Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I thought that was the plan, except it was going to be:

========= ( EG ) ===>>
========= ( EG ) <<===
   P L A T F O R M
========= ( ML ) <==>

That way, you have AM cross platform transfers that cover:
-people coming from the Expo line and ML going to SFU
-people coming from [new] EG going to ML and Expo line.

I think those would be the majority of transfers in the morning, and providing easy morning transfers would be most appreciated by people. I don't know about you guys, but I was always more enthusiastic on my way home.

While going ML or Expo to EG (to Coquitlam) is not covered cross platform in the AM, it would be the minority of transfers, and they get cross platform in the PM.

WRT to 2 car trains on the EG, I sort of like the idea. It would increase frequency, which shortens people's travel times, making the service more attractive. As it is, the frequency on the Millennium line is determined by frequency on the Expo line. In the peak periods, when the Millennium line could use more trains, it can't because more trains can't fit into the system because of the congestion on the trunk line. As it is, trains coming out of Surrey sometimes have to wait before entering into Columbia because an ML trains is a bit behind Schedule.

By having VCC <-> Douglas independent of the Expo line, you can have whatever frequency you want, which, with 2 car trains can be much higher and offer the same capacity. As ridership grows, more trains and/or longer trains can be added, without affecting the frequency on Expo Line (and vice versa). As well, with shorter trains arriving at Commercial, there will be less of a surge of passengers arriving all at once for B lines or transfer to Expo. A more gradual flow will ease the strain on the platform at Broadway.

Having the WB EG line on the middle track. Would mean that trains would be running in the wrong direction. Unless they somehow crossed over.

With your suggestion yes the AM would have a cross platform cross over. But the PM wouldn't. Since you can't provide a cross platform to both the AM and PM. In my opinion there is no need to worry about it and just run the trains with the WB EG on the northern (new) track.

[SpongeG]

where do you guys get your brains from?

I can't follow any of this - lol

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

where do you guys get your brains from?

I can't follow any of this - lol

I picked up my brain from the local dollar store. Although sometimes I'd like to take it in for a refund but apparently they don't give refunds.

[SpongeG]

i can't think in words - pictures and diagrams i can understand - i guess being a graphic designer is responsible for that - I read all this and it doesn't make any sense to me - its like painful

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

i can't think in words - pictures and diagrams i can understand - i guess being a graphic designer is responsible for that - I read all this and it doesn't make any sense to me - its like painful

I hear ya. That's why I drew a diagram.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I thought that was the plan, except it was going to be:

========= ( EG ) ===>>
========= ( EG ) <<===
   P L A T F O R M
========= ( ML ) <==>

That way, you have AM cross platform transfers that cover:
-people coming from the Expo line and ML going to SFU
-people coming from [new] EG going to ML and Expo line.

I think those would be the majority of transfers in the morning, and providing easy morning transfers would be most appreciated by people. I don't know about you guys, but I was always more enthusiastic on my way home.

While going ML or Expo to EG (to Coquitlam) is not covered cross platform in the AM, it would be the minority of transfers, and they get cross platform in the PM.

Yeah, that's right.

The other aspect is that the other cross-platform routing, EG eastbound to ML eastbound can be avoided by transferring at any station west of Lougheed (or waiting for the correct train).

Here's an old post from the Evergreen Line thread.
The platforms are assigned based on destination. No destination is split across two platforms.
So passengers have certainty as to which platform to go to for a particular destination.
Apparently the criss-cross is now back to the basket weave based on the environmental assessment application:

Originally Posted by 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 Richmond Review:

No sale means Albion ferries will be scrapped

By Jeff Nagel - BC Local News
Published: October 21, 2010 2:00 PM
Updated: October 21, 2010 4:10 PM
The two former Albion ferries that were replaced last year by the new Golden Ears Bridge will be sold for scrap.

TransLink tried to sell the vessels for $1.1 million each but got no offers and only minimal interest from prospective buyers after posting them on Craigslist and marine industry websites.

Officials expect the scrap value will only offset the labour and transportation costs of breaking up and removing the boats, which have been docked since mid-2009.

“If we can’t sell them we may as well realize some value for them and not just continue to incur fixed costs,” TransLink spokesman Ken Hardie said.

The 150-foot 25-car ferries were built in 1972 and described as being in immaculate condition with new engines installed in the last few years.

Keeping them anchored near their old slips was costing TransLink money in security and maintenance to periodically start the engines and ensure they were in as-advertised condition.

The last trip of the MV Kulleet and MV Klatawa was July 31, 2009 – a month after the tolled Golden Ears Bridge opened, providing a direct link between Langley and Maple Ridge.

The change ended free crossings, as well as lengthy multi-sailing waits.

Employees and supporters had campaigned to keep the ferries and possibly continue some form of privately run service.

“We did not see another use for them,” Hardie said.

The global financial collapse scuttled one prospective deal that nearly sent them north for use as freight carrriers, he added.

TransLink is also scrapping more than 100 old diesel buses that have been retired and found no buyers either.

“They were the older high-floor buses that had the lifts instead of ramps,” Hardie said, adding there’s currently a glut of old buses on the market.

While some people feel it’s wrong to scrap old buses, he said, selling them to new users can expose TransLink to liability if there are problems.

The main expense of operating buses is the labour, fuel and maintenance, he said, adding the cost of even a brand new bus represents only about 15 per cent of the lifetime cost of running it.

Maple Ridge Mayor Ernie Daykin hadn’t heard about the ships’ destruction, but pointed out there would have been high costs to retrofit them to keep them in service somewhere else.

“Maybe I’ll have to go buy a bell or a steering wheel or something.”

He said losing the ships is similar to an old house being knocked down to make way for a new condo development.

“It’s a part of our history. It’s sad to see it go.

“That battle [to save the Albion ferries] is over and it’s sad they can’t be used for something other than being used for scrap.”

Meanwhile, TransLink has found no tenants for the Albion ferry terminal. That land remains vacant, although the District of Maple Ridge has asked Metro Vancouver to include that as parkland for possible use with the Experience the Fraser project, whose goal is to get a bike and walking trail on both sides of the Fraser River from Vancouver to Hope.

Daykin pointed out the old Albion ferry terminal could be fitted with a boat launch, though parking would be limited, noting there’s nowhere to launch a boat between Mission and Port Coquitlam.

– with files from Phil Melnychuk

http://www.bclocalnews.com/richmond_southdelta/richmondreview/news/105473688.html

[Gordon]

There has been no decision made yet as far as which operational scenario will be used post Evergreen Line but they will have the option to short turn trains at metrotown if necessary. Break at Lougheed makes the most sense to me because the 3rd platform is already roughed in.

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Here's an old post from the Evergreen Line thread.
The platforms are assigned based on destination. No destination is split across two platforms.
So passengers have certainty as to which platform to go to for a particular destination.
Apparently the criss-cross is now back to the basket weave based on the environmental assessment application:

Based on that diagram, how will the train coming from Braid station switch over to the south track? Currently it's a 'V' (or 'U') alignment - I figure they'll have to extend the incoming rail from Braid and put a new switch to get to the south track.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Based on that diagram, how will the train coming from Braid station switch over to the south track? Currently it's a 'V' (or 'U') alignment - I figure they'll have to extend the incoming rail from Braid and put a new switch to get to the south track.

Trains from Braid don't change from what you experience today. This is what happens today:
• Video Link

Edit: Damn, SSP YouTube plugin doesn't allow direct specific time links for YouTube videos.

If you jump over to 6 Min 50 seconds, the train "merges" (for the lack of a better word) onto another track from nowhere. These tracks are the future tracks for the Evergreen Line for trains coming from Dougals College.

Notice there are also provisions for rail tracks on the right of the current tracks. Those are for the Evergreen Line trains going to Douglas College. Afterwards, the Evergreen Line trains must be switched over as trains heading in Douglas College are traveling on the left side rather than the right side, as per Officedweller's diagram. However, there were some rumors about an actual guideway flyover/flyunder design, rather than a cross track switch.

[Mac Write]

I think one solution is to have the trains single track at the layover track outside of Braid to Lougheed. Then when the train arrives into the station, it is going the right direction for Waterfront. This will also make for a cross platform transfer for passengers coming from VCC Clark. Then the third platform will be for VCC-Clark bound passengers. Or flip it if they want to do Douglas > VCC Clark with a cross platform transfer as it is today for trains coming from Waterfront and make the side platform for Douglas.

I personally think they should just put in a new switch and scrap the third platform.

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by deasine

Trains from Braid don't change from what you experience today. This is what happens today:
• Video Link

Edit: Damn, SSP YouTube plugin doesn't allow direct specific time links for YouTube videos.

If you jump over to 6 Min 50 seconds, the train "merges" (for the lack of a better word) onto another track from nowhere. These tracks are the future tracks for the Evergreen Line for trains coming from Dougals College.

Notice there are also provisions for rail tracks on the right of the current tracks. Those are for the Evergreen Line trains going to Douglas College. Afterwards, the Evergreen Line trains must be switched over as trains heading in Douglas College are traveling on the left side rather than the right side, as per Officedweller's diagram. However, there were some rumors about an actual guideway flyover/flyunder design, rather than a cross track switch.

Thanks for the video Deasine. I went to the time stamp you suggested, and I see the only way the train can get to the south track is to merge to the 'nowhere' track, and right away merge back to the south track. If this is indeed the desired movement, the train will have to 'slot' inbetween VCC-Clark trains, which means those two switch pairs will be getting a lot of work. I think it would be better to isolate the movement to one pair of switches as opposed to two.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

Based on that diagram, how will the train coming from Braid station switch over to the south track? Currently it's a 'V' (or 'U') alignment - I figure they'll have to extend the incoming rail from Braid and put a new switch to get to the south track.

There's already a switch in place - you can barely see it on the model just beyond the east end of the roof. So the train from Braid would move to the middle track and immediately switch to the south track. I don't think the movement would be any more complex than if the trains from Braid and from Coquitlam were interlined).

Short-turns using switches east of the station and using switches west of the station:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[TransitFreak]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's already a switch in place - you can barely see it on the model just beyond the east end of the roof. So the train from Braid would move to the middle track and immediately switch to the south track. I don't think the movement would be any more complex than if the trains from Braid and from Coquitlam were interlined).

Short-turns using switches east of the station and using switches west of the station:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Yeah, that's what I mean, that 'V' shaped manuveure...I know it's doable, just seems not as direct as it could have been...

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's already a switch in place - you can barely see it on the model just beyond the east end of the roof. So the train from Braid would move to the middle track and immediately switch to the south track. I don't think the movement would be any more complex than if the trains from Braid and from Coquitlam were interlined).

Short-turns using switches east of the station and using switches west of the station:



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The problem with that manoeuver is that while the train that arrived from Braid is waiting to go back to Braid, it is blocking trains coming from VCC (and UBC) that are heading to Coquitlam.

It is easier to keep using the current platform as the 'mainline' platform for trains that are passing through Lougheed Station on their way to Coquitlam, Burnaby/Vancouver or New West.

Here is a drawing I made of the current Lougheed Station area tracks when I was trying to figure out the train movements.
The grey-dotted lines are tracks that are unused by trains passing through Lougheed on their way to Braid or Production.
The curved grey-dotted lines are the unbuilt Evergreen tracks.
The coloured lies are the tracks used today by Millennium trains passing through Lougheed.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


The unfinished north platform can be completed and used as the terminal platform for trains that are ending their runs at Lougheed Station and are 'resting' before starting their next run back to New West/Waterfront.

I made a similar drawing of using Lougheed Station as a terminal for trains coming from New West, where the coloured lies are the tracks used by short-turning Millennium trains that would terminate at Lougheed before heading back to New West and Waterfront.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us


The trackbed is already in place from when Lougheed Station was built, only the North Platform needs to be finished and rails laid for the North Platform.

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

The problem with that manoeuver is that while the train that arrived from Braid is waiting to go back to Braid, it is blocking trains coming from VCC (and UBC) that are heading to Coquitlam.

No, the idling train will not block Coquitlam trains.

The trains heading to Coquitlam will (west of the platform) cross to the new third platform.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

...

It is easier to keep using the current platform as the 'mainline' platform for trains that are passing through Lougheed Station on their way to Coquitlam, Burnaby/Vancouver or New West.
...

The unfinished north platform can be completed and used as the terminal platform for trains that are ending their runs at Lougheed Station and are 'resting' before starting their next run back to New West/Waterfront.

That doesn't work because you need certainty as to which platform a passenger should go to to get the "next train" to their destination.

In your scenario, a short turn train that has just finished idling would leave from the third platform - to the dismay of those waiting on the "main platform" - and those that go to the third platform and "just miss" the train leaving the third platform will either have to wait a very long time for the next short turn train, or walk down and up to the main platform in frustration after having missed the train.

That's the same problem Toronto's TTC had at Bay and St. George Stations with their interlining experiment in the 1960s. Even though they had primitive "next train" flip signs, passengers would wait halfway on the staircase, because they didn't know whether the next train to their destination would arrive on the upper platform or on the lower platform.

The assignment of the platforms as planned in 2000 provides certainty for passengers by assigning the platforms by destination.

Regardless of train movements (short-turning or through movement),
you always go to the Coquitlam platform for a Coquitlam-bound train,
always go to the Vancouver platform for a Vancouver-bound train and
always go to the New Westminster platform for a New Westminster-bound train.

In addition, suppose you have weekend operation with short-turn trains and weekday operations without short-turn trains, or vice versa - you wouldn't want passengers to have to go to different platforms depending on what the operational mode happens to be - especially if that changes based on the day of the week (or even the time of day, if the operational mode changes to short-turns at off-peak or night-time).

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

No, the idling train will not block Coquitlam trains.

The trains heading to Coquitlam will (west of the platform) cross to the new third platform.



That doesn't work because you need certainty as to which platform a passenger should go to to get the "next train" to their destination.

In your scenario, a short turn train that has just finished idling would leave from the third platform - to the dismay of those waiting on the "main platform" - and those that go to the third platform and "just miss" the train leaving the third platform will either have to wait a very long time for the next short turn train, or walk down and up to the main platform in frustration after having missed the train.

That's the same problem Toronto's TTC had at Bay and St. George Stations with their interlining experiment in the 1960s. Even though they had primitive "next train" flip signs, passengers would wait halfway on the staircase, because they didn't know whether the next train to their destination would arrive on the upper platform or on the lower platform.

The assignment of the platforms as planned in 2000 provides certainty for passengers by assigning the platforms by destination.

Regardless of train movements (short-turning or through movement),
you always go to the Coquitlam platform for a Coquitlam-bound train,
always go to the Vancouver platform for a Vancouver-bound train and
always go to the New Westminster platform for a New Westminster-bound train.

In addition, suppose you have weekend operation with short-turn trains and weekday operations without short-turn trains, or vice versa - you wouldn't want passengers to have to go to different platforms depending on what the operational mode happens to be - especially if that changes based on the day of the week (or even the time of day, if the operational mode changes to short-turns at off-peak or night-time).

It seems to be working OK with Bridgeport.

"This train terminates at Richmond-Brighouse. Please transfer at Bridgeport for a YVR Airport train"

or

"This train terminates at Vancouver Waterfront. Please transfer at Bridgeport for a YVR Airport train"

Two Canada Line branches in Richmond share the same centre-island platform at Bridgeport.
If someone gets confused by this, maybe they shouldn't be using SkyTrain without parental supervision.


Before arriving at Lougheed Station the announcement could be:
"This is an Evergreen train terminating at Douglas College. Transfer here to Platform Three for Millennium trains to New Westminster.

[jlousa]

Guys we appear to be having almost the same conservation in this thread and the evergreen thread. Anyone think they should be moved over?

[cabotp]

Originally Posted by jlousa

Guys we appear to be having almost the same conservation in this thread and the evergreen thread. Anyone think they should be moved over?

lol no this is a parrallel universe of the evergreen line thread.

[CLC]

Seattle Link ridership is on downward trend for two straight months, now only 64% of the projected ridership

(from: http://globaltelematics.com/pitf/Linkpassengercount.htm)