Jump to content

Transit Service Discussion (Articulated/Conventional/Shuttle/Skytrain/Seabus)


cleowin
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Vancouvers Trolleys said:

How does the 44 has been reintroduced on September 13th as indicated on T-Comm? I thoughts 44 route cames back on September 20th?

388E22B4-F63A-4F5C-BBF3-BBEE5D038D2B.jpeg

The 44's been back since the beginning of the sheet - labour day. It's been quite useful for me!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/21/2021 at 3:10 PM, Vancouvers Trolleys said:

Oh, so even though it says Sept. 21st sheet, it actually Sept. 6th!

The service changes, and the sheet with the drivers signing new shifts all started on September 6.

The Sept 21 sheet is an update to the TComm info to reflect any minor changes that have occurred since the new sheet began, such as adding the overload trips to the 44, or the 3's SB stop at Main and Broadway moving across the intersection.  If you pay attention to the alerts page, they are often minor changes to service between sheets, mostly bus stop relocations or slight adjustments to departure times to improve connections.  The data available for third party websites will then be updated mid sheet to ensure accurate info.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  1. The car/train lengths would match the 4-car Mk III trains
  2. The door spacings would match the 4-car Mk III trains
  3. Presumably the 5-car "Mk IV" trains would have matching door spacings (but they would just be one car longer)
  4. With unified door spacings, platform doors can finally be installed

 

4-car mark ii.png

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fact that TransLink went ahead with 5 car trains without considering making longer 4-car consists from the current 2-car consists or even checking if the network could support them is... a mystery to me. I feel like we've thrown some money away on something impractical...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, briguychau said:

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.

  1. The car/train lengths would match the 4-car Mk III trains
  2. The door spacings would match the 4-car Mk III trains
  3. Presumably the 5-car "Mk IV" trains would have matching door spacings (but they would just be one car longer)
  4. With unified door spacings, platform doors can finally be installed

 

4-car mark ii.png

My question is if the door posts can accomodate both a 2×2-car train and a 5-car new-generation train without the need for such a modification.

Move the bottom trainset in that diagram to the left a tiny bit (650mm in the real world) and maybe we have an answer. 

(Ill take a shot at it when I get home)

The blue is a rough estimate of where the door posts will be placed.

Conclusion: Platform Screen Doors seem possible within 650mm difference and without the need for heavy modification to Mk2 trainsets.

1317074093_4-carmarkii.png.90c380641111f7940c05ff1d2002c4bd.thumb.png.e3c4d8cca4a6a531868972498bb23310.png

==========================
Brought up this idea a while ago, forgot where though. You can say that there could be a very slight capacity increase from removing the cabs to make a 4-car train. 

Also: 5-car next-gen trains imply that trains in odd-car configurations can exist. Begs the question: Will 3-car mk2 sets benefit the network in any way?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Express691 said:

My question is if the door posts can accomodate both a 2×2-car train and a 5-car new-generation train without the need for such a modification.

Move the bottom trainset in that diagram to the left a tiny bit (650mm in the real world) and maybe we will have an answer. 

(Ill take a shot at it when I get home)

 

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

 

4-car mark ii with platform doors.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Millennium2002 said:

The fact that TransLink went ahead with 5 car trains without considering making longer 4-car consists from the current 2-car consists or even checking if the network could support them is... a mystery to me. I feel like we've thrown some money away on something impractical...

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, briguychau said:

It does seem like that the white space in between is less than half the entire door width (i.e. 1475mm).

I'm sure that doors can be designed to cover longer spaces to cover the width mentioned - I guess what's important is that we've determined potential door post locations. 

Pursuing more accurate diagrams can perhaps tell us if such a design can involve less moving parts/cover that space entirely with just one door. Also, I'm sure such a design with doors longer than the doorposts exists somewhere.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Express691 said:

I'm sure that doors can be designed to cover longer spaces to cover the width mentioned - I guess what's important is that we've determined potential door post locations. 

Pursuing more accurate diagrams can perhaps tell us if such a design can involve less moving parts/cover that space entirely with just one door. Also, I'm sure such a design with doors longer than the doorposts exists somewhere.

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...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, briguychau said:

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.

  1. The car/train lengths would match the 4-car Mk III trains
  2. The door spacings would match the 4-car Mk III trains
  3. Presumably the 5-car "Mk IV" trains would have matching door spacings (but they would just be one car longer)
  4. With unified door spacings, platform doors can finally be installed

 

4-car mark ii.png

Major structural changes to the car bodies would probably be more trouble than they're worth. I wonder, though: to what extent could you re-shuffle the cars in the Mark III consists? In principle, you could rearrange five four-car sets into three five-car sets, one three-car set, and one two-car set (the latter of which could be coupled together into four- or five-car consists). The trick, of course, would be re-arranging equipment (compressors, inverters, etc.) so that every set of cars had a complete set of equipment and enough traction motors to maintain speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, GORDOOM said:

Major structural changes to the car bodies would probably be more trouble than they're worth. I wonder, though: to what extent could you re-shuffle the cars in the Mark III consists? In principle, you could rearrange five four-car sets into three five-car sets, one three-car set, and one two-car set (the latter of which could be coupled together into four- or five-car consists). The trick, of course, would be re-arranging equipment (compressors, inverters, etc.) so that every set of cars had a complete set of equipment and enough traction motors to maintain speed.

While the Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur does have four-car Mark II sets (as I saw when I went there), they also had a pilot project to refurbish two-car sets into four cars by removing the cab and installing the corridor connection. I believe that was abandoned on the grounds of cost and difficulty, and those started to be retired in favour of more Mark III's. Coupling the two-car sets together wasn't possible because of the use of platform edge doors in the underground stations.

This is how a four-car Mark II set looks like in Kuala Lumpur:

45154696721_e053c80f19_6k.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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...

 

Skytrain Platform Door Mockups.png

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Mark Walton said:

Montreal's Métro system, when it first opened in 1966, had platform gates, dubbed portillons automatiques, but they didn't last long because of people charging them.

Really? I've seen some opening day photos and don't recall seeing any of these gates on the platforms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not shown on alerts or anywhere, rather GTFS data/Transit Vancouver Discord.

Editing as I go:

Effective September 23:

Additional 99 B-Line trip M-F leaving Boundary 07:39, leaving UBC 08:31
Additional R4 trip M-F leaving Joyce 07:40, leaving UBC 08:36
Additional 33 trip M-F leaving 29th Ave 07:45, leaving UBC 08:49
Additional 49 trip M-F leaving Metrotown 07:33, leaving UBC 08:45
Additional 640 trip M-F leaving Tilbury NB 15:21, 16:40, leaving Scott 16:05 to Tilbury (effectively 1.5 rounds)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Alerts: 

Blanca Loop will see action on the weekend due to construction at UBC. 4/14 will terminate there and the 99 will make a stop near the loop to accommodate transfers.

Hastings at Gilmore WB/EB will resume regular traffic operations and the patio pilot project will come to an end. Routes 130,131,132, and 160 will return to their regular stops whereas the stop at Carleton for the R5 Eastbound will be canceled. Alerts still has to be updated to reflect the exact location of the reinstated R5 westbound stop at Gilmore.

Since October 25, Bay 3 at King George has been closed for construction and will continue until end of service November 3. Since then, 345/395 have been leaving from bay 2 and going via 100, 140 to Fraser while the 394 takes a loop via Whalley, 102, and King George. The 502 has been routing via 321 to Fraser, continuing regular route from Fraser/Whalley Blvd.

The stop at EB Burrard at Georgia has been moved to nearside (before the intersection) for the North Van routes.

Weekday 340 trips leaving Scottsdale Exchange between 5:32 am and 8:02 am have all been delayed by six minutes. (since October 18)

Oakridge Station bay 5 is reinstated for the R4/41
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...