Millennium Line - Evergreen Extension | Completed - Page 332

aberdeen5698 · #**6621** Posted **Apr 24, 2014, 10:44 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zassk

My point was that the Lougheed structure looks like nothing else in the whole SkyTrain system. It's ugly not just because it was half-built, but also because it contrasts with what was built everywhere else on the M-line project.

If that's our worst problem then we can count ourselves lucky.

jsbertram · #**6622** Posted **Apr 24, 2014, 10:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

Yeah, the track layout is weird, but that's probably a consequence of the history and accommodating all train movements.
The original intent (in the LSRP) was for Coquitlam trains to run to Columbia or to VCC (a wye opening to the south, not the east).
That changed with the phasing of the line and the reorientation of the station (due to property and political issues).

This just got me wondering if the original station design (sitting on North Rd with a wye opening to the south) was simply given a 1/4 turn and relocated to where we have Lougheed Stn today.

This might explain a lot of the unusual design elements - a 3rd platform; unusual station interlockings to go from two tracks on one side the station, to 3 tracks in the station, to 4 tracks on the other side of the station; the old design for the twist-over tracks to North Road (now replaced with humping-track and wrong-railing on North Road between two stations).

Metro-One · #**6623** Posted **Apr 24, 2014, 10:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

If that's our worst problem then we can count ourselves lucky.

Thank you, they nitpicking is getting quite hilarious on this thread recently. The funny thing is the average person will never question the Lougheed Station design or see any difference in ugliness / beauty between it and the Canada Line exchange and COlumbia exchange.

It should also be added that the Columbia exchange is the worst in the system due to it being two side platforms and unable to handle a new route (for example such as a train coming in from Sapperton and returning.)

officedweller · #**6624** Posted **Apr 24, 2014, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbertram

This just got me wondering if the original station design (sitting on North Rd with a wye opening to the south) was simply given a 1/4 turn and relocated to where we have Lougheed Stn today.

This might explain a lot of the unusual design elements - a 3rd platform; unusual station interlockings to go from two tracks on one side the station, to 3 tracks in the station, to 4 tracks on the other side of the station; the old design for the twist-over tracks to North Road (now replaced with humping-track and wrong-railing on North Road between two stations).

There must have been customization for the east-west orientation, because a previous iteration was a single north-south centre platform.
And even in those diagrams, there was a lot of passage through various switches.
Maybe the change to east-west forced the need to have short-turns at the station (and added complexity)?

See Section 3.3 SkyTrain to SkyTrain connectivity (page 129 of 424) at the link here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

FYI - M-Line background information here:
Note the "Connectivity Report" which identifies issues dealing with interlining.
Note, however, that the report dates back to when the system design
called for a north-south Lougheed station with a south facing wye
(to enable a one seat ride to Columbia from Coquitlam and one transfer to Surrey),
as opposed to the east facing wye that was actually built.

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pubdocs/bcdocs/329621/SkyTrainReview.pdf

Map from the above report (showing a N-S Lougheed Station) - note that Grandview Station was subsequently deleted in its entirety and this shows the original VCC Station under Broadway rather than on the flats.

There's also another report that analyses the interlining in detail with different operational scenarios but I can't seem to find it.

TransitFreak · #**6625** Posted **Apr 25, 2014, 12:10 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

There must have been customization for the east-west orientation, because a previous iteration was a single north-south centre platform.
And even in those diagrams, there was a lot of passage through various switches.
Maybe the change to east-west forced the need to have short-turns at the station (and added complexity)?

See Section 3.3 SkyTrain to SkyTrain connectivity (page 129 of 424) at the link here:

This could have implied/facilitated a Waterfront Coquitlam route via Columbia, and a Coquitlam VCC Clark, so the trunk would be Lougheed/Coquitlam, and the spurs VCC/Waterfront. Other alternative would have been to terminate at Columbia, but that would be problematic...

Hmmm...in that scenario, you would have to decrease capacity on the VCC portion, or conversely, run the Expo trunk rush hour configuration where you send 2 of 3 down Coquitlam/VCC, and the other Coquitlam/Waterfront...

Could you imagine the length of that route, Waterfront via Columbia up to Coquitlam Centre? Guess it's no different than the current millenium line now, just going north instead of doubling back essentially...

officedweller · #**6626** Posted **Apr 25, 2014, 12:25 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TransitFreak

This could have implied/facilitated a Waterfront Coquitlam route via Columbia, and a Coquitlam VCC Clark, so the trunk would be Lougheed/Coquitlam, and the spurs VCC/Waterfront.

Yes, that would be my assumption as well.
The number of Coquitlam-Waterfront trains interlined on the Expo Line could respond to the Braid / Sapperton demand (as the current short-turning plan @ Lougheed would), because the other mainlines cover the shortfall. i.e. it could be 1 in 4 trains.

nname · #**6627** Posted **Apr 25, 2014, 5:55 PM**

The first concrete guideway segment has been placed at Lafarge Lake station. It is using concrete slabs, the same as the one used near Lougheed.

officedweller · #**6628** Posted **Apr 25, 2014, 7:31 PM**

Is that for the station itslef, or just the guideway?
If for the guideway, the beam method of construtcion could be because of switches.

jsbertram · #**6629** Posted **Apr 25, 2014, 9:47 PM**

Starting next week, nighttime deliveries of large concrete beams (girders) to the worksite near Murray Street and Klahanie Drive will be taking place.

See more at:
http://egrtconstruction.ca/media-centre/...-girder-deliveries-off-of-murray-street/

Get ready to see the Klahanie NIMBIES in the news again.

queetz@home · #**6630** Posted **Apr 25, 2014, 10:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jsbertram

Starting next week, nighttime deliveries of large concrete beams (girders) to the worksite near Murray Street and Klahanie Drive will be taking place.

See more at:
http://egrtconstruction.ca/media-centre/...-girder-deliveries-off-of-murray-street/

Get ready to see the Klahanie NIMBIES in the news again.

No kidding, eh? It really disgusts me how the contractor has to go out of their way so much just to accomodate these self entitled pricks! Like honestly???? Jumping through so many hoops just to avoid the use of beepers?

I remember in Yaletown how noisy, dirty and annoying the Canada Line construction was, and Granville St....don't even get me started on that (ruined so many work shoes). And yet these Klahanie residents....talk about self entitlement! They are almost as bad as the Jaimeson residents....almost!

P.S., I hope my cousin at Klahanie doesn't see this....

Olden Retreiver · #**6631** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 5:34 AM**

The track layout at Lougheed is fugly AND dysfunctional. We shouldn't have to put up with both.

GlassCity · #**6632** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 5:46 AM**

Would someone be so kind as to post pictures of what's going to happen and what the general consensus is on what the track layout should be like? I tried finding it but there's just way too many pages to go through.

GeeCee · #**6633** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 6:10 AM**

.

Quote:

Originally Posted by officedweller

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

GlassCity · #**6634** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 6:16 AM**

Thank you very much.

Prometheus · #**6635** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 2:25 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

The funny thing is the average person will never question the Lougheed Station design...

Regarding the part of the design which has one guideway bizarrely shooting high up into the air and then dropping back down to its original height (for no apparent reason to the average person), blocking views of Burnaby Mountain and generally looking retarded and inexplicable, it is precisely the average person who will be questioning the design for generations to come.

And when you tell the average person the story about how a hump was built into the original construction of the Millennium Line because of an anticipated fly-over for the future Evergreen Line and how the hump became vestigial when they decided to not use the fly-over design in the end, that person will ask why they didn't just cut the useless 30-foot hump off and start over properly.

Either way, the inelegant and view-obstructing (and ultimately useless) hump will be eliciting a "WTF" from the average passer-by for the next 70 years.

Olden Retreiver · #**6636** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 2:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Metro-One

...The funny thing is the average person will never question the Lougheed Station design ...

I think transit users who have to make the down-and-up transfer on a daily basis will question the design. Daily.

Because it's dysfunctional, I will question it each and every time I use it (not daily, thank goodness, unless my work changes.) Because it's fugly, I'll be individually glad that it's nowhere near my neighbourhood.

queetz@home · #**6637** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 6:13 PM**

First world problem, anyone?

We already know why there is a hump, and why the guideways look like the way it is. Just accept it and move on....

Personally, my issue is the wrong railing requirement due to the convoluted operations shown in GeeCee's post, and the fact that suggested methods to reduce its track switch wear and tear is pretty much rejected because of this "requirement" to be idiot proof due to Metro Vancouver communiters being "special".

jsbertram · #**6638** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 7:57 PM**

Nighttime Structural Work at Burquitlam Station

Nighttime delivery and installation of girders (large concrete beams) is required at the Evergreen Line’s Burquitlam Station during the week of May 5.

more info:
http://egrtconstruction.ca/media-centre/news/nighttime-structural-work-at-burquitlam-station/

Seems like an easy excuse to take the dog for a walk before the late news.

Metro-One · #**6639** Posted **Apr 28, 2014, 11:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by queetz@home

First world problem, anyone?

We already know why there is a hump, and why the guideways look like the way it is. Just accept it and move on....

Personally, my issue is the wrong railing requirement due to the convoluted operations shown in GeeCee's post, and the fact that suggested methods to reduce its track switch wear and tear is pretty much rejected because of this "requirement" to be idiot proof due to Metro Vancouver communiters being "special".

My thoughts exactly

And it wont be the only station in the world where people have to walk up and down stairs to transfer between platforms.

I always enjoy the nitpicking on OCD, I mean, SSP.