Template talk:TransLink services/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:TransLink services. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Table expansion

I've expanded the table to include SeaBus and the West Coast Express, and renamed the table accordingly. (Since I've added a "Next station" table to the Lonsdale Quay article and created a "Next station" template for the West Coast Express—in line with the four rapid transit lines—it makes sense to maintain visual consistency across articles by also adding this template to the SeaBus and West Coast Express-related articles.)

There's still the ambiguity of referring to the Canada Line and Evergreen Line as "SkyTrain" (the former because it's largely underground and the latter because it will use a significantly different technology), but it's a marketing term—anyhow, we can always adapt if TransLink ever comes up with a new term to bundle all the services together.

P.S.: I've added the proposed future WCE stations in North Burnaby and Albion, as mentioned on TransLink's "Increasing West Coast Express Service" page, as they are proposed to open for service around the same time the Canada and Evergreen Lines begin operation.

-Sewing - talk 18:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Robson/Granvile?

I've been wondering, why are the two stations bunched together in the Canada Line row? Aren't they two seperate stations? deadkid_dk 10:56, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I removed "Granville" from the list yesterday. The list doesn't group Broadway and Commercial Drive together—even though they're arguably one interconnected station—so why give special treatment to Robson and Granville Stations, when it's not even known (and quite unlikely) that there'll be a direct connection between the two, except possibly via Pacific or Vancouver Centre Malls? -Sewing - talk 18:06, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tweaks

I've reworked the template a bit, deleting "under construction" from the Canada Line and Evergreen Line boxes in favour of moving them below a "Lines under construction" tag. This achieves two goals: one, having the "UC" in the boxes broke the nice clean box format, and two, it now better demonstrates the existing-versus-future lines. (Plus, I think, helps to avoid any confusion as to whether the C-Line and Ev-Line (?!?) are actually in service.) --Ckatz 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I wonder how the Evergreen Line will be tagged in stations. If I recall correctly, the Expo and Millennium lines are tagged around stations as E and M. Canada can obviously be tagged as C, but what about Evergreen - G? EG? (The Egg Line... hmmm....)

One more thing... right now, I've added the TransLink graphic on the left side as well. This is not optimal; I'm really hoping to find a way to keep just one TransLink image, on the right as per the original template, but with the template title properly centred. Right now, without the kludge, the title centres on the width of the template, less the space occupied by the TL graphic, which places it off-centre to the left. Sigh... anyone know how to do this? As well, the title is now in all-caps, which is more appropriate for a title. --Ckatz 05:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Or, we could just remove the Translink logo. Apparently we're not supposed to include fair use images on templates anyway. (I wasn't aware of this policy when I first started the template.)

On the other hand, no offense, but I'm not too keen on having the title in all-caps. Maybe it's just me (from hanging out too much at forums), but I still equate all-caps on the internet with shouting. (Although I'm fine with having the supplementary/explanatory line at the bottom in all-caps, since mixed case doesn't look too good at that font size.) Besides, I have yet to come across templates with all-caps titles. JMHO. Hinto 03:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about naming the title "transit stations"...since the Pacific Central Station and other non-Translink operated transit points (e.g YVR or the ferry terminals) can be called transit stations as well...deadkid_dk 06:34, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Another alternative would be to say "transit lines"; there wouldn't be any confusion with the bus system ("routes") and it would address your concerns. Ckatz

I've added interline connection icons to the template. The colour boxes test well; I've asked a few people and they "got it" without explanation. The boxes actually read better than the coloured letters in the station templates, so I will probably swap those in tomorrow. --Ckatz 07:20, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Ckatz: Looking good. I like the coloured boxes to show connections. Looks better than the superscripts. Regarding "E-Line" and "M-Line," the only time I recall seeing one of those used is in Millennium Line stations, where a stylized "M-Millennium Line" (?—I can't recall its exact wording now) appears on glass panels. I certainly don't recall seeing "E" or "M" being used to refer to either line in any literature or on tickets...or am I mistaken? (BTW, I always figured if one were to use single-letter abbreviations, use "X" for "Expo," freeing up "E" for "Evergreen.") -Sewing - talk 17:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not sure of the best title. Currently, it says "Rapid Transit..." (sorry, "RAPID TRANSIT..."), but SeaBus and West Coast Express are not considered rapid transit...one is a ferry service and the other a commuter rail line. Maybe that's my fault for throwing them in with the four rapid transit lines. Maybe go back to "Transit Stations," or if that doesn't work, something else? When I originally added SeaBus and WCE to the template, I changed the title to "SkyTrain, SeaBus, and West Coast Express," but as others have pointed out, it may not be right to lump the Canada Line and Evergreen Line in under the rubric of "SkyTrain." Maybe remove SeaBus and West Coast Express and create new templates for them, then retain the title "Rapid Transit..." for this template? Also, I do agree with Hinto that all caps don't look quite right. -Sewing - talk 14:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that adding SeaBus and the WCE was the problem. In fact, including those services actually makes the template far more useful, since it now provides a much more complete illustration of the regional transit network. The major services are now represented, with the exception of the bus network, and (assuming a basic familiarity with the transit system) it is even possible to plan a journey using only the template. (Adding buses could be as simple as a note on the bottom stating that there are bus connections at every station; I haven't checked the accuracy of that statement, but I would presume it is true, however.) If we do go this route, then the title could be "Transit services in Greater Vancouver". Personally, I prefer all-caps, since it is the primary title and I think it gets a bit lost otherwise, but it's not a big deal. (I get the "shouting" association, but in the context of a title, I thnk it reads differently - more of a print thing I guess.) --Ckatz 21:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See my latest suggestion under "A suggestion" below. By the way, for what it's worth, Sapperton Station is the only station I can think of off the top of my head that has no connecting bus service to speak of, except for the 200-metre-or-so hike up to the #112 on Columbia Street. -Sewing - talk 02:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion

How about a template—say, "TransLink Services in Greater Vancouver"—that would have links to the main Expo Line, Millennium Line, Canada Line, Evergreen Line, SeaBus, and West Coast Express, as well as to, say, the 97, 98, and 99 B-Line articles, List of bus routes in Greater Vancouver, and whatever else is appropriate; attached to the appropriate article pages? Meanwhile, an "Expo Line Stations" template would be created for the Expo Line, "Millennium Line Stations" for the Millennium Line, and so on? Thus, this/these template(s) would take up less space on each page, and we would eliminate the vexing problem of what to name all these non-bus services collectively. -Sewing - talk 02:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it would weaken the individual articles to strip out information about what is, in reality, an interconnected system. I've also been considering a line about the buses (as well as the Albion ferry) to make this template complete, and then tagging it on the remaining TransLink-related articles. The template really isn't all that big, especially when you consider that many of the articles are rather short (and likely to stay that way). Let's not get too hung up on the title of the template - just call it "TransLink Services in Greater Vancouver" as you suggested. My concern is that we're going to end up tossing concise, useful information in favour of the "perfect name". --Ckatz 05:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Check out the latest revision to the template. I've added a line about the bus network, broken down into the individual B-Lines and the regional services (which link to the appropriate sections of the bus route article). The title has been changed as well, as per Sewing's suggestion. As to my earlier suggestion about the Albion ferry, the more I think about it, the less I feel inclined to put it in. From what I can tell, it's primarily a car ferry, and there doesn't seem to be much in the way of bus services connecting to it anyways. --Ckatz 05:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Another suggestion: for the Canada Line, the Richmond section isn't a "branch" per se. Rather, the line from Vancouver to Richmond is continuous. The only "branch" is the extension to the airport. The Canada Line's rationale was to connect Richmond's city centre to downtown Vancouver; the airport is simply an extension. Perhaps the "Richmond Branch" section can be combined with the main Vancouver stations, leaving the "Airport Branch" as the only "branch."

So something like:

Canada Line

It might also make more sense because Bridgeport Station is in Richmond, not in Vancouver. The current format makes it look like it's in Vancouver. --Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!.... 09:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Checked out the Richmond/Airport branch on TransLink's web site and they speak of it the same way - so the change is in. I've reworked the Canada Line article a bit to reflect this, and of course the Bridgeport/Richmond note. As for the template, I've tweaked your tweaks (to my tweaks) in order to shorten the length of the text. --Ckatz 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Coquitlam vs. Coquitlam Central

I just realized that once the Evergreen Line is done, there's going to be major confusion about "Coquitlam Central Station" and "Coquitlam Station," because at the moment they mean the same thing. (i.e. The 97 B-Line's destination displays read "Coquitlam Station" when in fact it is Coquitlam CENTRAL Station.) -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 01:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it's anything like the Canada Line, the station names will change a few times before the opening! :-) -- Usgnus 02:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use & Logo Issues

Some users have started deleting logos off transportation & station templates like this. There are a few left, like this one. Apparently under fair use policy, it isn't allowed to include the logos on a template as such, and can only be used to portray the organisation etc. Feel free to add a appropriate non-fair use image. Train or Bus pictures with the signs photographed by an editor here may be a good alternative. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 15:09, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bus Loops

I think a list of the bus loops in the region such as Airport Station should be added to this template. So somthing like:

Exchanges

Airport Station | UBC Loop | Kootenay Loop

-- Selmo

I think it's a good idea, but perhaps we can put them all into a single article (List of transit exchanges in Greater Vancouver to match List of bus routes in Greater Vancouver?), spinning off only some of the more important ones, like the ones in the example above. --Usgnus 00:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. -- Selmo

Broadway interchange on Millennium Line

In the template, in the Millennium Line listing, Broadway (old station) is shown as interchanging with the Expo Line. But the designation of it as an interchange is based on the connection with Commercial Drive, which technically should make it a Millennium Line interchange? You can't really ride into Broadway on a Millennium Line train and change to the Expo Line unless you hopped onto an Expo Line train on the same platform, something that you can do at any other station on the old Waterfront-Columbia stretch anyways.

-Kelvinc 00:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed it. Kelvinc (talk) 06:58, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Millennium Line , Expo Line extensions

Hi. I added two sections for the proposed extensions into the table. If you feel they need to be changed, or removed until there are better details, you have my support. (I won't be angry, lol) 24.83.90.35 (talk) 01:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the change. Unfortunately, it had to be removed for several reasons. First off, if we were to add an extension, we would do it in line with the current run. (For example, the Expo Line would continue its existing listing, not start a new one.) More importantly, at this point in time we have no concrete information as to where it is going, what stations will be called, and so on. IIRC, it was some time before the Canada Line and Evergreen Line were added, as we waited until there was definitive information. Thanks again, though. --Ckatz^chat_spy 04:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

"Skytrain" branding?

Will the Evergreen and Canada lines be "branded" as SkyTrain lines when they are completed, since the technology will be different? I can see the Canada Line getting a SkyTrain designation but the Evergreen Line being called something else, since it will be light rail. --Jfruh 23:35, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the exact same thing. I know that the Canada Line will NOT be SkyTrain; there's no reason for it to be here. Same with Evergreen. Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!..

..

09:42, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, "SkyTrain" isn't exactly a technical term ... they could theoretically call the Canada line SkyTrain even though the two systems won't be Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit. I can understand why you'd want all four lines on the same template too. Maybe the template should be called "Vancouver Rail Transit Stations" or something? --Jfruh 14:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ckatz had since added "SkyTrain" and "LRT" titles to the four rapid transit lines; I've taken the liberty to remove the "SkyTrain" title from Canada Line for now. - Hinto 07:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And I've re-edited my own edit to pull the "LRT" tag from the Evergreen Line, since it's not clear what the system will be. (Given BC's history with these projects, it could be LRT, it could be ALRT, or it could go away entirely, depending on the political mood of the day. Such is life in Lotusland... --Ckatz 07:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by ALRT but surely anything under consideration falls under the category of light rail as Wikipedia defines it? --Jfruh 15:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The "A" is for automated, as in the driverless SkyTrain system. Given your interest in public transit, you may already have read this page; see the references to ART, which was referred to locally as ALRT. The original plan was to extend SkyTrain out to Coquitlam, which then got postponed, and then changed to an LRT system. As for identifying a particular system on the template, it would be speculation at this point, as with the Canada Line and "SkyTrain" branding. --Ckatz 16:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

As I recall, the "A" in "ALRT" stood for "Advanced." The original plan way, way back in the very early 1980s was to build a conventional LRT line between Waterfront and New Westminster...much like the technology being considered for the Evergreen Line now. Then one day, the SoCreds announced that they'd be using UTDC's newfangled technology out of Ontario, the main distinctions being that the line would be (a) fully automated and (b) operated entirely on its own grade-separated guideway. Although the new technology was automated, I believe the line was branded as being advanced. My 2 cents. -Sewing - talk 17:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought the "A" stood for "automated." Buchanan-H e rmit™..SCREAM!!!..

..

17:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely "Advanced." I recall as much from when the line was first being built, but these (seemingly authoritative) sources also use the term:

-Sewing - talk 18:04, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

From a quick Google of "ALRT", it seems to be a mix of both. Wow, I'd forgotten about the original LRT proposal. It sure demonstrates the "don't believe it 'til you're riding it" attitude one needs with transit megaprojects... --Ckatz 18:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, BC governments of all political stripes seem to love upgrading their pet megaprojects way beyond whatever the original plan was! Anyhow, I'd take the BC Transit Act as the gospel truth in this regard, and assume that "Advanced" is indeed the original, intended reading of the "A." This is definitely what it meant in the original marketing material from the early 80s, but as I don't have it any more and doubt any of it is online (just collecting dust in TransLink's archives somewhere, perhaps), the BC Transit Act is all I have to go by. -Sewing - talk 21:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is instructive, but leaving aside the weird, mushy uses to which Bombadier puts the term "light", from my understanding it is pretty well settled that the Evergreen Line will be a light rail in the sense that Wikipedia and most people in the transit biz use the term: that is, as a descendent of streetcar technology, not a descendent of heavy rail metro technology. Check out the graphic on the Evergreen Line project page -- that's a street-level tram, very different from even a "light" metro like SkyTrain or the Canada Line. --Jfruh 22:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

At least now we know for sure that it will be ALRT, even if we don't know if it will be Bombardier. Then again you guys are right, maybe nothing will get built. :( 209.121.155.196 (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Preparing for Evergreen

There's been quite a lot of discussion at User talk:Northwest#preparing for Evergreen about updating this once service on the Evergreen Extension starts. I'm thinking we should move that discussion here. Here's one proposal: User:Joeyconnick/sandbox/TransLink_Services_2017 (adapted from work by Sweetnhappy) --Joeyconnick (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm in favour of moving discussion here :). Also, I propose moving Coquitlam Central railway station back to Coquitlam Central station as it won't be an exclusive West Coast Express station. Northwest (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that move only happened earlier this year, and given Skytrain is arguably a more important part of the system than WCE, I'm more than fine with that. And there's precedence for that naming, since Waterfront is at Waterfront station (Vancouver) and it is also a light metro/traditional railway combo. You should probably mention it at Talk:Coquitlam Central railway station, though, so the most interested parties can see it coming... and wait until Oct 22 or later to do it. Joeyconnick (talk) 00:32, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Don't wait. Move it now and cleanup all the related templates while you are doing everything else. I moved it originally because it was only a railway station on the CPR line at that time. Be bold! Secondarywaltz (talk) 03:57, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a difference between "being bold" and jumping the gun. No doubt someone will come along and say "Evergreen doesn't open until December" and then we'll get pointless reversions back and forth. Joeyconnick (talk) 02:13, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sweetnhappy: Has anybody been working on updating both Template:Expo Line and Template:Millennium Line? Northwest (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Northwest: Not that I'm aware of. I was thinking of doing it once upon a time but the different format and the added details deterred me from starting. I guess now would be a good time to get to work on them, but I don't have the time. Oh and a note about the templates (all of them), the old ones should be preserved somewhere as a historical record - that's why I added templates to the B-Lines where missing, including the defunct 98.