Jump to content

Opal

CPTDB Wiki Editor
  • Posts

    721
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Vancouver, BC
  • Interests
    mostly the promotion of public transit in general

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Opal's Achievements

  1. Thanks for all the replies :). When I said "couldn't be done", I know they were using the stacked difficulty on the flip-dot signs as an excuse - they absolutely could have been done. There was also the bold font and the non-bold on the flip-dots - the route name part could have been in bold, and the destination part could have been in non-bold. As for the part like shown above in Toronto - I remember in Winnipeg they had some long signs too - and they used an ellipsis at the end of an exposure (three dots - ...) to indicate that it continued. So if you saw a saw with an ellipsis, you would know there's something else that the bus is going to say - no ellipsis, the next exposure would be the first one. So if it matters which branch you're taking, you keep looking. If I recall correctly, it was side signs with these multiple exposures that usually sucked, especially if you hadn't been paying attention to the front sign. So yes, they could have done this before. It seems like they were basically doing everything "because that's how we've always done it". But even this led to inconsistencies. Why "16 29th Ave Stn" and not "16 Renfrew"? Of course there are many such inconsistencies... Anyway enough of this. I had the radio on the other day and the problem seems to have been fixed (heard only one comment about a train having lost multiple VOBCs and Production Way was asked to deal with it), but it also seemed like it was more of an issue with 6-car Mk 1 trains and I think they are using 4-car right now. But even so, it needed to be fixed because that was a pretty silly issue to have - one train type is not compatible...
  2. This is LONG overdue... I actually sent in a request for this back in the late 2000s, and the reply was "the older buses don't allow us to do that" (they were right with the flip dot ones) and something to the effect of "they are too small on the others and no other transit authorities in Canada do this..." (which is very much incorrect...). I rebutted with "then the old flip dot signs to multi exposures, and the LED signs do stacked. And, submitted photos of TTC and HSR which both use stacked signs. I even suggested, if they were concerned about the size, of doing it like Winnipeg - using multiple exposures, with a "..." at the end if the exposure continues (like "41 41st Avenue ... / to Joyce Stn", or a more complex one like "229 29th Street ... / to Lonsdale Quay ... / via Lonsdale Ave"). Never heard back after those suggestions - not saying I like those (they took a long time to see all three exposures if you needed to know the last bit), but still solves the visibility problem. Then they kept making new routes in the old manner which basically said squat for the users (188 Coq Stn, 188 Poco Stn - and the new ones reflecting the Skytrain Station name are no better...). I remember going into Surrey once years ago when I was new to the area (mid 2000s) and seeing a bunch of different buses going to "Newton Exch" with route numbers that didn't even correspond to the street numbers, so had no idea where they went until I looked them up. And later answered oodles of questions in Richmond about a similar thing for all Northbound buses that were going to a Canada Line station... At least those were numbered for their street number when appropriate. As for the spacing, Translink does has even recently done it for "U B C" and "S F U" on some of the newer exposures (the 33 comes to mind, forget which other - maybe the 41 used to?). Always thought it looked ugly, especially on the flip dots, but it can make it more readable and I'm fine with that for the others. But that's easy to change back if it doesn't work well. These new signs will take some getting used to but is the way it should be. Except they've already made a mistake with the 10... It should be "10 Granville / to Waterfront Stn" (or the "to Davie" exposure used for some AM trips) not "10 Downtown / to Waterfront Stn"... Anyway, still better than the existing and gives MUCH more information to the riders. Now, wonder how they'll name the 33? 33rd Avenue or 16th Avenue? It travels along 16th Avenue for longer than 33rd, but was numbered for 33rd... I suppose "33 33rd Avenue / to U B C via 16th" would be best, but doubt they'll do that...
  3. I know many years back (I want to say 2012???) there was a really bad "track issue" around that area that was causing trains to "skip" (don't know how to describe it - it was a noticeable shudder...) when trains were departing Olympic Village inbound. Eventually all heck broke loose and all trains were timing out causing huge delays - I remember that well because it was messed up for my trip to work and again on my trip home (I lived in Vancouver and worked in Richmond at the time). Ever since, they've done this slow order and "brake" through that section. I do suspect the incident was the cause, but don't know for sure. There's another section just through the yard switch leading up to Bridgeport Station outbound that used to cause trains to shudder that also eventually "broke", causing delays, but last time I rode the Canada Line (which was now over a year ago - thanks pandemic...) it was no longer doing that and there was no additional "slow" order than the normal slowness through a switch.
  4. I don't think so, I think it was a problem before and from my understanding was one of the reasons they opened with the unusual crossover arrangement they had at Lougheed for the first year or whatever it was (in case they needed 6-car trains or decided to through-route the Expo Line trains). It is a problem now, but isn't a problem if they keep the Mk1's off, which they do, for the most part.
  5. I had the radio scanner on a few times earlier this year during our heavy snow when they were running 6-car trains on the M-Line due to delays and the need to run big trains due to staffing every train, and it is definitely an issue on Lougheed side. I'm pretty sure it's departing Lougheed side heading towards Production Way. And they don't ALWAYS time out (but most of the time) - if they run slowly enough and have enough computers active (each car has one), it won't always happen. They had one train with all 6 active computers (VOBCs) and 5 of them timed out, but the 6th did not, so the entire train didn't time out. But they were all being staffed back then due to the snow, so it didn't really matter - as mentioned above, they could be re-entered quickly anyway. Someone I know that works for Translink head office said that this wasn't an issue during testing, so he's not sure why it started happening. But they were apparently caught off-guard when it did. He also said that the issue can be fixed, but they just haven't bothered because they know about it and can deal with it - they won't be using Mk1 trains very often there anyway.
  6. It still happens, but it's when leaving Lougheed Side (towards VCC-Clark). I think I mentioned this once before and it may have been back when the trains were going towards Coquitlam from that platform, but I don't remember. Anyway, during the snow this year I was listening to their radio and they were having loads of fun (sarcasm) with it. If I recall correctly, there was only one MK 1 train out on the M Line one of the days (not sure why they had to use it) and they would just go slow and the attendant would be ready to quickly re-enter. It was more interesting after the trains were no longer being attended. But later on, they had some sort of issue with the Edmonds yard and sent a bunch of MK 1s up to the Coquitlam yard and had to re-enter all but one of them when passing through Lougheed side to get back onto the Expo Line. Resulted in a system service hold. Someone I know who works for Translink HQ said he was of the understanding that the issue could not be easily fixed and that when the time comes to run 4-car trains on the M Line they would be solely MK 2+. He thought it had something to do with the new guideway sensors and the fact that the trains move laterally as they pass over them. MK 2+ trains don't do that because they are shorter. But he wasn't 100% sure. What he said kinda makes sense (??).
  7. I saw it today with the tow hooked up and it looked like there was substantial damage to the joint. Bus was at almost a 120 degree angle... Not sure if that is too much, but definitely more than I've seen in normal operation.
  8. Yup, I remember when the 410 switched over to Hamilton and had Novas the same thing was happening. And you don't have to touch anything, lol! Just wave at it :).
  9. Confirmed - I rode on it last night EB from Commercial-Broadway around 9:30 PM.
  10. I mentioned this in the transfer thread because in my mind it's related to that as well, but what's the point of the transfer then if they couldn't use them for a time when they need non-trolleys? Seems counter-intuitive. Although they didn't do this when they had the 12000s either, so I guess VTC just doesn't know how to do that. Example, although many of the 12000s were used on the 49, there were 28 buses there - only 12 or so were used on weekends, so instead of deploying them on the 3, 8, 10, or 20 when they needed non-trolleys, they'd leave the extras sitting in the yard while they stuck 40-footers on the other artic routes. Doubt they'd do that with the 49... I know there aren't "enough" of them, but if it's just one route (like it was yesterday and again today), just deploy as many as possible and then fill in with 40-footers. They would have known about these detours enough in advance to assign a track for them the night before... I agree with the 44 and 480 comments - never understood why either of these routes were NOT at VTC, since VTC can handle artics.
  11. Well better to put as many as they can on it than none at all. Put all they have out on the one route, then fill in the rest with 40-footers. Same again today with the 8 - NOT ONE of the hybrid artics is on the 8, and a few are out on the other three artic routes. Defeats the purpose of the transfer, in my mind. Besides, they won't have fewer artics on the 20, so it being busier is a moot point since there would be more artic trolleys available if they are not on one of the other routes...
  12. Yet not one of these is on the 3 today when all of VTC's could be. But no, they had to use 40 foot buses on there and put the artics on the other routes that don't "need" the diesel/hybrid vehicles.
  13. I don't remember which direction they were going, but during the snow issues where all trains had drivers, there was another delay due to a screwed switch near Lougheed and they were trying to move a train through the problem switch area and sent it over to the side track to pass it through Lougheed. The guy they had driving it was a mechanic or something and he said "it's gonna time out" and it did. Control did remember that it would but because they had a driver on it they didn't care. I don't know if it can be fixed, obviously, but I'm assuming it can.
  14. FYI, Mark I trains cannot run through Lougheed side at this time - they all time out (they commented this on the radio during the snow issues this year when they sent a Mark I train up there only because it had a driver). So I somehow doubt they will use Mark I trains.
  15. 9581 now at RTC. On it on a 405 while writing this. As has 9578 - it passed going the other way. And 9580 is there as well but didn't see it physically. So there are just 3 left - 9572, 9577, and 9590 it looks like. And I suspect 9577 is already there but can't tell for sure.
×
×
  • Create New...