Jump to content

briguychau

Member
  • Posts

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

Recent Profile Visitors

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

briguychau's Achievements

  1. Probably related to the Rogers outage that seems to be affecting a whole lot more of everything else...
  2. I think the 84 uses around 15 buses at peak. My guess is that probably some will be extra spares for E60LFRs, especially in the summer since they don't have AC.
  3. Any idea what these minor upgrades are? Also how many Mk IIIs are being upgraded to Mk IV?
  4. https://buzzer.translink.ca/2021/11/take-a-sneak-peek-of-translinks-new-mark-v-skytrain/ https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/mark-v-skytrain-design-translink They're calling it "Mark V" I guess? Skipping IV?
  5. The extension is "funded" but not officially going ahead yet, so I don't think the 30 has officially been ordered yet. Also, since it's likely an exercise of options under the order of 205, it might not get an official press release.
  6. As for how it would work on the SkyTrain, here is a mockup. Blue-framed doors ("Expo Line") are standard-size doors which can fit 5-car, 4-car, and 2-car trains. Yellow-framed doors ("Millennium Line") have 4 sets of wide doors, and can fit 5-car, 4-car, 2x2-car, or 2-car trains. The grey bars on the left/right is what's outside of a 80-metre platform. Sorry the resolution is low...
  7. You're right, I made an edit to my post. Telescoping doors can be used so that more of the door can fit inside the post. Now if TransLink will ever invest in them..... But also, I'm just excited for the Mk Is to be gone soon. Maybe we can finally have consistent stopping points on the platforms, and then they can mark door positions on the ground so we can line up right where the doors will be...
  8. Pretty sure they considered ordering middle cars for the Mk IIs but concluded that it'd be unfeasible economically to have a large age gap between cars in the same consist.
  9. I made my diagrams from this source (with some edits): http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/1-mk22.gif I used a 1600mm door width (green) and a 350mm buffer on each side (yellow) to account for slight inaccuracies in stopping position (350mm is what JR East uses in Japan for their platform door margin of error; their trains (e.g. Yamanote Line E235) have a door opening size of 1300mm and a platform door size of 2000mm). This would mean that a 2300mm wide opening is required. For four of the cars, the width is offset by 650mm (first two cars is at -650mm, next two at +650mm), which makes those openings 2950mm. It does seem like that the white space in between is less than half the entire door width (i.e. 1475mm). The platform door width would have to be at most 2/3 the door-to-door spacing (from centerline to centerline) in order for the doors to be able to open without sticking out the other side. The door spacing on the Mk II/III trains is around 4200mm (I don't have a source on this number, this is just based on counting pixels in the chart), so a maximum platform door spacing of 2800mm is possible. Unfortunately, this probably won't fit the requirements for the 2x2-car Mk II with 4-car Mk III door opening (unless we shrink the buffer to 275mm on each side). Of course, if someone can supply me with more accurate Mk II/III dimensions it would be great, but as it stands all I have to work with is that source above which is not 100% to scale. EDIT: I forgot to account for the fact that telescoping doors can be used. So theoretically it would be possible. E.g. https://youtu.be/zpl9x4sKEfk?t=15
  10. Not sure if this is exactly the right place to ask, but could the "driving cab" on some of the Mk II cars be removed (say, during a refurbishment program)? For example, with cars 201-202 + 203-204, the "driving cabs" would be removed on 202 and 203, the cars would be shortened (coupler to coupler) by 650mm each, and a new gangway would be added. 202 and 203 would then become "middle" cars in a 4-car 201-202-203-204 set. The car/train lengths would match the 4-car Mk III trains The door spacings would match the 4-car Mk III trains Presumably the 5-car "Mk IV" trains would have matching door spacings (but they would just be one car longer) With unified door spacings, platform doors can finally be installed
  11. It'd be great if it happens, because currently the Expo and Millennium Line frequencies are dependent on each other due to the overlap between Lougheed and Production Way. Removing that shared track would mean that the two lines can have frequency adjustments separate from each other. However, with the 235 train cars on Expo being 47 5-car trains, I don't see how train frequencies will work. At current peak two-minute intervals, around 45 trains are needed, plus spares. If we replace 4-car trains (assuming 6-car Mk 1s are more-or-less equivalent to 4-car Mk 2s/3s) with 5-car trains but keep the overall capacity of the system, we can reduce peak train intervals to 2.5 minutes (36 trains), and with 5- or 7.5-minute intervals for the King George - Langley portion (one in every two or three trains) we're looking at an additional 9 or 6 trains. That would get us to between 42-45 trains at peak, but there would not be a service increase from current levels, and there would not be any additional capacity to expand. This calculation assumes that the current service pattern of 1/3 peak trains to Production Way continues, but moving the Production Way train to King George would only decrease the required trains by one. And then, on the Millennium Line, 192 trains is 48 4-car trains. Arbutus to Lafarge Lake is around 48 minutes, and based on the future service levels of the M-Line at 7500 pphpd it would equate to appromately one 4-car train every four minutes (15 trains per hour). This would only require 24 trains in total. If we move every other train to Columbia instead of Lafarge Lake then even fewer trains would be required. That is a tremendous amount of spares. So I think the statement in the Board Meeting Report is a mistake, unless there are other service reconfigurations that we don't know about yet.
  12. The new train order is for a base firm order of 205 cars (41 sets), with delivery in 2023-2027. There were options for an additional 400 cars as follows (based on the first post in this thread): Option exercised by end of 2021: up to 30 additional cars (6 sets), delivery by end of 2025 Option exercised by end of 2024: up to 70 additional cars (14 sets), delivery by end of 2028 Option exercised by end of 2026: up to 100 additional cars (20 sets), delivery by end of 2032 Option exercised by end of 2028: up to 100 additional cars (20 sets), delivery by end of 2034 Option exercised by end of 2030: up to 100 additional cars (20 sets), delivery by end of 2036 Likely that the first option has been or will soon be exercised (the announcement today included funding for 30 new cars), so the total train order should now/soon be for 235 cars (47 5-car sets). See also: https://bombardier.com/en/media/news/bombardier-supply-205-new-rail-cars-vancouvers-skytrain-network
  13. Does this mean that the issue at Lougheed with Mk 1s timing out has been resolved?
×
×
  • Create New...