Trolled by trolls
ai???If you tell a SkyTrain lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The SkyTrain lie can be maintained only for such time as the provinceAi?? and TransLink can shield the people from the political, economic and/or transit consequences of the SkyTrain lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the province to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the SkyTrain lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the province and TransLink.ai???
The SkyTrain lobby are up in arms because they refuse to believe basic transit facts. To bad.
There is a magic aura about the internet and many think that everything that is posted is honest or truthful; sad fact is the opposite is true. Today, I can prove via the internet that the holocaust did not happen and that aliens have landed and there is a great cover up. I can give you the links if you wish, but I rather not.
The internet is home to some of the most fanciful and illogical nonsense ever thought of, yet here are many that believe.
The SkyTrain boys and girls just can’t get over the fact that no one builds with it anymore and the world has moved on from light-metro. Many of the studies supporting light-metro are so badly skewed in favour of the mode, it becomes laughable, yet there are still those who still believe. One can visit the ‘skyscraper’ SkyTrain page to get ones fill of stuff and nonsense. The empty rhetoric that is breathtaking.
Many transit studies are not on line and can be purchased for a fee. Zwei has invested $500 for the four Hass-Klau, “Bus of Light Rail – making the right choice” series of studies which do not appear on line. In fact, Zwei has invested over $2000 on studies in the past decade or so and non of these appear on line, yet they are important studies. The same is true with industry periodicals, which again many are not on-line.
So to Richard and Rico please answer this simple series of questions, please link when you can, if you dare to:
- SkyTrain has been on the market since the late 1970’s, yet only seven such systems have been built, why?
- During the same period over one hundred and fifty LRT systems have been built. If SkyTrain is so superior to LRT why doesn’t anyone build with it today?
- Not one of the SkyTrain systems built ere allowed to compete directly against light rail, why?
- Though the SkyTrain Lobby claim that SkyTrain is cheaper to operate, why has Translink refused to compare SkyTrain with LRT in a “apples to apples” comparison, why?
- Why do the SkyTrain Lobby claim that SkyTrain has a larger capacity than LRT, despite the fact the contracted capacity of the present SkyTrain system is 15,000 pphpd, while at the same time modern LRT can and does carry more during peak periods?
Answers please.
Hi Zwei,
1-3 Maybe if you r e a d t h i s r e a l l y s l o w l y i t w i l l s i n k i n. NO ONE BUT YOU CARES if a light metro/minimetro/intermediate capacity system is built by Bombardier or Rotem or Alstrom. Very few care if it is LIM. There are lots of dozens of examples to look at.
4 This information is easily available from multiple sources. Let me know what you want and I will try to get for you.
5. New 5 car trains and minor station upgrades will change that to 26,000pphpd.
Zwei replies: Rico, you are so full of bullshit, one can smell the reek across metro Vancouver.
Rico, no one builds with SkyTrain because LRT is both cheaper to build and cheaper to operate and if you did not sleep through your math classes, this means the taxpayer must ante up. The more expensive a transit system is, the less of it that is built.
As for adding one car increasing capacity to 26,000 pphpd, is so outrageous, that the BS metre is spinning.
If you are an example of the people running TransLink, god help both the taxpayer and the transit consumer. Time to depart TransLink and let the ship of fools sail on into oblivion.
I have noted several typographical and grammatical errors in the reports and comments above, and in previous reports. I suggest that you do a better job of eliminating such errors from future reports, in order to maintain a reliable level of accuracy and believability Also, I believe it would be better received if foul language was not used. Continued use (or misuse) of such things will convince me to DELETE this source of my e-mail
Actually Zwei, he is correct however it will not be complete till 2041 and will force power, vehicle and station upgrades costing around 3.7 Billion. What was amazing was what was not included in the cost was the massive bill that will be poping up in a decade or so. All the Expo line above grade infrastructure between the stations is going to need very expensive life cycle updates and out right replacement. When the company I was working with got our tour of Translink in 2012 we asked about that because, one of our engineers noticed concrete fatigue just outside one of the stations (Metrotown) on the viaduct support. We informed them we noticed other fatigue spots at several other locations as well. They eagerly took down our info and were very polite to us and thanked us. They admitted at that point anyway, no one had figured out that total cost yet and when that program would begin on the Expo line right of way. The estimate which was a very early one was somewhere between 750,000,000-1,800,000,000. This work would have had to be completed before 2035. My point is that, if you have to spend somewhere between 4.45-5.5 Billion dollars just to ensure that just one part of your system can handle 26,000 pphpd and not fall down, I think, a big rethink is needed before you proceed. Just think what could be built with that amount of cash certainly a new line downtown designed from the outset to handle more people could easily be built with that. I have mentioned this before but, the dirty little secret in electrically powered transit is the very environmentally unfriendly electrical transformer. The number of which will most likely have to be doubled (the cost and trouble that this represents is quietly hidden in the term, electrical and propulsion system upgrades) to implement the system capacity upgrade. The current power system can handle between 14200-15700 pphpd.
Zwei replies: The theoretical capacity of the Expo Line was put at 30,000 pphpd, with rakes of 8-car trains of Mk.1 stock, operating at 90 second headways with stations with longer platforms as the stations were so designed to be extended to 100m. The contract signed by the Social Credit Government, was for SkyTrain to have a maximum capacity of 15,000 pphpd, which it has now achieved in peak hours. The Millennium Line was to have a maximum theoretical capacity of 26,000 pphpd, but was supposed to deliver the same 15,000 when built.
It has been the “delivered capacity” that has been the nail in SkyTrain’s coffin as it is less than what LRT can achieve at a fraction of the cost. And to those who think I am making this up (the resident trolls), it was explained to me back in the ’90’s by transit engineer from the states and not Gerald Fox.
Yes, SkyTrian can handle a higher capacity, but so can LRT, especially if it operates on a grade separated R-o-W, but LRT still retains the ability to operate on lesser (read much cheaper) R-o-W’s if need be.
Oops, the 3.7 Billion also includes big software upgrades to the ATC system as well.
For about the 10th or 20th time since I started correcting you on this blog I do not work for and am not associate with Translink or any similar related agency. I have mentioned this enough times I can only assume you continue to say it purely because you have nothing better to say in responding to my points. Grow up. The 26,000pphpd number is from the capacity upgrade study easy to find online. I believe it also includes reduced headways from 108seconds to 90seconds.
Zwei replies: A capacity upgrade costing $3.7 billion. One can build a lot of LRT for that.
I do make mistakes so I will make a correction. The 3.7 Billion is Operations Costs and Capital costs for the Expo Line upgrades is 1,092,000,000 or approximately 1.1 Billion. So my point still counts, to run larger trains and have a capacity of 26,000 (25700 actually) and not have the line fall down due to structural failure Translink will have to spend between 1.85-2.9 Billion and a extra 712,000,000 (starting 2010) in operating costs uptill 2041 or an average of 22,976,471 a year. Assuming the phase 1 upgrades defined in the Expo Line Upgrade Report were fully implemented. All of which had to occur so the needed phase 2 & 3 upgrades as defined in the Expo Line Upgrades Report can begin. The list of things not included in the upgrade costs is quite long and should be investigated as was proposed in the Recommendation and Implementation Strategy of the report.
Its getting late and I have to take the kids to school so I will be brief. The thing that really pisses me off professionally is that, transit product suppliers vehicles and other services are now acting like car salesmen instead cold sober professionals they used to be. Advertising what capabilities are possible but not what you can do with what you actually purchased is an extremely unfortunate industry wide problem that is starting to get out of control. Case in point, frequency below your current 108 seconds to say 90 seconds. I know for a fact that, Transport Canada, the people you have to get permission from to lower your operating headway because they change the conditions on your rail operating licence put Translink through the proverbial ringer to get 108 seconds. Anything less than that is going to be tough to get past them especially now. Thanks to the massive manpower cuts the Conservative government put them through to balance the budget they have a backlog and are not in a very forgiving mood. Its really easy for them to say no and move on to the next case. In other words don’t hold your breath if you want Transport Canada to change something like minimum operating headway or a lowering of allowed operating frequencies.
Zwei replies: Mr. Cow, your knowledge on the subject is excellent and it is these hither to not mentioned nuances about transit and transit operation is more than just informative. We have, at this point in time, academics from both major universities claiming that SkyTrian can operate at 60 second headways – no problem, while at the same time claiming that LRT/streetcar/tram can’t run at 6 minute headways! In Europe, 30 second headways are not uncommon and I have plenty of video evidence to back that up.
I have kept a long correspondence with several railway signalling engineers and they pointed out many problem with short headways, especially on ATC lines, but the major problem is that of maintenance and if managers reduce maintenance on signalling, especially on ATC lines, serious problems arise with reliability of operation. Proper preventative maintenance (read expensive) is a must on ATC railways to retain reliability, especially driverless ATC railways.
Oh hell, the Harborfront Line in Toronto runs sub 120 second frequencies during rush hour. When you are looking north on Spadina Ave. in Toronto, you can see all the cars approaching you as they go around Spadina House in the middle of the road just standing at Dundas St. and Spadina Ave. They certainly don’t have any ATC control. The planned frequency of the Confederation LRT line in Ottawa at peak is 196 seconds or 3 minutes and 16 seconds and all under human control. In fact, many if not all the regular Streetcar lines in The Big Smoke (one of the nicknames locals call Toronto, its still one my favorites) do a lower frequency than 6 minutes, especially at rush hour. The only lines that don’t are the Downtowner and the Kingston Rd. Shuttle both of which are rush hour only extra services.
Zwei replies: The old Brit tram slogan from the 20’s to 50’s was “Always a tram in sight”.
Here is a bit of logic that has somehow escaped many.
No one seems to have any problems operating buses on Broadway at frequencies less than 10 seconds (seen a lot of times, caused by bus bunching) yet people tear their hair out when one mentions trams traveling at 30 second headways.for trams. I don’t get it.
It is like this other bit of logic that is lost, comparing trams operating on a median alinement and gutter or curb lane operation. With a tram (or bus) operating on the median, 100% of the passengers must cross 50% of the street; but with curb operations 100% of the passengers must cross 100% of the street on a return journey.
Here is another little Transport Canada ditty. Last May OC Transpo accepted are six new Alstom Lint 41 DMU ‘s for the new upgraded service on the O Train line. The operational certificate that will allow these vehicles to legally operate in Canada was supposed to have arrived from Transport Canada sometime in the fall so that the new 7-8 minute service frequency could start in January 2014. Everyone is still waiting and now its looking like July or August 2014 till they get Transport Canada approval and with a little luck start operating by late September or October 2014. You see driver training cannot legally begin until operational approval is received from Transport Canada. That includes training on simulators as well.