Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by rxp

How does the Blue and Green arrow point towards one another... looks confusing..

The blue arrow represents the end of the line for the M-Line trains. They reverse at Lougheed and head back as the yellow arrow.
There's probably more potential for head-on conflict between the red and green arrows.

BTW - switch failures are usually on the Expo Line and the switch control system on the Expo Line is in the process of being replaced.

Originally Posted by xd_1771

By the way, at the image of the Port Coquitlam stub... lolwat
A separate station for Port Coquitlam stub then? A separate westbound platform?
That is going to be really interesting in the future, with trains coming perhaps every 3 minutes at one westbound platform and every 3 at another and the movements people might make just to catch the next one in 3 when they miss a train

I think it's weird too - especially since I can't see demand being so high out there to warrant 2 separate platforms.
The double platform issue is the same one that caused TTC in Toronto to stop interlining - given the choice of 2 platforms, you don't know which platform will be the first to have an arriving train.

[Alon]

I don't get it. They're redoing Lougheed and cutting the Millennium Line there, and they're still programming track conflicts? WTF?

[officedweller]

Lots of discussions on platform assignments a few years ago in this thread - see this page and several after it.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=165814&page=150

The planned configuration allows a cross-platform transfer from the M-Line to the Evergreen Line to Vancouver in the morning rush hour - that seems like the only benefit (given that M-Line is truncated). However, the foregoing arrangement could easily allow through movement of M-Line trains if desired.

The conflicts represented by the red and green arrows could be avoided if the M-Line were to terminate on the middle platform, but I think that could be too disruptive for the outbound Evergreen track, since both M-Line movements would cross it. That would also force an down-up transfer in the morning rush for Vancouver-bound M-Line passengers.

Ultimately, I think that the conflicts represented by the red and green arrows will be disguised as additional station dwell time.

[nname]

Well, they could have and indicator at concourse to tell passenger which side they should go for the next train, I've seen some of those in HK MTR. Or maybe they'll make the entire Evergreen line to run on the left hand side of the track so both side of the center platform goes toward Vancouver. Something like this:




But actually, I'm more interested in the shape of the center platform. According to the plan, it will eventually become something like:



It would be almost 20 meters wide at the widest part! Oh, I almost can't wait for the PoCo extension, just to see what this funky platform look like when it is completed...

[deasine]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, they could have and indicator at concourse to tell passenger which side they should go for the next train, I've seen some of those in HK MTR. Or maybe they'll make the entire Evergreen line to run on the left hand side of the track so both side of the center platform goes toward Vancouver. Something like this:




But actually, I'm more interested in the shape of the center platform. According to the plan, it will eventually become something like:



It would be almost 20 meters wide at the widest part! Oh, I almost can't wait for the PoCo extension, just to see what this funky platform look like when it is completed...

Well that's assuming they don't cheap out and build it out that way... It'll probably look like the one found here in Tobu-Nikko, Japan: https://maps.google.ca/maps/myplaces?hl=...2&spn=0.001242,0.002411&ctz=420&t=h&z=19

Still think a rebuild of Lougheed with two centre platforms to facilitate platform-to-platform connections was the best way to go...

[officedweller]

That would actually work, but there's a
long section of potential head-on conflict.
Are there any North American systems that have reverse running segments?

[Millennium2002]

I wouldn't be surprised if there existed other systems with similar track running oddities...

However, I would agree that it's most preferable to have trains run on the correct (right-hand) side for their journeys... it makes communicating to the public about which way the trains run much easier.

Heck, I feel that they can greatly simplify the routing at Lougheed TC Station to this effect, although at the expense of cross-platform transfers from the most likely origins and destinations...

[hollywoodnorth]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, they could have and indicator at concourse to tell passenger which side they should go for the next train, I've seen some of those in HK MTR. Or maybe they'll make the entire Evergreen line to run on the left hand side of the track so both side of the center platform goes toward Vancouver. Something like this:

very interesting idea. also running on the "other" side for the Evergreen line would then take out the switching needed at Lougheed to cross the in and out bound lines if you will. so realistically this would be the IDEAL situation from the get go .....

you should def send this in to translink.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by deasine

Still think a rebuild of Lougheed with two centre platforms to facilitate platform-to-platform connections was the best way to go...

With the M-line train ending in the middle? That would be much better, agreed...

Don't understand coquitlam central station at all. Why not just build it exactly like Bridgeport? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler?

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by huenthar

With the M-line train ending in the middle? That would be much better, agreed...

Don't understand coquitlam central station at all. Why not just build it exactly like Bridgeport? Wouldn't that be cheaper and simpler?

Not familiar with Bridgeport, but the train tracks/West Coast Express aspect comes into play here.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by nname

Well, they could have and indicator at concourse to tell passenger which side they should go for the next train, I've seen some of those in HK MTR. Or maybe they'll make the entire Evergreen line to run on the left hand side of the track so both side of the center platform goes toward Vancouver. Something like this:




But actually, I'm more interested in the shape of the center platform. According to the plan, it will eventually become something like:



It would be almost 20 meters wide at the widest part! Oh, I almost can't wait for the PoCo extension, just to see what this funky platform look like when it is completed...

I don't understand why the engineers are making this so un-necessarily complicated.

Why not simply have a central platform for both station tracks, and "wye" the tracks east of the station so one pair curves north up Pinetree, the other pair is the stubs for a future extension east to PoCo, Maple Ridge &tc.

like so:




This seems to work for Bridgeport on the Canada Line (except they are using flying junctions instead of the flat crossover in my drawing)

[officedweller]

Agreed - that's what we're all wondering, especially when frequency on each branch of the line probably won't be 90 sec.

[huenthar]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I don't understand why the engineers are making this so un-necessarily complicated.

Why not simply have a central platform for both station tracks, and "wye" the tracks east of the station so one pair curves north up Pinetree, the other pair is the stubs for a future extension east to PoCo, Maple Ridge &tc.

like so:

This seems to work for Bridgeport on the Canada Line (except they are using flying junctions instead of the flat crossover in my drawing)

Exactly! Especially to make local trips easier with cross-platform transfers. And it would be cheaper too...

[nname]

I think there is just not enough room for the track to split after the station. With the current design, the turn already at the minimum radius for new construction (70m, although some turns on the Expo line are tighter at 57m), with straight track barely long enough for the station to be able to expand to 100m, and the track barely have enough room to squeeze under the overpass between the pillar and the CPR ROW (note: CPR also want to preserve enough room for a potential third track in the area).

So the main problem with jsbertram's idea is that:
- There's no room west of the station for the track to diverge to make centre platform AND have enough room for CPR third track
- There's no space reserved on both sides of the station for potential platform expansion
- The curve toward Lafarge may be too tight for the train
- The frog switch was never used anywhere along Expo and Millennium track, not sure whats the reason for this

The parcel between the overpass and Lougheed Highway is just 200m wide after all. Take out the potential 100m platform and 70m curve, and you only got 30m to work with...

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Thanks!

Platform 3 to Coquitlam is consistent with the original plans posted eons ago by SteelWheels.

The double faregate / tap to WCE makes sense (it registers an entry to WCE) - otherwise the system wouldn't know if you travelled between, say, Moody Centre and Waterfront via SkyTrain or via WCE.

VERY strange that the PoCo switch is west of Coquitlam Central - necessitating two stations (as shown on the track map). The preferred option should be like Bridgeport (centre platform) - otherwise, how would you know which station to go to to catch the next train to Vancouver? Plus transfers from Douglas to PoCo would be more difficult (looks like the PoCo to Douglas platforms are joined).

The track map does not show the crossover east of Lougheed that would replace the "basketweave" that is required to get Coquitlam trains back to the righthand track - unless they run "wrong side" all the way to Burquitlam (but that would not make sense through a marked Cameron station).

JACKPOT!
This confirms the proposed train movements from SteelWheels' circa 1999 PMC Line brochure.
And it does look like the trains will run "wrong side" all the way to Burquitlam (red and green arrows).
You can also see that the Millennium Line terminates at Lougheed (blue and yellow arrows), with an easy cross platform transfer to Vancouver (but not from Vancouver).


Uploaded with ImageShack.us
http://www.partnershipsbc.ca/files-4/project-elrt-schedules/Schedule-4_Part-2_Article-1.pdf

The train movements through Lougheed seem to involve trains crossing in front of each other at almost every switch, plus a long stretch of "wrong railing" between Lougheed and "Burquitlam" (I'm guessing this is the unbuilt station at Cameron St.)

Since the twist-over on the curve from Lougheed to North Rd has been dropped from the plans, a new pair of switches and crossover can be installed at Lougheed to accommodate these train movements east of the station. This would require demolishing the two segments of unused track and guideway beam that start to rise east of the station to begin the twist-over that isn't being built now. With replacement track and guideway beams being installed here, two new switches and a crossover can be installed so WB Evergeen trains can use the main platform.

I have altered the original drawing to show the new switches (158 and 158B) and crossover.




With this new section of track, there isn't a need for EB and WB Evergreen trains crossing in front of each between switches 153 & 154, nor are the crossovers south of Burquitlam needed in normal use (and no Evergreen trains need to cross in front of each other at Burquitlam). This also means that the trains between Lougheed and Burquitlam are 'right railing' like the rest of the Skytrain system


EB Evergreen trains (green line in diagram) go straight through switch 152 and stop at the main platform (as is done today). Leaving Lougheed, they take s156 to s159, then straight through s160 and continue through the curve and onwards up North Road.

WB Evergreen trains (red line in diagram) come down North Road and through the curve, take switch 158B to s158, then then straight through s157 and stop at the main platform. Leaving Lougheed, they go straight through s154 and s153 continue to on to VCC terminal.


The complication is that Millennium trains are also terminating at Lougheed on the new North Platform. The arriving trains would take switch 161 to s160, then then then straight through s159 and s158, then take s157 to s155, and stop at the North Platform.

Departing Millennium trains would use the same switches in reverse order. Switch 155 to s157, straight through s158 and s159, take s160, straight through s161 to s162, then continue to Braid, New West & Waterfront.

With this configuration, the only 'tricky' section is between switches 157 and 160, and between switches 160 and 161, since trains will be using these segments of track to run EB and WB. Since these parts are within the Lougheed interlocking area, it should be straightforward to keep track of these local train movements.

[queetz@home]

I went to the Tri Cities last weekend, purposely using the North Road route to check up any progress. Here are some comments and observations.

1) The Whitespot near the Lougheed Station remains. Will this not be torn down?

2) The North Road itself is really wide. I haven't been in the area for years, and I actually felt disoriented. I think they have more than enough room to build the elevated guideways with very little disruption to the traffic flow.

3) On the Burquitlam Station site, there is some light fencing beside the new Safeway site (which is a hole right now). The Dairy Queen is still there, but is all boarded up and in the process of being torn down it seems. But no equipment whatsoever yet.

4) The Barnet Highway near St Johns is probably the biggest evidence of construction going on. They have altered the roadway so there is now an S curve for the vehicles, and I can clearly see the tunnel works

5) The Andres Wine building is still there, but there is also some Portable trailers (site offices) beside it. Will this building remain or be torn down?

6) Just after the Andres Wine area, lots of trees have been torn down. You can clearly see the track relocation works (i.e. there was a set of intact track segment, some heavy equipment).

7) In the nearby parking lot, there was also a piece of heavy equipment (forgot what its called but its like a large orange truck)

8) There doesn't seem to be any work started at the Port Moody Station itself. And onwards to the rest of the line, the only visible evidence are the Evergreen Line billboards.

I know its early but there is *some* progress. I couldn't take photos though since I was in the car by myself (otherwise I may get a ticket if a cop sees me use my smart phone). But I guess more visible signs of progress will come in the coming weeks.

[SpongeG]

north road was widened last year, it was narrower, they added more road to the burnaby side

thats my old hood - i miss it

did you see the tons of new building going on behind burquitlam plaza? it was all single homes and in the last couple years has turned into townhouses and apartment buildings with more to come

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

north road was widened last year, it was narrower, they added more road to the burnaby side

thats my old hood - i miss it

did you see the tons of new building going on behind burquitlam plaza? it was all single homes and in the last couple years has turned into townhouses and apartment buildings with more to come

I think there were some. I was on the move but now that you mentioned it, I did remember seeing some construction going on there. I was a bit surprised about the new (and nicely designed) Safeway. I didn't see that one coming (I must have missed the threads).

I did frequent the area back in my SFU days as well, hence why the changes in North Road was disorienting for me. Lots of changes for sure!

[nname]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

4) The Barnet Highway near St Johns is probably the biggest evidence of construction going on. They have altered the roadway so there is now an S curve for the vehicles, and I can clearly see the tunnel works

Photo taken on a bus travelling at high speed last week. Not sure if anyone can see anything out of this. This is best I can do unless I want to take the 160 to the construction site, take a pic, and wait 30min for the next bus...



For the Lafarge Lake station, there's no visible works, but the location of all columns for the station and tail track are already marked on the ground.

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I have altered the original drawing to show the new switches (158 and 158B) and crossover.

What about switching the red with yellow/blue? This would make the operation even simpler and at least retain some cross-platform transfers...

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

I have altered the original drawing to show the new switches (158 and 158B) and crossover.

Arguably, this creates more conflicts than the preferred scenario.

In this scenario, each M-Line train must cross each of the Evergreen Line inbound and outbound tracks - yielding 2 head-on and 2 same direction crossings.

In the preferred scenario, there are 2 head-on and 1 same direction crossings (eastbound M-Line in yellow does not cross any other line).

In the preferred scenario, however, it's the Evergreen mainline crossing itelf, versus the M-Line crossing the both tracks of the Evergreen line. Impact will depend on the frequencies of each line.

Ultimately, I don't think the waiting time for trains to cross lines will be noticeable as they will be manifested as longer station dwell times.

That's in respect of train operations.

In respect of passenger convenience, having the M-Line terminate at the north platform means all transferring passengers must go down and back up - I prefer Deasine's scenario with the M-Line coming into the middle and cross platform transfers each direction.

Originally Posted by nname

What about switching the red with yellow/blue? This would make the operation even simpler and at least retain some cross-platform transfers...

This would be similar to Deasine's proposal, but without rebuilding the north platform infrstructure.