Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[federal777]

Why were the Expo/Millennium lines designed for such narrow trains? Why didn't they follow some standards and go at least close to subway width? They're even narrower than a city bus. SkyTrain would be perfect if the expo/mil. trains were just as wide as the Rotems.

People are turned off transit when people standing are hovering over those seated. Add to this, a wheelchair, and the maneuvering required to go through the aisle. This crampedness is less pronounced on the 3-m Rotems.

Is anyone else disgusted by how narrrow Mk.I/Mk.II cars are? Tourists must laugh at how little space there is compared to their rapid transit systems, contributing to SkyTrain's image of a toy people mover.

I hope the Evergreen Line is designed for wider cars in the future. Is it?

[jlousa]

The size of the existing Dunsmuir tunnels I believe is responsible. Don't think Translink is too concerned about what tourists think but more about serving local needs, they seem to be managing pretty well considering the circumstances.

[red-paladin]

The original Mk I trains are narrow because that was the model of train that was being built for the Scarborough RT. The reason that was narrow was they took a mostly built streetcar guideway and converted it to ICTS to showcase that technology as the Ontario Gov't owned UTDC at the time. Had the first project been a normal subway, likely none of this would have happened. When the Skytrain guideways were being constructed they were meant to be able to handle larger trains in the future (which is what we have in the Mk.IIs) And yeah, the constraints of the tunnel make a certain amount of sense, but it was built for freight trains after all, so the cars are normally not that long, but wider. ICTS / LIM motors were originally created for suburban rail type trains (that were never built) so it's not to do with their ability.

[YVR Bruce]

Originally Posted by jlousa

The size of the existing Dunsmuir tunnels I believe is responsible. Don't think Translink is too concerned about what tourists think but more about serving local needs, they seem to be managing pretty well considering the circumstances.

Hear hear to jlousa.
I once overhead an Alaska Air PX from LA commenting on the wide-bodied Canada Line...: "Where did they find such a small train...?" My thought at the time: "not many transit experts nor well served users in LA...". I'll take Vancouver's frequency any / every day, and Vancouver's high farebox % is irrefutable evidence of our success.

[nname]

Originally Posted by federal777

Why were the Expo/Millennium lines designed for such narrow trains? Why didn't they follow some standards and go at least close to subway width? They're even narrower than a city bus. SkyTrain would be perfect if the expo/mil. trains were just as wide as the Rotems.

People are turned off transit when people standing are hovering over those seated. Add to this, a wheelchair, and the maneuvering required to go through the aisle. This crampedness is less pronounced on the 3-m Rotems.

Is anyone else disgusted by how narrrow Mk.I/Mk.II cars are? Tourists must laugh at how little space there is compared to their rapid transit systems, contributing to SkyTrain's image of a toy people mover.

I hope the Evergreen Line is designed for wider cars in the future. Is it?

The Millennium is not designed for wider train, so I guess Evergreen Line won't either.

And I've never heard of "standard" subway-sized train. Just a few example:
- All numbered routes in New York subway uses narrower trains than the Mk II.
- More than half of London Underground use narrower train and none of the line is as wide as the Rotem train.
- About half of Tokyo Metro lines have narrow train, and none is even close to 3m wide.
- Some of Shanghai Metro line, especially the elevated ones, only use 2.6m wide trains.

So by your definition, these systems should also be disqualified from being a "subway"?

[federal777]

If the Dunsmuir tunnel was originally built for wide freight trains (much wider than skytrain), why cannot it accommodate wider skytrain trains?

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by federal777

If the Dunsmuir tunnel was originally built for wide freight trains (much wider than skytrain), why cannot it accommodate wider skytrain trains?

Extremely low speeds vs high speeds/banking of the tracks for SkyTrain is my guess...

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by federal777

Why were the Expo/Millennium lines designed for such narrow trains?

Because what was sold was "light" rail (LRT), not "heavy" rail. Heavy rail would have required more substantial guideways with a correspondingly higher construction cost. And it would also have required excavation of the Dunsmuir tunnel to increase clearances for the larger trains.

As it is, the original prebuild guideway segment along Terminal Avenue had to be reinforced to handle the heavier Mark II cars.

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

As it is, the original prebuild guideway segment along Terminal Avenue had to be reinforced to handle the heavier Mark II cars.

1st time I have heard about that .... you make it up? or anyone have a source?

[Spork]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

1st time I have heard about that .... you make it up? or anyone have a source?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expo_Line_%28TransLink%29#ICTS_demonstration_project

Not much of a source when in school, but few of us are in school now, are we?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by hollywoodnorth

1st time I have heard about that .... you make it up? or anyone have a source?

No, I didn't "make it up" - jeeze. I recall the work being done during the Millenium line construction. One of the things that happens when you've been around for a long time is that you accumulate a lot of trivia like this.

It's hard to find concrete info about this on the web. For example, Translink's "Buzzer" archives only seem to go back to about 2008. But in addition to Spork's Wikipedia find, I was able to locate another (non-forum) reference on page 26 of this PDF document.

[officedweller]

Next time you're on Terminal, look up at the support column brackets and you'll see metal (aluminum?) reinforcements under the cantilever support arms of every second column.

WRT SkyTrain car dimensions - remember that the ALRT system was designed by UTDC to be an elevated inner city rapid transit system (i.e. as was installed as the Detroit Peoplemover) and the short cars and steerable axles allow very tight corners (as would be encountered for an elevated system within a city grid).
The car dimensions are very similar to the Chicago El.

[federal777]

So, Expo/Millennium lines can be considered "light" rail, Canada Line "heavy" rail? What was the reasoning for making the Canada Line wider than expo/mil? Uniformity would be nice for the SkyTrain system.

[nname]

For luggage.

Canada Line track will never connect to the Expo/Millennium, so there's not much of a benefit for using the same rolling stock.

Most large metro system in the world run some line (or group of lines) independently from each other - New York, London, Hong Kong, Shanghai, Singapore, Beijing, Paris, .... etc, and most don't have issue with it.

I think the "official" name for Canada Line is "Light Metro", and Bombardier call their system "Advanced [Light] Rapid Transit" (ALRT/ART). TransLink just call all lines as "Rail Rapid Transit" (RRT), and APTA call all lines together as "Automated Guideway System" (AG) - same category as monorail. Toronto, on the other hand, call their SRT (Expo/Millennium-equivalent) as "Intermediate Rail" (IR) or "Intermediate Capacity Transit System" (ICTS).

[xd_1771]

ALRT (Advanced Light Rapid Transit) I believe is a locally used term to refer to the technology of the SkyTrain system (Expo/Millennium). "ART" (Advanced Rapid Transit) was the former marketing name of the Bombardier Mk II rolling stock until the recent rebrand. The current title is "INNOVIA Metro" for the potential "Mk III" rolling stock. "Rail Rapid Transit" is a term used in the context of studies to refer to grade-separated rapid transit.

[Robert in Calgary]

Originally Posted by federal777

Is anyone else disgusted by how narrrow Mk.I/Mk.II cars are? Tourists must laugh at how little space there is compared to their rapid transit systems, contributing to SkyTrain's image of a toy people mover.

I hope the Evergreen Line is designed for wider cars in the future. Is it?

As a tourist, I found the Mk.1's cramped.

I LOVE the Mk.II's

My impression is, tourists such as myself rave about Skytrain. It is fantastic. You can't beat pumping out a train every two minutes or less and doing it with such a impressive safety record.


The main flaw with the current system - platforms are too short.

Honestly, aside from serial liars like Malcolm, who views it as a "toy people mover"?

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Next time you're on Terminal, look up at the support column brackets and you'll see metal (aluminum?) reinforcements under the cantilever support arms of every second column.

I was under the impression that was for extra communication wiring and power not due to actual structual needs. and I never saw anything concrete saying otherwise ... no pun intended

[federal777]

Yeah, but seating (we need more seating, imo) in the Mk. II was sacrificed for the extra space. Now there's only 3 seats per row, as opposed to 4 (comparing with the first-generation Mk.II). Let's actually try to make space by actually widening the train instead of these band-aid seating arrangement changes.

I read somewhere in the Evergreen thread that a metal strip along the side of the Expo/Mill. guideway can be removed to allow for 2.95-metre cars, not withstanding the Dunsmuir tunnel limitation. Anyone have a source?

[Xerx]

Originally Posted by federal777

Yeah, but seating (we need more seating, imo) in the Mk. II was sacrificed for the extra space. Now there's only 3 seats per row, as opposed to 4 (comparing with the first-generation Mk.II). Let's actually try to make space by actually widening the train instead of these band-aid seating arrangement changes.

I read somewhere in the Evergreen thread that a metal strip along the side of the Expo/Mill. guideway can be removed to allow for 2.95-metre cars, not withstanding the Dunsmuir tunnel limitation. Anyone have a source?

The platform edges can be unbolted to allow for 2.75 metre wide cars. Here's a link to the document.

[xd_1771]

Originally Posted by Robert in Calgary

As a tourist, I found the Mk.1's cramped. I LOVE the Mk.II's

My impression is, tourists such as myself rave about Skytrain. It is fantastic. You can't beat pumping out a train every two minutes or less and doing it with such a impressive safety record.

The main flaw with the current system - platforms are too short.

Honestly, aside from serial liars like Malcolm, who views it as a "toy people mover"?

This is hardly a "toy people mover" at all - not even with the current platform length or train width. This is a world-class rapid transit system that rivals the capacity provided in bigger cities.

You don't need to make any huge expansions. The frequency provides an advantage in itself. The Expo/Millennium Line SkyTrain segment between Columbia and downtown is the most capacious rapid transit line (by theoretical capacity) in Canada, winning by an order of some 500 pphpd:

Theoretical Expo-Millennium capacity with 5-car Mk II/III ART200 or Metro 300 trains at 75 seconds (approx. max reasonable ATO frequency in Expo Line upgrade study) with side-seating config (similar to Kelana Jaya/Kuala Lumpur) and 1187 per vehicle, at existing 2.65m train width, at 6 persons/sq m: 56976 pphpd

Theoretical Toronto Subway Yonge-University-Spadina line capacity with 7-car Rocket MOVIA trains at 1 min 45 seconds (approx. max reasonable ATO frequency in Yonge expansion study) with current seating config at 1645 per vehicle at 6 persons/sq m - 56400 pphpd

If the Toronto Subway could do more frequently than that it would win but nope, SkyTrain wins. The Toronto subway is limited by long dwell times at a specific station that already need to be sliced in half for ATO introduction. SkyTrain's only limitation is staffing level and some minimal upgrades and trains can already in fact run every 75 seconds on some occassions if launching from Waterfront in anticipation of, say, a Canucks game. If you think 75 seconds (which is due to the switchover at Waterfront) was frequent enough, I've personally timed them to be able to run more frequently - back in October when they were having one-way train service as a result of maintenance in New Westminster, I was seeing trains more frequent than 75 seconds from platform arrival-platform departure - there was as little as 6 seconds between the time the train cleared the platform and the next one arrived - and they were 6-car Mk Is or 4-car Mk IIs every time.

I think there's a pretty good reason why Bombardier is marketing the next generation of their ART vehicle as the "INNOVIA Metro", directly alongside their popular "MOVIA" metro line as opposed to alongside the other INNOVIA products.

Speaking of Malcolm, guy apparently thinks that converting the Canada Line to LRT would be reasonable (see latest article). Uninformed nut. That'd require a total rebuild of the Canada Line tunnels in order to accomodate an overhead power supply. If the Canada Line were built as LRT to begin with, it would cost the same or more due to the even bigger tunnels required. Guy certainly knows a lot about LRT systems but that comes to nothing if he can't figure out why metro or light-metro systems were designed as they are. And as if to think that the lack of knowledge about SkyTrain and like systems and the technologies has mislead him and a few others only, I think this is actually a problem everywhere in Canada. I conducted a research study myself and found that TTC could have saved money by building their Eglington Crosstown LRT with full grade separation but with ART techonology, and upgraded the Scarborough RT to accomodate Mk IIs. Instead the Eglington Crosstown has a far worse, partially at-grade service that makes a big travel time and reliability sacrifice while costing more to operate and providing less theoretical capacity.

Originally Posted by Xerx

The platform edges can be unbolted to allow for 2.75 metre wide cars. Here's a link to the document.

This should be 2.95m now, given the Mk I cars did not seem to have the same standards as to meeting the platform edges vs Mk II. Mk I are 2.5m vs Mk II's 2.65. With that in mind, the amount of strip that is actually able to be taken off (6 inch or 15m) widens the potential train width to 2.95m. Just the wider design of the Mk I era was 2.75m.