The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus – LRT – Metro Comparison
Every year I reprint this post to remind everyone of the ability to move large amount of people at an affordable cost.
There is an ongoing debate today that LRT can only carry a limited number of riders and that the magic number for a subway is about 100,000 riders a day on a transit line. This may have been true in the 197’s, but not the 21st century, where modern multi-articulated low-floor light rail vehicles (tram is much easier to say!) are able to easily carry three or four times this number, thus negating the need for expensive subway construction, except on the most heavily used routes. The LRTA shows that modern LRT can carry over 20,000 pphpd in 1986 and in 2010, in Karlsruhe Germany, one tram or LRT line on Kaisserstrasse was seeing traffic flows over 35,000 pphpd.
Karlsruhe also shows what the threshold for traffic flows necessitating subway construction in Germany, after many very expensive lessons with subways built on lesser routes.
Those who demand a SkyTrain Broadway subway should take note.
The 1986 LRTA Study: Bus LRT Metro Comparison
The following is from the Light Rail Transit Associations hand book Light Rail Transit Today, comparing the operating parameters of bus, light rail, and metro on an unimpeded 8 kilometre route with stations every 450 metres. Using real data based on acceleration, deceleration, dwell time, etc., the study gives real time information for the three transit modes.
Please note: This study has been abridged for brevity and clarity.
The study assumes a vehicle capacity for a bus at 90 persons; LRT 240 persons (running in multiple unit doubles capacity); and metro at 1000 persons.
The time to over the 8 km. route would be:
- Bus 22.4 minutes
- LRT 18 .6 minutes
- Metro 16.3 minutes
The Round trip time, including a 5 minute layover:
- Bus 54.8 minutes
- LRT 47.2 minutes
- Metro 42.6 minutes
The comparative frequency of service in relation to passenger flows would be:
At 2,000 persons per hour per direction:
- Bus 2.7 minute headways, with 22 trips.
- LRT 7.5 minute headways, with 8 trips.
- LRT (2-car) 15 minute headways, with 4 trips.
- Metro 30 minute headways, with 2 trips.
At 6,000 pphpd:
- 1 Bus 0.9 minute headways, with 67 trips.
- LRT 2.4 minute headways, with 17 trips.
- LRT (2-car) 4.8 minutes, with 13 trips.
- Metro 10 minute headways with 6 trips.
At 10,000 pphpd:
- Bus 30 second headways, with 111 trips (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical).
- LRT 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
- LRT (2 car) 2.8 minute headways, 21 trips
- Metro 6 minute headways, 10 trips.
At 20,000 pphpd:
- LRT 0.7 minute headways, with 83 trips.
- LRT (2 car) 1.4 minute headways, with 42 trips.
- Metro 3 minute headways, with 20 trips.
Comparative Staff Requirements on vehicles in relation to passenger flows. Station staff in brackets ().
At 2,000 pphpd:
- Bus 21 (0)
- LRT 7 (0)
- LRT (2 car) 4 (0)
- metro 2 (up to 38)
At 6,000 pphpd:
- Bus 61 (0)
- LRT 20 (0)
- LRT (2 car) 10 (0)
- Metro 5 (up to 38)
At 10,000 pphpd:
- Bus 110 (traffic flows above 10,000 pphpd impractical) (0).
- LRT 34 (0)
- LRT (2 car) 17 (0)
- Metro 8 (up to 38)
At 20,000 pphpd:
- LRT 69 (0)
- LRT (2 car) 34 (0)
- Metro 15 (up to 38)
Though the study is 30 years old and completed before the advent of low-floor trams (which decreased dwell times), it still give a good comparison of employee needs for each mode. Metro, especially automatic metro systems do require a much larger maintenance staff than for bus or LRT and when one factors in the added high cost of subway or viaduct construction plus higher operational costs, Metro only become a viable proposition when traffic flows exceed 16,000 pphpd to 20,000 pphpd on a transit route.
Claims from other blogs that automatic metros can operate more frequent headway’s than LRT are untrue; automatic metros can not operate at higher frequencies than LRT, but if Metro is operated at close headway’s in times of low traffic flows, they do so with a penalty in higher maintenance costs and operational costs.
Taking into account the almost universal use of low-floor trams, operating in reserved rights-of-ways, combined with advances in safe signal priority at intersections; given an identical transit route with equal stations or stops, LRT operating on the surface (on-street) would be just as fast as a metro operating either elevated or in a subway at a fraction of the overall cost grade separated R-o-Wai??i??s. Also, automatic (driverless) metros, though not having drivers have attendants and station staff, which negate any claim that automatic metros use less staff than light rail.
The LRTA study does give good evidence why LRT has made light-metros such a as SkyTrain and VAL obsolete.
http://www.railforthevalley.com/latest-news/zweisystem/the-1986-lrta-study-bus-lrt-metro-comparison/
Sounds of Silence
No surprise here, as Zwei has been sounding alarm bells over this upcoming fiasco for years
Now TransLink has an American out of Seattle as the new CEO and this means the sky is the limit for spending on rail transit.
Seattle’s LRT is LRT in name only as it is actually a light metro with over 90% of its route either in a subway or on a viaduct. The European light rail Renaissance, did reach the shores of North America but “big money” interests prevented much traction and in the USA and Canada, the race is on on how one can spend the most amount of money for the least amount of transit.
As repeated many times, TransLink does not plan transit, rather it implements what the premier’s Office tells it to do and the premier’s office will only invest in transit to satisfy the needs of friends and cronies of the government.
In Vancouver, rapid transit is used to subsidize development and nothing more and the transit customer, as always in Metro Vancouver, is left waiting at a station with no service.
Cone of silence over cost estimates for Broadway subway, Surrey LRT
A week after its Mayorsai??i?? Council endorsed a plan to raise property taxes and hike transit fares to begin its expansion, TransLink is refusing to …By Bob Mackin | Sept. 23, 2016
A week after its Mayorsai??i?? Council endorsed a plan to raise property taxes and hike transit fares to begin its expansion, TransLink is refusing to provide the latest cost estimates for the biggest items on its long-term wish list.
*
The Broadway subway and Surrey light rail were estimated in 2014 to cost $1.98 billion and $2.14 billion, respectively. Last March, City of Surrey rapid transit project manager Paul Lee admitted rising real estate prices had pushed the Surrey proposalai??i??s estimated budget to $2.6 billion.*
The public portion of the Sept. 23 quarterly meeting contained no mention about either project. Business in Vancouver asked TransLink CEO Kevin Desmond at a post-meeting news conference for an update and whether the cost estimates had increased by a billion dollars each.*
ai???Weai??i??re not prepared to talk about what the estimates are,ai??? Desmond said. ai???Itai??i??s during that period of time in the months ahead that we [will] further will pin down the cost estimates going forward. By the time weai??i??re ready to proceed with the investment plan on phase two, weai??i??ll be in a much better position to have more accurate estimates associated.ai???*
On March 30, TransLink CFO Cathy McClay admitted the cost estimates had gone up, but she wouldnai??i??t provide numbers. She said consultants were given extra time, until June 30, to deliver their reports. She blamed the high cost of real estate and the decrease in the loonieai??i??s buying power for materials.*
In early 2015, Steer Davies Gleave and Hatch Mott MacDonald were hired on a $1.56 million conceptual design and cost estimate study for the Surrey proposal. They subcontracted Stantec (TSX:STN), Via Architecture, Anthony Steadman and Associates and the Stewart Group. Stantec is leading the $1.4 million study on the Broadway proposal with subcontractors Jacobs Associates, Golder Associates, Allen Parker Consulting, Site Economics, Westco Consulting, Edward LeFlufy Urban Design & Architecture, Locke & Locke, Dessau, BTY Group and Anthony Steadman and Associates.*
ai???These are both very, very complicated projects and you go thorough a design process that is highly iterative,ai??? Desmond said. ai???During a prolonged design and engineering process for very complicated public works projects you go through eventually value engineering exercise as well, and weai??i??re not there yet.ai???*
Meanwhile, Desmond declined to comment on the impending sale of the Oakridge Transit Centre to Intergulf Development Group. BIV sources say the transaction for the 13.8 acre, mixed-use residential building opportunity could be worth as much as $400 million.*
ai???We have no further information on that property transaction at this point in time,ai??? Desmond said.
Rail for the Valley’s Canada 150th Anniversary Treat!
Passenger train’s operating on the old Vancouver to Chilliwack interurban line may happen for two weeks during Canada’s 150th celebrations and the RftV group needs your help to make it happen!
The West Coast Railway Association, in conjunction with Rail for the Valley and the Southern Railway ofAi?? BC have put together a package, seeing a heritage diesel loco and four passenger cars, tentatively to operate on two weekends in the summer of 2017.
The upfront cost for this to happen is around $90,000.
Expensive yes, but consider this; the cost for just the ‘train’ rental is $25,000 and the cost to bring it from Squamish to Chilliwack is $15,000!
Other costs are buses, $24,000 for bus rentals for those making one way trips the rest of the costs is made up of insurance, advertising, etc.
RftV needs $6,000 now, $6,000 a month before the train leaves and $6,000 the day of departure.
Ticket sales are designed to meet the cost of the event and based on 90% sold tickets, the cost of a one way would be around $43.75, but this has not been finalized.
What is important now is to secure funding for this event and if you or anyone wishes to donate to this event, make inquiries via the rail for the valley web site.
This is an exciting event and please get involved!
Unlike Toronto, TransLink Can’t Cancel A SkyTrain Contract
Toronto is cancelling its contract with Bombardier, which would have provided light rail vehicles for Toronto’s planned LRT network and the TTC is also looking at dumping Bombardier as the supplier for their tram replacement program due to non delivery of new trams as per the contract schedule
This is why Bombardier Inc. love proprietary railways like our ALRT/ART (SkyTrain) system because the customer is tied to one supplier and it is far too expensive for the competition to design a new rail vehicle, for a small order, to operate on another’sAi?? proprietary railway.
The Canada Line is a good example because it is in reality a heavy-rail metro dumbed down as a light metro but it is also a generic railway vehicle and can operate on almost any railway and metro system around the world, but it cannot operate in conjunction with our proprietary ALRT/ART mini-metro.
This means through running is impossible and now the Canada line has become a stand alone mini-metro line and being so, is slowly becoming more and more apparent with politicians that it is a “white elephant”.
Back to Toronto; Siemens, Alstom, Stadler, and more are waiting to pick up the Toronto LRV contract, something that would not happen in Vancouver.
The proprietaryAi?? LIM powered ALRT/ART SkyTrain system is
not compatible in operation with conventional railways.
Bombardierai??i??s arrogance costs commuters in light-rail setback
Bombardier reaped what it sowed when it lost the Toronto LRT contract, writes David Olive.
Bumai??i??s rush for Bombardier
The pressure will soon be on Bombardier Inc. to get serious about splitting the company into its rail and aerospace operations.
Each are troubled, but might fare better on its own, solely focused on their respective businesses.
Ontario last week told the Montreal-based Bombardier it is terminating its $770-million contract to buy all 182 light-rail vehicles (LRVs) needed for extensive expansion to Torontoai??i??s public transit network.
A pilot Bombardier LRV to have arrived in Toronto three years ago missed its latest delivery deadline last week. By the time it does arrive, Ontario will have given part of the LRT contract to eager bidders Siemens AG of Germany and Franceai??i??s Alstom S.A.
In a separate fiasco, Bombardier has been a chronic annoyance for Toronto Transit Commission commuters, made to cope with unreliable and late Bombardier equipment.
Post-Nortel and the halcyon days of BlackBerry, Bombardier is Canadaai??i??s biggest tech champion. It has long been nurtured by corporate welfare, and informal but real Buy Canada practices, notably in Ontario.
Squandering those advantages, Bombardier has worked hard to exemplify what a customer-unfriendly enterprise looks like. It deserves its bumai??i??s rush, which might finally teach Bombardier to shed the arrogance that drove Nortel to an early grave.
Broadway Subway Is Luxury Wrapped In Opulence – Designed To Sell A Mock P-3?
It did not take long for the Liberal fixers in Ottawa to hatch a scheme to keep their political friends awash in taxpayer`s dollars.
Public transit schemes are generally not money makers, in fact the vast majority of public transit operations around the globe are subsidized, many heavily subsidized.
A few light rail transit lines operate in what is called a P-3 or a Public, Private, Partnership, which has different meanings in different countries.
In the UK and Europe a P-3 ensures a well designed transit system, with complete public input and full disclosure. An integral part of a P-3 is that the operating consortium undertakes risk and by doing so also enables the operating consortium to enjoy the proceeds of an operating profit.
By undertaking risk, the P-3 consortium is entitled to make a profit from revenue generated from the transit line: including debt servicing! This type of P-3 generally results in a well designed, well run and user friendly transit system.
Because of the nuances of a P-3, expensive metros, light-metros and subways are almost never considered and instead LRT is considered a good vehicle for a P-3, with Dublin’s LUAS and Nottingham’s LRT operations being a good example.
Not so in BC and now Canada it seems as a P-3 tends to be a taxpayer subsidized payoff to friends in government. In fact it can be called a money laundering scheme!
The RAV/Canada line is a good example.
The RAV/Canada Line was supposed to be a BC Liberal showcase P-3 and with a compliant mainstream media the real story of the P-3 has never been told.
The then Premier Gordon Campbell and Minister of Transportation, Kevin Falcon were so ignorant of rapid transit they tried to make the planned RAV (Richmond, Airport, Vancouver) ALRT/ART proprietary SkyTrain Line a P-3.
To their combined shock and horror, they found out that SkyTrain was a “proprietary” transit system and incompatible in operation with other transit systems. It would be impossible to have a ALRT/ART SkyTrain P-3 because there could be only one bidder, thus the government held a mock P-3 where ART/ALRT (SkyTrain) patent holder SNC lavalin, in consortium with Bombardier pretended to bid against an SNC Lavalin/Hyundai, Siemens and Alstom. Siemens and Alstom were tossed out of the bidding process because they dared to use LRT vehicles (like Seattle) instead of a light/heavy rail metro vehicles.
The P-3 had turned into nothing more than a conspiracy to enrich SNC Lavalin at the taxpayer’s expense.
In the end the SNC/Hyundai consortium won, but the proposed RAV light-metro costs escalated from $1.3 billion to now over $2.4 billion and in order to SNC Lavalin/Hyundai consortium to build the RAV Line, they refused to except risk. Thus the RAV/Canada Line is nothing more than a taxpayer fed money laundering scheme designed to enrich SNC Lavalin lead consortium, now receiving over $110 million annually in taxpayer funded subsidies as the now named Canada Line does not have an operating profit.
Judge Pittfield, presiding over the failed Susan Heyes lawsuit and against TransLink, called the RAV/Canada line bidding process a “charade“!
And what did the taxpayer get for his/hers $2.4 billion? The only heavy rail metro in the world, build as a light metro, with less capacity than a simple streetcar costing a fraction to build.
What the BC Liberals have done in BC, has now been refined by the federal Liberals to ensure their political friends and insiders are able to slurp at the mock P-3 trough for generations to come!
The Canada Line, the model for federal Liberal corruption to come!
Liberals redirect $15B to infrastructure projects that ‘generate revenue’ for private investors
Finance Minister Bill Morneau delivered his fall fiscal updateTuesday afternoon.
The good news is Morneau announced the creation of a new “Canadian Infrastructure Development Bank” that will invest billions of dollars into infrastructure.
The bad news is Morneau is funding the new bank with $15 billion in previously announced spending earmarked for “socially useful, non-commercial projects like child care or affordable housing to cash-strapped cities.”
The other bad news is the only projects that will see a dime from the new bank are projects that have “revenue-generating potential” for the government’s private sector partnersAi??ai??i??Ai??a scheme to use public funds to subsidize and finance private infrastructure, in other words.
According to Finance Canada, much of the infrastructure spending will be privately-financed, with federal, provincial and municipal governments making up the difference.
Details show the federal government’s contribution will be $35 billion, although since the bank will only invest in “revenue-generating” projects, Canadians will possibly pay tolls and other fees to use infrastructure their tax dollars helped finance.
At the same time, the Liberal government says it will redirect $15 billion in previously announced spending that had been specifically earmarked for infrastructure projects relating to public transit, climate change, affordable housing and indigenous communities to projects that generate revenues for private investors.
Other recent reports have suggested theAi??Liberal government is also considering auctioning off public assets, like airports, to recoup costs.
SkyTrain Ka-Put Again. Is TransLink Out Of It’s Depth?
It is becoming all to regular, the Expo and Millennium Lines go down; TransLink can’t cope with the problem and transit customers are badly dealt with.
I think new TransLink CEO, Kevin Desmond is out of his league and if these frequent stoppages do not cease, he must resign.
What is even more disturbing is one TransLink spokesperson states that the problem is “mechanical”, while another spokesperson states the problem is “communications”.
TransLink, it seems, can’t even get their story straight, yet regional mayors want more and more taxes to keep this “ship of fools” in operation.
A “Ship of fools” indeed!
SkyTrain service resumes after multiple trains fail
Vancouver, BC, Canada / News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver’s News. Vancouver’s TalkPosted: November 01, 2016
Ai??Good news if youai??i??re getting ready to head home for the evening commute.
TransLink says itai??i??s cleared a backlog of disabled trains and regular service is resuming after after a mid-afternoon meltdown left a dozen trains out of commission.
TransLink spokesperson Ann Drennan says a technical issue around 1Ai??p.m.Ai??impacted service on the Expo Line in both directions from Waterfront to King George.
ai???There were 12 trains are impacted by the issues and those trains have to be manually driven back to the stations, six of them have already been brought back in.ai???
From News 1130 Radio
Mechanical issues cause SkyTrain delays
Posted Nov 1, 2016 1:46 pm PDT
VANCOUVER (NEWS 1130) ai??i?? Service is slowly returning to normal after major delays on the Expo and Millenium Lines this afternoon.
TransLink says there were temporary service delays due to mechanical issues on several trains across both lines. TransLink says the trains lost communication with computer systems.
Some SkyTrain users say the trains were stopped between stations for over an hour. Many people on Twitter were expressing their outrage and panic, calling on on TransLink to tell them what was going on and to make more announcements on the train. One person tweeted they were stuck on a train in the middle of the tracks for nearly 90 minutes before the train moved again.
Millennium Line wasAi??temporarily extended to Edmonds, while the Expo Line wasAi??running between King George and Edmonds stations only, with service to downtown paralyzed.
Drennan says the problem was a ai???train control communications issue,ai??? in which the 12 impacted trains lost contact with the main computer system and froze.
The Canada Line wasAi??unaffected.
The Railway for the Dead – Halloween Special
For Halloween
Devoted to carrying corpses, the London Necropolis Railway was the spookiest, strangest train line in British history ai??i?? but also possibly the most useful.
- By Amanda Ruggeri
18 October 2016
For 87 years, nearly every day, a single train ran out of London and back. It left from a dedicated station near Waterloo built specifically for the line and its passengers. The 23-mile journey, which had no stops after leaving London, took 40 minutes. Along the way to their destination, riders glimpsed the lovely landscapes of Westminster, Richmond Park and Hampton Court ai??i?? no mistake, as the route was chosen partly for its ai???comforting sceneryai???, as one of the railwayai??i??s masterminds noted.
How much comfort a route gives passengers isnai??i??t a usual consideration for a train line. But this was no normal train line.
Many of the passengers on the train would be distraught. The others ai??i?? those passengersai??i?? loved ones ai??i?? be dead. Their destination: the cemetery.
A rare view of the first London Necropolis Railway station, built in 1854; it was demolished after the new station was built in 1902 (Credit: SSPL)
In operation from 1854 to 1941, the London Necropolis Railway was the spookiest, strangest train line in British history. It transported Londonai??i??s dead south-west to Brookwood Cemetery, near Woking, in Surrey, a cemetery that was built in tandem with the railway. At its peak, from 1894 to 1903, the train carried more than 2,000 bodies a year.
It also transported their families and friends. Guests could leave with their dearly departed at 11:40am, attend the burial, have a funeral party at one of the cemeteryai??i??s two train stations (complete with home-cooked ham sandwiches and fairy cakes), and then take the same train back, returning to London by 3:30pm.
I consider it improper” ai??i?? Bishop of London, 1842
The pairing of grief and efficiency may seem a little jarring. It did then, too. ai???I consider it improper,ai??? sniffed the Bishop of London, testifying on the proposal before a House of Commons Select Committee in 1842. ai???At present we are not sufficiently habituated to that mode of travelling not to consider the hurry and bustle connected with it as inconsistent with the solemnity of a Christian funeral.ai???
But people became accustomed to it, says John Clarke, a historian who has written a book on the railway ai??i?? so much so, some failed to see what was odd about it at all. During his research, Clarke says, he asked one of the railway companyai??i??s former stonemasons if he had any photographs of the train. The stonemason, surprised, asked, ai???No ai??i?? why would I have that?ai???
Clarke explains: ai???For the people who worked at the cemetery, and for the [railway] company, it was what they did ai??i?? and it wasnai??i??t unusual.ai???
Still, thatai??i??s not to say that the idea of operating a train that exclusively transported dead bodies and mourners to a cemetery seemed ai???normalai??i?? when it was first proposed. Critics claimed that a train was too mechanical, too perfunctory, for the delicate work of funeral rites. They also worried that trains carrying corpses would later carry passengers ai??i?? a mix of living and dead riders would make for an unpalatable commute. That was one reason that the line had its own dedicated train stock.
Others expressed concern that different social classes would mix. There were separate carriages for each class, as was the custom at the time ai??i?? and continues to be the case on many British trains today. Even so, the fact that both banker and beggar would ride the same train and alight at the same cemetery station was somewhat egalitarian. So was the cemetery itself, which was divided not by class or status, but by religion ai??i?? Anglican burials, for example, were separated from other Christian denominations.
Opened in 1854, Brookwood Cemetery, also called the London Necropolis, remains the largest cemetery in Western Europe today (Credit: Peter Lane/Alamy)
Despite trepidation, the government went ahead with the plan anyway. In many ways, it had to.
By mid-19th Century, Londonai??i??s cemeteries were notoriously overcrowded. And as the cityai??i??s population grew, more than doubling from 1801 to 1851, the situation only worsened. Every year, London was burying another 50,000 dead ai??i?? but burial space remained less than 300 acres. That left gravediggers to turn to some particularly distasteful solutions, like digging up previously-buried bodies and cremating them at night. (Find out more about Londonai??i??s abundance of human remains and how they affect even modern train lines in our recent story about London rail and mass graves of plague victims). Only those who could afford spots in new, exclusive burial grounds like Highgate Cemetery, Londonai??i??s most famous cemetery, were exempt from possibly being exhumed and unceremonially cremated.
Stupid Is As Stupid Does – I Expect Nothing More From TransLink
So, what do the three new board members know about transit?
Zilch, nada, nothing.
But, I bet they all know how to cash a stipend.
Thus the farce we call TransLink, continues.
This is pork barrel politics at its very worst!
Three new members appointed to TransLink Board
Vancouver, BC, Canada / News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver’s News. Vancouver’s TalkPosted: October 26, 2016Ai??Ai??| Last Updated: October 26, 2016 10:19 am
There are three new members on the TransLink Board.
The Mayorsai??i?? Council has appointed Janet Austin, Sarah Clark, and Anne Giardini.
Austin is the CEO of YWCA Metro Vancouver, Clark is the COO of Fraser River Pile and Dredge, and Giardini is a lawyer, director and chancellor of Simon Fraser University.
Outgoing board members are Brenda Eaton, Barry Forbes, and current board chair Don Rose.
They will have completed their terms at the end of 2016.
Do The SkyTrain MK.3 Cars Have A Fatal Flaw?
Really. No, really, can’t TransLink come up with a better excuse than a “high tech glitch” for the recent embarrassing problems with the brand new MK.3 cars?
Evidently not.
Mk.3 cars high tech? No.
What the Mk.3 car is a new universal body shell to fit all of Bombardier’s ‘rail’ light-metros or other like light-metros that are in operation today.
The only real difference with a MK.3 car and a Mk.2 car, other than fewer seats, is that the light metro line now has coaches or cars that are gangwayed at both ends. Nothing high tech about that as railways have been doing that for over 100 years.
What the problem could be is that the new body shells are too heavy for the LIM’s and with heavier trains, the LIM’s overheat.
According to a letter, written to the late Des Turner, from the UK Professor Eric Laithwaite (who won a gold medal for his work on Linear Induction Motors) in the 1980’s , ALRT SkyTrian’s LIM’s were the wrong sort, as they were attractive LIM’s and not the more efficient repulsive LIM’s.
Professor Laithwaite
Being “attractive LIM’s” it was essential to maintain the almost impossible to maintain 1 cm air-gap between the LIM and the reaction rail. If not, the LIM would consume more power and generate more heat than it was designed for.
The LIM patents used by the UTDC on their ICTS/ALRT proprietary railway came from the Krause Maeffi MAGLEV which was once demonstrated at Toronto’s CNE and had a notorious reputation for not being able to operate on anything but a straight track.
The Krause Maeffi MAGLEV
From the start, SkyTrain’s LIM’s caused overheating problems and fans were added to cool the motors, which in turn cause problems in snowy weather where the fans blew we snow on the LIM’s causing short circuits.
The MK.2 cars or Bombardier’s ART cars used bigger LIM’s, to counter the problems of the heavier cars, which caused problems but most problems were “kept in trade” with but with TransLink replacing LIM’s at a high rate, which in turn drove up operating costs.
So, based on an educated guess, the new MK.3 cars are too heavy for the LIM’s; the LIM’s overheat; and the car stops. That is not a high tech problem, rather a production problem and it could be that the MK.3 cars have a fatal flaw for operation on LIM powered railways.
New Mark III SkyTrains so high-tech theyai??i??re glitching up
Vancouver, BC, Canada / News Talk 980 CKNW | Vancouver’s News. Vancouver’s TalkPosted: October 25, 2016
It was a ai???cooling fanai??i?? issue that sidelined one of the new SkyTrain cars during this morningai??i??s rush hour, causing commuter gridlock for a brief time, mainly at the Surrey stations.
The President and CEO of the BC Rapid Transit Company, which is responsible for the SkyTrain lines, says the new Mark III trains which were recently added to the system are so technically advanced theyai??i??re highly sensitive.
That increased sensitivity is whatai??i??s causing them to shut down when they detect what they see as a problem on the tracks.
Vivienne King says engineers are now working to re-calibrate the computers.
ai???What Iai??i??m doing is working with my engineers and because of this sensitivity of the calibration with the computers Iai??i??m going to put more techsAi??around the system so that when these things do happen we can get in quickly, we can correct it, we can learn and start to adjust this calibration.ai???
She adds that glitches are bound to arise as the new technology is pressed into service.
ai???New trains will have bugs in them no matter how much we work and we test and we re-test. Ai??Iai??i??ve commissioned a number of trains in my career and you will get those things happening in the beginning of running them.ai???
King will also be looking into how TransLink communicated the delays with commuters.
READ MORE:Ai??SkyTrain delays as another Mark III train fails
This morningai??i??s disruption is at least the third time one of the new Mark III trains has failed.
Yesterday, another Mark III went down, due to a power surge.
And back in September, one was sidelined after losing power.
Seven of the new Mark III cars have been budgeted at $91 million, with 28 in total expected over the next three years.
In Metro Vancouver……
The subway lobby seem hard at it in Toronto and have been caught out by an independent public watchdog, set up to protect the taxpayer.
Metro Vancouver and its member municipalities has no such watchdog to watch for bureaucratic or political malfeasance and with the media well in bed with Metro Vancouver politicians, the taxpayer is greatly ill served!
In Metro Vancouver, Subway fantasies are taken for fact as are lies about LRT.
In Metro Vancouver, professionals are immune to professional misconduct charges and investigations.
In Metro Vancouver, the mainstream media myopia on current transit planning is based on who buys the advertising.
In Metro Vancouver taxpayers are being held to ransom by dishonest politicians and their enablers, dishonest bureaucrats and the provincial government, which just loves it that way.
Honesty is not a word used in Metro Vancouver, either by civic politicians and bureaucrats and no one gives a damn about the taxpayer.
Watchdog says city staff may have violated public service code over Scarborough subway advice
Ombudsman should investigate whether staff was serving the public interest, Democracy Watch co-founder says.
By Jennifer PagliaroCity Hall reporterMon., Oct. 24, 2016
An independent public watchdog says city staff who contributed to and distributed information in the midst of a key Scarborough subway debate may have violated the cityai??i??s public service bylaw.
A Star analysis earlier found that a briefing note produced by the TTC was used by the mayor and allied councillors to kill any return of a light-rail plan in Scarborough and that staff discredited the LRT while advancing a one-stop subway now estimated to cost more than $3.2 billion.
ai???It says act with integrity,ai??? Democracy Watchai??i??s Duff Conacher said of the values set out in the bylaw, which are not clearly defined in the municipal code itself.
Spokespeople for the TTC and the city rejected Conacherai??i??s characterization, repeating that staff provided their best professional advice.
Itai??i??s not clear who is responsible for enforcing the bylaw, but Conacher, who co-founded the advocacy group, said any investigation should be handled by the cityai??i??s ombudsman, who hears public complaints, not by city managers.
The ombudsman does not have the ability to discipline staff, only to respond to and report on complaints. If an investigation is initiated, the ombudsman can report to council with recommendations.
Failing to comply with the cityai??i??s bylaw, which came into effect in December 2015, means a staff member could be ai???subject to disciplinary action up to and including dismissal.ai???
ai???These are incredibly serious allegations that, on the face of it, appear to attack staffai??i??s integrity and professionalism,ai??? TTC spokesperson Brad Ross wrote in an email. ai???We refute such characterizations strongly. Staff stand by the process, the briefing note and the answers provided to city council.ai???
Recent Comments