GORDOOM

V7419 sighted at 29th Avenue doing a #33. (The two-line head sign exposure looks terrible on an old Balios with a bunch of the LEDs crapping out.)

32 minutes ago, FL04DIFN said:

And we’ve not heard the result it seems?

No decision yet. More hearings pending.

The LRB did find that CMBC had engaged in unfair labour practices, but that the violations were minor enough that a declaratory order without fines was sufficient.

1 hour ago, dover5949 said:

Do we really care?????

First, it points to a shortage of working rolling stock, which is certainly of interest. (The Mark Vs cannot enter service soon enough!)

Second, Mark Is running in shorter consists reduces capacity on the Expo Line, and that means more crowding and pass-ups. That's definitely relevant to anyone using it during rush hour.

Lots of 4-car Mark Is today. Not coincidentally, the Expo is a total sardine can, more so than usual. The Mark Vs cannot arrive soon enough.

10 minutes ago, Transitfan2022 said:

Were they blue?

Yes, they were blue-topped. Sorry I wasn't clear: I saw two cars of the first Mark V consist being unloaded.

Just saw two cars being unloaded as I passed through Edmonds OMC.

6 hours ago, Busmanic92 said:

That's an idea. Make it 702 Lougheed Highway Express / mission city station

They already have 701 for all stops. R3 for commuting to Maple ridge. But no Express service for those going to mission (it's supposed to be a trainbus service stopping at stations, take the 701/r3 for regular services)

 

Like 503 Fraser highway Express / Langley centre/aldergrove...

Actually, it's more like the relationship between the #394 and the King George RapidBus, but I agree with you: have the new #702 share stops with the Lougheed Hwy. RapidBus, not the #701.

Still seeing lots of 4-car Mark I consists on the Expo. Just a maintenance backlog at Edmonds? Or is there something specific?

More four-car consists of Mark Is on the Expo this morning. (The Mark Vs cannot come soon enough!)

3 hours ago, 9924 said:

The above linked article pertains to only those units without permanent barriers either installed or being installed.  Any other upcoming retirees is another discussion point.

True. At the same time, how expensive are these barriers and how much labour does it take to install them? Would TransLink really go through all that, only to retire the coach a couple years later?

The other reason I ask is that TransLink has frequently kept coaches well past the 17-year mark. A huge number of D40LFs survived into their third decades, and only a handful of the 2006 coaches have been retired thus far. That's why I ask how the LFRs and L-drive Novas are holding up, and whether this points to another mass deferral of retirements.

3 hours ago, 9924 said:

6.5% of the fleet will still have temporary barriers (aka, the shower curtain) after the permanent barrier installation program is complete.  Those units will be retired by the end of 2025.  6.5% of 1451 units equals 94 units.  All other units that don't already have a permanent barrier are being retrofitted with the in-house permanent barrier, thus will not be retired in the next year.

So we're only going to see <100 vehicle retirements in the next 18–24 months? Are that many of the 2006–2008 coaches being kept past their 17-year life expectancy? Is the current fleet holding up that well?

New signage trackside on the outbound end of King George station. Does this have to do with extension construction? Or something else entirely?

3 hours ago, Dane said:

I'm excited for when our definition of accessibility includes seats, again. 

The lack of seats has little to do with accessibility. Standees take up less floor space than seated passengers; therefore, by decreasing the number of seats, the capacity of each train increases.

9 hours ago, buizelbus said:

4 years is still quite awhile for a bus. They'd definitely still be an option, but with economies of scale the cost difference might outweigh the shipping cost from Europe.

At the end of the day, yeah nothing is final and we won't know who builds the order until they arrive or when TransLink announces.

It's not just shipping costs, but also the need for Transport Canada certification. Unless CAF is making a play for the Canadian market more generally, it might not make sense to seek certification for a single order. (Wasn't this what did in the Neoplan/Škoda bid in the 2000s?)

https://cptdb.ca/topic/19926-vancouver-trolleybus-discussion/?do=findComment&comment=973803

Do the Solaris Trollinos use Kiepe propulsion? If so, then this might also be a demonstrator for the new propulsion system, even if Flyer and not Solaris makes the bodies.

Update: they're now running separate shuttle trains Scott Road–Gateway and Gateway–King George. The shuttles also have STAs at the hostler controls, though they look to be operating under full ATO.

On 6/24/2023 at 12:36 AM, UprisingCanadian said:

This is what stacked 19 will look like starting next week.

And almost forgot the 2.

Why do they need a special sign for WB short-turning #19 trips? Having two separate signs for buses doing the exact same thing only adds confusion.

@8800GTX: still an issue. Three four-car Mark I consists in a row this morning (07:45, at King George).

Update: According to third-hand sources, the maintenance backlog at Edmonds OMC is massive right now, to the point where there's not enough cars to make book-out. They're running the Mark Is in four-car consists instead of cutting frequencies. (No word on how long it will last, and in particular whether it will be cleared up by next weekend when the Gateway switch replacement starts.)

Two four-car Mark I consists in a row on the Expo Line. (Didn't catch the numbers of the other cars, but 019-020 is on one end of the second train.) I know you still see short consists on the Expo occasionally, but two in a row? Is BCRTC short of working rolling stock right now?

15 hours ago, madog222 said:

Mark II shows a significant change in 2030, I assume that is a retirement of the 200 series leaving the 300 series in service.

Could it also be a relegation of the 200-series to rush-hour extras? They'll be 30 years old at that point, but whether or not they stay in service depends on whether or not they get a major life-extension overhaul.

1 hour ago, Transit Guy said:

@Express691 mentioned seeing “14 BROADWAY-HAST” for next sheet in another thread. I’m confirming that the “BROADWAY-HAST” stacked signs are out (at least towards Kootenay) and I can’t say they look great.

... why? Why not use the former "HASTINGS-TENTH" usage? It's less ugly, and also distinguishes it better from the 9 BROADWAY.

11 hours ago, 981 said:

I'd personally like to see them acquire something that isn't XNs. I keep hearing from drivers about the various issues the XN40s have, specifically the newer XN40s, and it does make me wish we'd purchase some buses from an alternative manufacturer like ENC or Nova

Are these issues specific to the CNG-powered units, or general to all the newer NFI Xcelsiors? (And do they relate to the bus body, or to TransLink's specific choice of powertrain? The latter won't be fixed by ordering from NovaBus.)

1 hour ago, SeanNelson said:

I wonder if some sort of analysis has been done to compare the added costs of equipping electric buses with batteries versus erecting overhead for various routes and using trolleys instead.

Part of the problem right now (especially in North America) is that, because trolleybuses are such a niche product, there's no economy of scale to their production. They basically have to be custom-made, and so the cost per vehicle is higher than a battery-powered bus even though they should be somewhat cheaper. (And there's also the fact that erecting the double-line overhead needed to power trolleybuses gets the NIMBYs out in full force.)

6 hours ago, 981 said:

those old 3200s ... were built as C40LFs then later dieselized because (from what I know) the tanks were not rated for as long of a life as the tanks in the C40LFRs.

That, and the CNG engines in them were absolute garbage. Dieselizing them made them much more usable vehicles.