence. If you want to add capacity, then your only choice is to lengthen some trains and run a mix of 2- and 4-car trains. On the other hand, if you had started with 4-car trains at half the frequency, then you could add capacity just by adding more 4-car trains.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by MechMike

How about, not pretending the space between the two cars is a door and walking into it.

Which works for most people who aren't Boozed up, Drugged up, Senile, Nearly Blind, or having a seizure / stroke that incapacitates them at a place on the platform where it can do serious bodily damage or worse when they have a Darwinian interaction with the subway car(s).

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Zassk

Anyway, starting with 2-car high-frequency trains seems like a very awkward way to commence. If you want to add capacity, then your only choice is to lengthen some trains and run a mix of 2- and 4-car trains. On the other hand, if you had started with 4-car trains at half the frequency, then you could add capacity just by adding more 4-car trains.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your point.

I'd like to point out that Vancouver's transit system always began with short trains at relatively high frequencies. Expo Line originally started out with 2-car MK Is, then added more cars making 4-car MK Is. When we purchased a fleet of MK IIs, we also started out with 2-car MK IIs, then some MKIIs were joined together forming 4-car MK IIs, and now, most of the entire fleet is 4-car MK IIs. Canada Line is also starting out with 2-car ROTEM trains, with future expansion to 3-cars (well 2.7 really).

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm sorry, I don't really understand your point.

I'd like to point out that Vancouver's transit system always began with short trains at relatively high frequencies. Expo Line originally started out with 2-car MK Is, then added more cars making 4-car MK Is. When we purchased a fleet of MK IIs, we also started out with 2-car MK IIs, then some MKIIs were joined together forming 4-car MK IIs, and now, most of the entire fleet is 4-car MK IIs. Canada Line is also starting out with 2-car ROTEM trains, with future expansion to 3-cars (well 2.7 really).

My apologies, I wasn't clear on my overall point. I thought that running a mix of different train lengths was highly undesirable to the users.

I have read much grumbling on this board about the scenario where a shorter train would roll into a busy station in previous years. I figured that we would never want to go back to that situation in future, now that it has been rectified by the 2009 MK II's.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Zassk

My apologies, I wasn't clear on my overall point. I thought that running a mix of different train lengths was highly undesirable to the users.

I have read much grumbling on this board about the scenario where a shorter train would roll into a busy station in previous years. I figured that we would never want to go back to that situation in future, now that it has been rectified by the 2009 MK II's.

No worries. That being said, I'm still not understanding why it is highly undesirable: we've been running a mix of different train lengths for a long time now, MK Is and MK IIs are different lengths! It's only recently that we began running all of the fleet with 4-car MK IIs!

Like I said, I think generally people would prefer more trains over longer trains at shorter headways. I wouldn't say our system is famous, but this is really what Vancouver's system is known for, especially compared to many North American Transit Agencies.

[admiralprestoncole]

Sorry I couldn't produce the document, but I recently got a student position with CMBC's service department at VTC and I saw a posting on the garage's bulletin stating that their were talks about increasing service and hours around lougheed in 2011 due to the fact the that the station needs to be taken out of service for the construction of the Evergreen line. The bulletin also states that the Hamilton Transit Center will help ease the burden of the crunch when it comes online.

[DKaz]

Huh, I'm guessing just the bus loop needs to be taken out of service, hopefully not the station itself. They could just move all the buses onto Government Place.

[admiralprestoncole]

Originally Posted by DKaz

Huh, I'm guessing just the bus loop needs to be taken out of service, hopefully not the station itself. They could just move all the buses onto Government Place.

The bulletin stated the entire station, not just the bus loop. You can see from the station itself that track work and switches need to be laid, and it can be a bit hard with public access to heavy construction zones.

[Zassk]

^ Er... hmm.. how would they shut down Lougheed Station? Short run trains on either side of the station? Or run the trains through without stopping (maybe using one track only)?

I guess they can't run trains on the west side of Lougheed without a connection to the OMC... so there must be a plan to allow trains through the station one way or another.

Hmm... ramifications of Evergreen that I hadn't thought of.

[DKaz]

But most of the switches are there, that was the point of doing this and building the 3rd platform structure ahead of time so the station itself can continue to operate whilst the third platform is being finished.

[admiralprestoncole]

Originally Posted by DKaz

But most of the switches are there, that was the point of doing this and building the 3rd platform structure ahead of time so the station itself can continue to operate whilst the third platform is being finished.

I'll ask my supervisors tonight, they are usually on top of this stuff.

[mezzanine]

Originally Posted by DKaz

But most of the switches are there, that was the point of doing this and building the 3rd platform structure ahead of time so the station itself can continue to operate whilst the third platform is being finished.

IIRC, the main reason to pre-build the future expansion @ lougheed was to save money.

I would think that they would have to close the station, at least short-term, to complete the station and the adjacent guideway, for things like construction equipment, staging, and public safety. thye could try to leave the station open, but it would cost more (slower construction). Once lougheed station house is built, i imagine they can re-open it and put in electrical, utilities while it is operational.

it is wierd how planning is continuing without any funding announcement from victoria......

[BCPhil]

I think at some point the contraption that is used to construct the guideway would overhang existing guideway for a week or two. That combined with replacing/installing the switches would probably make the station useless, at least on one side. It might be simpler to close the station and tracks for a few weeks and reroute buses than run infrequent trains on only 1 side of the platform. Trains could be pre-stacked on the west end of the M-Line or shuttled through the construction area once or twice a day for maintenance. Most trains can survive at least a few weeks (if not more with proper visual inspections at night) without needing to be inspected in the yard.

[Metro-One]

I really hope they go with the superior basket weave option for Lougheed Station.

[Zassk]

^ We've had this discussion, but I still don't see the point of the basketweave... Two switches and one flyover like Bridgeport/Columbia has got to be a whole lot cheaper than a basketweave. And both of those are considered adequate for 90 second headways.

I recall that the number of people travelling between Columbia and Lougheed is under three thousand per day currently. Let them go up-and-down for their transfer at Lougheed. With the money saved, maybe we can get an extra station built on opening day, or a few extra MKII trainsets... or balance the books?