First RAV Train arrives

[Scott]

The first 4 (of 20) trains that will travel on the Canada Line have arrived in Richmond. Each "train" has two cars and is 41 m long with a capacity of 400 people. Built by Hyundai in Korea.

Interesting parallel to the CR arriving a few days earlier. Much less fanfare and controversy about building it offshore - to me anyways. Strangely, the only photo I can find is of one of the trains wrapped in blue plastic:

www.canadaline.ca/gallery.asp?galleryGroup=81&photo=1710#larger

Here's the news release:

www.canadaline.ca/uploads/NewsReleases/News539.pdf

[Mill Bay]

Thanks for posting those links John. The photos are neat.

I heard about their delivery on News 1130 the other day, but I was surprised that the trainsets came from Korea, and not Bombardier.

I wander what they are going to do with them in the meantime, seeing as there aren't any tracks yet for them to run on. Maybe they'll test-run some of them on the Skytrain line to see how well they work.

[Retrovision]

Thanks for bringing this up, John. I've been following the construction since day one and was waiting with bated breath for how the paint scheme would look on the new cars only to be fairly pleasantly surprised the other day.


I could find these images through Google News...


CBC Photo


Photo by: John Murray - The Province

These are big cars compared to what we're used to, especially in width, making them ideal for the airport and tourism impressions to begin with and continue to benefit moreso than the newer Mk II Bombardier SkyTrain cars by preventing the onset of cattle car syndrome that all too many regular SkyTrain users are used to...

From: www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2007/12/14/bc-canadaline2.html

New Canada Line trains double capacity of current SkyTrain cars

The South Korean-built trains that will run on the new Canada Line rapid transit system between downtown Vancouver and the city's airport will double the capacity of the current SkyTrain cars.

The two-vehicle trains will give commuters more leg room and more space for wheelchairs and bikes than SkyTrain cars, B.C. Transportation Minister Kevin Falcon said during the unveiling ceremony Friday.

"Between these two cars you can fill up 400 people on this train, which is a tremendous improvement over the existing SkyTrain. It's virtually doubling the capacity," Falcon said.

"That's going to be important, too, as we move lots of people particularly during the Olympics."

The Hyundai Rotem Company won the contract to build 20 fully automated trains for the $2.05-billion line, which is scheduled to open in 2009. Four trains have already arrived and the remaining ones should be delivered through to August next year.

Asked why the contract was awarded to a South Korean firm and not a Canadian one, such as, Bombardier, Falcon said it's about pricing and building Asia-Pacific investment.

"They [Hyundai] probably had a more competitive price and were able to deliver on terms that were acceptable to the concessionaires," he said.

"Not only are we seeing Asian investment come to British Columbia, we're see British Columbians investing in Asia and that's what you're going to see as we go forward..."

Officials said the new look of the white, blue and green trains was chosen to reflect the Lower Mainland's signature mountains, forests and trees.

With files from the Canadian Press
Copyright © CBC 2007

One place that you should be sure to read between the lines of, though, and question is "...will double the capacity of the current SkyTrain cars." - Are they speaking of the early 1980s-designed Mk I cars or the the turn of the millenium redesigned Mk II cars? Personally I actually wouldn't be surprised if they are being compared to the latter, which makes me wonder why this isn't being distinguished in order to tout the full benefit of the decision to not go with Bombardier's SkyTrain, among so many other reasons that make this the best choice.

[yvr]

It should be interesting to see how they can squeeze 400 folks into a 41M train set. Perhaps Hyundai uses the calculation method employed in Japan, where attendant's shove people into the cars. Another web site stated the actual capacity at 334 which sounds more believable. It seems the vehicles are not interchangeable with the previous Skytrain cars. That would probably mean the operating systems are different as well.

No doubt actual capacity will be greatly reduced by strollers, bikes, and a wheelchair or two. Will twenty train sets be enough, the number appears low? Remember we can't steal cars from Skytrain!

[Retrovision]

yvr said:

Perhaps Hyundai uses the calculation method employed in Japan, where attendant's shove people into the cars.

In fact, my parents report to me, this has become so much of a deterrent to women who were constantly feeling threatened by the frequent groping by males - though who's going to choose a bus over a train even if the train's packed - that they have started to run women-only trains in Tokyo atleast! This doesn't seem to be such an issue on our side of the culturally dividing pond, but the deterrent to new users being attracted to rapid transit here is the simple crowding and lack of comfort, equating to asking for no new users and therefore asking for a lack of rational for expanding transit in capacity and growth.

yvr said:

It seems the vehicles are not interchangeable with the previous Skytrain cars. That would probably mean the operating systems are different as well. ...Remember we can't steal cars from Skytrain!

No, you're right, completely different technology, but the very bright silver lining of this, we must remember, is that we won't become like San Francisco and utilize one proprietary exclusive technology for all lines; in the Bay Area BART, their equivalent, has gained a monopoly and charges through the nose as no one else can realistically get into the market primarily through a guage so wide that it equates to the same as proprietary technology such as the patent on SkyTrain that Bombardier holds. But I too was a little surprised at the lack of trainsets, unless we have and utilize options for more units when the need arises, just don't count on it if you go by SkyTrain's history in our area, the cattle car system.

[Mike C]

tsawwassenterminal said:

No, you're right, completely different technology, but the very bright silver lining of this, we must remember, is that we won't become like San Francisco and utilize one proprietary exclusive technology for all lines; in the Bay Area BART, their equivalent, has gained a monopoly and charges through the nose as no one else can realistically get into the market primarily through a guage so wide that it equates to the same as proprietary technology such as the patent on SkyTrain that Bombardier holds.

Boy, did I experience that first hand - They have what, like 8 different transit systems there? Each county has it's own service... + the BART.

What I keep having to explain to people is that "This isn't a Skytrain line. They aren't using Skytrain cars, nor are the Canada Line cars going to run on SkyTrain's Expo and Millennium lines. They seem appalled by this discovery when I tell them, and frankly, so am I.

Just to give you folks a bit of background for what transit systems I've experienced, and how the systems differ...

New York City must have miles upon miles of track, they have many different lines, all of which are interconnected with each other. When you're building a line, I think that is the way to go. Their trains are usually about 10-11 cars long, and run at a frequency of about 2-5 minutes between train. They just introduced their R160 cars this year, and they introduced their R142 trains a few years ago.
R160:
www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?64312
R142:
www.nycsubway.org/perl/show?57860

San Francisco I don't like because none of the systems have any connection with each other at all. I've never experienced a place which has so many transit systems. San Francisco Municipal Railway, BART, Golden Gate Transit, ACE, San Mateo County Transit.... After a while it all runs together, and your fares start running together, and you can't keep your passes straight.
SF MUNI:
www.flickr.com/photos/21875976@N08/2121728608/in/photostream/
BART:
antiadvertisingagency.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/bart-train.jpg

Vancouver as we all know likes to dream. The Evergreen Line is going to be something comparable to San Francisco's MUNI. Street cars (the modern ones, anyway) particularly along the T Third Street line, with stations along the street, as it runs in it's own little section of space along the street, sort of like the 98 B-Line along 3 Road.

[Northern Exploration]

NYC is pretty amazing to get around in underground. But they carry so much volume that if anything goes wrong then it really goes wrong. New Jersey Transit and Long Island Railroad are ok as well. There are three massive hubs Grand Central, Port Authority and Penn Station. Understandably less than what it was is the World Trade Center site. There are also some mini hubs. Pretty amazing. In the middle of summer it has a unique perfume to it, but it works awefully good.

[Mike C]

The biggest MTA hub is Times Square. Bus service from there is about every 4-5 minutes on every route, and the 1, 2, 3, 7, A, C, E, S, N, Q trains go there.

www.columbia.edu/~brennan/subway/SubwayMap.gif

[Northern Exploration]

Yeah you are right and there is a looooong tunnel to walk to the Port Authority. But Times Square itself is mostly subway. The buses jsut stop on the streets above the entrances. The ones I mentioned are where Subway/Trains (Amtrac/LIRR/NJTransit) and/or buses all hub together. The Port Authority has an absolutely mind boggling volume of buses coming and going. As you see in the movies the buses are in a giant version of a high rise parking lot with every company and type imaginable.

Oops forgot the short one stop shuttle form Times Square to Grand Central. Only a few minutes ride it is quick and connects you to the major train hub.

There are two gauges of subways with some cars narrower than the others. My favourite thing is the express subway trains. I used to stay downtown across from the WTC. I was a short walk to the next subway station north and then only two express stops from Times Square. If Toronto had that I might take the subway a lot more often.

[Mill Bay]

I'm not sure whether to agree or disagree with the notion of having a technology change for the two lines. Although it means the operating systems can be kept separate, I think they may find in the future that having the two mostly interchangeable would have been a very valuable, particularly if there were to be a physical interchange of the two lines which could have been used to streamline travel for people travelling longer distances and may have to get off one train and transfer to another to travel farther. It's not that the technology would have needed to be specifically the same, but keeping the track gauge in common might've been a good idea if they have fiddled with that. Compatibility of different systems can be a very powerful assets in many situations.

(And I discovered Proboards spellchecker doesn't know the word gauge .)

[D'Elete BC in NJ]

Philly, while a much smaller network than NYC, has LRT in the form of trolleys as well as LRT trains, and a subway, all on different systems. In addition, there are two tie-ins from Jersey via Patco (known as the "Speedline"), and NJ Transit (train service) which are again separate services.

pnwtraveler is accurate in his assessment of the delicate aroma emanating from the subway at the apex of the summer heat. It can be quite pungent! Philly's underground has been known to attempt to rival said perfume. ;D

[Northern Exploration]

Toronto's has a particular odour in the summer too but is more like electrical, oil/grease, and damp concrete. There is none of the rotting garbage type smell as in NYC

I think having two (relatively) small systems that are different is puzzling. I really don't know much about the two systems. Is the Skytrain an updated version of Toronto's LRT that goes from the end of the Subway to Scarborough Town Centre? It was a lot cheaper to build than a proper subway but is prone to snow and other problems that cause delays. I guess if the Korean trains are a lot better besides capacity then I can understand the difference.

[yvr]

The RAV vehicles are about 3 metres shorter than a Toronto subway car. The Toronto cars seat 66, and with standees that capacity goes to 184. So I wonder how they plan to pack 200 into a RAV car. The 167 capacity found on other web sites seems to be closer to actual, but will be very uncomfortable. My opinion is that if they get 120 people into a car they will be doing good. I've seen 8 car Toronto trains with a frequency of 2 minutes. Looking at that capacity I have a hard time understanding how a Vancouver 2 car train with a frequency of every 5 minutes is going to carry the populace.

Lets not forget that of the 20 train sets, one will be a spare, and one will be in mtce leaving us with only 18. It should be interesting.

[Northern Exploration]

Thanks YVR. I wonder too about the point made earlier about luggage. One thing to cram commuters in with briefcases, or purses, or the occasional strollers. People going to and from an airport have luggage and some even strollers. Even if a a tenth of the people are airport destined that makes a big difference in the amount of space.