Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Ehlun]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Any pictures or renders for the upgraded mark 1s?

Here's the exterior I pulled from a request for proposal:

[Mac Write]

I am interested in the interior layout

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Ehlun

A necessary move. Hopefully they take out one seat from the middle bench as well. Way too cramped.

If you're talking about the side-facing seats between the fore and aft doors then they cannot be removed. The seats form the top of two electronics bays that run down the side of each car between the doors.

If you're just talking about change the pitch of the seating from 6 seats between the doors to 5 seats then yes, they probably could do that - but they'd have to move the stanchions to do it, and I'm not sure if there's a hard point on the bottom in the necessary position.

[nname]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

The issue, I guess, is that no one ever bothered to look at this stuff. It was dismissed waaayyy too fast. Examining 'SkyTrain technology' could have saved Toronto from a lot of the debating, and a lot of the financial hurdles.

They hate the system, so they are almost certainly going to get rid of it in the first place. Yes, the system had flaws, as does most other systems, but they can be easily corrected. Vancouver worked hard to make the system run efficiently, but Toronto just ignore them and let it fell into disrepair. So I can't imagine there will be a business case end up favoring keeping (and fixing) the system as these numbers can be "easily manipulated"

[Ehlun]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If you're talking about the side-facing seats between the fore and aft doors then they cannot be removed. The seats form the top of two electronics bays that run down the side of each car between the doors.

If you're just talking about change the pitch of the seating from 6 seats between the doors to 5 seats then yes, they probably could do that - but they'd have to move the stanchions to do it, and I'm not sure if there's a hard point on the bottom in the necessary position.

Yeah, that's what I mean.

If there is no hard point, they could probably have it bolted to the ground. Might be a tripping hazard though.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Ehlun

Here's the exterior I pulled from a request for proposal:

This looks nice but the REAL question is will the Mark1s have air conditioning, like the Mark2s onwards? Becuae I don't care how pretty it looks or how the interior is arranged. If its hot and stinky inside during the warm days...forget it! They should just be retired....

[xd_1771]

Haha. The real issue with the Mark Is is during the summer is the opening of the all the damn windows. Having the windows open lets any wind maybe cool some standees (and only in the centre), but it usually just makes the rest of the car worse because the top fan air gets sucked out, as opposed to being evenly distributed around and cooling both standees and those seating.

In the summer, when I'm on the SkyTrain and get on board a Mark I, I just go up to all the windows and shut them.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Haha. The real issue with the Mark Is is during the summer is the opening of the all the damn windows. Having the windows open lets any wind maybe cool some standees (and only in the centre), but it usually just makes the rest of the car worse because the top fan air gets sucked out, as opposed to being evenly distributed around and cooling both standees and those seating.

In the summer, when I'm on the SkyTrain and get on board a Mark I, I just go up to all the windows and shut them.

Don't forget the issue of people sweating, not having deoderant, and crammed in that small train car. After that stupid incident I had with car #44 when the train stopped at that Skytrain bridge for half an hour in summer of 2006, I decided enough was enough. It even helped me decide to sell my condo in Whalley...

[logan5]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

In the summer, when I'm on the SkyTrain and get on board a Mark I, I just go up to all the windows and shut them.

That's funny. Everybody on the train must get super pissed off.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

Haha. The real issue with the Mark Is is during the summer is the opening of the all the damn windows. Having the windows open lets any wind maybe cool some standees (and only in the centre), but it usually just makes the rest of the car worse because the top fan air gets sucked out, as opposed to being evenly distributed around and cooling both standees and those seating.

You know that the fan air is the same temperature as the air coming in the windows, right? The Mark I's don't have air conditioning. In fact the fan air is probably warmer, since it doesn't actually make it to the cabin until after being ducted through vents in a car which is warmed by bodies and electronics.

So your opinion seems to be based on the belief that the fans are able to provide a better airflow throughout the cabin than the windows do. That's not my experience. Unless I'm in one of the extreme corners of the car, an open window provides a breeze - airflow which can actually be felt. I've never felt a breeze from the overhead fans no matter where I sit. The fans are there to provide air exchange so that nobody asphyxiates - their purpose isn't to act as temperature control.

[xd_1771]

Well, I'm just taking from what I experienced last summer, during the horrible heatwaves. Some airflow is nice but when it only reaches a small part of and doesn't really reach the rest of the car, it's not really fair to those passengers. I found that after shutting some windows, the effect of improved airflow wasn't immediate, but after a short while you could feel a bit of air hitting you wherever you were, which in that hot summer was better than nothing. At the time the fans were running full-speed so there was more airflow than usually. I don't think I usually did that when the car was crowded, only when there wasn't anyone in particular to inconvenience.

It also made the ride somewhat quieter.

I really hope the new Mark Is will have some sort of air conditioning installed, though. However, TransLink did mention in one document I came across before that "Mk I ride quality will remain largely unchanged for passengers". Ultimately, it doesn't look like we'll get any real improvements in ride quality until we get the Mark IIIs in 2016 (the microplug doors will mean so much quieter underground runs).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

I really hope the new Mark Is will have some sort of air conditioning installed, though.

That seems very, very unlikely to me. Air conditioning isn't something you can just throw in after the fact, it has to be integrated into the car's design. You need to provide power, temperature sensors and control, wastewater handling, and space to install all of that. The Mark I cars really aren't set up for it and I can't imagine that Translink would think it a good use of funds for the doubtless high cost involved.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That seems very, very unlikely to me. Air conditioning isn't something you can just throw in after the fact, it has to be integrated into the car's design. You need to provide power, temperature sensors and control, wastewater handling, and space to install all of that. The Mark I cars really aren't set up for it and I can't imagine that Translink would think it a good use of funds for the doubtless high cost involved.

Hence why I think they should simply retire them. They had a good run but clearly they are starting to show their limits. They were built during a time when transit use isn't as high, and whoever design it clearly was not anticipating that upgrades such as a/c would be important (otherwise, the Mark2 onwards would't have a/c). We are getting newer trains anyway, so just use them more fully than relying on these dinosaurs. I for one purposely avoid the Mark1s when I can, even if it means missing a few trainsets before boarding one.

[Spork]

There is no money to add A/C. There is no money to use other cars. We are purchasing new cars for Evergreen because the additional cars will be needed capacity. Retiring cars because they are uncomfortable for 10/365 days is wasteful.

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Spork

There is no money to add A/C. There is no money to use other cars. We are purchasing new cars for Evergreen because the additional cars will be needed capacity. Retiring cars because they are uncomfortable for 10/365 days is wasteful.

Maybe they should just not deploy those cars in the 10/365 days when they are uncomfortable...

[xd_1771]

Replacing those 114 Mark Is isn't as simple as getting rid of them and being done with it. There would need to be many, many more rapid transit vehicles ordered as a replacement (and the funding for that). The new Mark IIIs are supposed to supplement the additional trains required for Evergreen Line service, in order to maintain existing service levels on existing lines.

Mark Is suck, but at the end of the day they're still perfectly good for transportation. They're safe, they're reliable, and they work, and that's keeping people riding the SkyTrain system. At the end of their service life in some 15 years, they would have provided nearly 40 years of service - at 80km/h, under more strenuous accel/decel conditions, and with less breakdowns than other rotary motor rapid transit cars and LRVs, and without a major propulsion refit (if I'm not mistaken, the refurbishment plan includes body work and floor replacement where needed, re-wiring and repainting - but not necessarily work on the propulsion system).

TransLink aren't the only ones refurbishing old rapid transit vehicles in this world. In this economic situation, it's becoming a popular choice to continue provide economic transit. In Edmonton, U2 LRVs are being overhauled by Bombardier as we speak.

Vancity buzz reported that the budget for the entire 114 Mark I refurbishment is just $36.6-million ($320,000 per car, $640,000 for a 2-car consist) including parts and labour, for a 15-year life-cycle extension. What a deal.

By comparison, according to this paper, Calgary Transit is estimating that to refurbish their U2 LRVs, a "grade I" refurbishment similar to Edmonton (address external rust issues, window replacement, interior seats, floors, side walls and repainting/restriping the vehicles) it would cost $700,000 per car, plus $250,000 in project mgmt. per year, for no life-span extension. A "grade II" refurbishment, which does extend life-span, will cost a whopping $1.7 million per car. Worse yet, the traction motor in Calgary's U2 LRVs seems to be proprietary (dun dun dun, and we thought SkyTrain had this problem), and there is no direct replacement part available - meaning a new one altogether may need to be designed at more cost. Neither grade I nor grade II refurbishments add air conditioning.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

That seems very, very unlikely to me. Air conditioning isn't something you can just throw in after the fact, it has to be integrated into the car's design. You need to provide power, temperature sensors and control, wastewater handling, and space to install all of that. The Mark I cars really aren't set up for it and I can't imagine that Translink would think it a good use of funds for the doubtless high cost involved.

It's true that it will be complicated, but it is possible. Air conditioning can be added to Calgary and Edmonton's U2 LRVs, at a cost of $200,000 per car including reconfig. Manila upgraded several old LRVs to have air conditoning, which is of particular importance in the Philippine climate. Given one U2 "car" is the size of two Mark I SkyTrain vehicles, it'd be less than $200k for each Mark I - potentially includable in TransLink's budget? Who knows.

Oh, here's a quote from a 2010 TransLink release:

Mark I SkyTrain cars were built without air conditioning because in the mid-1980s, when they were built, A/C units were much heavier and more expensive than they are now.

[MIPS]

Originally Posted by nname

They hate the system, so they are almost certainly going to get rid of it in the first place. Yes, the system had flaws, as does most other systems, but they can be easily corrected. Vancouver worked hard to make the system run efficiently, but Toronto just ignore them and let it fell into disrepair. So I can't imagine there will be a business case end up favoring keeping (and fixing) the system as these numbers can be "easily manipulated"

Aside from software problems, the SRT has serious design issues stemming from the mid-project conversion of the line form ALRV to ICTS that could only be repaired by demolishing and rebuilding large parts of the line. Remember that there's an entire abandoned platform and turnaround at Kennedy Station and a lot of the major turns are just over the spec for what those cars could handle.
It may of been the first line to go into service however it was the reason the SkyTrain became so successful: Any problems that didn't show up in UTDC's static tests did make themselves apparent on the SRT and bought Vancouver precious time to iron out anything else before the ribbon was cut.

[nname]

Originally Posted by MIPS

Aside from software problems, the SRT has serious design issues stemming from the mid-project conversion of the line form ALRV to ICTS that could only be repaired by demolishing and rebuilding large parts of the line. Remember that there's an entire abandoned platform and turnaround at Kennedy Station and a lot of the major turns are just over the spec for what those cars could handle.

Actually, there are just 2 turns that may have issues. The first one is the turn into Kennedy station, and that section, along with the station, need to be rebuilt for sure. The second one in question is the tunnel after Ellesmere station that *maybe* need to be widened (they flip-flopped between "yes" and "no" throughout the course of the study and never provided a definite answer!). All other *required* modifications are actually relatively minor. So how much does it cost to rebuild one station and about 250m of track? Not that much I suppose...

But the keyword here is *required*. The problem is that they put a lot of artificial constraints of the system, which lead to very expensive modification of the system. For instance:

1. The minimum headway is set to 108s because Vancouver run it at 108s. But I think probably everyone here knows a 90s or even 75s headway is possible for the system. In fact, it ran just fine with 80s headway used during the Olympics. But whoever prepared the report doesn't think anything below 108s is possible.
2. The capacity for each MkII car is set to 75 passengers, while it can fit 134 people here. I'm pretty sure we can fit 75 people quite easily even on a MKI.
3. A TTC requirement of at least 15% spare plus 1 HOT train, which actually bring the spare ratio to a whopping 23% due to rounding. Vancouver ran the system just fine for years with just 3~6% spare.
4. A "difference in maintenance practice" means a new yard there would cost 200M more than the one here. I'm not sure about how much the OMC cost here, but I don't think building a brand new yard here wouldn't even cost 200M?

If you put together #1 and #2, you'll notice that running 3-car trains would not provide sufficient capacity for the required 9,000 to 10,000 pphpd. They would have to run 4-car trains to barely meet this requirement (similar config would result in 17,900 pphpd in Vancouver, btw). And since their station and guideway is only build to support 60m train, they need to length each platform and strengthen much of the guideway columns for the 72m trains. Also, each vehicle have such a low capacity and reliability that they need to purchase a whopping 108 cars at 4.1M each (while using Vancouver's standard, only 57 vehicles at 3.2M each is needed). At this point, there is absolutely no benefit of keeping the system as they would need to do almost as much work on the infrastructure, and the required vehicle is so expensive compared to the much higher capacity LRV. Therefore, rebuild the line as LRT with a 5 km extension at 1.8B became the cheaper option.

[st7860]

yesterday I was taking the 49 metrotown station route and it was a brand new new 60 ft new flyer with air conditioning and 'new bus smell'!!!

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by st7860

yesterday I was taking the 49 metrotown station route and it was a brand new new 60 ft new flyer with air conditioning and 'new bus smell'!!!

Normally since its summer, I would have said that 'new bus smell" would immediately be replaced by sweat and body odor smell but the buses have A/C now? Why oh why can't they put A/C in the old Mark 1 Skytrain cars!