Possible Bombardier Mark III SkyTrain Concept?!?

[Whalleyboy]

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

[Mac Write]

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.

[DKaz]

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.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by DKaz

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.

If the Mk I cars get put through a 'mid-life refurbishment', perhaps Translink should consider grabbing the cars from Scarborough RT instead of letting them get scrapped when the Scarborough RT line gets connected to the new LRT line being built.

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?

[idunno]

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.

[djh]

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?

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by djh

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.

We have more of the Mk I variants than the Mk IIs, so your "economies of scale" argument actually favours the older vehicles. If anything, keeping the vehicles longer would give a better payback on the tooling and education investment that's already been made in them.

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...

[Gordon]

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.

[BCPhil]

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.

Originally Posted by Calebb

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

So close.... yet... so far.

Originally Posted by jlousa

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.

5 car trains would definitely maximize capacity using our current station lengths. And it would make our toy trains look all grown up. It would also cut down on the need for electronic equipment that becomes redundant when 2 trains spend 100% of their time married together. We just end up paying for ATC equipment we don't need and lose the capacity between the coupled trains.

Originally Posted by jlousa

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.

If you get enough MKIII so that you can run only MKIII on the Evergreen line (VCC <-> Douglas) then you could run them at a faster speed if you design the new track on the Evergreen line for higher operating speeds (there are sections where it is long between station where trains would have plenty of time to cruise at 100km/h).

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.

Originally Posted by officedweller

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 think it would be far far far far cheaper to upgrade the shop to accommodate even 5 car trains than it would be to upgrade all the stations on the Expo line to handle 6 car MKII trains. It's like a couple hundred million at most (to build a whole new facility on the Evergreen line) compared to at least $1 billion to extend platforms (on only the Expo line) to handle 6 car trains that would probably handle about as many people as proper 5 car trains (5 car trains would make better use of space that is currently lost between cars, and be able to have more doors which create more standing room).

Originally Posted by idunno

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.

The better strategy would be to buy the cars from Toronto and cannibalize them for parts. Just chop them up in Toronto and send the parts in little boxes. Instead of spending money to get them usable, it would drastically cut down on the maintenance cost of the cars we have and extend their lives.

[Mac Write]

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.

[officedweller]

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)

[vanlaw]

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.

[Mac Write]

Here you go

[officedweller]

Originally Posted by vanlaw

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.

Presuambly they'd be a shorter version of KL's 4-car articulated MKII trains:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gnEVM...eature=related" target="_blank">Video Link

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-jPQ...eature=related" target="_blank">Video Link

[queetz@home]

Originally Posted by Mac Write

I think the original Mark 1's should be retired and the remaining 36 cars used for the Columbia - Lougheed shuttle.

I haven't been following the Skytrain progress in years so I may have missed this. Can someone explain to me what this Columbia - Lougheed shuttle is? Are they planning to shut down the continuity of Millenium Line from Downtown to Lougheed (i.e. Evergreen will takeover most of the Millenium Line route, etc)?

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).

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by officedweller

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)

That's what I'm getting at. We need new cars now, and especially when Evergreen opens, so we need to buy something in the near future. And further into the future, 4 car (2+2) MKII trains will not be long enough to handle demand. So our options are to either maximize space utilization and use 5 car trains, which will require a new type of car (C car). Without that we will have to expand platforms to handle 6 car trains (2+2+2). And the huge cost of investing in platform extensions to expand capacity what, 20% at most over 5 car trains is a huge amount to spend per passenger. So for a much smaller one time cost we can upgrade our facilities to handle 5 car trains. Its a much better return on investment. So with that in mind, buying C cars as soon as possible instead of buying more 2 car trains will save a lot of money, and we can increase capacity as soon as they deliver the trains instead of waiting through years of costly and inconvenient construction at every station.

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.

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by queetz@home

I haven't been following the Skytrain progress in years so I may have missed this. Can someone explain to me what this Columbia - Lougheed shuttle is? Are they planning to shut down the continuity of Millenium Line from Downtown to Lougheed (i.e. Evergreen will takeover most of the Millenium Line route, etc)?

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).

I think the consensus is there will be 3 lines.

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).

[Mac Write]

Anyone have any more info from the survey? I want to hear more about the Skytrain car options.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

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.

You're probably right about the operation center expansion... but it would still require a large outlay of capital, when at the moment, no one wants to spend money on transit.

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.

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

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.




So close.... yet... so far.



5 car trains would definitely maximize capacity using our current station lengths. And it would make our toy trains look all grown up. It would also cut down on the need for electronic equipment that becomes redundant when 2 trains spend 100% of their time married together. We just end up paying for ATC equipment we don't need and lose the capacity between the coupled trains.



If you get enough MKIII so that you can run only MKIII on the Evergreen line (VCC <-> Douglas) then you could run them at a faster speed if you design the new track on the Evergreen line for higher operating speeds (there are sections where it is long between station where trains would have plenty of time to cruise at 100km/h).

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.



I think it would be far far far far cheaper to upgrade the shop to accommodate even 5 car trains than it would be to upgrade all the stations on the Expo line to handle 6 car MKII trains. It's like a couple hundred million at most (to build a whole new facility on the Evergreen line) compared to at least $1 billion to extend platforms (on only the Expo line) to handle 6 car trains that would probably handle about as many people as proper 5 car trains (5 car trains would make better use of space that is currently lost between cars, and be able to have more doors which create more standing room).



The better strategy would be to buy the cars from Toronto and cannibalize them for parts. Just chop them up in Toronto and send the parts in little boxes. Instead of spending money to get them usable, it would drastically cut down on the maintenance cost of the cars we have and extend their lives.

I'm not sure you mean that future trains need to be more air-tight, but rather better sound-proofed so the noises they make that are accentuated by the confines of the tunnels are muffled inside the train.


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.