Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion

[Waders]

Originally Posted by Xerx

I wouldn’t count the Chinese out, in the past decade they’ve been making a push into the North American market. They’ve already gotten a few orders in the States. I think they tried to make a bid in Montreal but their lack of experience with rubber-tyre metros disqualified them.

There is security concern using trains manufactured by China. Translink's RFQ should include security specification to minimize the risk.

Source:
Experts: Chinese train manufacturers cause for concern
Senators urge Metro to guard against Chinese spying in new subway cars

[Mac Write]

I really hope Bombardier gets the contract, and also takes over the Canada Line in 2044 as Bombardier, then we would have a fully integrated system were trans can be moved between any line in the system.

[ilikeredheads]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I really hope Bombardier gets the contract, and also takes over the Canada Line in 2044 as Bombardier, then we would have a fully integrated system were trans can be moved between any line in the system.

Obvious difference in loading gauge aside, you want Bombardier to build a special set of trains that uses BOTH LIM rail and conventional electric motor. lol wut?

[Meraki]

Originally Posted by Gordon

Does Translink have more 40 ft novas that New Flyers, The city of Vancouver your rarely see a regular new Flyer? and the #7 Nanaimo Stn\Dunbar is a Diesel route for th next few months.

It depends where you are. Each depot has a different mix. PTC/STC serving the Tri-Cities and SoF is entirely New Flyer. BTC out of Burnaby is entirely Nova. Vancouver is primarily Nova for their diesels. Richmond was previously entirely New Flyer but just started receiving some Novas.

By the raw numbers I'm pretty sure they still have more New Flyer units.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

takes over the Canada Line in 2044 as Bombardier, then we would have a fully integrated system were trans can be moved between any line in the system.

different width trains. different propulsion technology. will never never never never happen. what are you smoking?

you must be Quebecois to be that in love with them and out of touch.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

different width trains. different propulsion technology. will never never never never happen. what are you smoking?

you must be Quebecois to be that in love with them and out of touch.

I mean, they could use Bombardier Trains, but it'd be pointless on the grand scheme of things due to having to use different trainsets anyways.

Though adding a 3rd rail to modify the Canada Line to LIMs may be an option to increase Canada Line frequency to 75s (and thus capacity).

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by fredinno

Though adding a 3rd rail to modify the Canada Line to LIMs may be an option to increase Canada Line frequency to 75s (and thus capacity).

it already has a 3rd rail. do you mean add a LIM rail? and why would that change frequencies? both systems use the same train control software.

this all sounds like a stupid idea that would waste money for no reason.


knock knock people, TransLink is broke, B-R-O-K-E. say it with me; B-R-O-K-E. this means that wasting money on stupid things for no reason is stupid.

if people are going to propose ideas, unless it is in the fantasy thread, lets at least keep the ideas plausible and/or good ideas. and FYI, changing the technology on a perfectly fine system, is NOT a plausible or good idea.

[Mac Write]

This is 20 years out. Though I think the new trains should take advantage of the 6inch area on the platform to gain wider trains. Then send the Mark II's and current Mark III's to the Milenium line. Then in 2044 change the rail and add a LIM so all lines use the same rolling stock.

The Expo and Millennium like were designed for wider trains.Though 40 trains if 5 cars won't meet rush hour demand on the Expo line.

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

it already has a 3rd rail. do you mean add a LIM rail? and why would that change frequencies? both systems use the same train control software.

this all sounds like a stupid idea that would waste money for no reason.


knock knock people, TransLink is broke, B-R-O-K-E. say it with me; B-R-O-K-E. this means that wasting money on stupid things for no reason is stupid.

if people are going to propose ideas, unless it is in the fantasy thread, lets at least keep the ideas plausible and/or good ideas. and FYI, changing the technology on a perfectly fine system, is NOT a plausible or good idea.

LIM has superior acceleration and deceleration, allowing cars to be closer together.

Note that the maximum frequency for Bridgeport-to-Waterfront train short-running is listed as 90s, not 75s, as for the Expo.

Also, most public institutions run to the last penny.

Originally Posted by Mac Write

This is 20 years out. Though I think the new trains should take advantage of the 6inch area on the platform to gain wider trains. Then send the Mark II's and current Mark III's to the Milenium line. Then in 2044 change the rail and add a LIM so all lines use the same rolling stock.

The Expo and Millennium like were designed for wider trains.Though 40 trains if 5 cars won't meet rush hour demand on the Expo line.

... I mean, there is technically a small amount of space for overhang, but I'm pretty sure it's there for safety reasons. Certainly not 6 inches.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by fredinno

LIM has superior acceleration and deceleration, allowing cars to be closer together.

Note that the maximum frequency for Bridgeport-to-Waterfront train short-running is listed as 90s, not 75s, as for the Expo.

Also, most public institutions run to the last penny.

Can't spend pennies we don't have. And if we do get those pennies (several hundred billion of them, to be precise), why not spend it on something else like a relief line? 90s gets us 20,000 pphpd, good enough for all practical purposes.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

the quality of ideas for transit have really dropped off recently on this forum...

also, these ideas should be in the transit fantasy thread as this is meant for, well you know, REAL ideas that are coming up not terrible ideas that would be 20yrs out.

[ilikeredheads]

There's seems to be some misconception that LIM = more frequent trains. That's incorrect. Train frequency is bounded by the track's signal system as well as the train control system. LIM is just a form of propulsion. It doesn't automatically mean better frequency. The reason Canada Line has a max headway of 90s as opposed to 75s on the Expo Line is because the single track on both ends of the branches puts a hard constraint on max headway. If it were double-tracked in whole way, it would've been able to have faster max headway.

Canada Line has different specifications from Expo/Millennium Line. They aren't even connected!!! Different loading gauges. Different propulsion systems. Different platform lengths. Different electrification systems. (Canada Line runs on 750V DC while Expo/Millennium is 650V DC)
Why the hell do you want to waste money modifying both so you can run the same trains on both systems???
Even on a fantasy thread, this idea is preposterous.

[teriyaki]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

There's seems to be some misconception that LIM = more frequent trains. That's incorrect. Train frequency is bounded by the track's signal system as well as the train control system. LIM is just a form of propulsion. It doesn't automatically mean better frequency. The reason Canada Line has a max headway of 90s as opposed to 75s on the Expo Line is because the single track on both ends of the branches puts a hard constraint on max headway. If it were double-tracked in whole way, it would've been able to have faster max headway.

Canada Line has different specifications from Expo/Millennium Line. They aren't even connected!!! Different loading gauges. Different propulsion systems. Different platform lengths. Different electrification systems. (Canada Line runs on 750V DC while Expo/Millennium is 650V DC)
Why the hell do you want to waste money modifying both so you can run the same trains on both systems???
Even on a fantasy thread, this idea is preposterous.

100% Agreed. That ship has long sailed and the reality is that the lines will forever be incompatible with each other. Its also not a black/white situation where compatible = better and incompatible = wrong. There is zero cost-savings or efficiency to be gained by changing technologies to "Skytrain" standard. You'd basically be repaying to rebuild the entire line.

Look around the world and you'll see many examples of metro lines running different train stock that are incompatible with each other due to a variety of reasons. Work with what you have.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

There's seems to be some misconception that LIM = more frequent trains. That's incorrect. Train frequency is bounded by the track's signal system as well as the train control system. LIM is just a form of propulsion. It doesn't automatically mean better frequency. The reason Canada Line has a max headway of 90s as opposed to 75s on the Expo Line is because the single track on both ends of the branches puts a hard constraint on max headway. If it were double-tracked in whole way, it would've been able to have faster max headway.

Canada Line has different specifications from Expo/Millennium Line. They aren't even connected!!! Different loading gauges. Different propulsion systems. Different platform lengths. Different electrification systems. (Canada Line runs on 750V DC while Expo/Millennium is 650V DC)
Why the hell do you want to waste money modifying both so you can run the same trains on both systems???
Even on a fantasy thread, this idea is preposterous.

Originally Posted by teriyaki

100% Agreed. That ship has long sailed and the reality is that the lines will forever be incompatible with each other. Its also not a black/white situation where compatible = better and incompatible = wrong. There is zero cost-savings or efficiency to be gained by changing technologies to "Skytrain" standard. You'd basically be repaying to rebuild the entire line.

Look around the world and you'll see many examples of metro lines running different train stock that are incompatible with each other due to a variety of reasons. Work with what you have.

finally! at least some people get it.

[nname]

Originally Posted by ilikeredheads

There's seems to be some misconception that LIM = more frequent trains. That's incorrect. Train frequency is bounded by the track's signal system as well as the train control system. LIM is just a form of propulsion. It doesn't automatically mean better frequency. The reason Canada Line has a max headway of 90s as opposed to 75s on the Expo Line is because the single track on both ends of the branches puts a hard constraint on max headway. If it were double-tracked in whole way, it would've been able to have faster max headway.

Actually, the minimum headway of Canada Line is 2min - that's the limit for the single track. Otherwise the minimum would be 90s.

30 trains/hr * 133 passengers/car * 3 cars = 15000 passengers/hour

And LIM does help for more frequent trains due to higher acceleration/deceleration and higher precision due to less wheel slips. Of course, there are other more important factors such as station dwell time, control system, train length, track layout for switch, etc.

But then, why would people argue that Canada Line need 75s when it haven't even reached the minimum design headway of 120s???

[Mac Write]

The Expo/Millenium line were designed to accommodate wider trains by removing the platform edge. If we can going to order 40 5-car trains or 50 4-car trains, why not remove the platform edge to accommodate the wider train that both lines support? It would help increase capacity, allow for lots of seating etc. Then move the 108 Mark II's to the Millennium line and the Mark III's we currently have as well. If Bombardier could widen the Mark III's we have, then we would have an extra 21 trains for the Expo line.

As someone else on this forum said, we should have done this when we got the original Mark II trains.

I think it's someone we should seriously consider today. 27 4-car Mark IIs+ 21 4-car Mark III's should be enough for the Milleniun line all the way out to UBC and then all 40-50 wide Mark III's dedicated to the Expo line.

[red-paladin]

Can we please take the speculations on future transit to the fantasies thread?

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

the quality of ideas for transit have really dropped off recently on this forum...

also, these ideas should be in the transit fantasy thread as this is meant for, well you know, REAL ideas that are coming up not terrible ideas that would be 20yrs out.

I couldn't help myself.

Originally Posted by nname

Actually, the minimum headway of Canada Line is 2min - that's the limit for the single track. Otherwise the minimum would be 90s.

30 trains/hr * 133 passengers/car * 3 cars = 15000 passengers/hour

And LIM does help for more frequent trains due to higher acceleration/deceleration and higher precision due to less wheel slips. Of course, there are other more important factors such as station dwell time, control system, train length, track layout for switch, etc.

But then, why would people argue that Canada Line need 75s when it haven't even reached the minimum design headway of 120s???

Because of the people who worry about the Canada Line being overloaded due to demand increases?

Originally Posted by Mac Write

The Expo/Millenium line were designed to accommodate wider trains by removing the platform edge. If we can going to order 40 5-car trains or 50 4-car trains, why not remove the platform edge to accommodate the wider train that both lines support? It would help increase capacity, allow for lots of seating etc. Then move the 108 Mark II's to the Millennium line and the Mark III's we currently have as well. If Bombardier could widen the Mark III's we have, then we would have an extra 21 trains for the Expo line.

As someone else on this forum said, we should have done this when we got the original Mark II trains.

I think it's someone we should seriously consider today. 27 4-car Mark IIs+ 21 4-car Mark III's should be enough for the Milleniun line all the way out to UBC and then all 40-50 wide Mark III's dedicated to the Expo line.

[Citation needed] I know the MKIIs are ~15 cm wider than MKI.

Not even the Soeul Metro system has overhanging trains. If the Expo wasn't designed for wider trains, that means you'd at minimum have to widen the Dunsmuir Tunnel during overnight hours.

Originally Posted by red-paladin

Can we please take the speculations on future transit to the fantasies thread?

Ok, I'll copy-and-paste the discussion proper there. Hopefully it'll work.

[officedweller]

The MKII prototype was called "Fat Albert" and you can see the bulging / overhanging sides:

Originally Posted by MIPS

We have indeed gone a long way since those first two prototypes in terms of style.

Moreso with the MKII.


Image courtesy of News 1130 (?)

From Westcoast Railway News Sept 2007:


https://www.wcra.org/ezines/2007-September.pdf

[fredinno]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The MKII prototype was called "Fat Albert" and you can see the bulging / overhanging sides:



From Westcoast Railway News Sept 2007:


https://www.wcra.org/ezines/2007-September.pdf

Doesn't look like it would provide a meaningful increase in capacity.