Canada Line races toward capacity

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Vancity

for the foreseeable future, they don't really need platforms that are that much longer. another 30ft (10m) is fine for perhaps the next 10-20 years. after that, we'll have to see if it's feasible to expand the platforms any longer. but future RRT stations should have 'longer' platform designs in place, simply, because the COV is growing, and growing and growing. short term planning will be to the detriment of our city.

They could always drill/blast out the underground platform length, or dig up the streets again. Both are not economically viable. Maybe once in 100 years after "the big one" snaps all the underground infrastructure.

It would cost less to build a parallel line much in the same way Toronto has a U shaped subway line.

As it is, building too much capacity into the Canada Line kinda defeats the purpose of Metro 2040's for pushing growth to Surrey instead of Richmond.
http://www.metrovancouver.org/planni...s/default.aspx

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I had the impresion that the platform extensions were difficult and costly. Would this not become sort of a "mini megaproject" or is it feasible?
Some seem to say yes, it is; others say no, too difficult. What is the consensus on this? Anybody venture a supposition?

The mayors' proposal says it costs the following amount for 20 new cars AND expanding all platforms to 50 meters AND expanding the OMC:

COSTS
Total Capital Cost (2015$) $52M
Annual Operating Cost (2015$)* $16.2M
*Annual operating cost reflects annual cost following deployment of vehicles procured in 2024

It seems like quite a bargain and perhaps evidence of forward-thinking!

Note, on re-reading the proposal I was wrong, the proposal says 20 cars not 20 trains.

[Gordon]

The trains are married pairs so this could mean the same thing.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by GeeCee

Some/most of the stations have knock down walls to allow for 50m platforms.

I see, thank you
Are there any stations that do NOT have this capacity and whose platform lengthening would in fact be overcostly and problematic? If so, which ones?
Also, would a lengthening to 50m mean 3-car trains. ( I presume so; correct me if I'm wrong)

[deasine]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I see, thank you
Are there any stations that do NOT have this capacity and whose platform lengthening would in fact be overcostly and problematic? If so, which ones?
Also, would a lengthening to 50m mean 3-car trains. ( I presume so; correct me if I'm wrong)

No all are built with the extension in mind. Lengthening a platform does not mean lengthening the train... one could lengthen the platform without adding a third carriage...

And while it's a 3-car train, we can't expect an increase of 50% capacity onboard train vehicles as the third carriage will be shorter than the front/rear carriages.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by deasine

No all are built with the extension in mind. Lengthening a platform does not mean lengthening the train... one could lengthen the platform without adding a third carriage...

And while it's a 3-car train, we can't expect an increase of 50% capacity onboard train vehicles as the third carriage will be shorter than the front/rear carriages.

Excuse me, but are you saying that the trains - if the platforms are lengthened to 50m - could/would be 3-car trains with a shorter middle car, or remain at 2-car trains?
I'm a little confused on that.

[GeeCee]

Originally Posted by Caliplanner

GeeCee, I just visited Vancouver and took the Canada Line from the airport into the city. I Was disappointed at the small size of the stations. Am I hearing you correctly that these tiny stations were built for relatively easy expansion/platform extension?

My information on this is based upon the information found in this thread (and other threads about the Canada Line).. either way, according to Wikipedia, the largest/busiest stations currently have 50 metre platforms, and the rest are 40 metres but have knock down walls. I imagine that they would still need tiling, lighting, signage, etc. so it shouldn't require too much work.

I found a picture highlighting this, which implies that c cars are possible: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bctransit/3983568260/

[SOSS]

Originally Posted by Kisai

build a parallel line much in the same way Toronto has a U shaped subway line.

Arbutus starting at 49th Ave in the south, run it north along the corridor and connect Broadway (future Evergreen Station), Granville Island, Olympic Village (Canada Line Station), Science World, and the Stadium (Expo Station).

[AForce]

would the cost really have been that much more to build the extended platforms underground rather than have the space but put up false walls? whats behind those walls?

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me, but are you saying that the trains - if the platforms are lengthened to 50m - could/would be 3-car trains with a shorter middle car, or remain at 2-car trains?
I'm a little confused on that.

A bigger platform would allow a larger holding area for waiting passengers, like what has been done at Main St. Station, even if the train stays the same length.
The platform there for receiving trains will remain at 80m as far as I know.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by AForce

would the cost really have been that much more to build the extended platforms underground rather than have the space but put up false walls? whats behind those walls?

Indeed the cost appears to be small, far less than $50 million, perhaps less than $10 million. But 10 years ago the mayors who tried to kill this line drew a line in the sand, and forced cost savings wherever they could be found. Some of those decisions are only temporary drawbacks, like these unfinished platforms. Other decisions are very unfortunate permanent drawbacks, like losing the station at Nelson and Granville.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

A bigger platform would allow a larger holding area for waiting passengers, like what has been done at Main St. Station, even if the train stays the same length.
The platform there for receiving trains will remain at 80m as far as I know.

The platform changes weren't to make it bigger to hold passengers but rather it was kept level across Main St and into a new East mezzanine (or station house) that has new stairs, escalator, and elevator from the platform level to the ground level.

Certainly an improvement from the plain stairs that appeared as soon as the platform cleared the east side of Main St.
I got the impression the designers expected they would only be used as emergency stairs because "everyone will prefer to use the main mezzanine".
Unless you're catching a northbound bus.

[Jebby]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

Excuse me, but are you saying that the trains - if the platforms are lengthened to 50m - could/would be 3-car trains with a shorter middle car, or remain at 2-car trains?
I'm a little confused on that.

The expansion of the platforms by 10 metres will allow 3-car trains, with a shorter middle car, to be run.

But...

That doesn't mean that the middle car will be ordered right away (or ever). It just means that the platforms will be longer, giving the stations more capacity for larger passenger numbers. Whether a middle car is added is an entirely different matter.

[Zassk]

Originally Posted by Jebby

The expansion of the platforms by 10 metres will allow 3-car trains, with a shorter middle car, to be run.

But...

That doesn't mean that the middle car will be ordered right away (or ever). It just means that the platforms will be longer, giving the stations more capacity for larger passenger numbers. Whether a middle car is added is an entirely different matter.

The middle car will be full length - 20 meters give or take - providing a 50% increase in passenger capacity. The doors will all fit on a 50 meter platform, but the train overall will be closer to 60 meters.

[GMasterAres]

Yah was going to say the proposal uses the terms "train CARS" and nowhere just says trains. So first 10 years is 6 additional trains total. But the plan to extend the platforms to 3-car capabilities I think will help in the long run. That's a fair increase in capacity though regardless. The Canada Line isn't that long. 6 new trains is a fair jump.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by Zassk

The middle car will be full length - 20 meters give or take - providing a 50% increase in passenger capacity. The doors will all fit on a 50 meter platform, but the train overall will be closer to 60 meters.

I wouldn't exactly count on this. Yes the doors may all fit, but I'm not sure if the rail infrastructure itself will support a longer train. For instance, at Waterfront Station, there is an immediate X switch to the south of the station to allow trains to switch directions as per the video below:
• Video Link

An extra 3m may mean that the front cab is still sticking on the switch itself which would prevent it from switching directions.

[Zassk]

Ok, let me back up. I believe it is documented that the C car will add 50% capacity to each train. Perhaps it does not require a full 20 meters of length to provide that amount of passenger space. But to me, it is a "full size" car regardless.

[nname]

Current:
334 capacity per train, 19 trains per hour (every 3:10)
Total capacity = 334 x 19 = 6346pphpd

Ultimate capacity proposed in the bid:
500 capacity per train (166 for the C car), 30 trains per hour (every 2min)
Total capacity = 500 x 30 = 15000pphpd

[WarrenC12]

500 people on a train? LOL

[trofirhen]

I think a large part of the equation here is frequency, not only in train or platform length.
If it were possible to invest, for the time being at any rate, more in trains, and thus increase the frequencies (maybe cutting wiait time between trains by a minute, maybe more),
they could work on the time-consuming task of rising the necessary funding for the infrastucture change.