Metro Vancouver Transit Discussion - Page 1231

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**24601** Posted **May 19, 2023, 3:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd prefer shorter headways over longer trains.

agreed. 5 car trains, absolute minimum headways is the ideal.

anyone know what the ultimate capacity would be with the Mk V trains at the 72sec? it must be more than 15,000pphpd

Tvisforme · #**24602** Posted **May 19, 2023, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'd prefer shorter headways over longer trains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

agreed. 5 car trains, absolute minimum headways is the ideal.

anyone know what the ultimate capacity would be with the Mk V trains at the 72sec? it must be more than 15,000pphpd

With respect to headway, is there room to adjust the speed of the trains between stations? (Obviously, factors like noise levels, track wear, and cornering limits are involved.)

madog222 · #**24603** Posted **May 19, 2023, 5:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

agreed. 5 car trains, absolute minimum headways is the ideal.

anyone know what the ultimate capacity would be with the Mk V trains at the 72sec? it must be more than 15,000pphpd

From the capacity study (linked two posts above yours) 5-car trains at 93s headways gives 25,700 pphpd.

Edit: just realized you wrote 72s headways.

I don’t think they would ever run at 72s headways, that leaves no buffer for delayed trains.

Helvetia · #**24604** Posted **May 19, 2023, 5:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

agreed. 5 car trains, absolute minimum headways is the ideal.

anyone know what the ultimate capacity would be with the Mk V trains at the 72sec? it must be more than 15,000pphpd

72 sec headway -> 50 trains per hour

50 tph * 5 cars per train * 131 people per car = ~32k pphpd

fredinno · #**24605** Posted **May 19, 2023, 5:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helvetia

72 sec headway -> 50 trains per hour

50 tph * 5 cars per train * 131 people per car = ~32k pphpd

From memory, around ~35k with row seating and other minor upgrades inside the train to expand capacity (eg. extending the end cars slightly to maximize seating.)

Tvisforme · #**24606** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:08 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helvetia

72 sec headway -> 50 trains per hour

50 tph * 5 cars per train * 131 people per car = ~32k pphpd

What sort of in-out capacity do the stations have? The trains can - per your calculations - move over 32K people per hour looking at net bodies end-to-end with passengers swapping in and out as the trains move from station to station. For argument's sake, what would happen if all passengers rode only one stop and were replaced by new passengers who did the same? Can the platforms, escalators and the rest of the infrastructure handle that theoretical load every 72 seconds?

fredinno · #**24607** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:10 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

What sort of in-out capacity do the stations have? The trains can - per your calculations - move over 32K people per hour looking at net bodies end-to-end with passengers swapping in and out as the trains move from station to station. For argument's sake, what would happen if all passengers rode only one stop and were replaced by new passengers who did the same? Can the platforms, escalators and the rest of the infrastructure handle that theoretical load every 72 seconds?

No, which is why the Expo Line Upgrade Strategy recommended station upgrades.

madog222 · #**24608** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helvetia

131 people per car

I've been trying to make sense of this chart from the TORFM rfp scope of work to figure out what the Mark V capacity will be. My understanding is that AW-1 is with only seated passengers and AW-2 is seated plus standing at 4/m^2, though perhaps translink uses their own definitions.
The Mark I numbers seem to be off but going off the Mark II/III numbers they look to be using the 70kg per person standard.
That means a Mark V would have ~25 seats and a total capacity of ~217 per car. That last number is excessive (it exceeds 4/m^2 of the entire train dimensions) so something isn't right.

EDIT: Comparing AW-3 (6/m^2) to AW-2 (which jives with the Mark II/III numbers) gives 130 standing for the Mark V so ~155 total capacity (if the seated number is correct at 25).

That would change your calculation to:

50 tph * 5 cars per train * 155 people per car = ~38.8k pphpd

WarrenC12 · #**24609** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:29 PM**

Mark 1 retirements to begin in 2023? Will we have a ceremony tossing the oldest train set into the Fraser?

Migrant_Coconut · #**24610** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:45 PM**

Either way, 36k-39k pphpd is over twice our current capacity, even with the upgrades. We're in no danger of needing six-car trains within this century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Mark 1 retirements to begin in 2023? Will we have a ceremony tossing the oldest train set into the Fraser?

Nah, dump 'em into the Pacific and get a nice habitat and tourist spot out of the deal.

madog222 · #**24611** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Mark 1 retirements to begin in 2023? Will we have a ceremony tossing the oldest train set into the Fraser?

The first to leave should be the 'younger' 1990s Mark I, those haven't been upgraded.

I was on 140 a few days ago and man, those really need to go.

Mac Write · #**24612** Posted **May 19, 2023, 6:54 PM**

Where does it say that Mark I retirement starts this year?

VancouverOfTheFuture · #**24613** Posted **May 19, 2023, 7:08 PM**

interesting. yeah we dont need 6 car trains anytime soon. as much as i would have liked to see 6 car trains being planned into the Broadway Subway, it wasn't really needed.

i have been on the MTA in NYC before, those trains are long. but they take forever to show up. and they're not exactly on time. then waiting in those train stations. god they were freaking hot in the summer; sweating just standing there. no air flow at all. blehh. then how loud it is. how dirty it is. the last time i got stuck waiting for 20mins with 0 news the trains weren't coming until some worker went walking down the platform saying there was a terrorist attack and the train wont be coming and to just leave. i was surprised how there was 0 information before that.

i like our SkyTrain system more than the NYC MTA. even though they have "24hr service" and people whine about lacking it here. its super minimal and its easier when you have quad or triple track segments. theres really no point to it here.

thanks for the information guys.

fredinno · #**24614** Posted **May 19, 2023, 7:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Either way, 36k-39k pphpd is over twice our current capacity, even with the upgrades. We're in no danger of needing six-car trains within this century.

Nah, dump 'em into the Pacific and get a nice habitat and tourist spot out of the deal.

The 35+ pphpd requires moving to all Mark 5+ and renovating the cars to maximize capacity, BTW.

35 pphpd was expected to be reached by ~mid-late 2060s pre-pandemic.

Migrant_Coconut · #**24615** Posted **May 19, 2023, 7:19 PM**

36k's the maximum capacity; it's not likely that demand will catch up to make the Expo overfill again.

trofirhen · #**24616** Posted **May 19, 2023, 7:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ssiguy

.....

The Canada Line, on the other hand, was built strictly for Campbell's beloved Olympics and future transit needs were considered completely irrelevant. From the puny 50 meter max stations, dangerously thin platforms, single tracking thru Richmond with no land allowance so it can never be extended, and no extra storage spot for Waterfront so they can use both tracks and still have a back-up train parked if needed, the system has absolutely no future proofing at all.

The only thing 'doable' for the Canada Line, IMHO, is to reduce headways from 3 or 4 minutes down to 2 minutes (or 1.5 mn if that's possible) - adding even more trains, if possible.
Super-high-frequency might just do it, at least in rush hour. As for the dangerously thin platforms, glass platform doors might be an answer. Other cities have done that.

madog222 · #**24617** Posted **May 19, 2023, 7:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac Write

Where does it say that Mark I retirement starts this year?

Below the table.

Here is the expected annual distance of the fleet:

nname · #**24618** Posted **May 19, 2023, 7:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fredinno

The 35+ pphpd requires moving to all Mark 5+ and renovating the cars to maximize capacity, BTW.

35 pphpd was expected to be reached by ~mid-late 2060s pre-pandemic.

If you extrapolated the line from the Expo Capacity document, then it will reach 35k pphpd for the best case scenario. But even pre-pandemic, we are far below that line (14,900 actual vs close to 18,000 estimated).

So as the other already said, we're probably safe for this century at least.

Note that TTC subway currently have maximum capacity of 28k pphpd, and will have up to 33k pphpd after upgrade.

WarrenC12 · #**24619** Posted **May 19, 2023, 8:22 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Nah, dump 'em into the Pacific and get a nice habitat and tourist spot out of the deal.

Don't worry, there are plenty to go around.

One should end up in the Vancouver museum though, maybe some other spots around the province too.

WarrenC12 · #**24620** Posted **May 19, 2023, 8:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by madog222

The first to leave should be the 'younger' 1990s Mark I, those haven't been upgraded.

I was on 140 a few days ago and man, those really need to go.

Yeah that makes sense, and I agree.

Which ones got AC, only Mark 3+ right?