|
Possible Bombardier Mark III SkyTrain Concept?!?
Check this out on Bombardier's website for the now renamed Innovia ART, our SkyTrain technology. On the top of the web page there is what appears to be granted just a concept image but still, is that the design concept Bombardier might be headed to when they do the next full redesign for a new generation of SkyTrain vehicle?
http://www.bombardier.com/en/transpo...01260d8000a648 |
Quote:
|
Really? Could you point me in that direction?
|
Here's a concept for Translink Skytrain Mark III...
https://join.translinklistens.ca/S.a...36&m=600000285 It's from their current survey so the link may expire. |
|
Well, I guess we can assume that the 28 cars for the Evergreen is going to be Mark III?
And also, the refurbish option will remove some seats plus install the LED destination signs at the front of the train. |
I like how the renders have a reflection from the tiles on the platform, like it'll ever be that clean! :)
Also doing the survey now. |
^Too true, it's a bit overkill with the reflection. :P Otherwise it's a pretty good rendering.
These MKIIIs look pretty sleek, though I have to admit in terms of aesthetic appeal I think there is a bigger improvement between the old MKIIs and new MKIIs than between the new MKIIs and the MKIIIs. That new paint job just makes such a difference! |
What do the insides look like? Will they have that ridiculous single seat at each end of the cab? The worst is sitting in that seat and having someone in the other car sitting the same seat. You're forced to look directly at each other :haha:
|
How fast can these things go on a longish stretch between stations?
|
I am happy that this cost/benefit analysis is being taken, as I thought refurbishment was a done deal. I suppose if instead of just ordering a few cars for the Evergreen Line, a big order is made for both that and to replace the Mk I cars, it may be a good opportunity for economies of scale.
|
Think if they are going to go with MK3s they need to go with either 5car trains or a combination of 3 and 2 car sets that can be married for a 5 car train. I'd also be fine with just ordering more MK2.5 trains if they are still available and are any cheaper.
|
Doubt that the MKIII's would operate any quicker then the existing trains as the system needs to maintain a set schedule. The Airport line in Beijing uses MKII's and they run at 100km, and I believe they are capable of doing 110km/h but there isn't really enough space between most stations to warrant increasing speed. At best you'd shave 1-2 minutes off a run.
|
Nice sleek looking vehicle. What is the Capacity of these new trains?
|
Any more info from the survey? I really would love to see the original Mark I trains (001-115) retired as they are too small for todays needs. Always packed when I see them (and then wait for a Mark II).
Can anyone post all the questions? I didn't get the survey. |
Just checked out the bombardier website, sounds like a win-win deal. I hope the cities decide to buy these puppies!
|
How many cars would they order to replace the 115? and what types (A/B, C)? Here's an idea.
108 Mark II C cars which would give us 54 Mark II trains, then 8 A/B cars +the 28 for evergreen line for 2 car trains for that line? Would this work out best? 54 Mark II trains+10 4-car Mark I trains? That seems like a massive capacity upgrade. |
Ooo... that looks way too nice and real... xD
Quote:
In addition, when passing by the current maintenance shop, I usually only see 2-car sets being managed one at a time... so adding four car sets may slow down and add extra inefficiencies to the maintenance process. Or we can try some sort of detachable articulation joint like on the West Coast Express, although that poses its own unique problems. Those concerns aside, the difference in size and spacing issue that may arise between the proposed new C cars compared to the current A-A joined arrangement could be resolved by modifying the design of the newer trains' midsections so that the doors of each specifically match the longer/shorter length of each end of the train. |
Let me continue to get mouths watering. Here are some videos of the new Mark III trains in 2 and 4 car configurations
A Model of the new train Another view of the model |
Quote:
********* The ability of the maintenace shop to fit a "A-C-B" train would likely determine wehther they buy that configuration. But remember that report posted a while back that said to optimize the capacity of the existing system, they need to start buying "A-C-B" sets now (otherwise they'll have too many 4-car trains (A-B+A-B)and that's not as effective as the 5-car trains (A-C-B+A-B)). |
I really hope they go with the new mark III
although i still think we should keep one set of the old one around and set it up for display some where. That or sell them to old spaghetti factory and have them start putting them in some of the restaurant along with the old street cars :haha: |
We will still have 36 Mark I trains in service (1990 and 1996 orders), just the original 1984 orders would be retired. And in my opinion the 1996 order looks almost identical to the original order (doors at end of cars) etc. Though it will also mean the end of the "Spirit of" car names.
But with only 36 Mark I trains left, would it not make sense to just replace the rest (at an additional cost of $116M) so that all trains stop at the same spots on all platforms? If they do retired the original fleet, how would the 36 cars be broken up? 6 6-car trains or 9 4-car trains? Remember we would have 54 4-car Mark II/III trains. |
It's gonna cost way less than $3 mil a car to refurbish the MKIs and these trains easily have a 50 year life span. I said on the survey to just optimize standing room, add A/C, and leave it at that. Replacing the MKIs at this point would be a waste of money when we obviously need service improvements.
|
Quote:
They could be bought cheap & put through a similar 'mid-life refurbishment' program so the Scarborough cars match the specs for Vancouver cars. Since the Scarborough RT system is the same vintage as Vancouver's Skytrain but their cars are less heavily used, they may need less of an overhaul & refurbish than the 1984 Skytrain Mk I cars. I'd love to see new Mk III cars, but if the 1980s-era cars (Vancouver and Scarborough) can be refurbished cheaper then buying new, why not? I haven't worked out the numbers but I think the capacity of a refurbished Vancouver and Scarborough fleet will be cheaper than getting new Mk III fleet with the same capacity. As for the desirability of an A-C-B configuration, why can't new C cars be built for the original Mk II fleet? |
I've been on the Scarborough RT trains and somehow they are in 50X worse condition than the Vancouver MK I trains. Though they probably could also be refurbished extensively.
|
One cost to consider is that maintaining even a small number of old stock means that all of the support infrastructure to maintain them has to be kept up, rather than modernized. Parts, machinery and training that would otherwise be retired/replaced would have to be kept on-hand.
Wouldn't it be better to get rid of all of the old stock and then move to the new technology, new service yards, new maintenance techniques, and presumably the training used for the Mk2.5s is similar if not the same as the Mk3s? The capital cost may be higher to move to the new trainsets, but the ongoing maintenance costs and the economies of scale will surely pay-off. And presumably, the old trains can be sold to some other district? |
Quote:
Translink has done a good job of maintaining these vehicles and as a result they still have a lot of value. It doesn't make sense to me to chuck them, especially given the fact that there probably isn't anyone else to pay us what they'd be worth to us. I have a vehicle that's almost 20 years old. It's got less than 150,000km on it and I haven't scrimped on the maintenance - it still runs just like new and the body is in excellent condition. It would cost me a huge amount of money to replace it because new cars are a lot more expensive and I doubt that anyone would pay me anywhere near what the vehicle is worth to me. Since it works perfectly well there's really no good reason for me to sell it. Sure, a nice shiny new vehicle would be very pretty, but is it really worth $20,000 just for looks? I'd wager that those of you who'd say "yes" to the above are the ones in favour of replacing the Mk I cars. The rest of us are taxpayers... ;) |
Right now if Translink purchased the 24 Mark 2 cars (6trains) they were to have ordered a couple of years ago than they could be running all 6 car mark1s . This would deal with any capacity problems we currently have.
|
I hope that they design the MKIII to be a little more air tight. If we are going to build the Broadway line as Skytrain subway, then we need to think ahead and start buying the right trains now. We will need some appropriate cars to work in the underground environment. As it is, when the trains go through the tunnel on the M-Line, it is barely tolerable. I couldn't imagine being in a Skytrain car for any longer than that speeding underground, I would go deaf.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I'm willing to bet that the MKII.5 trains we bought are actually capable of higher speeds (as they are probably very similar in design, components and materials to the ones in Beijing) and that the track on the M-line is capable of higher than 90km/h in some sections (its a very well, if not over, engineered system), and I think it is the older MKI trains that make the system have an 80km/h speed limit. I bet that if the MKI trains were taken out of service we could run the system at at least 90km/h cruising speed. Quote:
Quote:
|
I think the original Mark 1's should be retired and the remaining 36 cars used for the Columbia - Lougheed shuttle. dedicate them as 6 6-car trains and you would have enough trains for the shuttle as well as the spares for the shuttle route. Then you could run the Expo and Millemium line/Evergreen line as the faster speed (would they though? It would through off timing throughout the system). Then all stations would also have the same boarding position for all the trains.
I really think due to capacity/crowding, speed, consistency for station stopping etc it's more economical to replace the original fleet and go all 5-car Mark II trains would be the best option. Since C-cars are much cheaper the A-B cars that would reduce the replacement cost for the 114 Mark I cars. I strongly think A-C-C-B or A-C-C-C-B would be the best use of current platform lengths as well as standing/sitting room on trains. |
My comment on buying A-C-B's wasn't really trains versus station expansion, it was more a comment on timing for new car purchases (now or later?) (i.e. if they have to expand the facility, do they forego a few A-C-B's for some A-B's?).
I recall that that report mentined that 5-car trains comprised of "A-B + A-C-B" provides the most operational flexibility since the married sections can be separated (i.e. shorter trains can be operated in off peak). That also allows half the train to remain in service while the other half is serviced (i.e. if one car needs a repair, such as a faulty door, an entire train is not sidelined) |
Are there any pics out there of what a Mark II A-C-B looks like? I've googled and also looked on Bombardiers website. Can't see anything.
|
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
WRT to Mark Is, I would prefer that they be retired as I really dislike using them. But if they are to be refurbished, they should really add air conditioning (unless they have been already and I just don't notice since I do try to avoid them). |
Quote:
So every 2 car trainset we buy is a trainset that will either be stuck in 2+2 mode forever or need further money spent on alterations in the future. Or we will have to spend billions to upgrade stations. We may as well start going down the path we want to end on now. If we buy a handful of 3 car trains they can be added to current 2 car trains for an instant, significant boost in capacity. And in the future, more C cars can be bough separately to extend them to allow maximum capacity (a 5 car trainset would hold more than a 2+3 config). We are never going back to using only 2 car MKII trains, so why buy them in that configuration anymore? (and if we do, we have enough of them to fill that role for a long time) We just bought 48 cars, which in operation is 12 trains, so that is a lot of redundant electronics and equipment we bought that we don't need and will never use. The cost of improving the operations center can probably be made back from the lower cost of purchasing longer trains. And even IF you want to expand stations in the distant future, 5 car trains can easily become 6 car trains, or 7 car trains, so its not wasted money now. |
Quote:
Waterfront - King George Waterfront -Lougheed VCC - Douglass It's hard to know what they will do for sure, but this makes the most sense. Most trains will probably go to Surrey with 1 for each 3 or 4 trains going to Lougheed. But I'm willing to bet that after a while they will use a shuttle service off peak. During peak hours there isn't enough time to turn trains around at Columbia without disrupting through trains. Heck it happens now with trains just joining the same line (there have been plenty of times when I've had to wait on the Skybridge for a train that just came out of the tunnel to finish up at Columbia). But off peak, when trains now operate every 4 or 5 minutes, you can make every train go to Surrey, and have a shuttle operate Columbia - Lougheed. It would be a good use of resources as later in the day there is far more demand for going into Surrey than Lougheed (trains leaving Columbia for Surrey are full, for Lougheed less than half). |
Anyone have any more info from the survey? I want to hear more about the Skytrain car options.
|
Quote:
I'd be surprised if Evergreen isn't built with 3-car (ACB) configurations in mind. Meaning that they have a place where they can do maintenance on 3-car trains. I have no idea if expanding Edmonds is a better idea, though. As for the other silly ideas like retiring the Mark Is, think about the political fallout if that happened. Also, think about SkyTrain's critics who will point out that trains only lasted 25 years. |
Quote:
I'm sure Translink would like to run SkyTrain faster, but the problem is faster == louder, and we already know how NIMBYs are easily upset at trains that are too loud. Some NIMBYs are fighting a losing battle to stop CN and CP engines from tooting their horns when approaching road crossings (this is Federal Jurisdiction, so the City can't do anything about it) I was also mulling over my previous message about grabbing the Scarborough RT cars. Instead of giving them a full overhaul so they match the Vancouver Mk I overhaul specs, perhaps they can be rebuilt as "C" dumb cars, with the LIM and trucks and matching interior, but none of the 'smart electronics' of the Vancouver Mk I cars. They would still provide traction to the 3-car train set, but would need to be between Vancouver A and B cars in a married set. Two of these car sets gets you a 6-car Mk I train. |
I was wondering if they can replace expo line with Wider cars rather than extend the platforms (which they plan to do soon).
I remember reading somewhere a long time ago that the skytrain line was built so they could be widened. For example, at the platforms....there is a yellow plastic/metal siding that overhangs the concrete. If I remember correctly....these could be removed to allow wider cars. Of course ALL cars would have to be changed. I am unsure if the track needs to be adjusted. I know wider cars exist because some skytrain lines in other cities (eg...i think beijing) use the wider skytrain cars. I dont' think wider Mark I cars were ever produced....but I know for certain wider Mark II cars were made. If Expo can be widened...this would be the best time. Buy wider cars for expo, put all the current narrow stock on Millenium/Evergreen (ie, don't need to buy cars for evergreen), and just renovate the Expo stations to fit the wide cars (ie remove the yellow plastic/metal sidings) thus mitigating the need to expensively lengthen the Expo platforms. I think wide trains would fit more and be more comfortable than super long 8 car MARK I or 6 car MARK II narrow skytrains on lengthened platforms. The only downside is that Expo line would be permanently seperated from Millenium and Evergreen lines.....which I don't really think is a huge problem...and will be fixed when years later....we widen the Millenium and Evergreen lines too when capacity becomes an issue. |
ps....does anyone remember the fact that Skytrain can be widened easily? I completely don't remember where I learned that and cannot find my source.
|
Quote:
|
Personally, as much as I would love to have some MarkIII trains (they look amazing), I think that first we should order some C-cars for the MarkII's. It just doesn't make sense to have them operating as 2+2, there is so much wasted space and lengthening the platforms for 2+2+2 is huge waste of space and money. They should first got to 3+2 trains, then if they need to lengthen the platforms, go all the way so that 4+4 (which is probably only a bit longer than 2+2+2, maybe 10-15m or so if the c-cars are a bit shorter an A and B cars) trains can fit in to have capacity in the future to first switch to 3+3 and 3+4 trainsets.
|
Very interesting.
A quick note of thanks to Mac Write for the video links. |
Quote:
That's the trade-off - (1) maximizing efficiency (with a concurrent domino effect adding costs for on software upgrades for new train lengths, etc. and new/expanded maintenance facilities) or (2) control current expenditures (buying A+B trains with no concurrent domino effect) and deal with capcity issues later. In the long term, when Evergreen and the UBC extensions are built, that route could still use 4 car (2+2) MKII trains since it wouldn't be as busy at the Expo Line. ******* BTW - I don't think the Evergereen will have a new maintenance facility - just a storage yard. |
a question ..... please.
I tried looking it up, but could not find the info, so, again, I am asking a question: How fast can these trains go, particularly on long haul stretches to the suburbs. i.e. What is their maximum normal cruising speed?
I think this is a relevant question if, as many suggest, Skytrain be extended to Langley, White Rock, etc. Thank you. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Thank you for the info. It would seem that if skytrain is going to be extended way out to the valley suburbs, it would be a rather slow, long commute for the outer areas. That is why I suggested some time back that faster commuter trains going 120k/ph or even 140k would be better, as long as they tie in well to the "inner" system. |
West Coast Express travels about 120km/h from Mission until slowing down to 85km/h for a bit through Ruskin then goes at 120km/h again until roughly around the Haney Bypass turnoff where it slows down the 85km/h and then stops at Port Haney Station. West of Port Haney Station, West Coast Express does not exceed 100km/h.
A commuter train down the middle of Hwy 1 in its own protected ROW will be able to go minimum 120km/h the entire stretch. I could see 140km/h being possible if the track is well designed. THAT will get people out of cars. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:26 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Prev