GORDOOM

Just saw four wrapped cars on flatbeds outside of Braid station — are they ours or someone else’s?

(posted here because I couldn’t tell exactly what they are under the wrapping)

5 hours ago, Phillip said:

Perhaps that bus was on an 84 and the driver didn't remove the EXPRESS PR code and so the next driver didn't realize it was still on. 

Occasionally I see 49's with the EXPRESS code on when the bus was previously on an 480 and the driver didn't realize it was still on.

Why do they use the “EXPRESS” PR message for routes like the #84 anyway? Why not integrate it into the sign programme itself?

15 hours ago, Cathay 888 said:

What do you think for that article??

There is precedent for it: AIUI the reason the provincial fleet bought double-deckers instead of artics is because downtown Victoria is too congested for artics. You could operate a sub-fleet of double-deckers on the North Shore for the Marine Drive RapidBus and the #257.

People announcing the imminent death of the trolleybus network in 3... 2... 1...

11 minutes ago, briguychau said:

My point is, it would be better (in my opinion) if the buses are signed with their destination instead of the street they run on.

Why not a route name and terminus, or otherwise indicating both the terminus and the bus’ routing to get there? We do, after all, have two-line signs on most of the fleet now.

47 minutes ago, Express691 said:

I'm convinced the line instructor made a mistake by instructing Aldergrove 503s to go down Whalley Boulevard when they should be servicing King George bay 1. I saw a bus (7501) trying to take a left onto 100 from KG. Another driver I had on Labor day was also a victim of this mistake.

IMO this is the dumbest part of the whole thing: the fact that, both at Surrey Central and at King George, the #502 and #503 stops are so far apart.

2 hours ago, Express691 said:

Yet nobody seems to recall that this is an old April Fools joke

Wishful thinking, perhaps?

6 hours ago, martin607 said:

Given the current [trolleybus] fleet has a further life of between 8 to 10 years maximum, wouldn't the ability to avoid  making special diesel substitutions for detours/ special events pay for the investment over the remaining life of the vehicles? [emphasis mine]

But is that necessarily true? TransLink has been assuming a lifespan of 20 years for the ExxLFR fleet (compared to 17 years for diesel/CNG coaches), but how are the trolleys actually holding up? TransLink’s assumptions for diesel coaches have proven more conservative than needed, and the E40LFRs in particular had a fairly high spare ratio for a few years.

10 hours ago, maege said:

Simple math for branching: when you branch a line, frequency is divided. For an example like the Expo line, you can't just add more trains, as the main line will already be running at max throughput, so more trains aren't possible, and branch frequency is limited further by each additional branch

Worse than that, though, is that every branch adds additional points of failure/delay that will affect the entire line. That’s part of why I’m so adamant that the 2030 plan must be: Expo Line between Waterfront and Fleetwood (or Langley Centre) only; Millennium Line between Arbutus (or UBC) and Lafarge Lake only; shuttle train between Lougheed and a new third platform at Columbia; RapidBus or surface LRT on King George. Any further branching is a recipe for disaster as ridership increases and headways decrease.

47 minutes ago, Evan Hancock said:

It’s like that EVERY SINGLE WEEKDAY. The North shore is an “anti transit” city to me.

But of course we don’t want a bus garage anywhere near anything, amirite?

7 hours ago, Blake M said:

Just to add, wouldn't it make more sense to run the Millennium as UBC to either Lafarge Lake or say New Westminster, instead of four branches of the expo line? I thought that's the eventual plan for running trains anyways

We need to add a third platform at Columbia station for that - and frankly, that project needs to be part of any further Expo Line extension. We’re going to need the line’s full capacity all the way to Surrey Central sooner rather than later, and probably the M-Line’s full capacity between Arbutus and Brentwood as well.

AIUI dogs will often foam a little at the mouth when they’re running flat-out for long periods. And given that TransLink is pushing so desperately right now to get ahead of latent demand, they might qualify.

I have one thing to say to all of that: In-Motion Charging.

41 minutes ago, Community Shuttle said:

the same smooth stuff as the 2008s because SNC Lavalin is cheap?

I love how you answered your own question at the end.

2 hours ago, Express691 said:

Still having that problem with standard buses on the 96

And they’re going to keep having it for some time, given that the TransLink executive can’t snap their fingers and have brand-new artics appear out of thin air. I’ve been saying for years that most/all of the D40LF replacements should have been artics, just for capacity upgrades. There’s lots of other routes that should also be all-artic - #25, #100, and #319 come immediately to mind - but can’t be because we have too many forty-footers and not enough artics.

Riding 7373 right now on the #321, headphones off. Savour these last moments, comrades.

1 hour ago, briguychau said:

The newer Mk 3 trains (429+) seems to have dropped the Evergreen Extension branding from the in-train route diagram.

Not surprising. Most of the signage I’ve seen installed after the opening of the extension has done likewise. (And for the better. The “Evergreen Extension” branding appearing so prominently was a wayfinding nightmare.)

1 hour ago, cmbc2008 said:

Testing 180xx in Vancouver routes

air conditioned articulated hybrid diesel New Flyer excelicor 

3 Main.   Block 6. 6:07am to 8:11 pm 18002

8 Fraser Block 9 6:24am to 5:29 pm    18004

20 Victoria Block 13 6:48am to 8:43 pm 18003

 

What’s there to test?

2 hours ago, FlyingPig said:

Midi 19761 was spotted going NB on 140th St in Surrey yesterday.

Don’t get my hopes up like that! When I hear “Midi” with no qualifications, I immediately jump to the NFI MiDi, which would IMO be the ideal replacement for our shuttles. But then I look at what thread I’m in...

21 hours ago, 8010 said:

Nothing big but according to Bombardier's website the Innovia Metro 300 has been renamed to Movia Metro.

But Movia Metro is/was their name for their heavy-rail subway product... does that mean the Innovia Metro has been discontinued?

2 minutes ago, Community Shuttle said:

@Enviro 500 posted on Facebook that VTC will be getting 12 XDE60s to run the 3, 8, 10 and 20. I'm posting this here because I'm not sure if they'll be transferred or new.

What’s this going to do to the utilization of E40LFRs? Or have the last few years’ service increases soaked up all the excess?

4 minutes ago, 8010 said:

Probably too far to be called Granville Island Station.

And Production Way isn’t too far from SFU?

That being said, if TransLink came to its senses and dropped the RapidBus renaming in favour of the existing (and very strong) B-Line brand, changing the text there would be a trivial matter.

What about “Granville Island” for the station name? It at least has the virtue of being a strong geographic identifier.

11 minutes ago, 8800GTX said:

Actually I have to wonder if the proposed B-Line route has changed from 430 to 410 in internal planning.

If you've paid attention to recent 10-year-vision documents and maps, they are tending to describe this line as "Richmond to Expo Line" rather than "Richmond to Metrotown".

Metrotown Exchange is a c******f***, and so is 49th Ave. It wouldn’t shock me if they wanted to avoid both those chokepoints. Plus it makes it easier for drivers to commute to/from and change off at Hamilton TC.