Transit in Vancouver: Questions and Answers

[Large Cat]

24 minutes ago, SkyTrain said:

Basically what I was told by one of the planners regarding the 555 was the preliminary plan is to have the all-day blocks will operate with double-deckers running out of RTC, while the peak-hour only blocks will operate with Orions out of PTC. Never once mentioned HTC housing double-deckers in the future.

What a brutal NIS.

[Firebrand]

8 hours ago, Large Cat said:

8 hours ago, SkyTrain said:

Basically what I was told by one of the planners regarding the 555 was the preliminary plan is to have the all-day blocks will operate with double-deckers running out of RTC, while the peak-hour only blocks will operate with Orions out of PTC. Never once mentioned HTC housing double-deckers in the future.

What a brutal NIS.

What a load of horsesh*t. Those massive deadheads will not look good on the costs on running the 555.

 

9 hours ago, Express691 said:

I'm too lazy to explain. Short form:

1) no (eventually)

2) no (eventually, yes?)

By "eventually", you mean never, judging by what @SkyTrain posted.

[Brando737]

13 hours ago, SkyTrain said:

Basically what I was told by one of the planners regarding the 555 was the preliminary plan is to have the all-day blocks will operate with double-deckers running out of RTC, while the peak-hour only blocks will operate with Orions out of PTC. Never once mentioned HTC housing double-deckers in the future.

This doesn't make sense at all.  Not only will the NIS time be expensive and long, like @Large Cat mentioned, but ops needing to get to/from RTC for relief at Lougheed would take to long and would also cost allot in travel time.  Not to mention the fact that the 410 isn't always the most reliable route.  The walk between HTC and 22nd is doable if need be and only takes about 20-30 minutes.  I don't think the union would approve this either. 

Although still not a reliable option, having all day runs from PTC and trippers from RTC would make the most sense, but PTC can't handle double deckers without modification to the maintenance buildings, wash rack and fuel island.  During the testing phase, they had to send the double deckers to RTC every night to be serviced.

They designed and built HTC to be able to handle any bus currently in the fleet and to be able to handle the possibility of double deckers as they wanted it to be a future proof depot.  The most logical plan would be to move the 555 entirely to HTC.  NIS time would be much better compared to RTC and Lougheed is already a relief point for HTC although it's not used for regular indexes at this time.  Getting a bus change from HTC would also be much more reliable than RTC.

 

[SkyTrain]

3 hours ago, Brando737 said:

This doesn't make sense at all.  Not only will the NIS time be expensive and long, like @Large Cat mentioned, but ops needing to get to/from RTC for relief at Lougheed would take to long and would also cost allot in travel time.  Not to mention the fact that the 410 isn't always the most reliable route.  The walk between HTC and 22nd is doable if need be and only takes about 20-30 minutes.  I don't think the union would approve this either. 

Although still not a reliable option, having all day runs from PTC and trippers from RTC would make the most sense, but PTC can't handle double deckers without modification to the maintenance buildings, wash rack and fuel island.  During the testing phase, they had to send the double deckers to RTC every night to be serviced.

They designed and built HTC to be able to handle any bus currently in the fleet and to be able to handle the possibility of double deckers as they wanted it to be a future proof depot.  The most logical plan would be to move the 555 entirely to HTC.  NIS time would be much better compared to RTC and Lougheed is already a relief point for HTC although it's not used for regular indexes at this time.  Getting a bus change from HTC would also be much more reliable than RTC.

 

Agreed.

Keep in mind the key word is preliminary plan. This means they may change this and have the 555 operate out of HTC. However, if this doesn't happen, I would like to think that if they are going to operate the all-day blocks out of RTC, it will only be a temporary thing. 

[Firebrand]

 

2 hours ago, SkyTrain said:

6 hours ago, Brando737 said:

This doesn't make sense at all.  Not only will the NIS time be expensive and long, like @Large Cat mentioned, but ops needing to get to/from RTC for relief at Lougheed would take to long and would also cost allot in travel time.  Not to mention the fact that the 410 isn't always the most reliable route.  The walk between HTC and 22nd is doable if need be and only takes about 20-30 minutes.  I don't think the union would approve this either. 

Although still not a reliable option, having all day runs from PTC and trippers from RTC would make the most sense, but PTC can't handle double deckers without modification to the maintenance buildings, wash rack and fuel island.  During the testing phase, they had to send the double deckers to RTC every night to be serviced.

They designed and built HTC to be able to handle any bus currently in the fleet and to be able to handle the possibility of double deckers as they wanted it to be a future proof depot.  The most logical plan would be to move the 555 entirely to HTC.  NIS time would be much better compared to RTC and Lougheed is already a relief point for HTC although it's not used for regular indexes at this time.  Getting a bus change from HTC would also be much more reliable than RTC.

 

Agreed.

Keep in mind the key word is preliminary plan. This means they may change this and have the 555 operate out of HTC. However, if this doesn't happen, I would like to think that if they are going to operate the all-day blocks out of RTC, it will only be a temporary thing. 

I kinda overreacted reading your post @SkyTrain.

If this plan is preliminary, they’ll gonna have to figure out very soon because the longer RTC runs the 555, the worse it will get. TL probably hasn’t thought of a double decker fleet when they were building HTC.

But even if HTC gets the 555 at some point, then we run into another problem. It’s built near one of the worst chokepoints in the region with so few alternative routes to detour. RTC may not be better, but it still has 6 Rd, 5 Rd and possibly 4 Rd to get off of Richmond if the tunnel is closed. HTC only has Westminster Hwy, which has a level crossing mid-route. If any of the bridges are closed, then they’re stuck, or will suffer from massive deadheads due gridlock if they make it. 

[FlyingPig]

How much would it really cost to upgrade PTC to accommodate double-deckers? More than the cost of having to deadhead multiple buses from RTC every day for maybe a year, and then having to deadhead multiple buses from HTC every day for the rest of time? If PTC puts double-deckers on all day runs, I doubt they would need more upgrades than parking and maintenance for 5-7 buses.

Coming from a FlyingPig who knows nothing about transit centres and how they work. Please give me your feedback.

[Translink69]

59 minutes ago, Firebrand said:

 

I kinda overreacted reading your post @SkyTrain.

If this plan is preliminary, they’ll gonna have to figure out very soon because the longer RTC runs the 555, the worse it will get. TL probably hasn’t thought of a double decker fleet when they were building HTC.

But even if HTC gets the 555 at some point, then we run into another problem. It’s built near one of the worst chokepoints in the region with so few alternative routes to detour. RTC may not be better, but it still has 6 Rd, 5 Rd and possibly 4 Rd to get off of Richmond if the tunnel is closed. HTC only has Westminster Hwy, which has a level crossing mid-route. If any of the bridges are closed, then they’re stuck, or will suffer from massive deadheads due gridlock if they make it. 

They could take the SFPR and start their runs at Carvolth 

[rulerduler]

Or give STC the 555. Start at carvolth. No problems. It can be king george NIS to 88 ave and up 88 to carvolth. Or up highway 1. 

[SkyTrain]

1 hour ago, rulerduler said:

Or give STC the 555. Start at carvolth. No problems. It can be king george NIS to 88 ave and up 88 to carvolth. Or up highway 1. 

But the problem is STC isn't capable of accommodating double-deckers without doing upgrades. Same situation with PTC.

[GORDOOM]

Might it make more sense just to replace PoCo TC with a larger facility, either in PoCo/Pitt Meadows or in north Langley? It’s a pretty tiny garage, after all.

[Citaro]

Pardon the change in topic, but I was wondering why TL/CMBC opted for diesel suburban buses. I understand that the parallel hybrids we’ve had up until recently require stop-and-go driving to enable regeneration through braking, but the series hybrids we are currently receiving  don’t seem to require this at all. To my understanding, the engine in a series hybrid provides a contestant source of power regardless of braking, meaning that a hybrid should perform just as well as a diesel (or am I mistaken?). Any insight into this would be appreciated.

[GORDOOM]

36 minutes ago, Citaro said:

Pardon the change in topic, but I was wondering why TL/CMBC opted for diesel suburban buses. I understand that the parallel hybrids we’ve had up until recently require stop-and-go driving to enable regeneration through braking, but the series hybrids we are currently receiving  don’t seem to require this at all. To my understanding, the engine in a series hybrid provides a contestant source of power regardless of braking, meaning that a hybrid should perform just as well as a diesel (or am I mistaken?). Any insight into this would be appreciated.

Just a guess, but... maybe, since the cost/benefit of a hybrid is far worse for highway driving, and TransLink's cap-ex is off the charts right now, they needed to order diesel suburbans just to be able to get replacements into the fleet without blowing the budget?

[Bus_Medic]

3 hours ago, Citaro said:

Pardon the change in topic, but I was wondering why TL/CMBC opted for diesel suburban buses. I understand that the parallel hybrids we’ve had up until recently require stop-and-go driving to enable regeneration through braking, but the series hybrids we are currently receiving  don’t seem to require this at all. To my understanding, the engine in a series hybrid provides a contestant source of power regardless of braking, meaning that a hybrid should perform just as well as a diesel (or am I mistaken?). Any insight into this would be appreciated.

Whoever told you that series hybrids don’t need regenerative braking is a liar.

In a nutshell,  the available peak torque and horsepower ratings of the electric motor (@270) are greater than the respective ratings of the Diesel engine (@250) meaning that without supplemental energy input from frequent regenerative braking, a voltage deficit eventually develops in the battery pack. Voltage goes down, so amperage will go up...and without automatic interlocks in place, smoke starts being let out of odd places.

The whole idea of the series system was to get the engine displacement as small as possible.

Certainly, one could upsize the engine to the point that the peak motor demand/engine output were balanced enough for continuous high speed running, but then it becomes no more fuel efficient than a mechanical transmission in top gear, with the torque converter lockup engaged.

[Citaro]

15 minutes ago, Bus_Medic said:

Whoever told you that series hybrids don’t need regenerative braking is a liar.

In a nutshell,  the available peak torque and horsepower ratings of the electric motor (@270) are greater than the respective ratings of the Diesel engine (@250) meaning that without supplemental energy input from frequent regenerative braking, a voltage deficit eventually develops in the battery pack. Voltage goes down, so amperage will go up...and without automatic interlocks in place, smoke starts being let out of odd places.

The whole idea of the series system was to get the engine displacement as small as possible.

Certainly, one could upsize the engine to the point that the peak motor demand/engine output were balanced enough for continuous high speed running, but then it becomes no more fuel efficient than a mechanical transmission in top gear, with the torque converter lockup engaged.

Nobody told me that; it was just a mistaken assumption that I had. Nevertheless, thank you for enlightening me on this.

[briguychau]

I noticed this (already closed?) RFP today.

https://service.ariba.com/Discovery.aw/ad/viewRFX?id=6110056

Quote

TransLink is seeking experienced and qualified firm to provide detailed design and review services for new signages at existing Canada Line and West Coast Express (WCE) stations to bring the Canada Line and West Coast Express Line stations into compliance with TransLink Wayfinding Standard.

Does this mean that the Canada Line will get platform numbers, the new station name signs, and platform line diagrams, like the ones on the Expo/Millennium Lines?

[Dane]

No, it doesn't. Because that RFP asks for the supplier to sort that out. 

But I would hope they keep experiences similar. 

[Community Shuttle]

Coming out of nowhere with this, I know, but this question just popped into my head.

Our first Champion community shuttles, the ex-KCM Fords, were originally equipped with flipdot signs front, side and rear. The front sign can be seen in this pic  and I couldn't find any pics of the side sign anymore, but I know it's there because of one bus I found on Craigslist years ago. However, when CMBC bought them, the flipdot system was removed and replaced with a single rollsign up front. The side sign wasn't replaced at all while the hole left by the rear sign's removal was covered up with a blanking plate, seen in the attached pic.

So, my question is, why were the entire sign systems replaced when these buses were acquired? If the original signs were Luminator, it makes absolutely no sense to remove something they could work with and spend money to replace it with something else. If the flipdots were something like TwinVisions though, I would understand why.

[Millennium2002]

Question. Does TransLink sponsor TRAMS as a whole or just specific TRAMS vehicles? I ask because they recently posted on Facebook that they'll be at the Spring Festival parade tomorrow, and surprisingly the Transit Museum bus pictured now has a TransLink logo on it...

[Community Shuttle]

On 2/9/2019 at 8:14 PM, Millennium2002 said:

Question. Does TransLink sponsor TRAMS as a whole or just specific TRAMS vehicles? I ask because they recently posted on Facebook that they'll be at the Spring Festival parade tomorrow, and surprisingly the Transit Museum bus pictured now has a TransLink logo on it...

Definitely not as a whole. TRAMS seemed to have been fully sponsored at one point when they were based in STC. Then they left for some reason and TransLink tore down the old TRAMS facility.

[Express691]

4 hours ago, Community Shuttle said:

Definitely not as a whole. TRAMS seemed to have been fully sponsored at one point when they were based in STC. Then they left for some reason and TransLink tore down the old TRAMS facility.

Funding cuts on TL's side as well as need for space at STC

[YVR]

Winter Tires!   When the Brill and Fageol's were roaming the streets of Vancouver the rear tires were always something that resembled a snow tire.   From what I recall they were usually some form of recap / Bandag.   In the snow mess a few days ago I pulled up beside the rear tire of a Nova at a stop light.  So here is a bus plowing through the slush and muck, with what appeared to be a summer tire that was probably 60% worn.   From a legal point of view is this acceptable?   What is the take by ICBC, and the police.   When did the tire standard change?   Are today's drivers comfortable being on the road with junk tires like these?    I'm sure there are many other questions that come to mind, but this will give you folks something to think about the next time you board a local bus on a snow day.

[A. Wong]

14 minutes ago, YVR said:

Winter Tires!   When the Brill and Fageol's were roaming the streets of Vancouver the rear tires were always something that resembled a snow tire.   From what I recall they were usually some form of recap / Bandag.   In the snow mess a few days ago I pulled up beside the rear tire of a Nova at a stop light.  So here is a bus plowing through the slush and muck, with what appeared to be a summer tire that was probably 60% worn.   From a legal point of view is this acceptable?   What is the take by ICBC, and the police.   When did the tire standard change?   Are today's drivers comfortable being on the road with junk tires like these?    I'm sure there are many other questions that come to mind, but this will give you folks something to think about the next time you board a local bus on a snow day.

Here's a news article from a much snowier city with some opinions and research: https://globalnews.ca/news/4550209/calgary-bus-tire-traction/

It actually makes mention of some testing TransLink did.

[translink fan]

9 hours ago, YVR said:

Winter Tires!   When the Brill and Fageol's were roaming the streets of Vancouver the rear tires were always something that resembled a snow tire.   From what I recall they were usually some form of recap / Bandag.   In the snow mess a few days ago I pulled up beside the rear tire of a Nova at a stop light.  So here is a bus plowing through the slush and muck, with what appeared to be a summer tire that was probably 60% worn.   From a legal point of view is this acceptable?   What is the take by ICBC, and the police.   When did the tire standard change?   Are today's drivers comfortable being on the road with junk tires like these?    I'm sure there are many other questions that come to mind, but this will give you folks something to think about the next time you board a local bus on a snow day.

This info is from a CMBC shop foreman I work with because I was genuinely curious about this whole winter tire thing with transit buses. The tires used on the buses are basically all season tires with aggressive tread, and are of a compound that is the exact same for a winter tire. Year or two ago with the whole media fiasco with transit buses getting stuck in snow with crap tires caused CMBC to start switching winter tires onto all the buses. The winter tires on now are the exact same tire like what they use for the other seasons. Again, only difference is the compound of the tire. So yes, you probably saw a summer tire on that Nova, but it is made for winter application as well.

As for legal tread for commercial vehicles, if I remember (from when I worked at Greyhound) it was nothing lower than 4/32" of tread is allowed. New tires are 11/32" tread depth. 

Tires do make a difference in performance and comfort for the driver in snowy situations. Brand, Make, Model, etc. For example sake, my work runs Michelin XDN2 tires which perform very well in the snow going up and down the Coq. The tire in the colder temp maintained the flexibility to be able to get better traction in the snow and ice. We ran a set of Yokohama tires but found the sidewalls too stiff and the tire wore down too fast. Bridgestone tires we ran also just kept giving us problems in the snow. It's trial and error with finding the best tire that works for whatever application. 

[Bus_Medic]

We’re trying Michelin XZA2s on our artics as a trial.

[translink fan]

3 hours ago, Bus_Medic said:

We’re trying Michelin XZA2s on our artics as a trial.

How are they in terms of cupping wear on the edges? On our scheduled service coaches they use recap Michelin Synergy's which do wear a bit faster but cup pretty good too from the turning.