Canada Line

[Stormscape]

I'm pretty sure Bridgeport is already 50 metres, but I'd have to visit the station to be sure.

[8800GTX]

5 hours ago, Opal said:

It was also mentioned there that "we're making the platforms 40 metres since that's much bigger than we'll need for 20 years".  Believe it or not, there were attendees saying that 20 metres would be enough "to save money".  Glad they didn't do that.

Hmm. Well, I don't think that's referring to platform size in the engineering sense - more like maybe these people were joking about it as they were not thinking the Canada Line would even get the ridership.

I'm aware that there were a lot of doubts that ridership could hit the desired targets (although we now know both that ridership has exceeded the targets and that reliability/fast travel time/grade separation was the number one factor in this).

I can't say I'm entirely sure but some crude estimates I've done through Google Maps suggest to me that expanding Bridgeport east the full 10m wouldn't hit the switch at all.

[Blue Bus Fan]

7 hours ago, 8800GTX said:

I'm aware that there were a lot of doubts that ridership could hit the desired targets (although we now know both that ridership has exceeded the targets and that reliability/fast travel time/grade separation was the number one factor in this).

I can't say I'm entirely sure but some crude estimates I've done through Google Maps suggest to me that expanding Bridgeport east the full 10m wouldn't hit the switch at all.

Hopefully TransLink learn not to under estimate on any other project. 

 

I am am also looking at google maps and be then many times, it seems easily expand by five metres each direction.

[Dane]

In Translink's defence the Canada Line gong show was essentially entirely the responsibility to the Province. Translink was just the last agency to touch the figurative hot potato. 

[nname]

I remember there is a few meters of unfinished concrete at each end of Bridgeport Station?

Well, as least they didn't underestimate the ridership for Evergreen Line this time... Just look at how much service they put on the bus integration

[Brando737]

The Canada line should have had at least 3 car trains and the larger platforms to begin with.  Hundreds of people were forced from the Richmond routes in/out of downtown to the Canada line and I'm sure they knew how much traffic that was.  Not only that, but Cambie itself is a busy corridor.  

I think they rushed the Canada line for the Olympics and if it wasn't for that, the evergreen line would have been built first and the Canada line under construction right now.  Or SkyTrain to UBC would have been built first.  Just my opinion on the subject.

[Blue Bus Fan]

6 hours ago, nname said:

I remember there is a few meters of unfinished concrete at each end of Bridgeport Station?

Well, as least they didn't underestimate the ridership for Evergreen Line this time... Just look at how much service they put on the bus integration

Yes their is. I have some photos:

Canada line by Blue Bus Fan, on Flickr

Canada line by Blue Bus Fan, on Flickr

Canada line by Blue Bus Fan, on Flickr

Personally I think the switch may make slightly more difficult for Bridgeport station but not impossible. 

[Dane]

Id be curious if there's any rules about the proximity of the train to the switch when at the platform? There may not be any, I'm just thinking out loud. That whole design at the the of the lines in Richmond is a gong show that will cost a small fortune to fix.

[jmward]

18 minutes ago, Dane said:

Id be curious if there's any rules about the proximity of the train to the switch when at the platform? There may not be any, I'm just thinking out loud. That whole design at the the of the lines in Richmond is a gong show that will cost a small fortune to fix.

I've watched them do movements in the evenings, one time I saw a train being taken out like this: a train ran in service SB to one of the termini, and then ran NIS NB to bridgeport. I was on a SB train that just pulled in to bridgeport, which needed the northern-end switches to be in normal position. The NIS train stopped and waited 2/3 of the way into the NB platform, for the switches to update, and then continued on towards the yard by crossing over to the wrong track and then to the yard track.

I observed that the safe distance for that switch is already overlapping with the platform - if it has to be moved it seems the rule is a train can't even be fully in the platform as-is. 

[Blue Bus Fan]

10 minutes ago, Dane said:

Id be curious if there's any rules about the proximity of the train to the switch when at the platform? There may not be any, I'm just thinking out loud. That whole design at the the of the lines in Richmond is a gong show that will cost a small fortune to fix.

I agree that Canada line is going to cost to fix, some part will reasonable to fix but they should have been built right from the start instead cutting cost, speeding up. I personally think that Public Private Pantership has failed the Canada line because if / and when TransLink end the contract to run they going spend a lot money to get it will should be with the ridership on the line. But YVR costing measure at YVR was an because I do not see that portion seeing that much ridership grain.

[MVTArider]

Hmm, I know very little about the operational aspects of Skytrain, and I haven't read through the entire forum, so this might seem like a stupid question. How exactly will they add more trains to Canada line? Are they going to run at 2 minute or 90 second frequencies combined north of BP? (IIRC with automated you can get as tight as 90 second headways.) Or are they getting 3xy series middle cars to sandwich between the 1xy and 2xy sets? I never really took a good look at the connection between the cars on Canada Line, so I'm not sure if they are a single traincar with an articulation joint and a different number for each end, or actually two separate cars with open ends (i.e. Toronto Rocket).

Also during peak periods, is there enough ridership going to/from BP to justify running extra trains to/from BP only?

[Brando737]

In the most recent funding announcement from the federal government, I think part of that budget is to increase capacity with additional trains.  Can't remember how many will be ordered, but I do know that the Canada line will be running at 100% capacity once they enter service as far as the number of trains that can be used at any given time.

These trains are single unit just like the Mark II's.  Not sure if they can add a middle car to increase train capacity though.

The majority of usage on the Canada line is between Waterfront and Bridgeport.  Passenger loads can be heavy between Bridgeport and YVR/Brighouse, but not usually packed full like it is north of Bridgeport.

[Stormscape]

The Olympics certainly pushed up the timeline on it a lot, there was clearly a lot of pressure to be the first Canadian city with direct rail rapid transit from airport to downtown.

[captaintrolley]

2 hours ago, Stormscape said:

The Olympics certainly pushed up the timeline on it a lot, there was clearly a lot of pressure to be the first Canadian city with direct rail rapid transit from airport to downtown.

And that service is appreciated by many people.

[Dane]

Keep in mind the cuts we are talking about here weren't related to time, they were related to money. 

 

The new order will be "trains" not C or middle cars. 

[Mark Walton]

On 7/15/2016 at 4:22 AM, Brando737 said:

These trains are single unit just like the Mark II's.  Not sure if they can add a middle car to increase train capacity though

IN reply to my earlier question:

 

[Blue Bus Fan]

I heard that Capstain Way Station could start or be opened within five years. I don't think that TransLink thinks single track at Richmond Brighouse Station ain't worth fixing because they can operate more frequently and trains will go faster than today without Capstain Way Station.

[Transit geek]

How in the world did SNC-Lavalin build the line as to not facilitate further expansion on the Richmond branch? I suppose it was a consequence of the original design, which was to have trains alternate between the airport and Richmond due to lighter demand at the time on the Richmond branch. Seeing that a large bulk of Richmond still has to take a bus to the Canada Line, and that a simple extension of the line from Brighouse could break the bank and would be technically unfeasible, I could only imagine that SNC designed it this way so that the line could be expanded into a single-track loop around Richmond (with passing loops as necessary) - I would propose an alignment via Granville Avenue, Railway Avenue, Williams Road, and No. 3 Road.

[Blue Bus Fan]

33 minutes ago, Transit geek said:

How in the world did SNC-Lavalin build the line as to not facilitate further expansion on the Richmond branch? I suppose it was a consequence of the original design, which was to have trains alternate between the airport and Richmond due to lighter demand at the time on the Richmond branch. Seeing that a large bulk of Richmond still has to take a bus to the Canada Line, and that a simple extension of the line from Brighouse could break the bank and would be technically unfeasible, I could only imagine that SNC designed it this way so that the line could be expanded into a single-track loop around Richmond (with passing loops as necessary) - I would propose an alignment via Granville Avenue, Railway Avenue, Williams Road, and No. 3 Road.

I am pretty sure TransLink would have to agree to that plan and nowhere have found or heard of single track loop around Richmond. I am pretty sure that Richmond Brighouse Station could be rebuilt or converted to dual track station. 

[Stormscape]

There's a solution I can think of that would only require some guideway rebuilding near Lansdowne Station where it reduces to single track: Have the southbound platform for Brighouse be on the other side of the street. New single track guideway on the west side of No. 3 Road, have it merge south of the station. If the rebuild is done between the 2 switches, might not even require closure of Brighouse Station, either.

[Translink69]

SNC was required to build the Richmond branch with expansion in mind. The single track can easily be expanded to double.

Expansion is likely for Tsawwassen Ferry, not a Richmond Loop

[Dane]

3 hours ago, Translink69 said:

Expansion is likely for Tsawwassen Ferry, not a Richmond Loop

This ferry comment isn't actually based on anything substantive is it? The ferry is infrequent loads surrounded by nothing in terms of any density. The ferry terminal would make no sense from a planning perspective. 

[Stormscape]

Ferry doesn't need a frequent train service. Bus is more than adequate, just maybe needs a couple more buses for every ferry.

[Translink69]

On 6/8/2017 at 11:37 AM, Dane said:

This ferry comment isn't actually based on anything substantive is it? The ferry is infrequent loads surrounded by nothing in terms of any density. The ferry terminal would make no sense from a planning perspective. 

Based off of Lois Jackson wanting Rapid Transit in Delta, and people pushing for the new bridge to include a sectiom for rapid rail transit for a Canada Line extention

[Dane]

So, no. LOL. Honestly that area needs way better transit. Anything rapid on rails is likely excessive though. Just from a cost to use perspective. The Canada Line barely can sustain YVR service levels with its ridership for that branch, let  alone a bunch of farmers fields and at-best hourly ferry service.