Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Long ago, when Skytrain Expo Line first opened, I read that although the trains were "medium capacity" and not heavy rail (like the Canada Line) that ........ and these were the exact printed words, the Skytrain would one day be be capable of "carrying mature, 'second-generation' trains."

I believe that statement referred to the Mark IIs, which did not exist at the time.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I believe that statement referred to the Mark IIs, which did not exist at the time.

Are the MarkII trains that much more capacious than the Mark I trains?

Could wider "Canada Line" size type trains (heavy rail) be fitted onto the Skytrain (with different motors, yes, I know)

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by Gordon

According to an article in the Winnipeg Free Press, Translink has placed an order with New Flyer for 42 new buses initially with the potentially of 87 buses if the contract is totally fulfilled. the buses are to be used in West Vancouver and Richmond.

West Van is getting 17 40' XD40s and Richmond is getting 25 60' XDE60 articulated hybrids.

All buses have some new great additions such as LED lighting, frameless windows and most importantly, air conditioning! Much better than the Nova junk.

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Are the MarkII trains that much more capacious than the Mark I trains?

Could wider "Canada Line" size type trains (heavy rail) be fitted onto the Skytrain (with different motors, yes, I know)

Wider stock would not fit on the guideway for Expo/Millennium.

As for capacities:
2 car MkII 1st gen: 260
2 car MkII 2nd gen: 290
4 car MkI: 320
6 car MkI: 480
4 car MkII 1st gen: 520
4 car MkII 2nd gen: 580
2 car Rotem EMU: 334

While the wider Rotem cars can hold more passengers in a 40m train (the 4 car MkI and Rotem EMU are similar lengths) the Canada Line's platforms are half the length of the Expo/Millennium lines, so they can't run two trains coupled together as is done today with the MkII trains for a capacity of 520 or 580.

You would think in 2003 they would plan platforms at least equal length of those done in 86, but hey that's what you get when you build things as cheaply as possible with the goal of profit over quality of service/future expandability.

[Gordon]

Thanks for the info.

Are these replacement buses or expansions to the fleet?

I wonder which buses will be used to for the Port Mann Rapid Bus when it goes into service in December?

[nname]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Thanks for the info.

Are these replacement buses or expansions to the fleet?

I wonder which buses will be used to for the Port Mann Rapid Bus when it goes into service in December?

Both batch of buses are ordered before the budget crisis.

The West Vancouver bus are for replacement.

The other ones are supposed for expansion (and since they are 60ft buses, you'd think they are for the Surrey B-Line). But now, most likely they'll just replace the oldest 40ft and 60ft buses, which are still a few years before their retirement age.

Neither of them will be used for the Port Mann Rapid Bus. I think we're already known by now the rapid-bus is a no-go from TransLink. Even if they somehow managed to find a way to run it, those surplus buses that are either recently being placed into storage or has been in storage since 2010 would probably be more than enough for the service.

[Mac Write]

Actually the Expo line can take wider cars. All they have to do is remove the bolted ledge at the station off and wider trains can be used. Of course with the current trains they wouldn't fit.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Actually the Expo line can take wider cars. All they have to do is remove the bolted ledge at the station off and wider trains can be used. Of course with the current trains they wouldn't fit.

My understanding is that the limiting factor is the available clearance in the Expo line tunnel where it curves just inbound of Burrard Station. The Mark II cars are basically at the clearance limit. If you wanted to use wider cars then they'd also have to be shorter than the Mark II's in order to stay within the dimensional limits of the tunnel.

Not to mention the fact that even if you could just alter the platforms to allow for wider trains then you'd have to replace ALL the rolling stock on the Expo and Millenium lines - a highly unlikely scenario.

Skytrain planning documents make no mention of wider cars, but do mention (and largely dismiss as being too costly) the idea of extending platform lengths to accommodate longer trains.

Right now the biggest capacity constraint is circulation in the busiest stations, particularly Broadway and Metrotown. The following document describes this and the other capacity constraints:

http://www.translink.ca/~/media/document...e%20strategy%20%20project%20summary.ashx

[nname]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Are the MarkII trains that much more capacious than the Mark I trains?

Could wider "Canada Line" size type trains (heavy rail) be fitted onto the Skytrain (with different motors, yes, I know)

I'm not sure if the "heaviness" of the rail can be determined just by train width. SkyTrain MkII cars have a width of 2.65m. Many well-known heavy-rail systems have narrower cars: Montreal (2.5m), New York (line 1-7, 2.62m), London (about half of them are 2.62m), Tokyo (line 3, 2.55m), and the list goes on...

[Alex Mackinnon]

It was an option. I think the bolt on edges would allow for something along the lines of another .5m width on the vehicles. The RAV bidding group that included Bombardier also called for the wider Mk2 ART trains, not allowing interlining.

With a few guideway upgrades it could be possible that wider trains could be used on Expo if the eventual Millennium line ending at Columbia is given it's own track. Then you would only have to make a partial fleet replacement until the Millennium/Evergreen portions also require fleet replacement.

The big downside of this arrangement is that the trains on the Expo line couldn't be switched over to the Millennium line and vice-versa. The M-Line and Evergreen trains however could still make it to the Expo maintenance yard if need be.

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Thanks for the info.
Are these replacement buses or expansions to the fleet?
I wonder which buses will be used to for the Port Mann Rapid Bus when it goes into service in December?

Originally Posted by nname

Both batch of buses are ordered before the budget crisis.
The West Vancouver bus are for replacement.
The other ones are supposed for expansion (and since they are 60ft buses, you'd think they are for the Surrey B-Line). But now, most likely they'll just replace the oldest 40ft and 60ft buses, which are still a few years before their retirement age.
Neither of them will be used for the Port Mann Rapid Bus. I think we're already known by now the rapid-bus is a no-go from TransLink. Even if they somehow managed to find a way to run it, those surplus buses that are either recently being placed into storage or has been in storage since 2010 would probably be more than enough for the service.

The base order is for replacement, not expansion.

For West Van it's replacing 951-959 and 961-968. For CMBC it's replacing 3258-3282.

They left options available for service expansion (which haven't been used at the moment. Who knows if they will.)

[Xerx]

I read a document that says that the trains could be widened to 2.75m, but the logistics and costs of doing so have stopped them from doing so.

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

With a few guideway upgrades it could be possible that wider trains could be used on Expo if the eventual Millennium line ending at Columbia is given it's own track. Then you would only have to make a partial fleet replacement until the Millennium/Evergreen portions also require fleet replacement.

The big downside of this arrangement is that the trains on the Expo line couldn't be switched over to the Millennium line and vice-versa. The M-Line and Evergreen trains however could still make it to the Expo maintenance yard if need be.

There will still be one OMC for the "three"/two lines.

"Three" because TransLink's project summary shows that what we're going to get (because it makes the most sense based on passenger loads, train frequency, etc) is:

Expo Line from Waterfront to Lougheed/King George (alternating)
Millennium/Evergreen Line from Douglas College to VCC-Clark via Lougheed

It fits the passenger flows, but it'll 🞵🞵🞵🞵 for anyone who wants to go from Coquitlam to Surrey. You'll have to transfer at Lougheed and again at Columbia. (Though that's basically what happens now with the 97/Millennium/Expo route.)

[nname]

Originally Posted by Meraki

The base order is for replacement, not expansion.

For West Van it's replacing 951-959 and 961-968. For CMBC it's replacing 3258-3282.

They left options available for service expansion (which haven't been used at the moment. Who knows if they will.)

Well.. for expansion I meant 40ft buses 'expanded' to 60ft... And they had at least 25 surplus 40ft buses since 2010 so those 25 buses are really for expanding the service instead of putting away 25 older buses....

Those ex-C40s are not really old too... 12 years including 3 years in storage during the 2001 budget crisis - so only 9 years running on the road...

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Meraki

Wider stock would not fit on the guideway for Expo/Millennium.

As for capacities:
2 car MkII 1st gen: 260
2 car MkII 2nd gen: 290
4 car MkI: 320
6 car MkI: 480
4 car MkII 1st gen: 520
4 car MkII 2nd gen: 580
2 car Rotem EMU: 334

While the wider Rotem cars can hold more passengers in a 40m train (the 4 car MkI and Rotem EMU are similar lengths) the Canada Line's platforms are half the length of the Expo/Millennium lines, so they can't run two trains coupled together as is done today with the MkII trains for a capacity of 520 or 580.

You would think in 2003 they would plan platforms at least equal length of those done in 86, but hey that's what you get when you build things as cheaply as possible with the goal of profit over quality of service/future expandability.

Just to expand on this.

Current Expo / Millennium line platforms are long enough for 6-car Mk I or 4-car MK II trains, so at rush-hour a full train would be:
a) 6 car MkI: 480 passengers
b) 4 car MkII 1G: 520 passengers
c) 4 car MkII 2G: 580 passengers

Its helpful to remember that Bombardier cars are operated as 'married pairs', so trains are always made up of 2, 4 or 6 cars. There are occasional rumours that Translink & Bombardier were thinking of inserting a "C" car in the middle of existing MkII 1G and 2G married pairs, but they apparently have concluded any new stock will be MkIII cars run as 'married pairs', just like the existing fleet.


The Canada Line uses the Rotem cars that are also operated as 'married pairs', and as has been discussed before the platforms are only long enough for a train of two cars.
In the future a "C" car could be inserted between the two current cars to make a 3-car 'married triplet'. Some platforms have been built with knock-out walls to lengthen the platform to accommodate the longer train.

It's unlikely we'll ever see longer Rotem trains in operation (ie: two 'married pairs' connected together) because of the major expense needed for all the platforms to double their current length.

[Gordon]

According to an article in the sun :
The contract with Winnipeg-based bus manufacturer New Flyer Industries could ultimately include as many as 87 buses, all of which would run off the trolley grid in Richmond and West Vancouver

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/cars/hybrid+...streets/6959338/story.html#ixzz216pvYc1W

this surprises me because I don't think Translink has any plans any plans to expand trolley infrastructure.

[xd_1771]

If a dire capacity need were to ever plague SkyTrain's Expo and Millennium Lines... there are even more solutions.

TransLink could reorganize trains to offer side-facing seating throughout trains. Kuala Lumpur's Kelana Jaya Line trains use this layout and can carry an impressive 800-925 (at 6 persons/m2 I believe) in an articulated four-car train.

You'll have to transfer at Lougheed and again at Columbia. (Though that's basically what happens now with the 97/Millennium/Expo route.)

A new bus route was planned to connect Coquitlam and Guildford Town Centres.

The platform extensions needed for Canada Line are just 10m long (40m -> 50m), not a length doubling. The platforms that were not built with knock out walls were already built at 50m, if I'm not mistaken.

I'm not sure about the ART 200 cars but I do know that the next genART 300 cars can be configured to have one of three possible widths: 2.65m (Vancouver SkyTrain), 2.9m, and 3.2m. Here's the reference document (I hope you read Chinese)

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The platform extensions needed for Canada Line are just 10m long (40m -> 50m), not a length doubling. The platforms that were not built with knock out walls were already built at 50m, if I'm not mistaken.

I think he meant if they wanted to do two articulated trainsets (2+2) they would have to double the platform length. Adding a C-car would only require 10 extra meters.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

It's unlikely we'll ever see longer Rotem trains in operation (ie: two 'married pairs' connected together) because of the major expense needed for all the platforms to double their current length.

Nobody seems to be mentioning this, so I'll just point out that another way to increase capacity is to build additional lines. I'm not talking about a second set of tracks directly adjacent to the existing set, but rather a new route that more-or-less parallels the original at some distance away so as to provide alternative service.

This has the advantage of providing redundancy and more direct routing for some people. You see it being discussed in Toronto in the form of "relief lines", and of course larger cities such as New York already have plenty of parallel rapid transit routes.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Nobody seems to be mentioning this, so I'll just point out that another way to increase capacity is to build additional lines. I'm not talking about a second set of tracks directly adjacent to the existing set, but rather a new route that more-or-less parallels the original at some distance away so as to provide alternative service.

This has the advantage of providing redundancy and more direct routing for some people. You see it being discussed in Toronto in the form of "relief lines", and of course larger cities such as New York already have plenty of parallel rapid transit routes.

Something like ...

Streetcar / LRT / Tram in the Arbutus corridor, then swing by Granville Island, under False Creek near Burrard Bridge and then tunnel under Burrard St to the Convention Centre.

unfortunately, it'll never happen.

The "Creme de la Creme" of the west side decided against option this several years ago.