A Question Of Capacity – Reprinted from the Light Rail Transit Association
This is a repost from the Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA), because again politcans in metro Vancouver do not have a clue about “capacity” as evidenced in the local media.
Please copy or Email this to your local civic, provincial and federal politcans.
A QUESTION OF CAPACITY
THE CAPACITIES of different modes of transport are generally quoted as 0-10 000 passengers per hour for bus, 2000-20 000 for light rail, and 15 000 upwards for heavy rail/subway.
* Maximum capacity is only likely to be required for a few hours during peak hours, and even here there are likely to be variations both day by day and within each hour. The capacity required originates from the route’s social characteristics.
* As for the vehicles, buses have a comfort capacity equal to the number of seats, and a maximum capacity equal to seats plus standing load.
* In the case of trams, it is more complicated. The nominal maximum capacity is calculated at four passengers per square metre of available floor space (a reasonably comfortable level), plus the number of seats.
* As trams are designed to carry a large standing load, the ratio of standees to seats is quite high. The standing area is also important for the carrying of wheelchairs, pushchairs, shopping and sometimes bicycles. Some manufacturers quote maximum capacity using 6p/m2 while a figure of 8p/m 2 is used as a measure of crush capacity. This last figure is also employed to determine the motor rating of the vehicle.
* A further complication is that even when there are seats available, some passengers prefer to stand. This may be because they are only traveling for a few stops, that they want to stretch their legs, or may just prefer to stand.
* A tram’s comfort capacity can therefore be considered as the number of seats, plus the voluntary standees who may amount to up to 10-15% of the nominal maximum number of standing passengers.
ELASTICITY
* It is the difference between the average passenger load for any particular time and the crush load which gives light rail its Elasticity Factor, allowing it to cope with variations in conditions such as sudden surges or emergency conditions.
* Standing is made more acceptable by the design of track and vehicle, reducing the forces acting on the passenger to a minimum. This makes for a smooth ride, as well as ensuring ease of access, good support and the ability to see out without having to stoop.
* Where a route is mainly urban with short journey times, the number of vehicles required should be calculated on the nominal maximum. On longer journeys outside the central area, a lower level may be more appropriate, dependent on the route’s characteristics. Even on rural sections, there are likely to be a a number of short distance riders, and the loading factor will increase nearer to the urban area.
COMPRESSIBILITY
* While it might be thought desirable to offer every passenger a seat, it is in fact the ability to carry high loadings in a confined area (the Compressibility Factor) which enables light rail to achieve many environmental benefits, allowing large numbers of people to be carried without harming, and often improving, the features of a city.
* It is city centres where several routes combine that the most capacity is required. A typical situation could be a pedestrian street with six routes operating at 10-minute headway giving 36 double coupled trams per hour each with a capacity of 225. This gives a nominal capacity of16 200 passengers per hour which can be increased to 25 200 pph in extremis without extra vehicles.
Light rail is unique in this ability to operate on the surface with its capacity without detracting from the amenities which it serves. A further factor in setting the resources required is the need to lure motorists out of cars. The more difficult the traffic conditions, the higher the loading’s will be acceptable. It is however important that crush loads are not allowed for more than the shortest of periods on an infrequent basis, both to maintain customer satisfaction and prevent elasticity of the system being compromised.
* It is vital that public transport can cope with sudden changes in demand, such as extreme inclement weather or air quality violations which can cause private traffic to be halted. This is where the elasticity inherent in light rail is so beneficial in enabling an instant response in an economical fashion. A tram may be crowded, but its infinitely better than having to wait in the snow of smog until extra vehicles are brought into service.
* It is this unique combination of Capacity, Compressibility and Elasticity rather than capacity alone which makes light rail so successful as an urban transport mode.
* Note Statistics are based on Karlsruhe, using GT/8 cars
40 years of operation in december
75.2M 200 seat 450/700 passengers x 100 sec Frequency or 36 TPH 16,200/25,200 pph
84.8 m 113 seat 672/1207 passengers x 122 sec Frequency or 29.5 TPH 19,824/ 35,606.5 pph
108 sec 33.33 TPH 22,397.7/40,229 pph
skytrain signal upgrade 98 sec 36 TPH 24,100/43,450 pph
Capacity is not the problem.
Money is not the problem.
Your issue is the priority of skytrain over regional/commuter rail?
Interrupt from downtown Vancouver to Chilliwack took 3 hours.
Today by highway 1 able in 1 hour and 20(speed limit)
Skytrain, and 66 bus 2 hours.
Rail further valley 2 hours 4 min
Issue is Fraser valley doesn’t want to pay for it operationally!!!
Zwei replies: You don’t make sense.
The German Schwebbeban has run for 124 years, so what is your point?
Leewood Study Time from Chilliwack to Scott Road Station – 90 minutes. Do not compare 1950’s travel times with many more stations with 2025 travel times using modern stock.
Mk.1 cars capacity Practical capacity – 60 persons, crush capacity 75 persons. six car train 360 persons to 450 persons. Again, we wary of TransLink’s numbers because they are strictly for politcal purposes.
Thales News release re $1.47 billion signalling contract; “When the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively.”
Agai, Thales should know they are doing the resignalling!
As former female colleague of mine would say, “wow boys talking about how big their trains are (capacity or penis size)!
“Me and another colleague of mine created a very complicated mathematic model that clearly shows how you start to really lose choice passengers once capacity is anywhere between 85% – 90%. The loss of choice passengers becomes really steep once capacity goes over 90%. In fact, you lose a lot of non-choice or captive riders during peak periods as well because they delay a transit trip or leave earlier.
Unfortunately, the Skytrain network as used is very low in capacity, having less than many new LRT systems and of course, any existing full scale Metro systems. Zwei, many new Metro systems don’t need anywhere near 15,000 p/h/d to be profitable, 9000 – 10,000 p/h/d is just fine. The real trick is how many passengers are you getting on a daily basis. 20,000 p/h/d is great at peak hour but if your full scale metro is moving less than 250,000 passengers a day and you have significant tunnel and or overly grand expensive to maintain stations, your screwed.
The problem is the basic assumptions of the light Metro systems like the Skytrain. Small trains running on lighter cheaper infrastructure but at higher operating frequencies and operating tempo (a very under reported and under appreciated metric) . You can build all the light trains and infrastructure you want but running them at high operating tempo and frequencies wears out your lighter infrastructure faster, giving much higher long term operating and maintenance costs. This what is happening right now with Translink.
One of the basic tenants of railroading learned since the opening of the Manchester and Liverpool railway in 1832, its far, far cheaper to make a train longer than to add another train. Being driverless doesn’t lower the operating costs enough when frequency can’t go below what your currently doing (109 seconds) because although, you might eventually be given permission by Transport Canada to operate higher train frequencies, than current limits, anything below 100 seconds will significantly slow down the end to end travel time. The trains on the Expo and Millennium lines can’t get any longer than the Mk. 5’s coming into service now.
You have reached a limit, at 17,500 p/h/d due to your signalling limitation plus, if the line extension to Langley starts before your OMC #5 is built, you will be very short on maintenance space, thus limiting your operating tempo for years to come.
LRT seems a much safer long term option, especially since nobody else builds the trains for the Millennium and Expo lines except Alstom. Due to comments by Alstom staff said to me, they don’t seem overly interested at building more either, unless you guys pay a big premium. The Movia technology bought from the sale of Bombardier directly competes with many existing Alstom owned products.
Zwei replies: Yes, capacity is a sort of penis envy with Translink and the SkyTrain Lobby, but they live in their own bubble.
One of the chaps who was involved with REM in Montreal had a blunt conversation with an Alstom Engineer and he told him that Alstom will abandon production after the last paid for car leaves the factory. The system is basically unsalable and they want no part with it. Again, our local Skytrain crowd do not want to beleive this and continue to float plans for SkyTrain here, there and everywhere.
Can you expand on that story about the chap from REM? I’m not trying to be nosy, I had a remarkably similar conversation with a gentleman here in Ottawa on that subject. He stated that there was going to be a product pair down. Whenever, possible existing Bombardier North America (Alstom’s official name for its new North American division) contracts will be honoured and long running and very profitable Bombardier products will continue like the Bi-Level commuter coaches and the Flexity LRV (it was far too popular to kill but will probably receive Alstom touches). Eventually, a new LRV combining the best of the Flexity and Citadis design elements and technology will be produced. However, outside of North America the name Bombardier is dead and its Alstom only.
Zwei replies: I have sent you an Email.
I haven’t checked lately but the TTC use to have these vehicle graphics with their functional capacity. Notice I said “functional capacity” not maximum crush capacity. What this meant was if too many buses, streetcars or subway trains exceeded their functional capacity, they would, this the important part, IF POSSIBLE, the TTC would add extra vehicles to the route or line. This made it more comfortable to the passengers. They do this because passenger comfort is paramount in keeping them.
Before anyone in T.O. jumps on me, yes, I have been on many TTC bus, streetcars and subway trains packed to the roof and it can be brutal but I do know they try, they don’t always succeed but they do try, believe it or not. It’s mostly about which vehicles are availability, I know lately they just don’t have enough budget, drivers and available vehicles.
Zwei replies: Passenger comfort?????? That is an alien concept with TransLink. The MK.5 cars have virtually no seats, as well being very user-unfriendly for the mobility impaired! See the next post.
Mr haveacow
Sorry, LRV and MK trains same dimensions will carry the same amount of people. No point to compare.
Skytrain expansion program is capacity upgrade expo line and M Line. Next service increase M Line 2 car to 4 car MK 2 temporary measure until they separate the EXPO and M line at Columbia station. Service frequency changes when the SLS is complete. Translink is anticipated to be added capacity limit of the Expo LINE in 2040 or sooner.
OMC 5 opening after the SLS extension so not planning to overnight maintenance on the new track for a while. SLS need OMC 5 to have a long enough maintenance window.
Overcrowding will still exist. Going forward doesn’t matter which transit agency. Bus operations will always need to be subsidized because North American wages and standards.
Alstom has killed flexibility lineup of LRV. Promoting mobility solutions: Citadis light rail, Metropolis metros , Avelia high-speed trains,Traxx locomotives, Coradia regional trains, Adessia coach solutions(MultiLevel lV), Adessia commuter trains, Innovia people mover and monorail. Heavily promote a P3 operational contract, planning and design. MK car frame body design is the same monorail if discontinuing monorail systems Vancouver looks at higher prices for new skytrain! Bylevel is still out sold the multi-level.
MK5 product model ART 1700-1800.
Mr zwei
Thales the information was from Translink, not themselves on the actual signing capability. Quoted from the 10 year plan 2017-2026.
Zwei replies: so much misinformation and word salads. LRV’s and MK 5 trains are not of the same dimension, far from it.
Example: Alstom’s Citidis Tram comes in 3, 4, or 5 car sections. Siemens Avenio Flex trams comes in 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 sections ranging from 18 metres to 72 metres in length. SkyTrain MK.5’s are 84 metres in length but a coupled set of Citidis or Avenio cars would be much longer, offering higher capacity.
To increase capacity beyond the current 17,500 pphpd on the Expo Line, means a complete rebuilding of all the stations to include larger entrances and exists, escalators and elevators to handle larger passenger flows. Sourcing new cars will also be problematic because they will be long out of production, this they will be extremely costly.
As for the $1.47 billion signalling rehab News Release announcing “When the programme is fully implemented, the Expo Line will be able to accommodate 17,500 passengers per hour per direction, and the Millennium Line will be able to handle 7500 passengers per hour per direction, a 32% and 96% increase respectively.” was from Thales who bought advertising space in international transportation journals.
I do not know where you get your information from, but if it is from Translink, they are full of spin doctors and purveyors of “fake news” and ‘alternative’ facts and seldom ever answer a question honestly.
Herr Spielzeugbausteine I must applaud you as you have out done yourself on this issue, you have everything wrong.
When our company was bidding on the the now called Canada Line, TransLink did not know the difference of Linear Induction Powered trains and standard electric motor powered trains and by all accounts they still do not understand.
Light metro is only used in certain cities which building parameters are such that operating a tram is impossible or undesirable due to route constraints. Light metros generally have less capacity than trams, especially if trams operate on there own right of ways free of other traffic.
We tried to explain this in Vancouver but it all fell on deaf ears as your politcans and bureacrats said they knew better.
This is why Vancouver is a sort of a joke on our side of the pond, the Trumps of transit!
@ Legoman if you want any large amount of federal infrastructure funding currently, although this may change soon. You have to do some form of a P3 approach, you have no choice. This has been law in Canada since 2012, when the Harper Conservative government made it a core condition for federal funding. The Liberals simply kept the provision.
The Expo Line will max out at 17,500 p/h/d and the Millennium Line at 7,500 p/h/d because that’s what your signalling system will be able to handle. It will stay that way until you spend another $1-$2 Billion to upgrade it. The Confederation LRT Line is designed for a maximum 24,750 p/h/d.
According to O.C. Transpo on Canada Day 2025, passenger flows exceeded 17,100 p/h/d, for the first time. The 2 car 97 metre long LRV trains (2, 4 section LRV’s each 48.5 m long), were running at a 3:45 minute intervals, dropping off and shuttling passengers between 3 major downtown Canada Day sites. The largest crowd was Lebreton Flats where over 100,000 people gathered. These kinds of crowds are normal on Canada due to the centralization of activities and the free transit fare. Nowhere near the 180,000 – 250,000 we used to get when everything was concentrated on Parliament Hills and the first 6 blocks of east-west roads (all closed to traffic for the day) of Centretown as well as the Byward Market, in the 1990’s and early 2000’s.