Talk:SkyTrain (Vancouver)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star SkyTrain (Vancouver) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
To-do list for SkyTrain (Vancouver): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Expand the design section
  • Add more refs
  • Copyedit the entire article
City of Vancouver SkyTrain (Vancouver) is a Showcase Article for the Vancouver Portal. It; (or a previous version of it) has been identified as a noteworthy article for display relating to Vancouver. Please feel free to visit the portal for more information.

Contents

[edit] Old discussion

Below are my old comments from this talk page. I've added a section heading so these go below the TOC, and added some new comments (in bold). -Sewing - talk 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Some points:
(Note: first bulleted point added unsigned by PeterAKer)
*E Line and M Line will now be accompanied by C Line the C Line is the Canada Line(RAV Line). I have heard E and M Line being coined. I Travel on TransLink alot as i dont have a car nor do i want to drive one but E Line and M Line are the Short Term of Saying Expo Line and Millenium Line.
  • I have never heard anyone refer to the Expo or Millenium Line as the "E Line" or "M Line" respectively. However, when I lived in Metrotown for 4 years up to 2001, the Millenium Line had not yet been completed; I could see this as possibly being a recent development in young kids' slang, or something forced upon us by CityTV (like "VILand," as used by "The New VI")....
    • Okay, a Google search for ["E Line" Skytrain] turned up only 25 hits, of which only 2 appeared to actually be non-Wiki-based pages about Vancouver SkyTrain. One was a blog by someone who was apparently too lazy to type out Expo and Millenium in full, while the other was by a poster to a transit-related chat page who was discussing the lines with someone where there was not the need to spell out the names in full. But still, I have yet to hear anywone use "E Line" or "M Line." -Sewing (山道子) - talk 17:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • How could the MK I cars possibly be phased out? Is the Bombardier plant in Burnaby still active? There's been no news of a plan to take delivery of more MK II cars in the immediate future.
  • The Millenium Line does not run through Coquitlam at all, except for possibly a few metres on the curve where it crosses over Highway 1. It runs on the New West side of the Brunette River, then crosses over to the west side of North Road, in Burnaby.
Whoops, I stand corrected. The Millenium Line does indeed run through Coquitlam, tucked into the narrow strip of land between the Brunette River (to the south) and the Trans Canada Highway (to the north). I'll review the relevant section of the article page and see if I need to fix that (unless someone else has already done so within the last two years!). -Sewing - talk 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Last time I checked, the RAV Line will not run to Richmond via the Airport. There will be a branch from Bridgeport Station to the Airport.
Sorry, but I take this minor points seriously, and I have fixed them accordingly. -Sewing (山道子) - talk 17:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
And also:
  • Isn't the RAV Line still in "best and final offer" stage? Or is SNC Lavalin (or whoever) out of the running? Frankly, I wasn't able to keep track, what with all the TransLink votes and funding changes..... -Sewing (山道子) - talk 17:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)
In all honesty, who can say they have ever seen a C Car for the Mk II's? I think it's just a big conspiracy Stormscape 13:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some facts

I have a fact sheet from Bombardier that I dug up that confirms that both the MKI and MKII cars have a maximum speed of 90km/h (Though I still think there were higher rated speeds, I can't really say otherwise with this sheet saying 90km/h on it). Among other things included in this fact sheet are:

  • Vehicle body length: MKII: 16.5m MKI: 12.28
  • Overall Width: MKII: 2.65m MKI: 2.5m
  • Basic train unit configuration: MKII: Married pair expandable to triplet MKI: Married pair
  • Maximum operating speed: MKII: 90km/h MKI: 90 km/h
  • Carbody material: MKII: Aluminum MKI: Aluminum
  • Truck construction: MKII: Fabricated steel MKI: Aluminum
  • Propulsion system: MKII: Linear Induction Motors MKI: Linear Induction Motors
  • Wheel diameter: MKII: 585mm MKI: 470mm
  • Number of seats: MKII: 40-45 MKI: 35
  • Number of passengers (normal): MKII: 128 MKI: 82
  • Number of passengers (maximum): MKII: 171 MKI: 106
  • Number of doors per car side: MKII: 3 MKI: 2
  • Width of side doors: MKII: 1.6m MKI: 1.22m
  • Operation: MKII: Fully automatic MKI: Fully automatic
  • Intercirculation between cars: MKII: Open gangway (similar to articulated bus) MKI: End doors "not for passengers"
  • Vehincle ride comfort (per ISO-2631): MKII: 2 hours MKI: 1 hour
  • Bicycle or wheelchair position: MKII: 1 per car MKI: 1 per car

I also have a construction update booklet given to me by Mr. David Stumpo, president of Coast Mountain Bus company at the time of construction. It includes timelines and ridership projections and figures. 207.81.213.37 10:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I would be interested to know what is meant by "Basic train unit configuration: MKII: Married pair expandable to triplet" I cannot imagine how you could insert a third car... unless a specialty middle car can be made... On that note, I have notice that the text of the article on the MKI trains has changed from; "MK I vehicles normally run as 4-car trains, but can be run in 2, 4 or 6-car configuration." To; "These trains usually run in a four car configuration, but SkyTrain has ran these trains in a five car configuration during the snowstorm of 2007." From my knowledge of the MKIs design, running a 5 car train would be impossible, they are coupled in permanent pairs, bolted together and share electronics with each other. I am reverting, although I am bloody annoyed that I can't find the revision that changed it, I have been looking at each revision, it was changed mid March I think. Has anyone ever heard of a MKI train operating with an odd number of trains? Manually reverting to older text based on the above fact sheet that labels them as "married pairs"Pissedpat (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RAV/Canada line

  • Technically, the line will circulate under Cambie not under one, but two separate parallel tunnels, one per direction.
  • Some sections (branch towards Airport) will be single track.68.91.98.249 17:37, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
Surely you mean single tunnel, not single track? -- Geo Swan 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)


I note errors on the maps... "Baranby Lake" should be "Burnaby Lake"

Also, the given start date for Canada Line construction was November 25, 2006, a full year after construction actually began! I have corrected this. 24/11/06

[edit] RAV/Canada line technology

I know other technologies are being considered for this line, and that since it doesn't interconnect with the two existing lines, a different technology may not be a disadvantage, or much of a disadvantage. So, new technology stands a fair chance.

Occasionally people write in this, and related articles, that the new line will definitely use a different technology. Someone added that tonight. Someone else reversed it.

I hope that the next person to add this information will supply a source. -- Geo Swan 02:47, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NES Line

Why is the NES line mentioned here when most likely it will not be Skytrain Technology but rather LRT? (Unsigned comment by Leavebeaver2me, 27 September 2005 at 18:14)

Because at the moment, there isn't any name for the overall Vancouver railway system; as far as I know, it's not certain whether the R-A-V line will bear the SkyTrain name either, given that so much of it will be underground. When the Coquitlam line actually happens, it might be a good idea to merge in West Coast Express and re-name this page as 'Vancouver rail transport' or something of the sort (or maybe TransLink will come up with a new all-encompassing official name). David Arthur 17:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE: Vancouver SkyTrain map

Nicely drawn - however there are three spelling mistakes in your graphic map. 1) Sperling - Burnaby Lake 2) New Westminster 3) Scott Road

Thanks again 207.6.30.176 07:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Oops, I'll fix it ASAP... maybe like next week... --User:Yllianos
Also... 4) Kyle-Queens and 5) Cambie (instead of Camble). - Hinto 01:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry it took me so long to fix the names but, my computer was broken! =( --User:Yllianos

[edit] Old proposed lines

Does anyone know more about the older proposed lines, such as the one gonig to UBC and some in Surry? Take a look at this map. Zhatt 20:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

By the looks of it, it looks like they've been put on indefinite hold. Stormscape 19:07, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

There are actually plans to start a B-Line in Surrey, the "King George Busway". But yeah, I don't think any new skytrain extensions will begin until the Canada and Evergreen lines will be finished. ikh (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Knowing Translink, I wouldn't be surprised if in 2030 there's a rapid transit line to White Rock and bloody Langley. For Langley they could do ground level or underground. Now imagine something like Go-Train along the West Coast Express tracks. All day service to Mission. Or furthur. Say Hope. Imagine how many people would get out of their cars then, eh? Stormscape 07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
That could be, but TransLink seemed to be fairly cautious so far about building new lines... i.e. building them only when there's enough possible ridership and then only the type of line that warrants the ridership projections (that's in part why the Evergreen Line is a tram instead of SkyTrain). Would be interesting to see what the region would look like in 25 years tho. ikh (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opionion, there's a lot higher "ridership" going to UBC than to to the airport, and that was going to be the next line they were going to do as it would be best for the city. The only reason they're doing the airport line is for the 2010 Winter Olympics. It's the same with the Sea-to-Sky Highway. It would have never been expanded if not for the Olympics. Zhatt 22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I always thought a straight extension of the Expo line from King George Station to downtown Langley along Fraser Highway would make perfect sense, or, if that was just too far or the elevation change through the Serpentine valley posed problems, from King George Station to Fraser Hwy & 156 St. heqs 10:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Back in '94 I found some old GVRD/BC Transit Skytrain planning maps (I believe they dated from the late '80s) at a Vancouver area library and something very similar to the Canada Line already existed on paper. There was also an extension to Port Moody/Coquitlam, similar to what will be available when the Evergreen Line is completed (via Columbia/Lougheed), but no Millennium Line as such. heqs 11:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Update

The VCC/Clark station will be opening on Jan 6, 2006. http://www.translink.bc.ca/Transportation_Services/SkyTrain/VCC_Opening.asp The map should be updated to reflect the new station. Mamboman 15:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can't really find a good map to replace it though. Luke 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evergreen Line

I corrected some information about the Evergreen line over at Vancouver. I think it could do with its own article since the other 'lines' have their own articles. GeeCee 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Done. See Evergreen Line. Comments/edits would be appreciated. Ikh (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Evergreen Line should not be considered a rapid transit line since it is designed to be mostly at grade in mixed traffic (i.e. a streetcar). Therefore the statement "With both the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line, Greater Vancouver will have the largest rapid transit network in Canada (by length of track) by 2009" is probably not valid considering the length of track of the TTC streetcar network in combination with its Subway and SRT lines.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.52.50 (talk • contribs)

I agree. See #Largest_rapid_transit_network_in_Canada_.28by_length_of_track.29.3F below. --Usgnus 07:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] same station twice

If Commercial Drive and Broadway Station are considered the same station, the Vancouver SkyTrain is, along with the Tyne and Wear Metro, one of only two rapid transit systems in the world in which trains pass through the same station twice. -- That's not true. Putting circle lines aside, also the Tokyo Ōedo Subway Line passes the Tochō-mae station twice. -- 84.191.207.31 20:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia: removal suggestion

Commercial Drive and Broadway are distinct stations. A roadway separates them. Passengers travelling to the downtown Waterfront terminus from points north of Columbia Station get off the Millenium Line train at Commercial Drive and cross over to Broadway Station to make their connection on either an Expo or Millenium Line train headed in the opposite direction from the train they just left.

An analogy: if one considers Broadway and Commercial Drive to be the same station, one may well consider PEI and Nova Scotia the same province. Fun for the trivia section, but inaccurate.

Do passengers need to leave the station in order to make this connection? Waterloo station and Waterloo East are separated by a road, but there is an enclosed walkway between the two, and they (along with Waterloo International) are considered essentially one sub-divided station. David Arthur 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
You never really leave the station. For those leaving Commercial Drive Station, you go up some stairs/escalators, go along a walkway that crosses over railway tracks and if you wish to continue to Broadway Station, simply board a escalator at the end of the walkway. If you don't wish to continue, you do not board the escalator and are in the station's non-fare zone retail section. Stormscape 07:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] trainset usage

I'm planning on doing a study soon to see which trainsets get more use. I will be sitting at a skytrain station for at least 7 hours and will record on paper the number of MK I and MK II trainsets that come through the station in one direction, say Westbound. The station would have to be between Waterfront and Columbia. Does anyone have any suggestions for a station (preferably one with a convience store within sight of the station so I can continue counting even if I leave the station :D) Stormscape 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I believe that MK I trains do get used more than MK II trains during the peak hours. I travel to school by transit everyday and have to take the SkyTrain as part of my route. It is more likely for me to be riding on a MK I train (as the first train I see coming into the station in the peak direction). --FlyingPenguins 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
  • From what I know, there are 150 MK I cars that make 37 4-car MK I trains (and a 2-car train that most likely won't get into service). There are 60 MK II cars, 28 of those are used in 4-cars MK II trains (7 trains total, and the cars that used to form it differ from time to time) and the rest run as 2-car trains (16 trains in total). So that's 60 trains in total. In a Translink report (forget which one), it mentioned that the percentage of trains that go into service at peak hours is in the low to mid-90s. So... that's about 55 to 58 trains in service at peak. Hope this helps. 64.180.239.213 06:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Aren't there 156 MK I cars? --FlyingPenguins 19:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The MK I's are numbered from 001 to 056; 061 to 118; 121 to 156... so that's 150 in total. 64.180.239.213 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Oh, ok... I thought that the numbering just continued on in a row. I don't know why there is a break between 056 and 061 though... How do you even know this stuff? ;) --FlyingPenguins 23:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
It's the difference in the year that the cars were made (although the 1991 and 1995 cars does not have break in numbering..) Some information can be found here: http://www.barp.ca/bus/bctransit/vancouver/skytrainroster.html 64.180.239.213 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Right, I've been to that website, but never bothered to go there to that exact page. Thanks for the link. --FlyingPenguins 06:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion Lines map

Cleaned up the map and talk section. Joshhenders (talk) 01:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New image

Is it a good idea to keep or remove this new image that User:Crazyjoeda put at the top of the page? I feel that the older one with Metrotown Station was better, but should we keep this image anyways or maybe move it to the Granville Station article? --FlyingPenguins 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...I like this one better though. deadkid_dk 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Can't we have both? ;) heqs 11:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Largest rapid transit network in Canada (by length of track)?

The article says "With both the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line, Greater Vancouver will have the largest rapid transit network in Canada (by length of track) by 2009." Though surely, if you include the Evergreen Line Tram in the count, you would also have to include the Tram system in Toronto, which surely dwarfs anything (even if you only include the sections with their own right-of-way along Lakeshore, Spadina, St. Clair, and Queen's Quay)? To compare apples to apples, shouldn't the comparison be Vancouver's 2 Skytrain lines + Canada Line vs Montreal's 4 Metro lines vs Toronto's 3 subways + Scarborough LRT (same technology as Skytrain?). 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that you can't count the Evergreen line as rapid transit. -- Usgnus 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Though doing the math, Just the Skytrain (49.6 km) and the Canada Line (19.5 km) total 69.1 km ... compared to Toronto's 61.9 km of subway and 6.4 km of Skytrain-type LRT (total 68.3 km) ... though Toronto will total 77.0 km when the Spadina subway extension is finished in 2013. Montreal's Metro will total 66.1 km when the new 5.2-km extension opens next year (not that there is technically any track in Montreal). Perhaps Toronto will have to count the new 1.5 km 3-station people mover at Pearson airport which is opening soon to keep at the top of the list.  :-) Nfitz 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
The Evergreen Line has signal priority at every intersection I think, so I think that it can be included as rapid transit since it only stops at stations. None of the Toronto streetcar lines do. lee_haber8
Signal priority is not sufficient; grade separation is required for rapid transit. --Usgnus 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That's not true. The Portland Light Rail system as well as many others run at grade and are considered Rapid Transit. Rapid Transit means that the vehicles are unhindered by traffic, they have a dedicated corridor and signal priority. lee_haber8
Not according to the rapid transit article. --Usgnus 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
The rapid transit article states grade separation is a quality of rapid transit in the intro, but changes to "completely independent from other traffic" in its definition. It should also be noted that the MAX_Light_Rail (Portland light rail) article never attempts to label it as rapid transit, only as light rail. On topic I really don't see how a transit system that relies on Vancouver motorists to yield full right of way at a level crossing could be considered rapid. Someone is going to stall or rear-end someone dead in the middle of the tracks and shut the whole thing down for an hour. If the system was fenced and all crossings were by overpass then yes, I would consider it rapid transit even if it is on the surface. As an aside, I was going to argue the feasibility and logic of the length that our track will be while other cities continue their tracks as well, but given that the article has been amended to no longer include the statement that sparked this all, I see no point.Pissedpat (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Headquarters"?

Should the "headquarters" section comply with the headquarters of TransLink? If so, then it should be Burnaby, British Columbia, right? -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 08:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only that, but the BC Rapid Transit Corporation (or whatever it's called) that actually operates the trains has its offices in the Edmonds Yard. Changed -Sewing 00:56, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Canada Line

It appears, at least to me, that the section Canada Line is getting rather cluttered, and quite large compared to sections dedicated to other lines. Seems quite unnecessary, given that there's already a Canada Line article. Would anyone oppose to me moving some/most of the stuff to the main Canada Line article? If noone's against it, I'll probably do so shortly (unless someone else does it first). ikh (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --Usgnus 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I changed today and why:

Original version: "It should also be noted that, due to the fact that Bombardier's linear induction "SkyTrain" technology will not be used for the Canada Line, the line will not be labelled as SkyTrain in any way, shape or form due to legal issues. Although it will be under the same fare system/structure under Translink, in terms of operations and management, the Canada Line will be completely seperate and independent from the existing SkyTrain system."

My version: "Because Bombardier's linear induction "SkyTrain" technology will not be used for the Canada Line, the line will not be labelled as SkyTrain. It will, however, use the same fare system as Skytrain and be managed by Translink."

  1. "It should be noted that" -- these are just extra words. They add no value to the sentence. They are unnecessary, and can be removed without altering the meaning.
  2. "due to the fact that" -- this phrase means "because", so replacing it shortens the sentence and makes it easy to read without altering the meaning.
  3. "in any way, shape or form" -- this adds emphasis to a statement that is already absolute and unequivocal. ""SkyTrain" technology will not be used" is not unclear in any way, and so does not need emphasis.
  4. "due to legal issues" -- we are already told earlier in the sentence why it is not being used (because Bombardier's linear induction "SkyTrain" technology will not be used), so adding a vague "due to legal issues" is both unnecessary and gives the reader no additional information.
  5. "Although it will be under the same fare system/structure under Translink, in terms of operations and management, the Canada Line will be completely seperate and independent from the existing SkyTrain system." This is wordy, and seems to be designed to emphasise the point made earlier about it not being called SkyTrain, something that readers will have no trouble understanding from the statement "the line will not be labelled as SkyTrain". The revised version ("It will, however, use the same fare system as Skytrain and be managed by Translink.") provides the same key information in fewer words, and more clearly.

If you disagree with any of these changes, let's discuss them here before further changes are made. Perhaps we can find even better ways of conveying this information. Ground Zero | t 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] UBC POV statement

I removed the following line from the article: "UBC has countered that not extending the line all the way to campus is an unfortunate bias towards UBC and their students."

I took it out for a couple of reasons. First it is unsourced. A statement like this needs a reference. I could have left it in with a "citation needed" tag but the way the sentence was phrased made this difficult. The use of the word "unfortunate" is POV (unless, again, it can be attributed to someone). The best way to handle this would be to rephrase it something like: "UBC has accused TransLink of bias against its students for not extending the line." However even this version needs to be cited because not being very familiar with the situation I have no idea if in fact anyone from UBC has actually made such an accusation. 23skidoo 03:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are they "SkyTrain" or "Translink" employees?

There seems to be a bit of a dispute over the status of terminologies when it comes to the staff operating on the SkyTrain system. My interpretation is that these individuals are Translink employees working under the SkyTrain division.

Anybody? :: Colin Keigher 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

hmmm... not sure, but from what I remember of the bus strike, one of the issues was whether Translink was the employer, or Coast Mountain Bus Co. Probably a good idea to be sure about this.Bobanny 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, SkyTrain Attendants and service people are employees of BC Rapid Transit Company (subsidiary of Translink). Security personnel are employees of CMBC. See www.skytrain.info. —DennisTT(talk) 07:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reporting marks

I saw "Reporting marks" in the wikitable at the top of the page. Not knowing what those are, I clicked on the link. I can see from the linked article however, that "SkyTrain" is not a reporting mark. I've changed it to "Not applicable," as SkyTrain vehicles don't appear to have reporting marks as such. -Sewing 00:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 cents

I haven't read through all the text yet, but the visuals look great and do a lot to illustrate the subject.Bobanny 07:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comprehensiveness

I just read the article for the first time, and was left with a couple of questions that should probably be addressed before it meets Wikipedia's Good Article criteria.

  1. Why is the system called "SkyTrain"?. Is the entire train system elevated, or is there a different reason? Is it named after the bridge, or is the bridge named after the train system?
    I'm not too sure. No reliable source says why.
  2. The article mentions "fully automated trains". Does that mean there are no drivers? I don't know if I misinterpreted that statement. Have there been accidents as a result?
    I've cleared that up. No accidents so far.
  3. How much did it cost to build the system?
    Agian, nothing creditable says.
  4. How many employees are there in the system?
    Nothing creditable says this.
    There are 177 operators and 83 maintenance workers (Source). This number would probably not include the transit polices, but I'm not sure if it includes the personnel in the stations or not. 64.180.232.15 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  5. The article makes a statement about the trains being wheelchair accessible, but the TransLink (Vancouver) article mentions several stations not being accessible.
    I'll fix that.
  6. A couple of very short sentence fragments in the "Rolling stock" section.
    Thank you. -- Selmo (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

- Neil916 (Talk) 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that there were accidents on SkyTrain (by accidents I mean SkyTrain vehicle vs person). However they have been "covered up" quite well. I don't have articles to cite right now, but I'm pretty sure there have been injuries due to SkyTrain impacts since 1986. Also regarding the "automated" trains, in late November last year when it was snowing quite hard, SkyTrain attendants were assigned to each train in "sweep" position at the front of each train to visually check that the guideway was clear and to manually emergency-brake the train in an event something was on the guideway (since the snow makes the guideway and platform intrusion systems report false alarms). Again I don't have articles to cite that back this up, but this is the information I've gathered from listening into the SkyTrain scanner at www.scanbc.com (while it was online last year) —DennisTT(talk) 07:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Failed

This article has failed the GA nominations. See below for more details.

  • According to Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Please convert all bulleted lists into prose.
  • Please add a history section detailing the train systems construction and use during the Expo 86 World's Fair.

Feel free to renominated it at WP:GAN once the above has been addressed. Tarret 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On hold

This is on hold for 7 days, please fix these issues: the lead is too short and does not summarize the article, measurements should have   btwn number and abbrv, ref format are not conistent (ex, not all have retrieval dates). I fixed a lot of date formats, be sure the rest are consistent. Rlevse 20:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC)...So far so good, but I have to apologize in advance for not noticing this before. I have one more issue. Look at where refs 9 and 11 are at in the text. This is a huge gap, entire sections don't have refs. Can you add at least one ref per section/every 1-2 paragraphs?Rlevse 22:18, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA status

I'm now passing this. Further suggestions: while every section now has at least one ref, add a few more where there are 3paras and only one ref. Any para over a few lines should normally have a ref.Rlevse 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dramatically what?

The stations ended up being dramatically than those on the Expo Line. -219.171.99.132 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I've patched that sentance. -- Selmo (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested sources

I think the controversial aspects of SkyTrain should be explored more. The references in the article seem to rely quite heavily on websites, which only partly tell the story. I'm not sure if the editors here know this (please forgive me if I'm tellling you what you already know): If you have a Vancouver Public Library card you can access a ton of news stories on the historical and urban-planning aspects of SkyTrain. In the Canadian Newsstand Database, which is available from home through www.vpl.ca, I can suggest the following searches:

  • SkyTrain + Environmental Review
  • SkyTrain + Grandview Cut
  • SkyTrain + Arbutus
  • SkyTrain + crime
  • SkyTrain + Peter Boothroyd

An example of a headline from the last search: "Subsidy for new users on SkyTrain line: $35 a ride: TransLink admits if new Millennium line were a bus route, it would likely be cancelled; [Final Edition]" Jeff Lee. The Vancouver Sun. Vancouver, B.C.: Oct 19, 2001. p. A.1.FRO

Good luck :) Kla'quot 23:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] A Class?

Since this article has gone through featured article candadatcy, shouldn't it be rated A Class in the wikiproject banners? Why isn't there an A Class standred in plce for promotion to this class, like there is for good article? Canadianshoper 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

It went through the FAC process but failed to be promoted, so all that tells us is that it's not considered up to snuff to be a featured article. It's only because of the external process for FA and GA that automatically qualifies an article for those labels, whereas 'A' and 'B' class are subjective judgments by individual editors. I haven't gone through this article with a fine tooth comb, but I think you're right that it's A class - it's highly informative, clearly written, well-structured, illustrated with plenty of useful images, correctly formatted, etc. I'd support bumping it up to A class. Bobanny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] One of the best.

I live in Surrey and was expecting a half ass article but this is one of the bets articles on wikipedia, keep up the good work!

the TRUTH 00:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Route Diagrams

I've added Railway line template diagrams to Expo Line, Millennium Line, and Canada Line. The template was originally designed for trains and is under active development: it has been forked for Canals, there is discussion of forking it for Roads, and it obviously needs to be forked for rapid transit systems (to denote elevated sections, pedestrian connectors, interfaces with buses, etc.). Until then, it only kinda works, but it's better than the alternatives. Vagary 22:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Main Picture

I changed the headline picture for SkyTrain from the underground Granville Station to a photo of an MKII train near Stadium Station. Since SkyTrain is a mainly elevated system, it seems rather backwards to use the underground platform photo as the representation of the system. MStar 03:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evergreen Line

The Evergreen Line is actually planned as a light rail, unfortunately not a Sky Train. 216.86.113.233 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite true. I think it’s still best, though, to cover it on this page, at least for the moment; there is no accepted term for ‘Vancouver local railways’ beyond SkyTrain, and the Evergreen Line is an extension of the network described here, even though it is to be a tramway. David Arthur (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Because of its lower operating cost and greater safety it's the SkyTrain system that will be used for this line. 216.86.113.233 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operation - Frequency

Great article, but I'm missing something that is useally part of an urban transport article (and in my opinion it should be really): What are the hours of operation and how often do trains run? ---Christoph.sta (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)