Millennium Line - Broadway Extension: Planning & Pre-Construction

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Hot Rod

so what is the length of a 6-car Mk1 train and how does it compare to a 4-car Mk2 and Mk3?

Are Expo Line platforms going to be lengthened to 120? If so, then would that justify 6-car Mk2 and Mk3 and 8-car Mk1? If we can get these going, SkyTrain will firmly move into full metro capacity. I hope the Millennium Line subway will be built with 120s, with Commercial/Broadway-Arbutus running additional longer trains to the obviously shorter ones coming from Coquitlam.

I wish there was a plan to extend Canada Line to 80m so we could do A-A=A-A; again True metro configs/lengths and capacity. A-C-C-A would be ok as well.

a 6 car mark I train is about 72m long while a 4 car mark II/III is around 67m. The Mark II/III trains are can add a 5th car and still fit within the current platform length.

Expo Line platforms are not getting extended. It's pretty obvious with the station rework done on Metrotown, Joyce, Main Street, and Surrey Central. Any discussion about it really belongs to the Fantasy thread.

As for Canada Line, they are only designed to have max platform length of 50m. Extending beyond 50m is pretty much impossible due to the layout of Bridgeport putting a hard constraint on the entire line.

[SpongeG]

Originally Posted by nname

75 seconds



They would just have to be turned around at Lougheed instead of Production.

that would be annoying if you are going to SFU to get out and wait around to go one more station

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

I don't really get this "A-B" designation for married pairs of Mk 1 and Mk 2 trainsets. If one of the two was a master and the other was just a slave (motors only but no brains) then I'd understand it, but to the best of my knowledge each unit of the pair has identical capabilities. One may act as the master, but they are both capable of it. "A-A" would be a more accurate description, IMHO.

A-B is an old railway term, to identify the 2 ends of a railcar. The B end is the end with the hand brake.

Since MKI, II, and CL all operate at min mated pairs, we use the A-B to reference the orientation only. Labeled individually, the two cars act as one train (with two ends)

So, a MKIII is often referred to as A-C-C-B to indicate it has 2 C cars (no end caps/driver stations) in the middle.


Hope that helps.. I may have gotten off track

https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?1,624903

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

a 6 car mark I train is about 72m long while a 4 car mark II/III is around 67m. The Mark II/III trains are can add a 5th car and still fit within the current platform length.

Expo Line platforms are not getting extended. It's pretty obvious with the station rework done on Metrotown, Joyce, Main Street, and Surrey Central. Any discussion about it really belongs to the Fantasy thread.

As for Canada Line, they are only designed to have max platform length of 50m. Extending beyond 50m is pretty much impossible due to the layout of Bridgeport putting a hard constraint on the entire line.

I wonder why they don't start ordering 5 car MKIIIs is it because they can't handle them at the OMC?

What about 3 car MKIIIs (I assume MKIIs are no longer able to be ordered) and connect them to existing MKII fleet to maximize for existing platforms.

This could mean either 5 MKII/III on Expo or perhaps 3 car MKII/III on M Line.

[dpogue]

Originally Posted by TransitJack

I wonder why they don't start ordering 5 car MKIIIs is it because they can't handle them at the OMC?

What about 3 car MKIIIs (I assume MKIIs are no longer able to be ordered) and connect them to existing MKII fleet to maximize for existing platforms.

This could mean either 5 MKII/III on Expo or perhaps 3 car MKII/III on M Line.

In the latest RFI they were looking at ordering "thirty-five 5-car trains (175 vehicles) between 2021 and 2026." They "considering a further eighteen 5-car trains (90 vehicles) between 2029 and 2032."

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Reecemartin

Could easily make up the lost time with a gondola.

Lots of transfers is ok when it is the byproduct of lots of lines with good service.

So now you want people to have to transfer trains at Lougheed to travel one more stop and then have to transfer again to a gondola?

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by Sheba

So now you want people to have to transfer trains at Lougheed to travel one more stop and then have to transfer again to a gondola?

they are already transferring to a sfu bus at production. no diff using a gondola station there

or move the gondola station to lougheed?

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

the goal should be usability. make the least amount of transfers as possible.

ideally you'd want the Expo-Line and Millennium-Line to stop at the same station the SFU Gondola is. if the system cant do that, then you want the next best thing which is finding out where the most people going to SFU come from; i.e. what line are the coming from. that way the most amount of people have the least amount of transfers.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by jsbertram

or move the gondola station to lougheed?

That would mean travelling over more people's houses - and we know how well that's gone over. Plus with all the redevelopment they might have to shift it west of the station anyway to get away from towers, so instead of being attached to the Skytrain station it's now a distance away.

Also the trip from Lougheed would be further (read: more expensive) than from Production Way. The 'hill' is also steeper on the Lougheed Station side (Burquitlam too).

[TransitJack]

Originally Posted by dpogue

In the latest RFI they were looking at ordering "thirty-five 5-car trains (175 vehicles) between 2021 and 2026." They "considering a further eighteen 5-car trains (90 vehicles) between 2029 and 2032."

Ok that's cool. Thanks for sharing.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Sheba

So now you want people to have to transfer trains at Lougheed to travel one more stop and then have to transfer again to a gondola?

Will they do it with one gondola or does it make sense to ha e a gondola transfer station half way up.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by casper

Will they do it with one gondola or does it make sense to ha e a gondola transfer station half way up.

The plan has been to run it non-stop from Production Way up to roughly the bus loop. If you look on a map you'll see that after the Skytrain there's low warehouse type spaces, then sparse residential and then it's all trees until you get to the developments on top of Burnaby Mountain. There's not much point in having a stop in the middle.

[twoNeurons]

A New York City Lawyer came up with a rather simple idea to extend trains without extending platforms:

• Video Link

It's a pretty ingenious idea and it could even work in Vancouver. It's one of 6 ideas to improve New York's Subway: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/6-ideas-for-a-better-new-york-subway/555722/

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

A New York City Lawyer came up with a rather simple idea to extend trains without extending platforms:

It's a pretty ingenious idea and it could even work in Vancouver. It's one of 6 ideas to improve New York's Subway: https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2018/03/6-ideas-for-a-better-new-york-subway/555722/

It is done on some Commuter lines. No reason it couldn't be done on RT lines, so long as going between cars is permitted. Otherwise, what would happen if you are getting on at an A station and getting off at a B station?

[deasine]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

A New York City Lawyer came up with a rather simple idea to extend trains without extending platforms:

The only limiting factor one needs to consider is the distance between switches, especially right before/after the station or in the OMC. Off memory, at Waterfront, there are switches immediately at both ends of the station which may prohibit or limit how many more cars can be added.

When London added cars for the DLR, certain platforms were lengthened, certain stations were completely rebuilt, and some switches were moved (which is a relatively easy exercise on the DLR), but physical infrastructure was reconfigured and that added quite a bit of cost to the programme.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is done on some Commuter lines. No reason it couldn't be done on RT lines, so long as going between cars is permitted. Otherwise, what would happen if you are getting on at an A station and getting off at a B station?

Duh, you get on one of the cars in the middle of the train that is accessible from both A and B stations.

It's actually a brilliant idea.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

You get on one of the cars in the middle of the train that is accessible from both A and B stations.

It's actually a brilliant idea.

Yep, exactly that. The end cars would end up being less busy, but with pass-throughs, it's less of an issue.

For SkyTrain, you'd ideally renovate really busy stations for longer 100m platforms... but it's not 100% necessary.

When we build the broadway line extension building 100m platforms wouldn't be wasted. Outside of the core, you use an A/B stopping pattern and past VCC/Clark, all cars would open all doors. ( I'd strongly consider extending the Commercial Drive platform, though ).

This pattern could be even MORE easily used on the Canada Line, given its wider cars.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Duh, you get on one of the cars in the middle of the train that is accessible from both A and B stations.

It's actually a brilliant idea.

That is assuming that most of the riders are also not needing to do the same thing.

The Rocket trains of the TTC could do this.

[Reecemartin]

[Deleted]