Showing posts sorted by relevance for query trains. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query trains. Sort by date Show all posts

Tuesday, May 2, 2017

Some Urban Trains

Fortunately, Toronto & Montreal had enough vision to plan & build 152.45m or 500 foot long subway & metro stations. Even Edmonton & Seattle have much longer underground train stations than the Vancouver-Richmond train or the YVR Canada+Line. The Vancouver C-Line is a fine example of congestive & inept planning and should be studied all around the world as a warning. It could be called the, FINANCIAL DRAINAGE LINE, or the, CATHETER LINE. That's because the ridiculous 50m stations aren't even quite a 3rd of the length of the 152.5m Montreal Metro trains & stations. Thus, it will be difficult to lengthen these very short stations.   

It's one thing if the C+Line was started off with absurdly, short 2.5 car trains, but at least the stations were already built to gradually accomodate 5 car trains, plus still have extra clearance for even 5 more coaches. That would have been a reasonable attempt of planning for future capacity, but that's something BC just isn't that good at. The stations should have been designed to be ultimately accomodate 10 car trains, not some quarter-length joke. 

Eventually, three 20m coaches could be linked together. Then an extra 20m coach at both ends of each 3 car, 60m train. While a five car, 100m train would seem too long for 50m, inadequate BC stations, a walkthrough train makes it a possibility. That and Selective_door_operation makes a 5 car train quite possible. 

It is very sad that the backward BC mentality never properly envisioned a 10 car train to provide a high capacity link between the Tsawwassen_ferry_terminalBridgeport_station & the YVR-Airport_stationDowntown_VancouverPark_Royal_Exchange and the Horseshoe_Bay_ferry_terminal. Only a properly functioning metropolitan region can do something like that. The Greater Vancouver Region just isn't at that level yet.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-train

"The operation of the Central Circle is similar to the S-Train systems in Germany and other countries."




"The line is operated by 33 Siemens ES2G Lastochka trains..."
Russians aren't afraid to use good German technology.
I wish that they would allow some of that German tech in BC but BC still strives to maintain and keep things at a smaller scale. 

The Moscow Circle Line is a much more recent development than the one in London. 

"Since the beginning, platforms have been at least 155 metres (509 ft) long to accommodate eight-car trains. The only exceptions are on the Filyovskaya LineVystavochnayaMezhdunarodnayaStudencheskayaKutuzovskayaFiliBagrationovskayaFilyovsky Park and Pionerskaya, which only allows six-car trains..."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_Metro#Rolling_stock 

There is suppose to be secret deeper level subway around Moscow.

Of course when severe flooding occurs, the subways are among the first things to be affected.




How in the hell is the 3rd SkyTrain line constructed to have such small stations, in-spite of increasing future demand? 


No city has spent billions of dollars just to have 2 car trains, except Vancouver & Richmond.

Apparently, the 50 m platforms are only long enough to accommodate 2.5 car trains as capacity demand increases. http://www.railforthevalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Canada-Rail-213-e14082980653651.jpg

Sure, in the early years, Montreal could run a little 3 car train, but their Metro stations were designed to accommodate a 9 car train during the very busy times & 6 car trains for intermediate demand. 

So the BC inept planning process never allowed for a future demand of at least 152.5 m or 500 foot long stations & platforms. Instead, they designed the max potential to be only 50m or 164 feet. That's pathetic & only adds to the deliberate bottleneck planning approach that backwards BC aspires to. 


As long as a line above ground & especially underground, has level sections of 500, 600 or 700 feet, then full length stations can be constructed.
When BC planers only allowed for a 50m or 164 foot level section for each Catheter Line, 




If a system starts out with little trains but has designed the ability to triple or quadruple the length of the station platforms, then its just a matter of building that future extension right from the start or at some point later on. 

Chicago & BART can still run ridiculous 4 car trains but the capacity to run 10 car trains was built in right from the start.

SYDNEY and its metro
Not only does Sydney have much longer trains & platforms, they are double level trains! Its like BC has made sure that it must never match the capacity that NSW & New_England has allowed for.

TOP 10 of the most beautiful trains in Japan

V-BC strives to perpetually be one of the most stunted or underbuilt major cities on the planet. 




Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Short Trains

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/55/Canada_Line_Train_201807.jpg/960px-Canada_Line_Train_201807.jpg , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Line#Route An airport+line connecting Vancouver & Richmond to YVR should have started out with at least 5-6 car trains, then eventually, 8-10 car trains after eventually connecting to the 2 main BC Ferry terminals. However that's a problem, because backwards BC can't seem to allow for proper long-range, bigcity infrastructure planning & development.


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_777 Train length 64.98 m (213 ft 2 in)  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merseyrail#Fleet 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Metro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL_C30 Train length 70 m (229 ft 7+29⁄32 in)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL_C20  46.5 m (152 ft 6+45⁄64 in) Unlike Vancouver, Stockholm can run double-length trains. This is possible whenever longer stations are built, or at least have enough level clearance for future expansion.

The Montreal Metro in the 1960s could run ridiculous 3 car trains, but eventually realized that 6 car trains & especially 9 car trains can efficiently more more people. Thus, its a good thing that they planned to have 152.4 m stations right from the start.

While short trains and stations can initially be a cost saving measure, allowing for future level clearance can be more economically efficient, in the long run. Thus, even a tram premetro can eventually be turned into a tram-train.

Unfortunatly, in typical Vancouver fashion, the Canada+Line wasn't designed to have 10 car trains, not even 5 car trains. The 2 billion dollar joke of a train was only designed with a level clearance for 50 m stations that only can accommodate a 2.5 car train. For a line that had to be open by 2009, it's still only running 2 car trains, with no 2.5 car trains in sight as 2025 is winding down.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/35/NorthArmBridge.jpg/960px-NorthArmBridge.jpg A pathetic 2 car train on a bridge that should have 2 bike lanes & 2 sidewalks. 

Indeed, just because the Canada Line was designed as if it was only to start out with short premetro train stations, there should have been a long-term plan to eventually have proper big city trains. One of the biggest mistakes for what should be a proper big city metro train, is to design short stations that are almost impossible to double, let alone tripple in length. 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Canada+Line+is+so+under-built

Thursday, April 24, 2025

The Canada (embarrassment) Line

Using the limited funds and low capacity argument is excrement! It's only because of inept urban planning that the Canada+Line is such a transportation embarrassment & sad joke since 2009. Several other cities around the world are able to think big, they plan & build in a long-term way. Thus, if there are only enough funds to build a 2.5 car train, the stations could have been designed to eventually accomodate 5 car trains as demand increases. Plus, all the stations should have been designed with enough clearance to gradually be long enough for 10 car trains.

https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/plans-and-projects/regional-transportation-strategy/transport-2050/backgrounders/transport_2050_backgrounder_action_2_rapid_transit_network.pdf

An ultimate capacity of 10 car trains connecting both ferry terminals with the airport & downtown Vancouver, would really have been properly planning for the future. 10 car trains running every 2 minutes during the busiest times of the day would efficiently allow a lot people to get around. Unfortunatly, it will be challenging enough just to eventually have 5 car trains.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/canada-line-skytrain

The absurdity to design the stations to only handle 2.5 car trains is a sad joke. The ultimate capacity of two 20m cars with a 10m filler car is so inadequate & pathetic, but this is the BC part of Canada. This backwards & backwater thinking must be challenged. 

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-future-station-locations

With some modifications, three 20m cars could form a 60m train, despite the absurd platforms only having a clearance for 50m. A 60m walkthrough train makes this possible, its just that the doors at either end wouldn't reach the short station platform. Selective_door_operation could enable the Canada Line to go from a 2 car & 2.5 car joke, to a 3 car & ultimately, a 5 car train. That's still a far cry from cities with 10 car trains running every 2 minutes. However, a 5 car train running every minute could make all the difference for Greater Vancouver.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/what-you-need-to-know-north-shore-wastewater-treatment-plant-1.7235368# Aparently, there is enough money to overpay for a $HIT-PIPE and a $HIT-BOX, but not enough funds to build a proper high capacity train over a couple of decades.  

The Canada_Line opened in 2009 with its short 2 car trains & in 2025, there still aren't any 2.5 car trains. By now, it really should have been running 5 car trains, connecting the 2 ferry terminals & the airport. Fortunately, most real cities are able to do proper long range planning for their infrastructure, unlike backwards Vancouver.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)_rolling_stock#Canada_Line_fleet 

Any serious airport+train should be envisioned as more than just a 2 car joke. While a 3 car train might be a little better, a 4 car train should be the minimum. Then, having the stations already long enough to accomodate 6 car trains, with enough clearance for eventually 8-10 car trains. A 2 car joke of a train is almost as bad as the 3 lane Lion Bridge. 

There should have been enough informed people to not only make sure that the C+Line was properly designed, but that the whole Greater Vancouver Region had proper planning measures for future transportation infrastructure capacity. Unfortunatly, backwards BC has been under a multi-generational backwater agenda. 


https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Canada+Line 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=airport+line

Monday, October 27, 2025

Honolulu’s Skyline Rail Expands to West Honolulu, and to a New Airport Station

 https://www.travelandtourworld.com/news/article/honolulus-skyline-rail-expands-to-west-honolulu-bringing-faster-more-sustainable-public-transit-to-oahu-with-a-new-airport-station 

Even if the widest parts of the H-1 could be 10 or 12 lanes, it would still get plugged up. Nevertheless, being from Vancouver, it's quite impressive to see such a wide H-1 by the airport. If you visit Vancouver from Hawaii, you might think that Vancouver is a big city like Sydney, SF or Seattle. Then you discover that the roads & bridges are much narrower than what's in those cities. The real big surprise is that Vancouver not only has shorter trains than Sydney, SF & Seattle, but even Edmonton. Fortunately, the Skyline to the airport isn't a 2 car joke of a train like Vancouver's airport line is.

https://honolulutransit.org/about/route-map , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(Honolulu)#Route

https://www.honolulu.gov/dts/skyline


The Airport Segment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(Honolulu)#Segment_2:_Airport 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lelepaua_station If only Vancouver's line to the airport could have opened with 4 car trains, then with Selective_door_operation, eventually 6 car trains. Unfortunatly, backwards Vancouver has been stuck with a 2 car YVR train since 2009, but it has the potential to become a 2.5 car joke of a train, someday.  


Downtown Honolulu.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(Honolulu)#Segment_3:_City_Center 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(Honolulu)#Ala_Moana_extension 


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyline_(Honolulu)#Rolling_stock "The line uses 256 ft (78 m) four-car train sets, each with the capacity to carry nearly 800 passengers..."  "Each car is 64 ft (20 m) long, weighs 72,000 lb (33,000 kg), and has 36 seats with a listed total capacity of 195 people, and sits on standard-gauge (1,435 mm) rails." 

While the Skyline cars are similar in length to the YVR-Canada-Line cars, they are of a heavier construction. Plus, the trains are twice as long as any on the embarrassingly short Canada+Line trains.

While it took a long time to get the Skyline to the airport, at least the stations were all initially built to accommodate 4 car trains. Unfortunatly, the joke that is the SkyTrain-Canada+Line is still only running 2 car trains and wasn't designed to eventually have 5 car trains. Its difficult to understand why the joke-line stations are only designed to accommodate a 2.5 car train, someday.

Honolulu like Brisbane, are very far away from the Vancouver Mind Virus (VMV) and much warmer. Thus, they are able to have longer trains to the airport, because they can build on a proper big city scale.  


https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane+Airport+Railway+Line 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=the+airport+train

Thursday, January 2, 2025

Canada's population and its lacking infrastructure

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/71-607-x/71-607-x2018005-eng.htm

Despite being the 2nd largest nation in overall area, Canada is far off from housing just 1% of the world's population. 

https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/mandate/corporate-initiatives/levels/population-growth-2014-2027.html 

There aren't enough big cities in the vastness of Canada.

It's strange that Halifax hasn't become a big city like Boston or Montreal. Since the 2020s, a lot more people work from home and there isn't always an industrial base in major urban areas. More people are retiring and like people working from home, might like living in a town of 1000-10,000 people just as easily as a city with over a 1,000,000 people. The point being, that the top 30 towns in Canada could be built up to at least a million people each. Winnipeg has yet to have a million people. Then the top 10 cities could be built up to 5-10 population regions. Greater Montreal has yet to reach the 5 million point and the Greater Toronto Area has yet to reach 10 million people like Greater Chicago or, CHICAGOLAND. The San_Francisco_Bay_Area is getting close to having 10 million people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_municipalities_in_Canada_by_population Vancouver is only the 8th most populated city.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_census_metropolitan_areas_and_agglomerations_in_Canada#List However, the Greater Vancouver Region is still the 3rd largest urban area in Canada. Yet, it's so far behind with the necessary infrastructure. Indeed, When Greater Toronto & Greater Montreal each exceeded the 3 million point, they had longer trains & wider roads. It seems that Vancouver & BC in general, have perpetually opted for a congestive planning approach.

Will Canada's Next Prime Minister be Pierre Poilievre? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dck8eZCpglc

Why is anti-immigration sentiment on the rise in Canada? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txyjmNXcWiU

https://www.norden.org/en/information/population-nordic-region

https://www.nordicstatistics.org/news/population-growth-in-the-nordics Whether its Canada or the Nordic_Countries, places with cold winters can accommodate a lot of people. However, without setting up the proper amount of infrastructure first, its utterly foolish.

Canada hasn't kept up with building enough school & hospital facilities, as well as the overall necessary  infrastructure. 

https://www.definitivehc.com/resources/healthcare-insights/top-largest-canadian-hospitals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamilton_General_Hospital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foothills_Medical_Centre

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Hospital_and_Health_Sciences_Centre#Facilities

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Paul's_Hospital_(Vancouver) , https://helpstpauls.com/why-give/new-st-pauls-hospital

https://www.infrastructurebc.com/projects/announced-in-procurement/richmond-hospital-redevelopment-project-phase-2-3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraser_Health#Regional_hospitals 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey_Memorial_Hospital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Columbian_Hospital 

https://www.infrastructurebc.com/projects/projects-under-construction/burnaby-hospital-phase-2-and-bc-cancer-centre-project/


Unlike the Montreal Metro which can accommodate 9 car trains, the strained Skytrain is only running 4 new-car trains & the inept Canada Line only runs 2 car trains. The Skytrain stations should have been designed to gradually accomodate 8-10 car trains. The Montreal Metro was built with 500 foot long or 152.5m stations right from the start. Apparently, to save money, the first 2 Skytrain lines only have 80m stations & the line to Richmond only has 50m stations, not 152.5m like Montreal. 

The inadequate new Pattullo-Bridge was designed to be so narrow that there won't be any emergency lanes. There won't be any bus lanes, even though the Skytrain doesn't run 24 hours. There won't be any truck lanes, despite the region being a major port. Thus, everything is supposed to be funneled into just 2 lanes each way. https://www.pattullobridgereplacement.ca/about/projectoverview Apparently, the bridge can eventually be upgraded, but to only 3 lanes each way. Of course there is no provision for a lower train & truck deck. This is another fine example of backward BC planning. Even if small-thinking NW only wanted 2 lanes each way for cars, there still should have been an extra 2 lanes each way so that there is a dedicated bus lane & a truck lane each way. 

2 lanes were removed from the Burrard Bridge, 1 removed from the Cambie Bridge & 2 lanes removed from the Granville Bridge. Many other cities can actually build bike bridges so they don't have to take away any traffic lanes from their bridges. 

Even the new Highway-99-Tunnel is designed to become just another BC bottleneck. There will only be 3 lanes each way & a bus-lane each way. However, there won't be any truck lanes & no emergency lanes. https://www.highway99tunnel.ca/project-overview-frt Of course there won't be any provision for a train tunnel, because the government doesn't see a good reason to connect the Delta ferry terminal with Richmond & the airport. They never bothered to have a train from Horseshoe Bay to Park Royal & downtown Vancouver either.

So while the Federal Government charges a carbon tax, Greater Vancouver is left with short trains & mostly narrow bridges. It's utterly foolish to not properly upgrade the infrastructure & build a lot of affordable housing, yet encourage a bunch of people to move into a country that hasn't kept up with building more housing stock. I thought that some of the carbon tax would help to properly upgrade the BC infrastructure, because backward BC just can't seem to even catch up to what Calgary & Seattle have. The trains in Montreal, Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary & Seattle are all longer than the short Skytrains. Yet, there is more demand in Vancouver to have longer trains, due to the narrow roads & bridges. Frequent short trains arent enough, there has to be proper big city long trains. 


Tuesday, October 21, 2025

Long Trains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_%22L%22 , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_%22L%22#Rolling_stock While a 2 or 4 car train was used in the earlier decades, a 6-8 car train simply moves more people.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPM-10 9 articulated cars per train at 152.43 m (500 ft 1+1⁄8 in)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-73 3 cars per trainset, operating as 6- or 9-car trains

It's taken until 2025 for Vancouver to have 5 car trains, but that's only on the first line. The 2nd line is only running 2 car trains, but once the extension opens, there should be 4-5 car trains. The 3rd line still isn't even running 2.5 car trains. Its very frustrating how almost everything in backwards Vancouver has to be watered-down. 

Saturday, November 22, 2025

Some Canada Mega-projects Under Construction

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwsOVZ-j7hg 

Oakridge_Park is on a much smaller scale than MetrotownBrentwood and Lougheed. It will especially be on a much smaller scale than Parramatta in NSW. 

Unfortunatly, the Oakridge-41st_Avenue_station was only designed to have 50m platforms, when it should have been at least 100m. Thus, the utter foolishness has meant that instead of allowing for a future level station clearance to accomodate 5 car trains, the Canada (embassament) Line was only designed to just have 2.5 car trains. While its extremely short stations might have been disguised as a cost saving measurer, there didn't seem to be any key people onboard to make sure that it could eventually become a proper big city train line. Its sad that a line which opened in 2009 is still only running 2 car trains. While the 2.5 car configuration is still a joke of a train, at least half of an extra coach-length is better than nothing. Plus, there should have been extra cars ordered by now so at least during the very busy times the trains could be operating at 1 minute headways. Unfortunatly, this goes against the Vancouver & BC congestion planning mentality.

Despite being built several years after the Sydney_Harbour_Bridge, the joke that is the Pattullo_Bridge was designed to only have 4 narrow lanes & only 1 sidewalk. Of course the replacement_bridge will only open with 2 lanes each way. It was as if someone really wanted to make sure that there won't be 2 bus lanes and no HOV lanes when the bridge opens. While the new bridge is designed to be expanded from a 4 lane joke to eventually having 6 lanes, it still won't be wide enough to accomodate 2 HOV lanes as well as 2 bus lanes. Of course the new bridge won't have any emergency lanes, just like the old bridge. However, it will have 2 bike lanes and 2 sidewalks. https://www.globalhighways.com/news/pattullo-bridge-completion-end-year Its only fitting that in backwards BC this new bridge wouldn't be designed to eventually have a lower deck to accomodate 2 bus lanes and 2 LRT tracks. 

If the planners were afraid to symbolically have a wide bridge between NW and Surrey, the old Pattullo_Bridge should have been designed to eventually have a lower deck for trams, trucks and busses. Even when the SkyBridge between NW and Surrey opened in 1990, it wasn't designed to have any bus lanes or emergency vehicle lanes and especially, no bike and footpaths. 

Is Vancouver the best city in North America? (2019) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8dmVUrNt38

 One of the biggest mistakes in Vancouver & SW BC is to have short trains combined with mostly narrow bridges. Thus, the region doesn't get to have long, high capacity trains and there isn't a proper regional network of bus-bridges. The refusal to twin most of the bridges means that it's almost impossible to have a proper and efficient regional network of rapid-bus and HOV lanes.  

While Montreal built the REM to augment their long-train Metro system, Vancouver should have allowed for enough clearance to eventually have 500 foot long trains. 80m-50m Skytrain stations are going to become inadequate, when there should have been a 152.4m provision so that the trains could eventually become as long as the ones on the Montreal Metro. 

Is Regional Rail in the Future of British Columbia? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PeIOVy6fFc

Wednesday, July 31, 2024

LRT, Semi-metro and Heavy Rail Rapid Transit...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail , https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Types , 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_rail#Comparison_to_other_rail_transit_modes


 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premetro 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-metro 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rapid_transit 


Of course when Vancouver & the greater urban region became obsessed with keeping the roads & bridges narrow, it was as if there wasn't a proper concept of having express bus lanes & dedicated rapid bus lanes.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/translink-funding-issues-impacts-traffic-congestion


The 1959 George_Massey_Tunnel should have opened with 3 lanes each way. Plus, 2 wide emergency lanes. Then over the course of its first 2 decades, it could have become a 6 lane crossing with 2 bus & HOV lanes. 

By the 1980s, the inept 4 lane George_Massey_Tunnel should have had a parallel higher & wider bus & HOV tunnel consisting of at least another 4 lanes & at least 2 emergency lanes. Thus making it more capable as an eventual replacement to the old tunnel. Then by around 2000, there should have been a bike, truck & train bridge or tunnel as well. 

George_Massey_Tunnel#Replacement by 2030? The first phase of this really should have been started by the 1980s. Of course the new tunnel with 8 lanes & 2 bike lanes, won't have 2 truck lanes & there won't be 2 HOV lanes. Plus, in accordance with a perpetual congestive planning mentality, there is no provision for an extension of the Canada Line to Delta.

The new tunnel should not only have had 3 general lanes each way & 1 bus lane each way, there should be 1 truck lane each way as well. Plus, 2 wide emergency lanes which could eventually be repurpose for a north & southbound rapid bus transit corridor. That's because, even if there is ever a YVR-Canada-Line to the ferry terminal, it won't be open 24 hours.

Someday the YVR-Canada-Line should not only have 2.5 car trains, but an actual 5 car train consisting of five, 20m coaches. Selective_door_operation technology would make this possible. Of course it would have simply been much better to have designed all the stations to already be at least 100m, instead of the inept 50m. Unfortunately, backward BC thinking keeps getting in the way.

https://www.richmond-news.com/local-news/province-considering-filling-george-massey-tunnel-with-sand-8777369 Despite the old tunnels height restrictions, a slightly smaller version of the Road_Train could have been ideal for it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_train#Trailer_arrangements

Keeping the old tunnel as a freight corridor between Delta & Richmond would be of tremendous benefit. Delta has the Roberts_Bank_Superport & the Tsawwassen_ferry_terminal.

Richmond has the Vancouver_International_Airport & the inept Canada_Line

Despite budget limits at the time, the Canada_Line should have been designed to eventually have 5 car trains & ultimately, 10 car trains. It should have been envisioned as a high capacity rail link between downtown Vancouver, YVR, Richmond & Delta. With an ultimate connection between the Tsawwassen_ferry_terminal and the Horseshoe_Bay_ferry_terminal

For some reason Vancouver & BC never seemed to really take off in the 1980s like Calgary, Seattle & Perth. Indeed, while Vancouver seemed to continue on its sleepwalking path after Expo_86, Brisbane really started to boom after its World_Expo_88

Unlike SW BC, the Brisbane Airport & seaport are much closer to each other. 

https://upload.wikimedia.org If you are from Brisbane & visiting Vancouver, you will be shocked to see such a short airport train. Being from Vancouver, its difficult to grasp how Brisbane was able to build such nice long trains. This is something to be very proud of, as it can move a lot of people in both directions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Airport_railway_station,_Brisbane This opened in 2001 & Vancouver's inept version had to be ready by 2010 with just 2 car trains. Yet, Brisbane designed their train to be high capacity capable as soon as it open for service. From a backwards BC perspective, it's amazing how Queensland is able to think & function on such a grand scale & to properly allocate the necessary funds. Who knows where so much of the funds went in BC? That's because not enough of it seems to have gone into the infrastructure. 

https:://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_International_Airport#Rapid_transit_(SkyTrain) 

Unfortunately, this is an embarrassment line because, that's not a 4 car train, its only two, 2 car trains on a single track. How can Vancouver ever rank as a proper city & metropolitan area, when the trains are so short & most of the bridges are so narrow?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YVR-Airport_station Why have a double track station allowing for at least 155m - 200m long trains? Do it the backwards BC way with only a single track & a 50m station. This isn't just an example of extreme cost-cutting. Its not properly designing crucial transportation infrastructure for eventual high capacity. Fortunately, most proper big urban areas are able to think & build big right from the start. Case in point is Queensland.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Sir+Leo+Hielscher+Bridges,+Queensland,+Australia

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/Gateway_Bridge This 6 lane & then a 12 lane crossing was possible, because Queensland isn't under anything like the backwater BC restrictions. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Leo_Hielscher_Bridges This has the potential to still have 4 lanes each way. Plus, 1 bus lane & 1 HOV lane each way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Brisbane , https://www.portbris.com.au , 

https://www.portbris.com.au/portbris-2060

Unlike backwater BC, Queensland is able to properly think, plan, invest & build for the future. Queensland just isn't hindered by anything like the BC Mind Virus (BCMV).


https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=YVR-Canada+Line This is almost the worlds shortest train, because it only has 2 cars.

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=old+and+new+narrow+bridges 

https://jfdatalinks.blogspot.com/search?q=Brisbane+Airport+Railway+Line

Tuesday, June 24, 2025

15 minute SkyTrain service in Surrey this summer due to track replacement work

 https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-expo-line-surrey-gateway-station-track-switch-disruptions-summer-2025

For a line that first opened in 1985, it took until 2025 to try to start running 5 car trains of the latest generation of rolling stock. Considering that Greater Vancouver has a narrower road network than Montreal, the SkyTrain stations should have been designed to accomodate 10 car trains. 

While the Alstom_Mark_V vehicles look nice & modern, a 5 car train is a half-length reminder of how much nicer & better a 10 car train would look. 

Just because the SkyTrain is considered to be a Light Rail Vehicle, there still should have been a provision to eventually have the stations to be as long as the longest ones on the Montreal Metro. The Montreal Metro has 500 foot or 152.5m long stations, which can accomodate a 9 car train. Unfortunatly, the first 2 SkyTrain lines only have 80m stations, which are just barely over half the length of the longest STM stations. https://www.stm.info/en/info/networks/metro

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societe_de_transport_de_Montreal#Connections_to_other_transit_services

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montreal_Metro#Rolling_stock

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-63#Design While a 3 car joke of a train was possible, a 6 & especially a 9 car train is able to efficiently move more people around.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-73

3 cars per trainset, operating as 6- or 9-car trains

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MR-73#Construction_and_entry_into_service


Apparently, in order to reduce construction costs, the first 2 SkyTrain lines have stations that are only 250 feet. Half the length of a 500 foot long Montreal train, but BC usually takes the half-assed option with its small-scale of infrastructure development. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SkyTrain_(Vancouver)#UTDC_ICTS_Mark_I_fleet "The maximum based on current station platform lengths is a six-car configuration, totalling 76.2 metres (250 ft)."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPM-10  (articulated cars per train)

Train length152.43 m (500 ft 1+18 in)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPM-10#History  Approximately, a 500 foot train divided by 9 cars = 55.55 feet, or just under 17m.

Despite the SkyTrain cars not running on rubber tires, each 55 ft. coach is very close in length to the 55.6 ft Montreal Metro coaches. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Innovia_Metro#Vehicle "The second generation Innovia ART 200 cars are 16.7 metres (54 ft 9

+12 in) long each and come in articulated pairs."


While the Mark 5 cars are about 55 feet, the C Line cars are almost 66 feet. Of course just like the first 2 lines, the C Line was also designed to not have 10 car stations, not even 5 car long stations. Since there was a real push to reduce construction costs, the stations only have a clearance to eventually accomodate a 2.5 car train. 

Thus, as a a further step backwards, the 3rd line had to even be much shorter than the 152.5m Montreal Metro stations. Despite being another cost-cutting measure, the C Line could have & should have had all of its stations designed with future level clearance to eventually be at least 3 times longer than the absurd 50m. 
"The Hyundai Rotem cars are 3 metres (9 ft 10+18 in) in width and 20 metres (65 ft 7+38 in) in length..." 
While the multi-billion dollar line wasn't designed to have 10 or even 5 car trains, this 2.5 car joke of a train must be corrected.

Selective_door_operation (SDO) can enable trains that are longer than the 50m C Line platforms. So instead of just two 20m cars or a 20+10+20m, three 20m cars could stop at the absurd 50m stations. While the design limitations make it almost impossible to extend the ridiculous 50m platforms, even a 5-10m extension can make a significant difference. A 3 car walkthrough train would only be 60m, but that would form the middle key section of a 5 car train with SDO. That could be done by having an extra 20m car at either end of a 60m train. In theory, the middle 3 coaches would have direct contact with the absurd 50m platforms. SDO can allow a 100m train to use a 50m station. People going past more than a few stations would be advised to move to the very end cars of a 5 car train. Then work their way to the middle 3 cars to access their desired station.   

Just because the first phase of the C Line was designed to only have a 2.5 car train, the stations should have already been long enough to accomodate a 5 car train. Then, with significant future capacity in mind, there still could have been enough level clearance built to ultimately have 10 car trains.

SDO could also be used on the first 2 SkyTrain lines. Once 5 car trains become common, then planning for 7 car trains could be possible with SDO. While the C Line just doesn't have much level clearance to go beyond a 50m station, the first 2 SkyTrain lines could potentially have longer platforms to accomodate a 7 car train. Then with SDO, a 9 car train could be possible.

Of course the whole SkyTrain system should have been designed to have 8-10 car long stations, right from the start. Fortunately, anything like the backwards BC planning mentality never reached & prevented the Edmonton LRT from having longer strations. Especially, Toronto & Montreal & even Seattle, SF & LA. 



Thursday, December 19, 2024

Capstan Station on YVR-Canada Line in Richmond

https://www.vancouverisawesome.com/highlights/capstan-canada-line-station-in-richmond-to-open-friday-9984359 Why design the old & new stations to eventually accomodate 8-10 car trains? The Catheter Line wasn't even designed to officially accommodate enough space for 5 car trains. Thus, in accordance with the BC antigrowth mentality or slow growth agenda, the stations were only designed to eventually just have 2.5 car trains. However, even in 2025, the Catheter Line will still only be using 2 car trains. All the SkyTrain stations should have been designed to eventually be 150.5 meters long, just like the Montreal Metro stations, with even more long-term provisions. Unfortunatly, the first 2 lines only have 80m stations & the C+Line only has a clearance for 50m stations.

https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/skytrain-capstan-station-canada-line-opening-date

The Vancouver_City_Centre_station is diagonally across the street from The+Bay+Building+in+Vancouver. However, despite being what is supposed to be a major underground station, its noticeably smaller than the underground train stations in Edmonton & Seattle.

It's been very difficult to get urban planners in BC to properly plan for future transportation demands. The main excuse is governmental budgetary constraints. Even if that's usually the case, at least build half the length of a proper size urban station, with a provision to eventually double or triple its length, for future demand. However, that would go against the Greater Vancouver congestion planning mentality. Thus, even if you have the skills, once you get to BC, you realize that several things are watered down & you must think small or backwards.

 https://bc.ctvnews.ca/video/c3050886-metro-vancouver-facing-population-boom With the Metro-Vancouver-population-expected-to-reach-4-million-by-2045, BC is so unprepared & inept, as usual. https://www.kelownacapnews.com/news/metro-vancouver-expected-to-push-past-4-million-by-2045-as-growth-accelerates-7717888

There seems to be an outright refusal in the Metro Vancouver Region to avoid building up to the same level of infrastructure as when Greater Toronto, Greater Montreal, Greater Seattle, Greater Sydney, Greater Melbourn & the SF Bay Area, all exceeded 4 million people.

Going into 2025, the SkyTran will still only have 2-4 car trains, not counting the old Mark 1 rolling stock. By 2025, every SkyTrain should have consisted of 6-8 car trains, not the two-car & four car congested joke that it is. 

There is no valid reason as to why the Greater_Vancouver Region can't eventually have an urban train system on par with the Montreal Metro & a regional train system that's as good & frequent as the GO Trains or the Caltrain.

The refusal to build proper bus & truck bridges to help the mostly narrow bridges, still seems to be a half-assed pipedream. Yet, the GV Region pretends that it will eventually have a good Rapid Bus Network without bus-bridges.

While the GV Region is supposed to be a major seaport, there is still a false_front approach to things. How can this false-front & half-ass approach still be the norm in backwater BC? Not only should all the freight-train bridges be at least double tracked, there should also be truck port bridges. 

The Oak_Street_BridgeKnight_Street_Bridge & the Queensborough_Bridge are all so narrow, there is no room for truck & bus lanes. Therefore, a truck & bus bridge should be built next to all of them. Otherwise, everything can just continue to be funneled into only 2 lanes each way.

Of course the Arthur_Laing_Bridge wasn't designed to have 2 bus lanes & 2 truck lanes. Yet, a lot of trucks have to be able to get in & out of YVR. Why have any bus lanes when busses & trucks can all be funneled into only 2 lanes each way? Even though the C-Line doesn't run 24hr a day, the North_Arm_Bridge should have had two 24hr bus lanes & 2 bike lanes & a provision for a middle track. Instead, the narrow North-Arm-Bridge only has 2 tracks & just 1 bike lane.

Fortunately, watered down Greater Vancouver & backwards BC hasn't been able to get most place around the world to adopt such a ridiculously reduced infrastructure approach to things. 

The 3rd line should really be called the YVR-Canada+Line.

Officially, there is no A Line, B Line or C+Line, but that seems OK for backwards BC.