HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure

Closed Thread

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5441  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2014, 10:20 PM
SFUVancouver's Avatar
SFUVancouver SFUVancouver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Kamloops
Posts: 5,321
^ That's clear evidence that the automated functionality of ALRT was never seriously considered when the decision was made to convert the Scarborough Rapid Streetcar (ALRV) project into the Scarborough RT (ALRT).
__________________
VANCOUVER | Beautiful, Multicultural | Canada's Pacific Metropolis
     
     
  #5442  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2014, 11:03 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,167
Photo shows in plain view why the longer Mk.II and Mk.III cars can't be easily used on the Scarborough RT.

Adding insult, even though the trackways were designed for use by the 1980-era streetcars for Scarborough streetcar access to the subway (before the Ont Govt forced the switch to ICTS and Scarborough RT), the latest version of the TTC streetcars ALSO can't make those curves.

With an election year in TO, the final decision of new Scarborough rail transit using new RT (Bombardier Mk.III cars on a rebuilt guideway), new LRT (extending the under-construction Eglington LRT line on a rebuilt RT guideway - using Bombardier LRT cars), or new subway (extending the Bloor-Danforth line in a new subway to Scarborough - eventually using the new Bombardier 'red rockets' subway cars) will likely change depending on who wins the mayor's election.

And may change again after the next Ontario election (this year or next), depending on who gets the majority - and if the same party takes the ridings along the RT route.

In any case, nothing will be started until the Pan-Am games wrap in later 2015, since RT is needed for moving athletes, families and the rest of the crowds around the Scarborough area where some of the venues are located.
     
     
  #5443  
Old Posted Apr 29, 2014, 11:26 PM
jsbertram jsbertram is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 3,167
Quote:
Originally Posted by SFUVancouver View Post
^ That's clear evidence that the automated functionality of ALRT was never seriously considered when the decision was made to convert the Scarborough Rapid Streetcar (ALRV) project into the Scarborough RT (ALRT).
Sort-of true.

The purpose of the loop at the terminal was so the streetcar could empty on one platform, go through the loop, and pick up passengers on the opposite platform.

This simplifies operations, because the train operator doesn't have to walk from one end of the train to the other end just to reverse direction.


However, the tight radius of the loops and curves shouldn't have an impact on the automation of RT and ICTS, other than requiring slow speeds through the curves.


Since they stopped using the loop to turn trains around, the single-track terminal has platforms on both sides of the train (people can disembark from one side of the train while others embark from the opposite side). And the operator has to leave the cab, walk to the other end of the train to get to that cab, and prepare for departure.

Even with the full automation of ICTS, TTC still demands that there is a human in the cab to press the 'OK to GO' button at each station.

Last edited by jsbertram; May 2, 2014 at 12:19 AM.
     
     
  #5444  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 1:29 AM
aberdeen5698 aberdeen5698 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 3,238
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
That's the turn into Kennedy Station, I think. The loop that was decommissioned was on the other side of Kennedy Station to U-turn the trains.
Yes, I think you're right.

The turn into the station is pretty sharp too, sharper I think than anything on any of our Skytrain lines. But it's not quite as tight as the loop.
     
     
  #5445  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 2:37 AM
madog222 madog222 is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: New West
Posts: 211
Lincoln Station web cams are back online.


http://wcs.pbaeng.com/projects/R1_Transit
     
     
  #5446  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 4:30 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsbertram View Post
This simplifies operations, because the train operator doesn't have to walk from one end of the train to the other end just to reverse direction.
And TTC streetcars were not double ended.
     
     
  #5447  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 5:14 AM
jhausner jhausner is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Surrey
Posts: 2,723
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olden Retreiver View Post
I think transit users who have to make the down-and-up transfer on a daily basis will question the design. Daily.

Because it's dysfunctional, I will question it each and every time I use it (not daily, thank goodness, unless my work changes.) Because it's fugly, I'll be individually glad that it's nowhere near my neighbourhood.
Nothing new. Every time you have to get off at Columbia and go down stairs, under the station, then up stairs to the other platform because it isn't a center platform station you're reminded of the exact same thing.
     
     
  #5448  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 6:13 AM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,757
Canada Line passengers headed north at Oakridge or south at 49th-Langara do it too - no transfer, either.
     
     
  #5449  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 3:38 PM
Olden Retreiver Olden Retreiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by jhausner View Post
Nothing new. Every time you have to get off at Columbia and go down stairs, under the station, then up stairs to the other platform because it isn't a center platform station you're reminded of the exact same thing.
The key point is that it didn't have to be this way at Lougheed. If the station were redesigned and built properly, it would be functional and would probably not be fugly either.

All to save a couple of dollars. And I can't imagine the savings are too great either, considering the extra complexities of construction.

If cost was the overriding concern, I'm not at all sure why it's necessary to add a 3rd platform at all considering the post-Evergreen frequency of traing coming in from Braid, and the volume of passengers.
     
     
  #5450  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 5:28 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olden Retreiver View Post
If cost was the overriding concern, I'm not at all sure why it's necessary to add a 3rd platform at all considering the post-Evergreen frequency of traing coming in from Braid, and the volume of passengers.
Where else can they to the layover for Millennium Line? There must be somewhere to temporary park the train in order to maintain the consistent interlining schedule between Expo and Millennium Line. Since the trains are to be run 6min apart, they may need to hold the train somewhere for up to 5-6min without affecting other lines.
     
     
  #5451  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 6:43 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Part of the gantry crane is on top of Smith Avenue, but for guideway construction, they are currently working one segment before the intersection.
It looks like they are starting on the guideway segment on top of Smith Avenue today.....

Temporary Closure of Smith Avenue East of Clarke Road For Elevated Guideway Construction

Temporary daytime closures of Smith Avenue east of Clarke Road will be in effect starting on April 30 and continue for approximately five days. This is to allow crews to lift guideway segments into place using the launching truss as part of Evergreen Line construction. For more detailed information regarding the traffic pattern changes associated with this temporary closure, please review the construction and traffic bulletin here.

- See more at: http://egrtconstruction.ca/media-cen....DxKVrVqV.dpuf
     
     
  #5452  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 7:19 PM
Olden Retreiver Olden Retreiver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Where else can they to the layover for Millennium Line? There must be somewhere to temporary park the train in order to maintain the consistent interlining schedule between Expo and Millennium Line. Since the trains are to be run 6min apart, they may need to hold the train somewhere for up to 5-6min without affecting other lines.
Why would there be a layover for the Millenium train? It comes into the station, passengers get off, passengers get on, and it departs back to Braid. If the train needs to idle anywhere to keep schedules and spacings, can't it "layover" in Braid station?

Is the 3rd platform at Lougheed a $10 Million parking garage then?
     
     
  #5453  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 7:34 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,077
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olden Retreiver View Post
Why would there be a layover for the Millenium train? It comes into the station, passengers get off, passengers get on, and it departs back to Braid. If the train needs to idle anywhere to keep schedules and spacings, can't it "layover" in Braid station?

Is the 3rd platform at Lougheed a $10 Million parking garage then?
It may work under normal condition, but what about if there's a service delay on the expo line? After a service delay trains my come in at very close interval, so some trains may need to held up at terminus or even temporary moved to the storage track in order to maintain the proper headway. Even worse, what if the Surrey segment of Expo Line is closed and all trains are re-directed to Lougheed? Without the extra platform, can the station handle the turn-around of so many trains? The last thing we want is a break-down train on SkyBridge causing system-wide delay and affect trains in Coquitlam and UBC...
     
     
  #5454  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 7:39 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olden Retreiver View Post
Why would there be a layover for the Millenium train? It comes into the station, passengers get off, passengers get on, and it departs back to Braid. If the train needs to idle anywhere to keep schedules and spacings, can't it "layover" in Braid station?

Is the 3rd platform at Lougheed a $10 Million parking garage then?
The absence of a 3rd platform at Columbia is why the more logical routing - VCC to Columbia (reversing at Columbia to allow more trains to go to Surrey) - cannot be implemented. It takes too much time and is too disruptive to reverse a train in the middle of a mainline. The third platform at Lougheed would have been intended to address distant future capacity concerns at the Lougheed hub with all of the train movements contemplated.

Also,

This quote appears on page 132 of 424 of the connectivity report.
Seems like they anticipate large volumes of passengers, so did not want one centre platform for both major destinations.

http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf


http://www.llbc.leg.bc.ca/public/Pub...rainReview.pdf

The disruption caused by reversing a train on a mainline is reflected in the
Evergreen Line operations report that was posted on the TransLink website a few years back:




Last edited by officedweller; Apr 30, 2014 at 8:08 PM.
     
     
  #5455  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 10:08 PM
Zassk Zassk is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,303
"Building a third track at Columbia in the "back" of the Columbia inbound platform"... this matches the solution that I had wondered about before - namely, could a third platform be built alongside the existing Millennium track beside the foot of the SkyTrain bridge, where there is currently just a blank retaining wall for the street above. There would be a bit of a walk for passengers making transfers, but it would not be too bad (no worse than at Waterfront Station). And would be much cheaper than excavating a new parallel platform beside the existing station.

i.e. just to the left of this picture, just out of frame:


credit
     
     
  #5456  
Old Posted Apr 30, 2014, 10:47 PM
officedweller officedweller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 26,757
I interpretted "in the "back" of the Columbia inbound platform" to mean underground to the north,
rather than at grade or trenched to the east - but to the east would be easier and cheaper.
I also recall someone suggested there could be enough room for a crossover switch just west of the New West tunnel.

From page 49 of this thread:

Quote:
Originally Posted by BCPhil View Post
Yeah, an new Upper Columbia would work too.. and might actually result in not needing to close Columbia station during construction.

If Upper Columbia were build a bit elevated access to the roads could be preserved for small cars and pedestrians. The stairs would be longer, but it could be directly above the existing platforms.

I think it would be a simple matter to then put outward facing switches on the Millennium line tracks right outside the tunnel and raise the tracks over the existing ones at Clarkson. Then M-Line trains wouldn't touch Expo Line's tracks. They wouldn't cross paths ever. They would run completely segregated and the existing switches could be used for transferring rolling stock.

Something like this:


The yellow lines (crudely drawn) could either be at street level, elevated, or go below the existing tracks. But this kind of configuration would have the least impact during construction (as all the existing tracks remain) and would result in a system where lines don't cross paths, ever.

The station could be double tracked if you think it's possible or worthy to extend this new spur into New Westminster (I think it would be worth it if possible). If the platform was on the inside, then a two escalator system (outside flight to mezzanine, inside flight to center platform) could work and the 4th ave entrance could be the mezzanine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by officedweller View Post
Here's the pic posted by nname earlier in the old archived thread showing his proposed location for switches that could access a new Columbia platform to the north (under Clarkson Street)
(as opposed to the TransLink report (quoted below) which proposed a switch where the future Woodlands Station would be built - preventing the construction of a station there).

This would also keep both tracks in the tunnel active and shorten the "single track" segment of the route.
An additional switch would lead to the platform siding under Clarkson St.

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...165814&page=49

Last edited by officedweller; Apr 30, 2014 at 11:11 PM.
     
     
  #5457  
Old Posted May 1, 2014, 5:05 PM
dpogue dpogue is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 581
There's a unofficial webcam view of the truss in Burquitlam: http://www.burquitlam.org/?p=607
     
     
  #5458  
Old Posted May 1, 2014, 6:29 PM
queetz@home's Avatar
queetz@home queetz@home is offline
Go Rotem! Die Bombardier!
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Ortigas
Posts: 3,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by dpogue View Post
There's a unofficial webcam view of the truss in Burquitlam: http://www.burquitlam.org/?p=607
Thanks! It doesn't show much yet but the efforts are appreciated. Dunno why EGRT wouldn't install webcams in Burquitlam and Lougheed since that is where the most interesting visible parts of the construction are.
     
     
  #5459  
Old Posted May 1, 2014, 7:27 PM
nname nname is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,077
Lincoln is almost the same as Burquitlam, so I guess they only need webcam for one of the station.

Lougheed is easily accessible so they probably thought they don't need.

Interestingly that Burquitlam and Lincoln are probably the only stations that will be using the pre-cast concrete segments for construction. Lafarge Lake uses precast concrete slabs (the segments for the tail tracks are already up), while the pillar for Coquitlam Station looks different from any other stations. Seems like gantry crane will only be used from the first pillar east of Coquitlam Station to about 2 pillars south of Guildford Way, where the track splits. Not sure what type of method they will be using for the elevated segment west of Coquitlam Station.
     
     
  #5460  
Old Posted May 1, 2014, 7:36 PM
TransitFreak TransitFreak is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 188
Quote:
Originally Posted by nname View Post
Lincoln is almost the same as Burquitlam, so I guess they only need webcam for one of the station.

Lougheed is easily accessible so they probably thought they don't need.

Interestingly that Burquitlam and Lincoln are probably the only stations that will be using the pre-cast concrete segments for construction. Lafarge Lake uses precast concrete slabs (the segments for the tail tracks are already up), while the pillar for Coquitlam Station looks different from any other stations. Seems like gantry crane will only be used from the first pillar east of Coquitlam Station to about 2 pillars south of Guildford Way, where the track splits. Not sure what type of method they will be using for the elevated segment west of Coquitlam Station.
I'm thinking girders...with Lougheed style switches at coquitlam, and coming from grade...think vcc and commercial broadway...
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Closed Thread

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > Canada > Alberta & British Columbia > Vancouver > Transportation & Infrastructure
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.