Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed

[finalcoolman]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

except the the anomaly called Canada Line (to rebuild it as LIM and connected to Expo line)

Wow I thought of this as well. It might be possible at the end of the 35 year agreement if the political will is there since all the original Rotem rolling stock will be end of life by then. It could be labelled as a 'major capacity upgrade'. It would involve:

-complete shutdown of the line for 18 months

-double tracking all single track sections

-all stations/platforms extended to 80-100 meters with modifications for SkyTrain dimensions

-LIM rail retrofit

-building junctions to connect to Expo line at Waterfront and/or Millenium Line at Broadway (assumption M-Line is extended to UBC)

-brand new 5 car SkyTrain rolling stock to roll on the line



Sounds crazy but if a Chinese company bidding on the Montreal Metro car contract actually proposed shutting the system down to retrofit from rubber tired tracks to steel wheel tracks, a LIM rail retrofit seems plausible. If it is wrapped up with capacity upgrades as one project to justify a shut-down to the public, it just might be doable and justified to take advantage of synergies as it will now be publicly operated along with SkyTrain at the end of the 35 year contract.

[GlassCity]

Originally Posted by finalcoolman

Wow I thought of this as well. It might be possible at the end of the 35 year agreement if the political will is there since all the original Rotem rolling stock will be end of life by then. It could be labelled as a 'major capacity upgrade'. It would involve:

-complete shutdown of the line for 18 months

-double tracking all single track sections

-all stations/platforms extended to 80-100 meters with modifications for SkyTrain dimensions

-LIM rail retrofit

-building junctions to connect to Expo line at Waterfront and/or Millenium Line at Broadway (assumption M-Line is extended to UBC)

-brand new 5 car SkyTrain rolling stock to roll on the line



Sounds crazy but if a Chinese company bidding on the Montreal Metro car contract actually proposed shutting the system down to retrofit from rubber tired tracks to steel wheel tracks, a LIM rail retrofit seems plausible. If it is wrapped up with capacity upgrades as one project to justify a shut-down to the public, it just might be doable and justified to take advantage of synergies as it will now be publicly operated along with SkyTrain at the end of the 35 year contract.

I don't know, while I'd give anything to see the Canada Line converted to Bombardier LIM technology, shutting it down for 18 months would be crazy. 70,000 people use the line a day, it would wreak havoc on the transit system.

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by finalcoolman

Wow I thought of this as well. It might be possible at the end of the 35 year agreement if the political will is there since all the original Rotem rolling stock will be end of life by then. It could be labelled as a 'major capacity upgrade'. It would involve:

-complete shutdown of the line for 18 months

-double tracking all single track sections

-all stations/platforms extended to 80-100 meters with modifications for SkyTrain dimensions

-LIM rail retrofit

-building junctions to connect to Expo line at Waterfront and/or Millenium Line at Broadway (assumption M-Line is extended to UBC)

-brand new 5 car SkyTrain rolling stock to roll on the line



Sounds crazy but if a Chinese company bidding on the Montreal Metro car contract actually proposed shutting the system down to retrofit from rubber tired tracks to steel wheel tracks, a LIM rail retrofit seems plausible. If it is wrapped up with capacity upgrades as one project to justify a shut-down to the public, it just might be doable and justified to take advantage of synergies as it will now be publicly operated along with SkyTrain at the end of the 35 year contract.

What would be the advantage of this? Inconvenience thousands daily (imagine what the ridership would be in another 30 years), and spend billions on an existing line rather than build, say, another line to serve another part of the region. Any $$$ spent on Cline should be for upgrades not line integration.

FYI, Bombardier's technology is not cheap, being proprietary, it can only be sourced from them. At least conventional electric train parts can be sourced from many many more suppliers.

Many cities use varied technology and even those that share technology between lines, doesn't mean that all the lines are even connected. This does provide advantages that come from line segregation, eg failures like what happened on Friday.

[finalcoolman]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I don't know, while I'd give anything to see the Canada Line converted to Bombardier LIM technology, shutting it down for 18 months would be crazy. 70,000 people use the line a day, it would wreak havoc on the transit system.

Ya but remember the M-Line would be at least as far as Cambie by then. It would make it alot easier to have the line down then now without the M-Line there. We have no idea what platform crowding will be like in 30 years on those tiny 40 even 50 meter platforms.

Shutting the line down for just LIM retrofits would be crazy, but from a PR perspective it's doable if the main justification is 80m+ SkyTrain length platforms, more frequent and reliable service due to elimination of single tracking, and going from 35 year old Rotem trains to full on brand new 5-car Bombardier MK-X trains after the retrofit.

[finalcoolman]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

What would be the advantage of this? Inconvenience thousands daily (imagine what the ridership would be in another 30 years), and spend billions on an existing line rather than build, say, another line to serve another part of the region. Any $$$ spent on Cline should be for upgrades not line integration.

FYI, Bombardier's technology is not cheap, being proprietary, it can only be sourced from them. At least conventional electric train parts can be sourced from many many more suppliers.

Many cities use varied technology and even those that share technology between lines, doesn't mean that all the lines are even connected. This does provide advantages that come from line segregation, eg failures like what happened on Friday.

Ummm...the advantage of this is fixing an under-built line to how it should have been built in the first place. Any $$$ spent on Cline should be for upgrades not line integration??? Did you not see the all the upgrades??? 80m+ platforms, elimination of all single tracked sections, brand new rolling stock which would be EOL by then anyways. Do you think you can replace those single track sections without shutting down those portions of the line anyways for 18 months? Do you think you can upgrade to 80 meter+ long stations without a shutdown for 18 months either?

[queetz@home]

Ugh! Why oh why can't people just stay on topic with this particular project??? I click, so many non-Evergreen Line posts and once again, it all goes back to Canada Line.

At least dpogue gave us an update, which is much appreciated. Is the guideway above Como Lake still slanted or have they fixed it already?

[finalcoolman]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

Ugh! Why oh why can't people just stay on topic with this particular project??? I click, so many non-Evergreen Line posts and once again, it all goes back to Canada Line.

At least dpogue gave us an update, which is much appreciated. Is the guideway above Como Lake still slanted or have they fixed it already?

Still slanted.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by finalcoolman

Ya but remember the M-Line would be at least as far as Cambie by then. It would make it alot easier to have the line down then now without the M-Line there. We have no idea what platform crowding will be like in 30 years on those tiny 40 even 50 meter platforms.

M-Line and Canada Line do not serve the same destinations...M-Line is east-west and Canada Line is north-south.

It just doesn't make any sense to spend billions to retrofit the Canada Line when for the same money (or maybe even less) you could build extra lines and increase connectivity within the network.

It might even be more expensive to dig up the entire line, demolish and rebuild the stations for longer platforms, etc than to build a the Downtown Streetcar and extend it all the way down the Arbutus corridor and connect it to Marine Drive Station in addition to building a Hastings Line connecting to Brentwood (and potentially Metrotown as well). Those two lines would be much more useful than retrofitting the Canada Line.

[xd_1771]

FYI, Bombardier's technology is not cheap, being proprietary, it can only be sourced from them. At least conventional electric train parts can be sourced from many many more suppliers.

LIM propulsion is not proprietary and there are several companies with offerings in 3 countries around the world, with a fourth offering from a company in India under development. Bombardier does not own any part of "SkyTrain technology" except for the patented steerable bogie design.

You can retrofit LIM onto tracks on a gradual basis without causing a service disruption. A Japanese study on LIM propulsion systems - these took hold in Japan in the 1980s starting with Osaka and continue to with Sendai's new subway line in 2015 using LIM propulsion - made note of the potential to gradually upgrade existing subway lines to be compatible with LIM stock, while running the normal trains, and then using the LIM stock when ready, which'd be useful when those subway lines need to be expanded as you could then save costs with smaller tunnel builds.

From study: Although they say the LIM driven car is possible only for the adoption in a complete new line, introduction in existing lines is also possible. For example, if reaction plates could be laid on existing lines, both use of the rotary induction motor and LIM would become possible and could replace the conventional car gradually with the LIM driven car. Of course for this purpose, the advantages of LIM driving system must pay back the cost of laying reaction plates. This is our earnest hope along with development of the LIM drive system. Though we had only about 8 years' experiences, we will continuously cooperate with the diffusion and the development of the linear motor subway from now on.

At the moment I'm pretty sure that none of the major subway lines in Tokyo or elsewhere are in need of rolling stock replacement, which is probably why this isn't being done.

See: SkyTrain-type technology clearly a winner in Japan (link in article)

To provide a capacity comparable to the Expo/Millennium/Evergreen Lines, extending the stations beyond 50m won't be necessary due to the 3.2m car width compensating. Bombardier's Innovia Metro IS offered in a 3.2m option (this car width is actually used in Beijing and at the New York-JFK AirTrain. I rode the latter this December and I can confirm that the cars are about Canada Line-width). The supplier for Guangzhou's LIM Metro system also builds at 3.2m I think.

I really only see one potential issue here and that is train height - because LIM propulsion trains are generally lower than the Canada Line's platform height.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by finalcoolman

Wow I thought of this as well. It might be possible at the end of the 35 year agreement if the political will is there since all the original Rotem rolling stock will be end of life by then. It could be labelled as a 'major capacity upgrade'. It would involve:

-complete shutdown of the line for 18 months

-double tracking all single track sections

-all stations/platforms extended to 80-100 meters with modifications for SkyTrain dimensions

-LIM rail retrofit

-building junctions to connect to Expo line at Waterfront and/or Millenium Line at Broadway (assumption M-Line is extended to UBC)

-brand new 5 car SkyTrain rolling stock to roll on the line



Sounds crazy but if a Chinese company bidding on the Montreal Metro car contract actually proposed shutting the system down to retrofit from rubber tired tracks to steel wheel tracks, a LIM rail retrofit seems plausible. If it is wrapped up with capacity upgrades as one project to justify a shut-down to the public, it just might be doable and justified to take advantage of synergies as it will now be publicly operated along with SkyTrain at the end of the 35 year contract.

This makes no sense and is not required. The Canada Line trains are actually heavy rail, high capacity and much wider than the Expo or Millennium line trains. With 50 metre platforms the system is designed to carry the maximum capacity stipulated in the design documents.

Lengthening platforms is not possible due to the grades - maximum possible length is 50 metres (as designed). Anything further would require the platform to angle up or down with the tunnel.

Convertnig to LIM doesn't make sense either as this line was designed for conventional traction (wheels providing traction on the rail).

If there was connection to the other two lines, the train size would be limited by the Expo and Millenium lines - in other words, trains could not be as wide.

Why would you want to connect the line to the other two lines?

There are many examples in the world of a single metro system having more than one gauge of trains - New York has two, London has two.

[GlassCity]

I just prefer LIM because it's faster.

[lightrail]

I read somewhere that the 28 new SkyTrain cars will be forming 7 four-car trains, but these will be 4-car walk-through trains. If this is true, these trains will have a higher capacity than the existing 2-car pairing Mark II. Hopefully, the new trains will be deployed on the existing Expo Line where they're needed for cacpacity.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by lightrail

This makes no sense and is not required. .....

Lengthening platforms is not possible due to the grades - maximum possible length is 50 metres (as designed). Anything further would require the platform to angle up or down with the tunnel.

..... more than one gauge of trains - New York has two, London has two.

I had read somewhere - obviously misunderstanding it - that Canada Line platforms could be, $$$ provided, lengthened to accomodate three-car trains. This is apprently not so.
Off topic, escuse me.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Interesting, thanks.
(though there could be issues with BNSF if they want land or air rights for a yard)

single track 'yard' can stay elevated beside the mainline.
No land from BNSF needed.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I thought the third track at VCC Clark was for a possible future line split.

I'm not sure how a single track coming off the mainline can be used as a future split.

Where would this future split line go?

for what purpose?

The original Expo line over Terminal runs parallel with the Millennium Line / UBC-Broadway extension for almost a kilometre.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by GlassCity

I just prefer LIM because it's faster.

Hopefully you can explain the benefits of LIM to Mayor Ford in Toronto and save them billions of dollars.

He's busy making sure the existing Scarborough RT (same technology as Skytrain) is scrapped and replaced with a new multi-billion dollar subway extension to Scarborough.

Others have wanted to rebuild the RT guideways for streetcar operation (as was originally intended), or have the guideways rebuilt and connected to the Eglington LRT that is currently under construction.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by xd_1771

A Japanese study on LIM propulsion systems - these took hold in Japan in the 1980s starting with Osaka and continue to with Sendai's new subway line in 2015 using LIM propulsion - made note of the potential to gradually upgrade existing subway lines to be compatible with LIM stock, while running the normal trains, and then using the LIM stock when ready, which'd be useful when those subway lines need to be expanded as you could then save costs with smaller tunnel builds.

I don't see how you can extend the line with smaller tunnels. Yes, LIM technology can be lower profile, but on an existing line you'd have to build trains that were compatible with the existing platform heights and widths, and that would pretty much limit how much smaller you could conceivably make the tunnels.

[finalcoolman]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Hopefully you can explain the benefits of LIM to Mayor Ford in Toronto and save them billions of dollars.

He's busy making sure the existing Scarborough RT (same technology as Skytrain) is scrapped and replaced with a new multi-billion dollar subway extension to Scarborough.

Others have wanted to rebuild the RT guideways for streetcar operation (as was originally intended), or have the guideways rebuilt and connected to the Eglington LRT that is currently under construction.

Your taking it out of context. The RT guideway is unable to accommodate anything but MK I cars. Bombardier is unable to make MK I cars anymore. In addition this move would eliminate the transfer required at Kennedy station. All in all I support the move to a homogenous subway extension.

[casper]

An interesting observation is the Scarborough RT is one of the few such systems where for "safety reasons", "public perception" and political pressure from the union they operate the system using train operators.

[MIPS]

The SRT is barely even designed for Mk I's (and originally it wasn't designed for ICTS at all). The design flaws in that line run so deep that while it might be heartbreaking to some to scrap it, it's easier to do than to rebuild. It had its chance in Scarborough and it failed.