Express691 Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Diesels on the rte 17 today :angry: At least one (out of two) that I caught was a D40LF Same for the 003 as well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Bus Fan Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Today eastbound trains were using the middle track by the Edmonds Train Yard to get by the workers, actually working on replacing the power rail; now the linear reaction rail now looks brand new on most sections of the Expo line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaintrolley Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Same for the 003 as well... Maybe something at Marine Drive Station ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mira Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 Maybe something at Marine Drive Station ? they are switching out the trolleys for diesels for tonights detours Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Express691 Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 I was on S7478 on the 320 EB 9:20 departure from Surrey Central. It missed its Left turn turn onto EB Fraser highway so we ended up flooring it SB 152, WB 88, NB 148, and EB Fraser Highway. Already tweeted at translink about this, but I thought it was kinda fun to experience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaintrolley Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 they are switching out the trolleys for diesels for tonights detours What is happening tonight ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Express691 Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 What is happening tonight ??? It says "Construction 11 until last bus" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Marriott Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 For the 3, there is construction at Main St Station that is causing it to be rerouted via Terminal, Station and National. The 8 and 19 will be using the Cambie Bridge to access Downtown during the evening. What is happening tonight ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaintrolley Posted June 14, 2015 Report Share Posted June 14, 2015 For the 3, there is construction at Main St Station that is causing it to be rerouted via Terminal, Station and National. The 8 and 19 will be using the Cambie Bridge to access Downtown during the evening. Thanks. Why were the 17's diesel ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCanGo Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 They need more maintenance than a 40ft bus in the sense that there is one more axle (with all the assorted parts) and the turntable/joint and its complexities that need to be maintained. I would not say that "hilly terrain" is a reason for them to be breaking down more often. If there is a reason why reliability on the 15+ year old D60LFs in Vancouver seemingly stinks, it is because they have been run flat out, on the 98, 99, and 135 for almost their entire lives. These are some of the most demanding services in North America re: passenger loads, and these buses have been doing yeoman's work on those routes for way too many years. It is past time for them to be retired. "Partially stored" - what does that even mean? Is that something CMBC is able to do given their funding source and constraints on capital? Run out on hilly terrain with lots of stop-and-go traffic on heavily used routes which wears out of the frame and other components. The ones in Surrey are crapping out (2 in for repairs, 3 at the BTC for repairs) because they are used 16-23 hrs 4+ days a week. I was explained that partially stored units are those that are rotated in and out of service depending on the number of spares available hence why some buses can sit for weeks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
captaintrolley Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Waited forever for a rte 9 EB at Broadway and MacDonald. Finally just took a 14 and walked home from Granville. I wonder what was up. I asked the 14 driver and he just shrugged and said maybe it's some construction. Seems like what ever I decide to wait for, there's always such a gap and everything else shows up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwesterner Posted June 17, 2015 Report Share Posted June 17, 2015 Run out on hilly terrain with lots of stop-and-go traffic on heavily used routes which wears out of the frame and other components. The ones in Surrey are crapping out (2 in for repairs, 3 at the BTC for repairs) because they are used 16-23 hrs 4+ days a week. I was explained that partially stored units are those that are rotated in and out of service depending on the number of spares available hence why some buses can sit for weeks. Transit buses are designed for use on routes with stop-and-go traffic. There is nothing exceptional in this regard to the service that equipment sees in Vancouver. What is exceptional is the loads the vehicles carry in Vancouver, and the usage some of these vehicles have seen over their lifetime on those routes. The situation with D60LFs in Surrey is a perfect example of CMBC's fleet mismanagement. They should never have sent the oldest D60LFs out to Surrey, where they would be required to operate all daybase service. Any situation where you have a relatively small fleet that is allocated exclusively to day base service is a set-up for failure - even if the buses are new. They receive way too many miles, with too little down time. For vehicles of the age and life use of the 1998 D60LFs, the move to Surrey was the worst possible assignment. They should be used almost exclusively on trippers, out of a garage with a much larger composite 60ft fleet. What you are describing with the "partially stored units" is what many other agencies call a contingency fleet. With a target spare ratio in place for the operating fleet, the contingency fleet would only be used if variability in maintenance needs exceeds the target spare ratio. Vancouver, historically, has not kept a contingency fleet. When did this practice begin? At which garages is it occurring? How many vehicles are kept as part of this program? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Bus Fan Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I agree with north westerner, CMBC has mismanaged fleet because they transfer the used and high mileage fleet to RTC, and STC which should get brand new buses to help reduce costs on those bases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashedpotato13 Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 I saw 8020 being driven by a mechanic heading westbound on Highway 1 today in Coquitlam, not sure if it was heading to Coquitlam or Surrey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCanGo Posted June 18, 2015 Report Share Posted June 18, 2015 The situation with D60LFs in Surrey is a perfect example of CMBC's fleet mismanagement. They should never have sent the oldest D60LFs out to Surrey, where they would be required to operate all daybase service. Any situation where you have a relatively small fleet that is allocated exclusively to day base service is a set-up for failure - even if the buses are new. They receive way too many miles, with too little down time. For vehicles of the age and life use of the 1998 D60LFs, the move to Surrey was the worst possible assignment. They should be used almost exclusively on trippers, out of a garage with a much larger composite 60ft fleet. What you are describing with the "partially stored units" is what many other agencies call a contingency fleet. With a target spare ratio in place for the operating fleet, the contingency fleet would only be used if variability in maintenance needs exceeds the target spare ratio. Vancouver, historically, has not kept a contingency fleet. When did this practice begin? At which garages is it occurring? How many vehicles are kept as part of this program? Those buses were supposed to be transferred back to Burnaby in 2014 until it was realized that peak-hour ridership required them. The STC is also facing a bus shortage right now (not enough spares), most of the yard is empty during the 4-6pm time period. The old GM and Flyer buses would regularly be out of service during extended periods of time back in 1999-02. CMBC/TL kept a rather large contingency fleet between 2007-2010 before most were scrapped prior to the Olympics. From what I can tell, this is occurring in the PTC right now. Has occurred at the STC, 8008 and 8011 were sitting in the yard for a 2-3 weeks earlier this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Bus Fan Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I have notice that they have change the 555 sign at Carvolth Exchange to say Lougheed Station, I have TransLink truly gets the message across when it comes down to service changes. Those buses were supposed to be transferred back to Burnaby in 2014 until it was realized that peak-hour ridership required them. The STC is also facing a bus shortage right now (not enough spares), most of the yard is empty during the 4-6pm time period. From what I can tell, this is occurring in the PTC right now. Has occurred at the STC, 8008 and 8011 were sitting in the yard for a 2-3 weeks earlier this year. In return for what 60 ft buses would be transferred to STC? Not all buses are frequent use, and maybe they were getting higher milage on the rest the fleet because those two buses could have more mileage in contrast two the 9 D60LF in STC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marlow1331 Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 . In return for what 60 ft buses would be transferred to STC?. More than likely any 1999/2000 model 60ft buses from PTC/RTC or BTC once the 2015 order of 60footers is complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwesterner Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 Those buses were supposed to be transferred back to Burnaby in 2014 until it was realized that peak-hour ridership required them. The STC is also facing a bus shortage right now (not enough spares), most of the yard is empty during the 4-6pm time period. The old GM and Flyer buses would regularly be out of service during extended periods of time back in 1999-02. CMBC/TL kept a rather large contingency fleet between 2007-2010 before most were scrapped prior to the Olympics. From what I can tell, this is occurring in the PTC right now. Has occurred at the STC, 8008 and 8011 were sitting in the yard for a 2-3 weeks earlier this year. This latest post brings more questions than answers. How can CMBC plan on transferring artics back to BTC (implication that they didn't due to ridership means they would use 40ftrs on the 96 exclusively) without accounting for ridership? How is it possible that this was under active discussion before the ridership was "discovered" to be high enough to necessitate artics? CMBC as a whole does not have nearly enough artics in the system; they are a scarce resource. Regarding the STC bus shortage, you mentioned that between 4-6PM the yard is mostly empty. This is not an indication of a bus shortage. If the yard is mostly empty (save for maintenance hold coaches and maybe a couple more that are ready to go but unassigned) that sounds like everything is operating as it should. A shortage would occur if entire runs are not going out because of no bus available. Do we know how often that is happening (if ever)? I do not recall the GM and Flyer equipment regularly being out of service from 99-02. We were discussing "contingency fleet" operations in the context of your "partial storage" designation. In 1998 BC Transit had a severe coach shortage (an actual, legitimate, shortage) that necessitated the quick purchase of used coaches from Washington State. One set did not last long due to minimal compatibility with the rest of the fleet, the other set kicked around for a while. New coach deliveries minimized this shortage in the 1999 timeframe, but that was due to postponing the retirement of some of the said older GM and Flyer equipment. Everything that could run, did run, during this time period. I do agree that many coaches were held in contingency in the ramp up to the Olympics. But they did not cycle into and out of service like you describe in with your "partial storage" designation. I do not believe what you describe as "partial storage" is actually happening. Here's why. Typically, heavy vehicles are on a preventative maintenance cycle that takes into account service intervals based on both mileage and time. Which ever benchmark is reached first triggers the service interval. A bus held in what you describe as "partial storage" would trigger a service interval based on time, but not mileage. There is nothing less productive for a maintenance facility than servicing equipment that requires being maintained in the ongoing preventative maintenance program but isn't being utilized. I once worked at a bus company (private sector) that designated its oldest subset of the fleet for 'emergency use only.' This really steamed the shop foreman (he didn't make the decision). Why? Because in order to keep the past-due service sheet clear, he had to pull these buses in (that would go out, once every other week, or so) and service them. Meanwhile, the coaches that were running all the miles (rather than spreading them out amongst the fleet, with more miles towards the newest equipment) were coming in with long writeups that needed to be addressed. However, he had the shop tied up with a bus that had triggered a service based on time but had only gone 300 miles since the last service. Any coach held in what you call "partial storage" would trigger this scenario. Typically equipment held in "contingency" would be removed from the preventative maintenance program and would require a service to resync with the maintenance schedule as well as to be cleared for service. I can't speak to CMBC's program, but what I have described is a pretty standard scenario whether you are dealing with trucks or buses, public or private sector. So what advantage is there to a "partial storage" program? If you have appropriate spare ratios and a reasonable preventative maintenance program there seems to be very little advantage. As I posted in another thread in regards to the D60LFs that weren't seeing much use at POCO, it is a possibility that these coaches are on maintenance hold for 2-3 weeks at a time. Maintenance teams are under pressure to get the right quantity of vehicles through their facilities in order to make the next peak bookout. If these coaches need, say, 16 labor hours of work to be repaired (not unusual for an acute failure ... they could also be held out because a full day of diagnosis did not isolate the issue, requiring another day, or two, or three of troubleshooting... might need to cut their losses and come back later) they may be prioritized behind 8 other coaches that need 2 hour jobs. In the labor hours it takes to get those 8 other coaches back in service, they would have just completed the one, which is sitting for 2-3 weeks until they have the time to complete the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoCanGo Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I was working with engineering dept in Surrey during that time, and it was pretty much evident that very little planning went into the B Line. It was implied that this route was hasty drawn up by Translink to mitigate any resentment from the municipality that was pushing for a fully autonomous LRT network. The lack of planning and erroneous projections exemplify how wasteful Translink can be. They initially overestimated the demand for the 96 and hugely underestimated it 6 months later (vehicles were supposed to be transferred back to ease the peak hour crunch on the 43 and 125). With CMBC, there is usually a fixed amount of spares, so an empty yard without a proper percentage of spares means there is technically a shortage-- obviously not to the point where certain routes aren’t seeing service but this is limiting the possibility of service improvements (especially on the much busier routes where demand necessitates more service hours). I am going by a CMBC employees anecdotal observations – while perhaps not entirely accurate- can be somewhat trusted due to his longevity with the organization. I can try and dig up more information, but there were vehicles that were stored in that time frame, especially in 2001 and 2002. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Bus Fan Posted June 19, 2015 Report Share Posted June 19, 2015 I am going by a CMBC employees anecdotal observations – while perhaps not entirely accurate- can be somewhat trusted due to his longevity with the organization. I can try and dig up more information, but there were vehicles that were stored in that time frame, especially in 2001 and 2002.That is because of budget crisis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
northwesterner Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 I was working with engineering dept in Surrey during that time, and it was pretty much evident that very little planning went into the B Line. It was implied that this route was hasty drawn up by Translink to mitigate any resentment from the municipality that was pushing for a fully autonomous LRT network. The lack of planning and erroneous projections exemplify how wasteful Translink can be. They initially overestimated the demand for the 96 and hugely underestimated it 6 months later (vehicles were supposed to be transferred back to ease the peak hour crunch on the 43 and 125). With CMBC, there is usually a fixed amount of spares, so an empty yard without a proper percentage of spares means there is technically a shortage-- obviously not to the point where certain routes aren’t seeing service but this is limiting the possibility of service improvements (especially on the much busier routes where demand necessitates more service hours). I am going by a CMBC employees anecdotal observations – while perhaps not entirely accurate- can be somewhat trusted due to his longevity with the organization. I can try and dig up more information, but there were vehicles that were stored in that time frame, especially in 2001 and 2002. I still don't quite get your characterization of overestimating demand and then underestimating it six months later. For any major route restructure, ridership is not instantaneous. Especially in the case of the 96, where some alternative routes continued, it can take a while for ridership to develop as passengers change the commute and travel patterns to match the new service. If ridership caught up to where they "overestimated" it to be six months later ... maybe they actually did it right. Regarding spare ratios, think of it this way. How many total buses do we need to put out the peak requirement on a daily basis? The difference between the total and the peak requirement is your spare number, which can provide the spare ratio when compared to the whole fleet (you can also do this exercise by dividing into subfleets - artics, suburban, local, etc). The spare coaches accounts for buses in maintenance and a couple (in inventory controls, what is known as the safety stock) that account for variance in your calculations. If all runs go out, and nothing is left in the yard that is roadworthy, then you hit your estimate of appropriate spare ratio right on the money. In actually, this is less than ideal as you don't have a safety stock. But the safety stock is calculated in the spare ratio numbers. Finally, in regards to vehicles stored in 01-02, as Blue Bus Fan mentioned, there was a major funding shortfall in that timeframe that (after they caught up with the legitimate vehicle shortage circa 97-98) led to a number of coaches to be stored. These included, for instance, the D60s and the C40s. These coaches were stored, with fareboxes removed, with no intention of putting them back in service on short notice. They were reactivated when the funding crisis passed. This is a different scenario than the "partially stored" scenario you outlined earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ninja Bus Fan Posted June 20, 2015 Report Share Posted June 20, 2015 Well 8007 is back in service today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Millennium2002 Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 Seeing lots of West Vancouver and North Vancouver buses coming downtown via Pender. Wonder what's up; TransLink hasn't said anything yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mashedpotato13 Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 Seeing lots of West Vancouver and North Vancouver buses coming downtown via Pender. Wonder what's up; TransLink hasn't said anything yet. I think there was a lot of traffic on Georgia, so Translink probably rerouted them down Pender. It was mentioned on the alerts page a couple of hours ago, but I can't remember the exact details. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Express691 Posted June 21, 2015 Report Share Posted June 21, 2015 Vancouver International Jazz festival had howe SB closed south of Robson so maybe that caused some congestion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now