Jump to content

Transit in Vancouver: Questions and Answers


Enviro 500
 Share

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, 7575 said:

Hi, does Vancouver operate high-floor buses? Thanks.

 

16 minutes ago, 99.bline said:

If you don't count shuttles, the last high floors we operate are the Orion V buses which are beginning to retire

To be fair, some of those were built in 2008, and will likely be around for another 10 years

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jaymaud0804 said:

 

To be fair, some of those were built in 2008, and will likely be around for another 10 years

If they decide to keep those around. For me personally I don't see Translink keeping them after the 2001 batch of Orion's retire. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Express691 said:

I'm too lazy to explain. Short form:

1) no (eventually)

2) no (eventually, yes?)

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.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

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 kcmetro_5660.jpg 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.

16665879_973232182813414_3171045088154556484_o.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...