Jump to content

Talk:Canada Line/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

To simplify the timeline I removed some of the following things about the inability of Translink to come to a decision. I don't think it is really relevant any more now that the project has been approved. However, I will leave it here for the entertainment of our readers:

  • On May 7, 2004 the TransLink Board voted 7-5 not to proceed work on the RAV line due to projected cost overruns.
  • On June 15, 2004 BC Premier Gordon Campbell reported his desire to revitalize the RAV as well as the NorthEast extension of the Millennium Line into Coquitlam, stating that the provincial government would cover any cost overruns.
  • On June 18, 2004 the RAV line was defeated again (6-6 tie).
  • On June 30, 2004 the TransLink Board approved the RAV line 8-4 owing to Vancouver city councillor Raymond Louie and North Vancouver mayor Barbara Sharp having changed their votes conditional on maintaining the right to cancel the project if none of the bids meet the approved budget of $1.35 Billion.
  • On November 18, 2004 the TransLink Board announced that the RAV Line could be scrapped due to cost overruns if they don't settle the issue by the end of November.
  • On November 19, 2004 RAVCO recommended that the SNC-Lavalin/Serco proposal for a fully automated, grade-separated system be accepted. This 'Best and Final Offer' bid was $343 million dollars over the approved budget. However, through various cost trimming measures the bid price has since been reduced to within $106 million of the approved budget.
  • On November 22, 2004 the City of Richmond has stated that they would oppose any elevated line along Number 3 Road as is proposed in the recommended bid. They would like to see the line moved to Minoru Boulevard, or built at grade.
  • On December 1, 2004 the TransLink board is scheduled to vote on the 'Best and Final Offer' bid.
  • On September 21, 2005 a smaller crane will be used to the cut-and-cover which will increase the disruption time for four months. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webgeer (talk • contribs) 02:35, 2 December 2004 (UTC)

Canada Line

I added a link to canadaline I assumed it was a website built by the Fed/Prov. Gov't I hope this is correct.

Is it time to move this article to Canada Line? Ground Zero | t 15:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say so. David Arthur 00:20, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Done. - zero. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ground Zero (talk • contribs) 16:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Sketch

I like the map on the front page but thought I'd note here that the 'False Creek South' station is missing and the 'Davie' Station is called 'Yaletown' apparently. --Phillipe83 7:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Additionaly, Robson is now "Vancouver City Centre" and there are only going to be 3 YVR stations, one of them being Airport Terminal and one of them Templeton. Cambie has also been renamed Aberdeen. Stormscape 11:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Updated copyrighted image with another one. -- Usgnus 15:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

‘Name of the line’ section

Can anyone provide a source for the assertion that serious consideration was given to calling it the ‘Olympic Line’ (since TransLink have been so careful to stress that this is not an Olympic project), let alone that there was ever any intention to use the name ‘RAV’ when it went into service? David Arthur 16:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This study made frequent use of the Olympic line label http://www.marigni.com/vancouver.html (Unregistered 00:04, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Location of Broadway/City Hall

Something doesn't add up here... "There have been recent complaints about the location of the Broadway-City Hall station. Critics say that it is not close enough to Broadway and it is too far _north_ on Cambie St. Officials have taken this complaint seriously and they are debating whether or not to move the station _north_ 50 metres, so it will be closer to Broadway"... If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that the proposed site is too far _south_ judging by this document http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc65.pdf 24.80.100.72 05:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Photos of Construction

I've posted online a collection of Creative Commons licensed photograph of the construction of the Canada Line at http://canadalinephotos.blogspot.com/ that may be of interest for this article. --Tafyrn (talk) 06:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Photos of trains?

Several trains are apparently now sitting in plain view in the yard at Bridgeport station — can anyone get a good photograph of one of them to replace the artist’s image that appears in the article at the moment? David Arthur (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some photographs of the trains in the yard and from the unveiling ceremony:
http://canadalinephotos.blogspot.com/2008/01/2008-01-18-operations-and-maintenance.html
http://canadalinephotos.blogspot.com/2007/12/2007-12-14-train-unveiling-ceremony.html
The photographs are licensed under Creative Commons, so you can upload a low-resolution version from my blog to wikipedia, or let me know which one you think is best, and I'll upload a higher resolution version from my source images. --Tafyrn (talk) 02:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Great! I like this one myself. David Arthur (talk) 16:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

2014 instead of 2011 ??

An IP has changed 2011 into year 2014. Is there any reason for this? -- Klaus with K (talk) 15:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That map shows the Evergreen Line/Millennium Line Extension, which is now planned for 2014, rather than 2011 as was previously indicated. David Arthur (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

Just wondering if anyone read anything about why the name was changed from RAV to Canada Line. To me, RAV or Olympic Line make the most sense! --Phillipe83 7:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I don’t know the exact rationale behind the name ‘Canada Line’, but ‘Richmond–Airport–Vancouver’ was never intended to be anything more than a descriptive term to use while planning the line. David Arthur 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The current text of the article claims that the name change was a condition of funding. Is there anything to support that? The press release cited there doesn't say anything about it. rakslice (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I've never seen that claim anywhere other than here – I was meaning to add a citation needed tag to that myself. David Arthur (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"SkyTrain" branding

A recent edit added the following:

The Canada Line, formerly known as the Richmond-Airport-Vancouver Line ("RAV Line"), is a new rapid transit line of the Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority (TransLink) currently under construction. The line will be the third in Greater Vancouver, Canada and will be added to the existing rapid transit system but will not use linear induction motor technology. Thus it will not be branded "SkyTrain" and the system will simply be branded the Canada Line.

Is there any documentary evidence of this? It's fully possible, of course. But Bombardier's branding for the technology behind the existing SkyTrain system is actually "Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit"; SkyTrain is Translink's branding for its rapid transit. In theory, there's nothing stopping Translink from branding all its rapid transit lines as "SkyTrain" (and even using the same branding for the light rail Evergreen Line). I have no idea one way or the other, but unless Translink has issued some definitive edict on the subject, I don't think we should make this claim. --Jfruh (talk) 19:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should clarify that what I'm looking for evidence of is the fact that the Canada Line won't be branded as a SkyTrain line. It's well documented that it will be built with a different technology from the existing lines. --Jfruh (talk) 19:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
An anonymous IP address just edited this to say that the RAV line will definitively not use the SkyTrain branding. While it's obviously possible and even seems likely, it would be nice to have a citation. --Jfruh (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that it is likely, but unproven; I've removed it for now until we can find a citation. --Ckatzchatspy 03:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
The fact that the Canada Line will not be branded as a SkyTrain line is explicitly stated in the Frequently Asked Questions, Canada Line page on the City of Vancouver Rapid Transit Office site. In the answer for question six, it reads: "The Canada Line is not SkyTrain..." --Hyandrew (talk) 11:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
That source is using ‘SkyTrain’ as a generic term synonymous with ALRT, the particular train system used by the current SkyTrain line; the FAQ is merely addressing the fact that the Canada Line is based on different (and incompatible) technology. That doesn't mean that TransLink couldn't operate both systems as ‘SkyTrain’ if they wanted – ‘Toronto subway/RT’, ‘London Underground’, ‘Paris Métro’, and ‘Berlin U-Bahn’ all encompass two or more incompatible systems. The FAQ doesn’t address the issue of branding, and the decision wouldn’t be the City of Vancouver’s to make either way. David Arthur (talk) 14:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
David, I have no problem with a system encompassing two or more incompatible systems, as I know of a few myself. My interpretation of the FAQ is that "SkyTrain" represents the SkyTrain system (and branding), not the Bombardier ART trains or technology. But if the term "SkyTrain" in the FAQ did stand for the ART technology as you argued, it will still indicate that Canada Line is not branded as SkyTrain. Here's why...
The reason "SkyTrain" is a generic term synonymous with Bombardier ART is because the trains (and the system on which they run) are branded as such. Now if there indeed is a change in branding (i.e. Canada Line added to the SkyTrain branding), it no longer makes sense for SkyTrain to be synonymous with ART. Doing so would be the same as saying "Canada Line is branded as SkyTrain, but it is not SkyTrain (Bombardier ART)", which does not make sense and is confusing. In other words, doing so (as you argued) implies that Canada Line is not branded as SkyTrain. --Hyandrew (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
There’s no particular reason why ‘SkyTrain’ has to be synonymous with ART (the Bangkok Skytrain isn't ART), and in fact the City of Vancouver are being mildly confusing by using it in such a manner (notice that they refer to SkyTrain as a ‘technology’ rather than a system). Remember, though, that the City are not the ones to build, operate, or name the Canada Line; that's handled by TransLink, a regional agency not under their control. David Arthur (talk) 19:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

An update: though we can't be certain until launch, it's starting to look like this will indeed be officially a SkyTrain line. TransLink's official web site is now referring to that Canada Line as 'SkyTrain's newest line', and comparing its rolling stock to 'other SkyTrain cars'. David Arthur (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh thank God. Having it as a separate brand seemed like pathetic pettiness ("Oh, it's not SkyTrain, it's a different motor", like people care). Greg Salter (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the Canada Line official mark belongs to TransLink (SCBCTA) and the SkyTrain official mark belongs to BC Transit (which operated the public transit in Vancouver at the time of SkyTrain's launch). Of course, BC Transit & TransLink may have entered into agreements that limit their use of these; anyone know anything about that? rakslice (talk) 22:43, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Length of line

According to the Canada Line Office the line is 18.428 kilometers long excluding the OMC. According to my best measurements and calculations Waterfront to Bridgeport is 11.1 kilometers. The track splits at Bridgeport station, with one track going to YVR being 3.9 kilometers and the track going to Richmond Center being 3.4 kilometers. This puts the total non-OMC track length at 18.4 kilometers. Since these numbers are not from published sources (ie.original research) I will just leave them in the discussion page. The length of the two "lines" is:

  • W-0.7-C-1.0-Y-1.0-O-0.5-B-1.5-K-1.9-O-0.7-L-1.9-M-1.9-B-1.6-A-1.0-L-0.8-R= 14.5 km
  • W-0.7-C-1.0-Y-1.0-O-0.5-B-1.5-K-1.9-O-0.7-L-1.9-M-1.9-B-1.5-T-0.9-S-1.5-Y= 15.0 km

or, if you prefer, the length of the main line is

  • W-0.7-C-1.0-Y-1.0-O-0.5-B-1.5-K-1.9-O-0.7-L-1.9-M-1.9-B-1.6-A-1.0-L-0.8-R= 14.5 km

and the length of the spur line is

  • B-1.5-T-0.9-S-1.5-Y= 3.9 km

Whatever2009 (talk) 20:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Definition of Line

There has been some discussion regarding the meaning of the word "line". The most basic geometric definition of a line is a just that: a line, such as a straight line, or a curved line. A line is formed by drawing a pencil accross a piece of paper without lifting the pencil. If you lift the pencil and draw another line, well, then you have two lines. In some countries the definition of a line is strictly adhered to such as for tramlines in Belgium. In England, however, subway track systems are called lines. For example, the Picadilly Line is similar to the Canada Line. The Line in Canada Line or RAV Line also refers to a track system. Such usage is regrettable as it undermines the usefulness of the word line to mean a single route from point A to point B. The term Canada Line now has little meaning other han a brand as dicussed above. It must now be supplemented by the statement Airport or Richmond. However, in their presence, the Canada Line term become unnecessary; it no longer carries any useful information. It may make more sense to just number lines 1,2,3 and state their destination, such as 2, to Airport via Bridgeport. The number is a convenient way to address the line. Such as take the No.2, or take Line 2. The misuse of the term line complicated the description of the Canada Line in the article, such as when describing its length. The length of the track system is only relevant to reveal the scale of the construction project but does little to convey the contribution it makes to the transportation network.

ps.As far as branding is concerned as discussed above why don't people just call the system the Vancouver Metro Light Rail Network, line 1, Line 2, etc. Unlike the term Skytrain this can easily include surface LRT. Even more general: the Intercity Rapid Transit Network including the above light rail network, as well as any Rapid Bus and Express Bus services, connecting the regional town centers.

Whatever2009 (talk) 06:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

If you're from Vancouver (like me, Ckatz, and Emarsee), you would know that the Canada Line is just one line, not two. Yes, drawing a line, lifting the pencil, and drawing another one connecting to the original is two lines, but it could be branded in one line, which it is. Also, this is Vancouver, not Belgium, not England. This is a fact. The system is SkyTrain, the line is Canada Line. My suggestion is to use "the Airport route" and the "Richmond-Brighouse route", since, like I said, it is one line. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 06:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
There's never been any expectation that a railway line consist only of a single route. Most metro systems employ some sort of branching: London, as you note (but for some reason complain about) has many branches, Stockholm's three lines take in eight routes, and so on. TransLink could have chosen to present the Canada Line as two separate routes with shared track, but the reverse choice made much more sense: the common section is not only much longer than the southern branches, but will also carry the majority of passengers. This way, the burden of distinguishing between the two types of southbound trains is borne by the smaller number of people using the branches, rather than the larger number using the main line.
As for the name, the SkyTrain is separate from other services, just as the London Underground, Paris Métro, Stockholm T-Bana, Berlin U-Bahn, etc. etc. are separate from the bus and tram systems in those cities. Why shouldn't it have its own name? David Arthur (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
FYI, Translink/Canada Line describes the entire Vancouver-Richmond line as the main line, with the airport being treated as a branch line. Their rationale for this is based on their expectation that the majority of travel will be on the main line, with significantly less traffic on the airport run. (I've added a reference to this effect; it makes sense when you consider that YVR is funding part of the costs for the airport extension.) --Ckatzchatspy 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Capstan Way Station

I've noticed that on several occasions, references to Capstan Way Station have been removed. Although the nearby development project was canceled, and therefore the station won't be built according to the original timeline, it doesn't mean it won't be built in the future. I've seen recent (July 2009) videos of tours of Canada Line, and on one of them, the guide mentioned that Capstan Way is one of the locations for a future station. Even if Capstan Way is completely canceled, it doesn't mean all reference to it should be removed; a paragraph of explanation would be more helpful. I'm re-adding Capstan Way Station as proposed. If anyone believes it has been completely canceled, please add information to that effect (with references), rather than removing information. Thanks! Klparrot (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've found a source: Planning to cancel CANCELLED. Basically without the development at Capstan Way, there would be no station since the developers would've paid $15 million to fund the station. There is no way they would build this station now since the area is non-residential and without the project, this station is dead.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 00:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The map on Canada Line's website still says future though. Canada Line Map —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.6.234.106 (talk) 04:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I've seen that map ever since 2005ish, the maps on the trains itself do not list any of the future stations, and Capstan is defiantly cancelled until the land adjacent to it is developed.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Cambie St

Some parts of Cambie (south of King Ed) were built by boring, weren't they? I do not recall any cut & cover from King Ed to 33rd - even when only one side of median was open, the road on the east side was the original, as I recall --JimWae (talk) 06:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There's no mention of boring being used there on the Canada Line construction site.

The cut-and-cover construction will be used: Along Granville Street from north of Pender Street to Hastings Street in downtown Vancouver, and along Cambie Street from 2nd Avenue to 64th Avenue (Tunnel Portal area). [1]

Vortigern (talk) 09:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that cut and cover was used from 64th Avenue until the Olympic Village station. From there on until Waterfront, it's bored. If you check the videos on Youtube, you can find the downtown portion of the tunnel is circular while the portion down Cambie are square. I'm very sure that the Queen Elizabeth Park section wasn't bored and it was indeed cut and cover. I believe Bombardier's plan for boring would've bored straight through the bend on Cambie, but SNC-Lavalin's plan called for cut and cover along the bend.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You are correct.

All that maks sense - but how did they keep so much of the old blacktop intact - on both sides of the street - from King Ed to 29th? --JimWae (talk) 18:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure they did keep the original pavement. [1]. The link has a picture (poor resolution - sorry!) showing construction south of King Edward, and the road appears to be dug up. The second page also indicates that the east side of Cambie was reopened to traffic in November 2007. Vortigern (talk) 14:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I drove Cambie often. The pavement from KingEd south for about 2 blocks was intact on both sides. On the east side, they stored equipment atop the old pavement. Traffic flowed on the west side. You can see the pavement in the photo you indicated. --JimWae (talk) 01:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It could be that that section of Cambie was used for transitioning from the twinned cut and cover tunnel to a stacked cut and cover tunnel. AFAIK, King Ed is the only stacked station on the Canada Line.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
One last picture. [2] You can see the stacked tunnels there, and a cut to the surface above them. Perhaps, because of the stacking, the line was narrow enough that pavement could be left intact? Vortigern (talk) 10:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

System Map

The System Map places Vancouver City Center, North of granville station, when in reality it is south of it. While the map is topologically correct, I believe that it is heavily misleading since some geographical accuracy is implied.SJrX10 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that too. Both the route diagram and the my Canada Line are correct. I think you should bring it up with DavidArthur, the creator of the SkyTrain system map.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 01:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll find a fix for the coming revision. The opening of the Canada Line (along with the prospect of Millennium Line extensions) has made an increase in geographic accuracy necessary, and this always produces complications in the city-centre loop. David Arthur (talk) 20:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Capacity

This article has a guy saying that the stations are too short and will be hard to upgrade (he also says that it is "single track" for a portion, I guess he's talking about the stacked part). Is this legitimate criticism? Will 100,000 people a day be reasonable, and what happens if ridership grows beyond that? Should this be in the criticism section? TastyCakes (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The single tracking occurs on the last few hundred metres of line at both YVR and in Richmond. It will only become an issue if and when the line is extended further into Richmond (which is probably some way off). As for ridership, the more common criticism is that it will be well below 100,000, since, under the terms of the P3, Translink would then have to compensate the private partner. Is it legitimate criticism? Possibly, but only in the relatively long term, and only assuming growth in ridership. Vortigern (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Considering that there were 85,000 boardings on a Sunday, I would say that it is well on it's way to 100,000 well before 2013. There are people complaining that platforms and trains are too short, but most of them are forum posts and not reliable sources like the CBC. I would say that the single track is a valid complaint as there is a very good chance that the Canada Line is going to be extended further into Richmond in the future, but it's not a valid complaint for the YVR line as it has nowhere to go.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 17:26, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
The first complaint is that the stations are built so that renovations would be required in order to run longer trains than are being used initially. This isn’t unprecedented (Copenhagen's beautiful new metro did the same thing), nor is it too large problem, since automated operation makes it just as cheap to increase frequencies as to lengthen trains. And higher frequencies present a greater benefit to passengers anyway.
With that in mind, the single track is a more unusual choice, and presents a slightly larger potential problem. Even before extensions become an issue (trams might be a better option for Richmond anyway), the main issue is that neither southern terminus can accommodate an incoming train and an outgoing one at the same time, putting a cap on the possible frequencies. Theoretically, it could eventually be necessary for some trains to terminate at Bridgeport in order to provide sufficient capacity on the Vancouver section, but I don’t think it’s likely to be a problem any time soon.
In the mean time, these various compromises have enabled Vancouver to get a metro line for substantially less than the going rate. David Arthur (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Seating?

The seating figure in the train specs doesn't mention the actual number of seats. Anyone have this? rakslice (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


Question about future extension

It looks to me like a 15 – 20 kilometer extension south could take the Canada Line to the ferry terminal at Tsawwassen. Has there been any suggestion that this might be done some day, any study of the feasability?

I'd say it's pretty unlikely that such an extension would be made in the next few decades, because the population density along any likely route probably isn't high enough to justify rapid transit. As for any studies, the GVRD periodically carries out studies of overall transit service for parts of the regional district, so presumably there is a study covering Delta and Tsawwassen. Try the GVRD website maybe? Vortigern 15:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I can see it extending into West Richmond though. I live there, and for every house they knock down, they build two or three -- in many places, the population density rivals East Vancouver's. -→Buchanan-Hermit™/?! 19:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
I'd love to see the Canada Line extended to the Tsawwassen Ferry Terminal. When the George Massey Tunnel gets twinned, an extra tube should be added to accommodate a future extension of the Canada Line into Delta. --  Denelson83  19:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I could see the Canada Line being expanded to either Ladner or Tsawwassen, but it will take a lot of growth for the expansion to happen. It's likely the line will head down to Steveston via the Railway ROW. A light rail line to Tsawwassen is more likely in my opinion and it should use the old Massey Tunnel tubes. I would think a new bridge would be better than a tunnel.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 02:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Change from Bombardier to Mitsubishi Electric

I ended up changing the electrical components listed from Bombardier to Mitsubishi Electric. The reason is that there is no solid information available anywhere from Bombardier themselves and also have not been able to find any information from an independent site stating this. As for Mitsubishi Electric, I had found a profile of a project manager who was responsible for testing and installation of electrical components, including propulsion and HVAC systems. The rationale for updating to Mitsubishi is that there at least is some documentation that can be verified, even if it is a LinkedIn profile for a project manager. After all, a project manager for Mitsubishi would not be installing Bombardier systems when Bombardier was not permitted to bid on the Canada Line itself. If the article were to revert back to listing Bombardier MITRAC, there needs to be solid evidence presented with weblinks. Prior to my update and revert, there was nothing listed that can be viewed. Babyox4420 (talk) 18:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Your are indeed correct that Bombardier does not mention that they are the motor supplier, but at the same time there are no solid sources that say Mitsubishi is either. The simple fact of the matter is that Linkedin is not a reliable source and cannot be used in this case. Their is no way to verify this person's claims (and further more they never explicitly state that the motor were Mitsubishi, simply that he worked on them. This could have been in a previous job, or even under contract). The way forward here is to simply remove the material all together and keep it removed until a reliable source (official release, news article, etc.) can be found that explicitly mentions what motors are used. I have also posted on the WikiProject Trains talk page asking for help in finding a source.Ravendrop 21:49, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
I think this is probably the best way to go at this point in just listing that it uses AC propulsion. I did look at Rotem's website and it didn't list the actual manufacturer. Even though I think that a project manager would most likely not make up a project that was worked on in my opinion, removing the info at this point is the best way going forward. I think all of us can agree on that. Babyox4420 (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Verifying ridership numbers

There are new ridership numbers in the info boxes for most stations now. Thank you to the anonymous contributor. The facts are not currently cited, but instructions to verify have been offered by the contributor. Discussion is here: Verification/calculation procedure for transit ridership numbers. I hope these facts can remain, but we have to come up with a way to cite them so future readers can verify the facts. Note that the instructions are not easy (I have been unable to verify), but I don't know if this really matters. Another editor noted that the figures may be from a Primary Source and, thus, not as good as if the information was reported by a reliable Secondary Source. Anyways, the discussion is probably best centralized over here, rather than here or in individual station article talk pages. --Ds13 (talk) 21:43, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

File:BSicon uBS2lf-ELEV.svg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:BSicon uBS2lf-ELEV.svg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Other speedy deletions
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Vehicles

Does anyone know if the new vehicles will be compatible with the existing SkyTrain lines? Will a new vehicle yard need to be built for them? --Jfruh 16:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

The new line will have its own yard, and I don't believe there will even be (initially, at least) a connection between it and the Expo Line. Both fleets are built for standard-guage tracks, so combining the two segments in future would be more practicable than with Toronto's 'subway' lines and the Scarborough RT, but I don't know whether the train-control systems will be compatible in such a way as to allow ART and ROTEM vehicles to run on the same line. Certainly it's unlikely that the Canada Line will have the induction plate that the ART trains require. David Arthur 18:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
No, they are not. The original Skytrain cars use linear induction motors. The Canada Line cars are standard electric motor drive. You can see that the distance from the platform to the track is greater on the Canada Line that Skytrain. 204.244.110.7 (talk) 01:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

2015 Olympic Village incident

I posted a fairly large amount of information about an incident that happened at Olympic Village Station on August 13, 2015 and a majority got deleted. The majority was comments from reddit speculating as to what happened and I clearly marked it as from social media to let people know that it was from social media, namely reddit. Here is a link to the old revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Olympic_Village_Station&oldid=677466992 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cganuelas (talk • contribs) 01:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Social media is not a reliable source. Speculation is also not reliable. Clearly marking unreliable content does not permit it to be added. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:34, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Canada Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Canada Line. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://www.canadaline.ca/constructionMethodsCandC.asp
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Canada_Line/Archive_1&oldid=1142755201"