GORDOOM

Member
  • Content count

    358
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About GORDOOM

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Recent Profile Visitors

3,097 profile views
  1. IMO it would be more fitting if it were 8020, given that those buses were ordered and configured specifically for that route. They're not worried about property values. They just don't want any further development or densification in their neighbourhoods.
  2. Metrotown Station centre stationhouse opens 24 March
  3. If the IMC system works well, and especially if the automatic rewirement works well enough to eliminate the need for pole-pullers, this could actually solve a lot of problems for Vancouver. In addition to diversions and greater flexibility to modify routes, there's a bunch of places where trolleybus overhead is impossible or impractical: Marine Drive between 41st Ave. and Wesbrook Mall (for safety reasons) Marine Drive between Fraser and Victoria (limited clearance under the Knight St. Bridge) the Burrard Bridge (no way to erect catenary without modifying/replacing the bridge) If this system works, I'd re-route a bunch of trolleybus routes to take advantage. For starters: re-route the Dunbar trolleybus along the current #32 route (and increase service on the Fourth trolleybus to maintain capacity through Kitsilano) re-route the Arbutus trolleybus to run on Burrard north of Broadway convert Forty-First back to trolleybus operation I'd also hope this might turn into an excuse to start extending the overhead network again, since trolleybuses wouldn't be seen so much as a dead-end technology.
  4. Wouldn't that depend on how much work it took to bring it up to spec? Especially given how many coaches are going to be needed until the expansion orders start coming through?
  5. To do that at this point, you'd likely need to order additional trolleybuses, as I'd imagine most of the existing fleet will get "used up" for service increases. Though a top-up order of XT60s might not be a bad idea in any case, assuming it wouldn't be such a small subfleet as to be difficult to maintain.
  6. The only way you could do that would be if: you took responsibility for road planning/construction away from the City of Burnaby and gave it to TransLink, so they couldn't stonewall trolleybus extensions anymore; and you built a garage on the North Shore to replace North Van TC, so Burnaby actually had room to take some Vancouver routes! (And yes, that's a suggested plan of action, not just a list of practical difficulties.)
  7. S7248? Am I reading the still right?
  8. 4-car Mark I consist (037-038-105-106) on the Expo Line. Just missed it at Stadium headed for King George.
  9. Please no. For one thing, hydrogen gas is ridiculously expensive to produce, in terms of both money and energy-efficiency. For another, the storage density is ridiculously low, so hydrogen-powered buses are extremely range-limited even compared to battery-powered or CNG buses. BC Transit tried HE40LFRs in Whistler, and they failed dismally.
  10. Are the XE40s doing any better? What about BYD and Proterra?
  11. Conversely, though, batteries cost money and add weight to the coach, each of which is a legitimate disadvantage. If we're even thinking about this, we need to start by testing battery-powered buses as replacements for internal-combustion buses, to figure out their limitations in actual service. I actually find it a bit frustrating that TransLink hasn't started doing so yet.
  12. If the recent bus RFPs went to New Flyer, getting them to give us pricing on Seattle-spec XT40s or XT60s would be trivial. They've done it before: 2561-2574 were originally ordered as diesels, but then TransLink decided they had a greater need for more artic trolleys than more artic diesels. If they were going to expand the trolleybus fleet, that's what they'd have to do. If you put any more trolleys at VTC, you'd run into the problem of not having enough diesels there to be able to cover weekend dieselizations and the like. Also, if you're doing that, then extending the #9 and #14 to Brentwood is trivial, and those extensions make a great deal of sense from a route-planning perspective. That said, given Burnaby's stubbornness on the whole matter of trolleybuses... On a somewhat-related point, do you think we'll see an extension of the #4 to VCC-Clark when the Millennium Line extension opens, to replace the #84?
  13. Accident damage? Or getting rebuilt already? For that matter, how are the batteries on the hybrids holding up?
  14. But that's exactly what I'm saying: a Queensway streetcar would not terminate at Humber Loop. It would continue east at least as far as Sunnyside, which would reduce you to a single transfer to the #501 or #504 to get downtown.
  15. Would that change if you had a Queensway streetcar running in dedicated ROW to Sunnyside, and then continuing to the downtown core (or a connection with the Queen Subway/"Relief Line")? Especially if the King St. Transit Mall goes through?