Oops! Not all Is Well With TransLink’s MK.5’s Cars
Oh dear, someone forgot their measuring tape.
TransLink is spending a lot of time spinning the delivery of the new (or not so new) Mk.5 cars.
Could it be that TransLink wants to hide the fact that the so called new cars are none other than old Innovia 300, 4-car stock, with an added saloon, making it 5-car Movia Automatic Light Metro stock, which to confuse matters more, TransLink now call the trains SkyTrain MK.5’s.
From what Zwei has been told, TransLink was faced with a Hobson’s Choice ( A Hobson’s choice is a free choice in which only one thing is actually offered) with these cars, either take what you get or don’t buy them.
It seems the bidding process for the cars, was as phony as a three dollar bill as the under-bidder for the cars, the Chinese Railway Corporation did not have an operating vehicle and the bidding was basically what Bombardier offered or a vague non existent car by the CRRC.
Then there was Bombardier’s sale of their railway division to Alstom, so they did not care about the order because it would be soon Alstom’s problem. Thus fine details like a 5 cm rise from platform to train was ignored because it would soon not be Bombardier’s concern.
Alstom is sticking, strictly to the contract they inherited from Bombardier and not helping TransLink much, as they will soon cease production of the proprietary MALM system and cannot fathom why anyone would continue building with the now obsolete proprietary light metro system.
As for the mobility impaired, well welcome to TransLink’s world where the customer comes last.
Above: Innovia 300, 4-car stock as used in Kuala Lumpur.
Mind the gap: Wheelchair passengers question accessibility of new Mark V SkyTrains
By Simon Little & Angela Jung Global News
Posted August 11, 2025
It has been one month since TransLink announced a “new era” for SkyTrain as its new Mark V trains rolled into service, but some commuters say they’ve seen a step backward in accessibility.
TransLink has ordered 235 Mark V train cars, which will eventually replace older trains serving both the Expo and Millennium lines. The transit authority has touted their wider aisles and open multi-use areas that can accommodate strollers, wheelchairs and other mobility devices.
2:10Accessibility issues remain on SkyTrain in Vancouver
But transit users like Janice Laurence say the new train cars aren’t level with many of the stations’ platforms, forcing riders to hop up as much as five centimetres to get aboard.
For commuters like Laurence, who uses a wheelchair, that is a problem.
“Look at how high that is. There shouldn’t be a gap like that,” she told Global News.
“Sometimes I’ve waited for three trains because I physically couldn’t get on.”
Laurence said the new trains should be flush with the platforms, and that she was frustrated the new trains weren’t better equipped for people with mobility issues.
Mark V SkyTrain cars now in service on Expo Line
Tessa Schmidt, who gets around with a wheelchair and a service dog, said she recently became stuck halfway on one of the new trains because she couldn’t get her back wheel aboard.
Passengers on the train had to hold the doors open so she could back out; her dog had already boarded ahead of her, and she said she feared he could have been separated or hurt.
“I was excited for the new trains to come in, and I expected there to be issues and concerns with new modes of transportation, new things, but I did not expect it to be a couple of inches,” she said.
“I find it frustrating because this is an issue that they should have looked at for not just people in wheelchairs, but people with walkers and elderly people pulling carts… TransLink is spending a lot of money on these new trains.”
Schmidt said TransLink is well aware of the issue, as its station attendants are frequently called on to help people get aboard the trains.
She added that a staff member told her TransLink was looking into possibly adapting the platforms to address the problem.
TransLink says it tested the new trains extensively and that a review of its platform gaps found they met safety and accessibility standards.
“Our gaps go above and beyond when it comes to the Americans with Disabilities Act standards,” spokesperson Anita Bathe said.
2:57Sneak peak into massive Broadway SkyTrain project
However, she said “there’s always room for improvement,” and that the transit agency wants feedback from its riders.
“We want to make sure going forward that no rider has to experience something like this, and we will look at the issue at hand and try to make improvements going forward,” she added.
Laurence and Schmidt both say they hope to see improvements that will make it easier for everyone with mobility challenges to access the transit system.
In the meantime, Schmidt called on other commuters to give their fellow passengers a hand.
“If you see someone struggling to get on the train, maybe offer them help, don’t be looking at your phone as someone’s trying to navigate onto a train and not moving out of their way,” she said.
“If you see a person with a mobility device, you can also go and flag down an attendant for help so that the person with the disability doesn’t have to go and do that and take more time out of the day.”
My ex-wife has MS and is now in a powrred wheelchair, 5 cm might pose quite an issue for her. Especially, if you’re trying to board in a hurry. She is a big woman and those powered chairs are heavy, it would take 1 – 2 people to tip up the chair so a front wheel could clearly enter the vehicle and or 1 – 2 people to lift up the back wheel so she could get in the train.
“She added that a staff member told her TransLink was looking into possibly adapting the platforms to address the problem.” This is how you know Translink was caught off guard by this issue. The stock answer to the press is, “were going to retrofit every station platform!” Really! Wouldn’t it be simpler to slightly modify one or multiple vehicle entrances with a small ramp? There isn’t much there , tilting the last part of the floor closest to the door say a length of 15-25 cm and gently dropping it by 5 cm its relatively easy. By the way, Alstom does this purposely on there Citadis LRV’s with adjustable floor plates, just in case. Mainly due to the variation in transit platform heights across Europe that can occur.
It says in the article that the train floor isnt flush with many of the stations. This also tells me that there are some pretty big varations across the system regarding platform heights. Shouldn’t they all be at the same height? Unfortunately, this is not the first time this has happened and it will probably happen again, somewhere. So good title choice Zwei, OOPS!
Zwei replies: My unqualified guess is, that the MK.5’s are just an extension of the Kuala Lumpur car order, with an extra carriage.
The Expo Line station platforms were designed for the ALRT cars and the MK.2 ARTcars were designed to conform to Vancouver’s platforms and I would wager that the Mk.5’s would have almost level platform loading in Kuala Lumpur.
Bad press if it turned out that these cars were designed 20 years ago for another Skytrain system and not specially for Vancouver!
When these cars were ordered, Bombardier was shedding itself of its rail division, so why spend anymore money on what is an obsolete product wanted by only one customer.
The amount of You Tube hype and hoopla with the MK.5’s, tells me TransLink wants to saturate the medium with their alternative facts, maybe, somehow to convince Alstom not to abandon construction.
today, we have politcans in BC both civically, provincially and Federally promoting building “SkyTrain” to Abbotsford; the North Shore as far as Sqauamish, and of course the UBC subway.
I was going to give this story a pass but the amount of “good news everyone” advertising on the telly and you tube got my spidy senses tingling. In researching this piece I found a lot of tid bit info, including no one is keeping current the Wiki Pages which now seem more than a few years out of date.
Apparently, the train suspensions are adjustable. This was an issue when the Mark 3s were first introuced, and a gentleman in a wheelchair told me that the same problem existed with the Mark 1s when the SkyTrain first opened and he was part of a group that pushed BC Transit to fix the issue
Zwei replies: The Innovia cars were Bombardier’s rebuild of the ICTS/ALRT system, using their Innovia universal body shell. These cars are used in Kuala Lumpur, Yongin, JFK airport and Beijing, as well as Vancouver. There is little real difference with the MK’ 5’s and the Innovia vehicle, except for cosmetic change. There has been no development of the cars for over 20 years because there is no market for them and as the system costs more to built, maintain and operate than a conventional system, there is little chance of any future sale. In fact, Alstom who now owns the patents is not actively marketing the system.
The MK’5 trains (Innovia 300) have open vestibules and a different operating system than the earlier models, which is causing expensive issues for TransLink.
The Mk.5 cars will have limited scope to adjust height etc. for the 4 other systems operating these cars, but that TransLink allowed cars with a 5 cm difference from platform height again demonstrates TransLink’s absolute disdain for the transit customer.
Have been quite a lot of quality of life and major structure changes that have happened over the generations of ART cars.
Model name ART #### and public name Mark #
ART 1000-1100/MK2 longer car and had bigger wheels.
ART 1500-1600MK3 made lighter and bigger wheels.
ART 1700-1800MK5 made lighter to fit more equipment and bigger wheels.
Each generation increased the diameter of the wheel to increase longevity and longer intervals between wheel grinding.
Skytrain expansion program.
Goal was to increase capacity on the EXPO and M Lines with having new longer trains that will have reduced frequencies. Calculations are out of date because they were based on a Mark 3 train set. 32.89 trains an hour on the Expo line and 14.5 trains per hour on M line or 110 sec Expo Line and 250 sec M Line. up-to-date numbers 26 train them an hour on the EXPO line and 14.5 trains per hour on M line or 138 sec expo line and 250 sec M Line
I think what you have done is prove that the MK.V trains used on the Expo and Millennium Lines are proprietary and TransLink had a Hobson’s choice with these cars; “either you take what is offered or you do not take”. As the light metro system is designed for easy access for the mobility impaired, it seems TransLink did not include this in the specs.
We know the bidding process was as phony as a $3 bill and TransLink had to take what Bombardier offered. Alstom is merely fulfilling the contract and from all accounts, want to wash their hands of SkyTrain altogether. Having a 5cm height difference from platform to car is intolerable and clearly demonstrates TransLink’s amateur attitude operating the transit system, where the customer comes last.
Your last paragraph is a word salad meant to distract anyone who reads this and Thale’s 2022 news Release gives a much clearer picture of the capacity issue.
“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.”
This is only on paper because many of the stations cannot cope with traffic flows exceeding 15,000 pphpd and of course, delayed trains, caused by MK.5 stock delayed at stations, waiting for an attendant to bring a ramp for someone in a motorized wheelchair to board the train! the problem is, stations are mostly unstaffed and attends “roam” from station to station.
My crystal ball sees the Human Rights Council having a field-day with this issue. I see major lawsuits.
Due to the long surface life of the wheels there’s +5 to -5 cm platform height. Well, within the range of being ADA compliant been like this in the 80s. Not a barrier, it’s just an inconvenience.
All minor stations have been upgraded with new emergency exits with the increased capacity. Within the next 10 years, there’s going to be 8 upgraded skytrain stations. I know so far are Burrard and Columbia.
It Open Contract new skytrain vehicles.
2 off-the-shelf designs and 4 design new cars*.
Mk3 preferred choice and CRRC not in compliance with normal bogeys to defend self-steering bogey.
New designs would not be delivered on time or too expensive or allow access manufacturing patterns. No competitive bids. BCRTC holds the skytrain manufacturing patent and the manufacturer holds the design pattern. Translink controls the supply chain for Skytrain so nothing is influenced by the manufacturer. Parts are very pacific for the skytrain MK trains small-scale manufacturing. Most of the businesses that fabricate skytrain parts are in BC.
Zwei replies: Like Translink, you don’t get it. When you advertise that you are 100% mobility impaired friendly, when you are not causes many problems.
You mention a 10cm spread, yikes not good. Not good at all. The designs were all on paper and there were no actual cars, it was all done to make the bidding process look legal, that’s all.
TransLink does not control the supply chain and Alstom is the sole supplier. Tell your TransLink buddies they are selling porkies because when Alstom pulls the plug, all the cars must be custom made adding to the already sky high costs of the system.
The BCRTC does not hold the manufacturing patents, as Alstom not the BCRTC bought Bombardier’s rail division.
Remember the system is proprietary and if those businesses fabricating parts are not doing it under license, they will be doing it illegally and suffer the consequences of that. This is why the Chinese cannot sell parts to TransLink because they were produced illegally and Asltom would win in any legal action.
The problem with TransLink is that they have been fibbing so long they actually believe the fibs. it’s called drinking your own bathwater.
to give you a hint, i tried for 6 months to find any info on the under bidders cars and there wasn’t any, they didn’t exist, except on paper. There was only one vehicle on offer and that was the Innovia 300 4/5 car trainsets and that what Translink bought.
Long surface life of the wheels! @Legoman have you ever worked for a railway in the maintenance area? A fleet the size of yours is probably replacing a wheel (flange) per day. At least 2 wheels per day, should be on the flange lathe given the size of your fleet. When you are running a system that forces high operating frequency and tempo over heavy infrastructure, wheel ware will be extreme. Unless you have industrial diamond and titanium coated wheels.
There are only 3 known companies that have experience in Linear Induction propulsion. Hitachi, in Japan, the CRRC in China and Bombardier North America (Alstom in North America). It’s one of the reasons when Bombardier and Hitachi built the LIM technology for China, specifically for the Shanghai Airport Line (Bombardier) and the CRRC test facility (Hitachi), they both made sure the propulsion systems were fundamentally different than there baseline products, due to China’s well known habbit of industrial espionage and just down right illegal copying of other people’s technology.
By the way, none of the baseline products built by Bombardier, CRRC and Hitachi are cross compatible. If you want a Bombardier design you are stuck with them unless, Hitachi and CRRC pay Alstom a lot of money (aquiring a production license). Which can happen but the vehicle contract would have to be extremely valuable for both Hitachi and the CRRC. $3 Billion – $5 Billion ($CAD) at a minimum. Given the cost of building multiple prototype vehicles comparable in quality to the existing fleet, to base production around.
Also of note, the LIM’s used on the Expo and Millennium Lines are attractive LIM’s, those used elsewhere are repulsive LIM’s and there is a great technological divide between the two.
20 h / 1.4 h = 14.28 Train Par Day x 81 km = 1157.14 km x 365 day = 422,341.5 km out of 1 million km before Replacement of the mark one wheels
Actually, every 2 1 /2 Day non-stop running the trains. More like every 5-6 days.
fleet car 340-350*
Zwei replies: WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? Are you one of TransLink’s spokesperson/bloggists whose only job is to sew confusion with word salads? Your Email address sort of gives that one away.
From my information, TransLink is worried right now, very worried. They are loosing mode share as it slowly erodes away on an annual basis, They are about #3 billion short of funding to complete the E & M Lines extension program. There is presently zero funding for the $8 billion subway to UBC. TransLink is now beginning to realize that the present Broadway subway will not attract much new ridership because of the ill-planned transfer points to go North/South, adding a lot more time taking transit. There is also the realization that Alstom will soon be out of the game producing vehicles and the cost to produce more cars will be brainlessly expensive due to other companies to design, build and safety case the new cars.
The bus system is ill run and again, there is a growing realization that the program of expanding express buses will not be as successful as they advertise due to the limited nature of their routes.
Now this is going to start hitting the fan in 2027, by all accounts and unless there is a massive infusion of new cash, the Transit system will begin to have serious problems.
Another big problem not being addressed is that metro Vancouver is no longer a 9 to 5, 5 days a week commuting city, it is a 6 am to 9 pm, 7 days a week commuting city and the present bus schedules is just deterring workers from taking transit. I have been told that this problem is creating sleepless nights for planners because they cannot cope, being hamstrung by union contracts and dated operations and management.
So Mr. Plastic Brick man, your word salads are to confuse the real issues.
Mr zwei
The issue stands from 1986 – All the way to now. Skytrain doors being on the outside an additional 1 inch gap to make sure the doors didn’t hit the platform. With the introduction of electric mobility devices, some of them have difficulties just going over a crack in the pavement. People have been complaining about the electric wheelchairs, not caring where they want to go.
Manufacturer holds the design patterns.
So the manufacturer doesn’t earn any royalties or other fees.
BCRTC holds legal rights for maintenance.
Allow the operator to choose who manufactures parts.
Local companies can compete for the manufacturing rights.
Local businesses supply parts at a competitive rate.
Most of my information on the bidding is front translink themselves. Like most of the other bidding processes, most of the information is private.
E&M Line
BC transport ministry feasibility study. Still, a few years out from a business case.
UBCX(Broadway Subway phase 2)
Provinces working on business case. 1 to 4 years construction contracts.
New MK5 trains were delayed because of the new design and had to be tested to meet Transport Canada. Translink always pays more because of the trains being custom, Then Toronto orders new subway trains.
Coast Mountain bus Company does 4 times a year service changes to best manage the passenger flow on the network. Increase reliability up 90% with more bus priorities across the region. But North Shore and South Fraser river areas stop more bus priorities of measures in their communities. It’s always hard to project ridership numbers.
When the West Coast Express could not operate due to a strike. Bus service to keep people moving. Why was ridership lower than expected? Travel time was not worth it and it was not direct. Major transit projects in Metro Vancouver need to be faster or equal to average vehicle speed.
Zwei replies: Mr. L, tell your TransLink buddies they got it all wrong. The design for these cars are at least 20 years old and Bombardier just added another coach to the 4-car train-sets delivered to Malaysia. What I have been told and what I can say is that the problem for the delays reside with Translink and their inability to deal with the operating systems on these cars.
Your word salads and excuses just do not wash. Yes TransLink has bamboozled the local media but they never did any real investigative reporting on the system. There is many reasons why no one buys this system and with a record of only 7 built in almost 50 years; 6 official name changes; and four owners tells the tale.
And please stop repeating TransLink nonsense about speed, it is user-friendliness that is key in attracting ridership, not the speed of the trains
Sorry to say, no honest business case would ever include the MALM system. In BC business cases are politcal documents masquerading as technical ones.
@Legoman fast direct trains are darn great but they are really expensive. Vancouver (Translink) has a $600 million annual budget gap, due to a very outdated funding formula. Now, starting in 2026 both the federal government and provincial government are subsidising Translink to partially close the gap. Including a annual 2% fare increase and other economic measures Translink is still out $266-$287 Million per year. These are from Translink’s own numbers.
What you need is very expensive new funding formula for Translink and they are still waiting for politicians to make a decision. According to my spies, the politicians are never going to give Translink the budget boost it wants, there are going to be service cuts, pardon me, service adjustments. Times are just too tough for people especially at the municipal level.
The serious issue is that, the extra provincial funding ends in 4 years and the federal in 10 years. That means in 2030 a new $94 million dollar operating budget gaps appears. Again in 2036 another $140 million. All these costs will have to be absorbed by Translink. Keeping in mind the current funding formula really only funded about 80% of what Translink really wanted to do, according to Translink officials I talked to back in 2015. The problem with great big regional transit agencies in North America, they never receive enough operating funds. One of the major points in my thesis for my planning degree back in the early 1990’s.
The point @Legoman, the days of $6-$10 Billion rapid transit lines are over. The money just isn’t there anymore provinces and federal governments want 33% -40% of the budget for new lines paid by the local government, unless national or provincial money is at risk due to congestion or some other important issue. Just like we were forced to in Ottawa for phase 2 and 3 of our Light Rail Transit network.In phase 2 we were able to build 44 km of rail service for $4.6 Billion but locally we paid almost 39% of the costs, it had to be as cheap as possible.
It is especially troubling for provincial and federal funding officials when they notice that, the local govenrments here in the lower mainland can barely afford its transit operating budget. Until that is dealt with, don’t even think of new lines unless your province wants to keep paying 100% of the capital cost all by itself. The funding pendulum is swinging back to what it was in the 80’s and 90’s get use to it.
Zwei replies: Thank you!
As most of my sources have either taken the the last tram to the cemetery gates or are fretting over wintering in the excited states, but I do have some info coming from a chap near my age who is doing contract work for Metro Vancouver (I shan’t say no more) and he tells me there is great concern about the current transit expansion and Metro Vancouver, not TransLink, is going cap in hand to both the provincial and federal governments for more coin to finish the now $8 billion subway to UBC.
But there are serious storm clouds on the hoizon. Te North Shore waste water plant is seriously over budget and is a boondoggle and good old Zwei continues to point out that metro Vancouver/Translink/the NDP turned a $1.65 billion light rail project into a $7 billion SkyTrain project in Surrey/Langley, which does not sit well with politcans. There is absolutely zero funding for the Broadway subway to be completed to UBC and SkyTrain to the North Shore is a pipe-dream. There is a lot more, but to make matters more laughable, the great philosopher’s stone for transit (for the next provincial election anyways) now is a “high speed” rail line to Chilliwack via the #1 -ha, ha, ha, ha.
How do i know this, one of those rare occurrences that a reported contacted me. I first said define high speed rail and i said “If they cannot do that, then there is no way that a high speed train will operate. I told the reporter that until they actually define what they will use for “high speed rail”, there is no way to budget for it but considering that the current Expo Line extension to Langley is now around $350 million/km to build, go from there.”
Of course I told the reporter that our rail for the Valley group and Leewood Projects have put the cost of a Marpole to Chilliwack regional railway, with a peak service of 3 trains per hour per direction at under $2 billion. He told me that “TransLink will not deal with any rail system that cannot offer a 15 minute service”. I told him that we could offer a higher frequency, but it would increase the cost with more passing loops and double tracking. Then i added that i did not think there would be sufficient ridership for 4 trains an hour from Langley to Chilliwack and a peak hour service of two trains per hour per direction would suffice. The bottle neck would be the current rickety Fraser River Rail Bridge which will need to be replaced as the GVRD wanted back in the 1970’s! A new movable swing/drawbridge would be needed.
But he said “TransLink said trains could use the new Port Mann Bridge because it was designed for rapid transit”; which I told him that in TransLink’s current vernacular was BRT and until we have those with expertise in rail transport look at it, count that bridge out, as well as high speed rail!
But as you stated, there is no funding! All is for pre election 10 second sound bytes.
Mr Haveacow
Translink investment plan 2025(10 year financials) https://www.translink.ca/-/media/translink/documents/plans-and-projects/ten-year-investment-plan/public-consultation/2025-investment-plan.pdf?_gl=1*5ttqy9*_gcl_au*OTc5OTg2NzE1LjE3NTQ5NDQzMzM.*_ga*NTAxMTk5MTE5LjE3NTYxNTI2NDk.*_ga_QGWL01WSZ6*czE3NTYxNzI4NTckbzMkZzEkdDE3NTYxNzI4NzUkajQyJGwwJGgw
Translink is looking to receive only $100 million in new revenue start 2027, well below the estimated figure of $600 million. $3.63 B debt 2025 up to 10.4 B debt. Includes all infrastructure debt from BSP OMC4, OMC5, OCC2, MTC, SLS, BRT, SETP Evergreen Extension, Canada line and minor projects.
In 2028 bus operation cost will be cut by $300 M?, corporate expenses down $80 M, roads down $50 M AND OPERATION SURPLUS A $500 M!!! Translink uses a surplus to pay down debt and interest 2025 at $213.3 M to climb up to $438.6M. Big Bus replacement(600), 2 skytrain extensions and replacing skytrain traincar happening at the same time raise the debt fast.
In 2028 operations funding will share revenue down by $150 M? Incoming, take a guessing on their cutting bus services. Leading to a drop in revenue. 2027 bus 6,621,000 hours of operation. 2028 Bus 4,414,000 hours of operation. If the New funding model is still going to be budget cut. They still go ahead with UBCX, gondola and 9 BRT.
To Mr zwei
Local level (Plan) -> feasibility-> BC Government(business case) -> crown corporation(construction and liability) -> Translink(Operate and Pay Debt).
GVRD uses the interurban between downtown Vancouver and the new Westminster plan. To feasibility study different modes. To BC Government develops the business case. To crown corporations, exposing something trust handles construction and liability. -> BCRTC British Columbia rapid transit company for operations and paying debt. During the construction phases expansions were managed by a Crown corporation. 2 extensions going on right now managed by the transfer operation code ITCorp( infrastructure transit Corporation).
Federal government canada public transit infrastructure targeted in a vestment no announcement projects that are being supportive yet?
Zwei replies: Every business case I have seen has been completely wrong about light rail’s capacity and operating statistics. In fact I do not think anyone at TransLink has a clue what light rail is!
here we have a propreitary transit system, rejected from the beginning and was deemed unsalable by 1983; a proprietary transit system that Bombardier paid “Success fees” to politcans to build with it in Korea and Malaysia; a proprietary railway where upon government review was rejected by the American government and instead funded by Canada at JFK airport and none of this was ever mentioned in any business case is laughable.