What blew my mind about SkyTrain was when I first rode it during rush hour. I was going up the stairs just in time to see my train depart. My heart sank and I got ready to wait for the next train. Then I looked up the track, and saw another train zooming in, right on the heels of the one I missed. I couldn't believe it. Van's service is awesome, and I want it here in Ottawa.
It was a great mode of transport when I went to visit in December! The Canada line is a one ride godsend from the airport to downtown and the frequency is unreal compared to my usual car-centric LA Metro.
I had a similar experience with the Victoria line, I missed my train as I came down the stairs but as one train entered the tunnel I could already see the lights of the next!
My first experience of the Skytrain was at Expo 86 ... a section of it was used as a free shuttle service between the main Expo site and a second site, which (if I recall correctly) housed the Canada pavillion. It was evening, train was packed, like commuters in rush hour (or sardines in a tin)
I'm in London and at my local Underground station the trains are 90 seconds apart during the rush hours on one of the lines and 120 seconds on the other. Unless there are 'severe delays' announced at the station entrance or on the local app I no longer worry if a train has just left because almost always there's another coming in 60 to 90 seconds. This system goes back to 1863 but it somehow still works. Having a decent public transport system should be something akin to a human right.
Yes but it didn’t originally go to bank and Stratford whilst important locally was not the major area it is today. And also Canary Wharf wasn’t that developed by then. Once the jubilee line extension comes along the dlr became far more relevant and integrated
When DLR started the Jubilee line was not yet completed it was the only way to isle of Dogs. The 1990 Real estate collapse allowed the a long shake out period.
So many cities in the USA that are currently lacking in rapid transit (San Antonio, Columbus, etc) could benefit from a system like the SkyTrain. Its versatility is very remarkable, having features of both a metro and a regional-scale train line like you said. The 90 second headways at peak times that can be seen on it is also extremely beneficial for a mass transit system. Also, I think a lot of people would prefer having something like the SkyTrain or DLR built as opposed to a surface LRT running in the median of a road.
I wonder if something like that in the jersey city area would work out. It's the fastest growing part of the NYC metro but suffers from not being on the subway.
@@transitcaptain PATH is pretty heavy and might be hard to expand throughout the region though (and I'm not sure the current light rail has enough capacity? But I haven't actually taken it). Expanding PATH service is probably a higher priority either way, but there might be a role for a complementary DLR style thing (if only because they could run it locally and not have the deal with New York transit agencies for integration, which are awful).
@@shakedkoplewitz875 There’s no room for a DLR-esque system, all needs can be met by PATH and HBLR extensions to places like Weehawken and Fort Lee. Tell me, where would a Skytrain work in New Jersey where light rail or PATH wont?
The DLR is an incredible example of how something that was designed to be fairly low cost can turn into something magnificent and loved, as well as encouraging development of an area into the hugely important hub it is today. Especially considering when it was built, not much connected to it, no Jubilee line extension, no running to Stratford and no elizabeth Line, yet it was still used, and over time has just become better integrated to make it even more useful and important. also, congrats on 200k subs
Man I love the DLR, despite all its flaws! My GF lives off one of the stations, been riding it from Canary Wharf to see her. The trains are so dumpy and odd-looking, but the network is frequent and fast so it's more than adequate for what we need. Being able to nip right into Bank is amazing, especially with the easy changes between trains/lines.
As a rider the Skytrain experience is really good, it's on it's own right-of-way so it's faster than traffic, it's automated so you're not subject to the whims of drivers, and it's frequent so travel times are predictable within 3-5 minutes. Compared to BART with it's super long, infrequent trains that fall behind schedule or sometimes don't come at all and run faster in daytime sunny weather and slow way down on the outdoor portions when it's dark and rainy. I even like the detatched cars on the old trains with no walk-throughs. It means you can sit in peace while in motion and there are no people endlessly walking from one end of the train to the other looking for a better spot.
I'd love for you to make an explainer on the Tyne-and-Wear Metro - built 7 years BEFORE the DLR - its a system that doesn't get enough attention, despite being one of the few metro / light rail systems we have here in the UK!
I agree I love the metro built in the days of inter grated transport our large cities had their PTEs Newcastle had its superb modern yellow and white buses of Tyne &wear PTE as did the metro ,back in the days of Tyne tees Tv,razzmatazz and the tube ,and I’m a Londoner but love the area in our north east .
There will be new trains introduced on this service very soon .... I remember visiting it when it first opened, took a day trip from London to do this, big excitement!
It is a really useful metro for where it is. With it connecting 2 cities and several towns and for northern england outside london such system is really rare. Also idk why but the new trains look like heavyrail ones to me....
@@davidty2006 ik what u mean, the new trains look very modern and definitely seem larger... I'm excited for the update, i think its necessary, but the old trains are iconic and.. kind of adorable?
I think part of the reason we haven't seen more of them is their requirement for complete grade separation compared to a light rail system. One of the things to get cut when transit planners are looking to save money are scrapping elevated and tunneled sections, instead running at street level with at grade crossings or in mixed traffic. And as soon as you do that, you're locked into driver operated light rail even if it's just a short section. Seattle is a good example, if it wasn't for the at grade sections in the city center you could easily have an automated SkyTrain or DLR style service.
@@billyswong It can cause problems further down the road, yes, as your at grade sections become increasingly congested. But elevated and tunelled track is expensive, and it can be difficult to justify the extra investment to the bean counters when you might not see the benefits for a decade or more.
The street-running sections of Seattle's system are an example of being penny-wise and pound-foolish, but fortunately they are fairly limited (Rainier Valley excepted) and could be corrected in the future. Even RV could largely be solved by adding road underpasses (if they don't want to pay for an elevated track). Seattle absolutely should build no more street-running segments (though I think they are currently around Redmond) and should focus on elevated, tunneled, or open-cut-running trackage.
@@1978dkelly I think the terminus in Redmond is elevated. The problem is any street running sections at all constrains the design of the rest of the system.
The more I learn the more I wish Seattle would have built something like the sky train instead of link. It makes so much more sense for the city as we also have very difficult geography and a lack of legacy rail.
Hell, your light rail doesn't even hook up to the airport. The people designing it clearly didn't care all that much about making an actual useful system.
The DLR and SkyTrain being automated for about 35+ years should be enough to dispell the idea that automated metro trains are a new fangled thing that has had no testing or is unsafe.
The Victoria Line opened in 1968, and it is pretty much an automated metro. The original 1967 stock didn't stop accurately enough at the platforms to actually run driverless. The newer 2009 stock do, so all the driver does is open and close the doors. With a bit of re-wiring of the trains, that could be done from the passenger area rather than the driver cab, and then it would be like the train captains on the DLR.
Should be, but isn't, because unions need to protect the jobs of their employees, so they'll spew whatever nonsense is required to ensure automated never happens. At least that's been the status quo for over 4 decades in Toronto.
@@RMTransit I think you're right on the culture aspect, for example in Japan being a train driver or working for JR is a high status job much like being a Pilot in North America, Japan could easily automate the Yamanote Line for example as they already have systems in place like automatic stopping and automatic positioning if they overrun. However they still don't because of the culture aspect just having a driver makes people happy there and some people really enjoy the job. There have been plans to automate it but I don't see them doing it for at least for now maybe another 20 years or if those current plans end up going through.
I don't think the Sky Train is as niche as you imply. I think it really fits into any city where you have significant density but not packed in highrises. Areas like Scarborough (unirononically) or Mississauga, where you have high density developments and connections to higher level regional services, but exisiting urban layouts make Trams less valuable due to the lack of at grade ROW and the larger distance between locations due to sprawl which makes higher speed essential. Likewise, the sprawl means densities aren't high enough to support full subway projects where trains would opperate at low capacity. Really I think most Urban, but not metropolitan, areas should use a combination of Skytrain for transit and Tramway to work as an extension of walking.
Scarborough HAS the Skytrain, it's called the SRT, or line 3, it's the exact same tech as the mark 1 cars used for SkyTrain. The issue is that unions got involved, forcing the fully automated line to staffed by a driver who just pressed the 'door close' button at every station. And of course, the SRT was SUPPOSED to be trams, before the government got involved and basically forced the TTC to use the technology used, which is dog **** in the winter causing TONS of problems and extra costs. The tech works fine in Vancouver where snow is infrequent, but in Toronto the tech is garbage. And then, finally, you had the NIMBY factor which basically shut down ANY chance of expanding the system in ANY way. Transit in Toronto is a lost cause, ANY chance of getting something good and worthwhile is immediately shut down by the NIMBYs and the downtown core people who have tons of voting power.
@@repatch43 I know it uses the same tech, thats why I said unironnically, and I would say the main issue is it is only 3 stops long. Had it been built out it would have been useful, but I agree a "driver" on an automated vehicle is stupid. I believe it was originally developed in Toronto and the SRT was the pilot project. the same tech is used in Detroit, so I think the snow can be overcome (not that that is a good system either). But all in all a tram network would have been good too. I think you're misrepresenting the downtown corr people, it's the middle area between downtown, like the donland, that I think is the issue. NIMBYs are definitely a problem in Toronto, but I wouldn't say transit is a lost cause, we have some good projects in the works.
The thing I think is particularly attractive of these systems is offering ultra-low wait times even at off-peak times. That sort of high convenience, low cognitive demand transit is really important for getting people onto transit and building cities based around it. I also like the way in which ultra-low wait times lend themselves to integration with bus networks. I think many people would be very unlikely to take a trip that was a bus, then a train and then a bus if the wait for the train is potentially 20 minutes. However, if that wait for a train is 3 minutes or less, a very impractical sounding journey becomes much less hassle.
I lived one year in Vancouver, even though the city is not so transit-oriented especially if you live outside Vancouver (I lived in Burnaby on the division with Coquitlam), there was a Skytrain station where I used to live but, if I had an early morning flight from YVR for example I had to take a cab because the Skytrain only operates after 6-7am on weekends. Now that I live in Edmonton, I can see how much better Vancouver is. Edmonton feels like any north American town, with very limited transit, lots of cars and highways crossing the city. I didn't like Vancouver at the time because took me almost 2 hours to get to the University, but now in Edmonton, I live much closer to my current university but takes me 1 hour to get there because of how bad transit is here.
I saw the gondola in London and thought it would be really cool if you did a full video about the Burnaby Mountain gondola. You have mentioned it in other videos, but one dedicated to the history and planning of it would be interesting. It could be paired with another video once/if it is built.
The fact that DLR doesn't even cover much area and people still bombard it just goes to show how good of a transit it is. By the way, what editing software do you use for your videos and Thumbnails?
Sydney metros is Alstom, which got its first true experience in automatic train control with the SACEM system of RER A in Paris developed with the help of Matra/Siemens. Meanwhile, Matra/Siemens knowledge on automatic train control came from the VAL system which is the true precursor of many automated metros, with the notable standardization of platform screen-doors, which are missing on the Skytrain and the DLR. Now I know that some metros in Russia had platform screen-doors before VAL (and probably elsewhere), and that Morgantown PRT system also had a great deal of automation before VAL, but you must give credit for Matra/Siemens for coming up with an integrated system which is still state-of-art today despite its 40 years of existence. All the VAL systems built so far have incredible ridership especially considering they are based in relatively small cites (at least in Europe) and are all very reliable. That being said I don't want to sound too critical, your video are great and I'm a frequent viewer of your channel as well :)
Lille, Rennes and Toulouse are happy with there systems, yes (even if Toulouse is moving out with there Line 3), because the VAL was quite cheap compared to other metro system at the time, didn’t needed as much population and leaved the street to cars (good thing at that time for deciders). Strasbourg almost bought one, but decided for the great tram system they have now. Rennes will have it’s 3rd line with the NeoVal from Siemens, continuing the legacy. Automated, full-plateform screen door, light... Great system for small cities. And riding in the front is always a pleasure (line 2 in Lille has a great view of the town).
Suggestion #1: Automate the whole thing and run trains a third as long at a third the headways. 😊 Seriously, the short headways alone are reason enough to choose automated metro over operator-dependent technology. MARTA would be a lot better off today if a Skytrain system could've been built initially.
Here in Malaysia we have a line that uses the same technology and trains like the SkyTrain (Kelana Jaya Line). It's the most used line in the country, but it also have had a lot of issues in recent years
It's usually the frequency and breakdowns, one thing I noticed is the train runs slower at the KLCC tunnel stretch (probably because of the collision that happened a few years ago)
London's DLR was shockingly crowded at peak hour with heaps of office workers from Canary Wharf when I rode it a few years ago on a day trip to and from Greenwich.
The Elizabeth line now takes much of the pressure off. People travelling from. East of London used to change at Greenwich to get to Canary Wharf on the DLR, now they can do it much quicker by changing at Abbey Wood or woolwich
I agree with you on the light rail argument! The DRL should be the bases for future light rail. It is elevated and not street running, which means less delays. I love your commentary.
The DLR is also great as redundant connections to the Tube. When I was staying in Deptford and had to go home past 11 or if there was a train strikes, the DLR kept running well into the night when the Overground and Underground had already shuttered!
I just saw a quick video about the Honolulu transit system (finally) opening up soon and they talk about it being the first fully automated metro system in the US. That took me be surprise because I’ve ridden so many around the world, but I guess it’s true if you don’t count the automated people movers at airports.
@@RMTransit you definitely should! Sure it's not as reliable or efficient but it has its quirk and weirdness, especially the LRT lines and the massive MRT stations. Can't wait for that video. :D If you need any footage of the Klang Valley Rapid Transit System (covering the area of "Greater Kuala Lumpur" and outside of state) I'll gladly provide it.
2:34 To add on top of it: Older DLR trains are deployed on Essen's partial-metro partial-tram Stadtbahn which further adds the point that these are conventional high-floor light-rail vehicles / step-free high-floor trams.
The original batch of DLR trains didn't have end doors for emergency access so weren't suitable for the single track tube type tunnels on the Bank extension. It was more economic to sell them to Essen and increase the order for new cars than try to rebuild them.
I'm a longtime Burnaby resident and I recently went on a trip to England. I stayed in Canary Wharf and was struck by how similar the area was to Vancouver. The DLR reminded me of the SkyTrain although it was a lot shakier... First time I got car sick on a train!
You should talk about Rail Infrastructure in the Philippines. It has a pretty lackluster metro for its capital city, Manila, and its neighboring cities that form the National Capital Region. Although before, the Philippines had great railway infrastructure that was crippled in WW2 and was never rebuilt because of american influence. Although the government is doing some things to solve and revive the railways, I believe that it is not enough for a country of 110+ million people.
I'd be very interested to hear your thoughts on the city of Leeds, in Yorkshire (northern England) It's the largest urban area in Europe not to have any metro or light-rail network. I can't help but think that the DLR or Hitachi driverless metro would be good models to finally bring Leeds the mass transit system its been planning (and failing) to build for decades.
One thing I like about Skytrain is it isn't shy about stretching the distance between stations in some places to reduce those medium-distance travel times. The West Coast Express, while faster from Coquitlam Station to Waterfront, is not that much of an improvement over Skytrain because of the possible wait time for the WCE vs the speed and frequency of Skytrain. This will be amplified further when the Broadway Extension is complete and Canada Line transfers become direct for many commuters.
GTA people in Durham, please note there is a Simcoe Rapid transit study meeting from 6-8pm at Oshawa Golf and Curling club today and Jubilee Pavilion tomorrow.
I think the reason that the automation of this sort hasn't been used on the wider London underground system will be a much to do with the opposition it would get from the unions as any technical matter. Of course it would have to be adapted to entirely different sorts of trains, and would be a mammoth job. However, some of the underground lines would be very suited to automation, but to do away with drivers and just have "captains" to control doors would have enormous ramifications for what are relatively well paid jobs. The history of rail transport in the UK is that any automation is fought tooth and nail. The reason why the DLR was developed in the way it did was because it was outside the mainstream Underground system, the staff were employed by a completely different system and it was financed differently. Indeed the London Docklands Development Corporation was set up as a quango (quasi autonomous non-governmental organisation), with a particular remit to regenerate what was a depressed area of London due to the loss of the docks, although it was never exactly a wealthy area. As such, it had the remit to do things completely differently, including the light rail infrastructure, and wasn't limited by established practice. The rail unions also had very little ability to influence this, something that would not have been the case if it had been an extension to the Underground system.
I used to live close to Devon’s Road and near Bromley by bow on the district line, living near the DLR was amazing, being able to get to Greenwich and Canary Wharf back then without using the tube was kinda very cozy.
This hurts to see as someone who lives in Seattle. A city so willing to spend big on a public transit project, and instead of a frequent and reliable service like SkyTrain, we got our extremely expensive, less frequent, sometimes street-running light rail.
No worries. The city wouldn’t have voted to build a light metro without the current properties of our Link as a fully grade separated system and automated system would have costed more. Plus, Link’s low frequency right now is intentional. Link has a current max frequency of 2 minutes per line (4 minutes per line when interlined) but aren’t using it yet because of demand and waiting for line 2 to open. Something like CBTC could also be easily added north of international district to make frequencies even higher at some point if needed
Skytrain did benefit from the Intercity rail system that it's largely built on top of. I'd call that a "legacy network", even if the right of way had much in the way of removed sections and the like.
BART is sort of like skytrain since it's regional rail and metro all in 1. The DLR is like MUNI and only serves specific Neighborhoods within San Fransisco.
They're both very similar, but the DLR is much more of a local service with tighter station spacing while Skytrain is much more of a regional service with wider station spacing. What really sets skytrain apart from other automated light metros are the LIM's that can help Skytrain achieve up to a 6% gradient, which is unheard of for steel wheeled metro systems.
Interesting how SkyTrain has unattended operation without platform screen doors with its unique systems - London and other cities seem to be allergic to consider it without platform doors (or even the idea itself lol)
It's definitely a policy decision by TfL. Most Tube lines are already running under full ATO and could theoretically be driverless. but I've read somewhere (probably on London Reconnections) that they're loath to actually making them driverless until they have PSDs on every station on the line. Laser detection like the Skytrain is a solution they seem to either not have considered or have rejected for whatever reason. The other issue is political, the unions will throw an absolute wobbly if their cosy little closed shop is made redundant by driverless operation being introduced. They already hold the city to ransom with several strikes and would rather not lose that power.
@@ricequackers I believe they rejected optical detectors because all the dust and debris, not to mention the rats etc, are concerned about causing false positives by either temporarily or permanently blocking them. There might be some failure modes to cause false negatives too but I think it's mostly the false positives they're concerned about. They already get trackside switch detectors getting falsely set-off or prevented from going aaaaalll the time.
I'm from Vancouver, home of the skytrain, and have travelled extensively through Europe. I love the fact that our skytrain is above the ground, giving a clear view of majestic mountains, awesome rivers, and beautiful cityscapes. It beats being at ground level, or worse, underground. where there is little to nothing to see.
Sky train design is very useful during the early years of a city. But when the population density goes beyond the facility and the train, you got the situation like in Kuala Lumpur Kelana Jaya LRT. It’s fast, timeline and very crowded. And often time it either having signalling problems, derailment, or even two train collisions. It’s in the news. It has been pushed to the max and beyond it’s design capacity due to its popularity. You wouldn’t be surprised by a new line running parallel to the other to reduce load to that train line.
Can argue that 1) the system is still recovering from ridership loss from 2020, and 2) 5-car trains are on the way (and can still be expanded upon after the mark 3s are gone).
The one collision that happened in 2021 was because a train was manually driven for maintenance on a track that was being used for automated service. Seems like bad operation by the Kelana Jaya LRT company rather than a issue of high demand.
I thinks the metros system using VAL technology can be very close to skytrain end DLR. The technology was developed around the same time and they have the same philosophy of using small train but very frequently.
@@unlapras9365 Yeah funny how the conclusion for this video ("the great legacy of Skytrain on automated metro") differs in tone compared to the one on VAL ("blablabla gadgetbhan)". Interesting video though.
@@unlapras9365 i can understand some opposition tu rubber tyre technologies as today they don't make as much sens as when they were introduced and can cause some problems. But in the other hand VAL is a actually the first automated metro and the most widespread example compared the Skytrain and DLR...
@@SpectreMk2 That conclusion is actually counter-factual : Bombardier Innovia has not been way more succesful than VAL, and VAL has had much more successors since its automation system is basically the basis for every automated train operation system that exists today (the rolling stock being something different).
Of course it only serves the Docklands area, that's why it's called DLR - Docklands Light Railway. It links up with Underground stations at certain points as other areas it serves don't have underground stations, so it's a sort of extension to the underground system, and because the whole of London uses the oyster travel cards you are covered by the same fare cap that is used on the Underground.
I think he wasn't criticizing that the DLR only runs in the docklands (and around the docklands), just describing what it is, that being one of its characteristics, and also explaining that's one of its differences to the SkyTrain. There certainly is potential for something with the characteristics of the DLR to operate in other areas, and there have been ideas to extend the DLR further into central London.
Nice video, but you forgot the third (and in my opinion most influential) driverless system: the VAL from Lille, opening in 1983, it was that system which inspired most of the systems you mentioned in the video.. (Turin and tapei even using val vehicles). It predates the Skytrain and DLR by 3/4 years.
There are several metro systems around the world that operate like the DLR - that is basically automatic operation, but rely on an operator checking doors and pressing a single button to allow journey toward the next station. Munich's otherwise rather standard U-Bahn being a good example.
To me these are like light metros. A mix of light rail and heavy metros that, as a mode, don't get talked about very much. They are very interesting, and makes me wonder where this should be implemented. Maybe Las Vegas and other medium to large sized US cities lacking in rapid transit?
As Tfl are operates both tube and dlr , is it possible that through operation can take place between the tube and the DLR or combining the DLR and upgraded tube lines into a big automated line. The same could take place in Vancouver when they would possibly convert one of the passenger lines to incorporate the skytrains.
They use different, incompatible power supplies, so they wouldn't be able to run on the same tracks. Overground trains do run on underground tracks, and could run on DLR tracks if you put in an overhead power line for them.
Overground trains have 3rd rail capability. It is possible that the DLR can be modified with the same equipment seen on the tube line as some tube lines were getting upgraded to automation. After that the DLR can do through service operation with newer tube rolling stock.
It’s conceivably possible but very unlikely and I don’t necessarily think it’s a good idea! Just provide high-quality connections ideally cross platform!
0:50 What were the points of criticism on the original P-Stock then? We've got them here in Essen as you may know, and I really can't complain. They're just like any other light rail car of the era.
It's a good question. I know that the initial trains had folding doors which caused many problems. The second batch already had sliding doors. They also didn't meet some fire safety regulations needed to run in underground tunnels, and the DLR was going to be extended to Bank station with an underground tunnel. It was also going to cost a lot to fit them with the new signalling system. At the end of the day it was cheaper to order new trains and sell these for a cheap price. They were heavily modified to run in Essen, they had no drivers cabin nor pantograph on the DLR for example.
I might be wrong but I dont think the DLR directly went past that many users houses / residences when it was first built. The main housing , around beckton was terraced houses (fairly new) served by a road and bus route and the DLR did not really touch it. The Flats (mansion blocks) mainly around wapping , never to me seemed to have the kind of population that would actually travel that far, either into the city - at Tower Gateway, as the distances were walkable , and there was a sort of poor bus service , and the offices at the Isle of Dogs had not been built , or thought of. There was minor housing in the Isle of Dogs, but again was fairly isolated. It was not until the Lewisham Link I think that the DLR really became useful to connect two sides of thames together and did allow some development of Royal Albert area. It could be argued that the DLR's main contribution has been to free up space for the Jubilee and Elizabeth Lines to actually work in , as the DLR replaced what could have been an adqueate - if it was improved, North London Line service which could have used routes into the Fenchurch street area if the will to build was there. Basically it was easier to do a DLR with a London Budget rather than national railways services with tigher national budgets
It should be noted that the DRL are getting new 5-car trains (with full walk-through), replacing the 3 attached 2 car units, though apparently the same length trains. The trains are also getting a new livery, the colours of the DLR roundle (see Geoff Marshall's recent-ish video). - I will forgive this oversight as the point of the video is about the current system and its origins.
@@railotakuIt's debated. VAL technology came first but Kobe opened a commercial line first. Kobe's line is also "just" a people mover while Lille has an actual subway serving the entire metropolitan area. So Lille has the oldest technology, and Kobe is first if you consider the Port Liner to be a metro.
@@unlapras9365 ok well even if it was just a people mover, the PRT in Morgantown opened in1975 with Boeing's Vertol fully automated system, no drivers required.
At 1:49 when you mentioned system lengths, it seems that SkyTrain is not only nearly twice as long as the DLR, it is more than twice as long. The DLR has 38 km of track while SkyTrain has 79.6 km.
You (politely?) left out the TTC’s SRT which is a strong counter-example illustrating how badly these systems could have turned out. The successes of the SkyTrain and DLR help to show that the failure of the SRT is a TTC/Toronto problem, and nothing to do with systems built on ICTS technology.
Not fully true. While the TTC/Toronto was much of the reason it failed so bad, our weather also contributed. Having delicate signal wires buried in snow and ice doesn't work. Having side power pickups that get covered in melting snow and then become iced over doesn't work. And linear induction motors are great, but are VERY picky about distance between the reaction rail and the motor. Snow and ice buildup results in damage to both, and loss of motive power. ICTS technology does NOT function when snow and ice are common. It should never have been considered. Vancouver gets away with it simply because snow and ice are relatively rare.
@@repatch43 I can think of a couple ways to harden the line against snow and ice if e didn't already plan on ripping it out, one of my frustrations with the saga.
@@RMTransit Many ways have been tried, none solve the problems. FWIW my dad was one of the initial operators of the SRT so I've heard alot of stories from him (plus I rode along with him ALOT). It's a fundamental flaw in the core design of linear induction motors. By their very nature, to be efficient and effective the motor must be within a very short distance from the reaction rail (11mm is I think what these motors specify). The only way to ensure that gap isn't breached is to ensure no foreign material build up. Snow and ice are VERY good at disrupting this, causing damage to both the motor and the reaction rail, so the only solutions are expensive. You can add heaters to the reaction rail, but since it spans the whole line, and we have nights that dip into the negative double digits, this requires ALOT of power, and only have limited effectiveness since that melted ice builds up around other components causing other problems after a while (like lifting the reaction rail, which then impacts the LIM on the train, damaging it). Trains with regular motors don't need this. You can run lots of trains 24/7 to try and 'keep up' with the accumulation, which is what the TTC does (my dad drove the 'snow train' alot). But that costs money, and increases wear and tear on the line and trains. Regular motor trains don't need this as much (when it REALLY snows hard they might run snow trains on uncovered portions of the subway lines, but it's not too common). You can cover the whole guideway, but to be effective you need to fully enclose (since the wind brings in the snow very easily if there's just a roof). That's again expensive, and wouldn't be needed with traditional motors. And that's just the LIMs. The positioning system is badly designed for our climate. The cables cross under the reaction rail at fixed distances for the system to determine location, and are prone to damage due to ice and snow. The position of the train is correlated with the encoders on the wheels. When the computers see a discrepancy beyond a certain amount (due to the wheel slipping on ice on the rail while braking for example) they 'time out' and the automation aborts, dropping the emergency brakes (which are massive electromagnets which stick to the running rails, creating groves on the rails that accelerate the wear on the running wheels). The operator then has to get permission from transit control, manually drive, in emergency mode (limited to 20kph, IIRC) to the next 'entry point' which are scattered at fixed points along the line (while the rest of the line comes to a stop because the timed out vehicle block isn't moving any more). They then have to talk with control to start a reentry procedure, and after a short bit the computers acknowledge the reentry, automation resumes and off we go, until the next weather related timeout. The power pickup should NEVER have left the drawing board. It's expensive and delicate, making it prone to damage. Lots of cases of the shoes breaking in the yard, or even at crossings where the power rails have a gap and the shoe spring doesn't retract it properly resulting in damage when it tries again to engage with the power rail. And, of course, because it wasn't originally shielded from the weather, was prone to icing up. The light show at night between Lawrence and Kennedy was spectacular to watch as the shoes arced over the ice patches, resulting in pits in the rails that got worse over time and damage to the pickup assemblies. They added covers but it didn't help much, especially as blowing snow is common here. The fact is, the benefits of LIMs aren't all that beneficial in Toronto. We don't have steep inclines that couldn't have been handled by regular motor vehicles. As you know the line was initially designed for regular trams. In Vancouver I can certainly see the benefits of LIMs, you've got some really long steep inclines that would have been VERY difficult for regular vehicles to mount without excessive wear and tear. The tech is great for Vancouver, but the Canadian line proves it isn't necessary for Vancouver to use LIM equipped vehicles everywhere.
I know the Confederation Line (aka Line 1) is fully grade separated so it's potential for automation while the Trillium Line (aka Line 2) was taken over from freight routes and these tend to not often grade separated, though it's currently closed for expansion and other upgrades like grade separation also are performed.
@@RMTransit Idk if flrts can be automated, but I think Citadis has ATC. Could be a cost cutting measure over the next decade to allow more frequency and investments into other underserved areas.
I remember that during the Line 1 phase 1 build, it was said that the signalling/separation system used could allow for driverless operation with as short as 90 sec headways.
@@MrPatpaty I'm not an expert on it but from what I understand, automation is mostly a matter of equipment, not the type of train itself (and Stadler also makes customised vehicles anyway so if the customer demands it, they could add it to the trains). It's even moreso when you consider that modern trains are already automated in many instances, mostly as failsafes for cases like ignored signals and full automation is just the next step.
When I rode the DLR recently, I think all the trains were staffed. Sometimes they would be at the controls in the front, and other times they would be somewhere else in the train.
Yes that is a requirement - Regulators were not convinced by fully unstaffed trains at the time, the Kings Cross fire in 1987 also meant the regulators were reluctant to relax the rules either. For the same reason all underground stations in the UK have to be staffed while open, which limits options for lower cost underground metros like those in Europe.
@@railotaku And that ended up causing a issue when government and train companies wanted to put 1 man trains (including express services) on the national rail network ontop of cutting station staff and maintenance crews. Hence the unions went on strike since cutting down staff that much would severely effect passengers.
I'd include Portland in this list as well. Love these styles of networks. I think one would do really well in Winnipeg if we could get our act together.
Skytrain and Vancouvers transit system is one of the best in the world. I take it several times a month and prefer to take it rather than my car. I live next to the Brentwood station ..
Can I just point out, the DLR does have drivers, only when the vehicle isn’t powered and they use the captains as drivers. Using the cockpit at the front. (Was used in London all throughout Covid-19 Pandemic)
The member of staff onboard the DLR is a fully qualified and trained driver. As you said thr signalling system can be unreliable so Quite often they will drive them. Everyone thinks it's fully automated however it's not. If theres no onboard staff then that service gets cancelled, it requires a member of staff. Thankfully for safety reasons!
I have a somewhat crazy idea. Food for thought. Constrution of the Metro Stations is always very expensive. But imagine a subway like the one in Copenhagen, but instead of 3 cars per train imagine having 2 extra ones, one on each end, with no doors (other then emergency exit doors) and configured in a high density seating area (while the midle 3 cars have less seating and more open room ). The ideia beeing that you would increase capacity without having to build extra large stations. Any thoughts? Too cracy?
The biggest constraint that I see is that the dwell time (time spent at station while passengers get on and off) would potentially be quite high if you don't open all the doors. That said, to me it seems like a worthwhile trade off to build a shorter platform on outlying stations if the money saved helps get the system built. Then once it is in place and ridership grows, you can expand the platform to be able to open all doors. Assuming you've planned ahead.
Its not that far fetched. In Copenhagen the platforms are build so they can add another car. But I have seen concepts with 5 cars where the first and 5th car only has a door in one end. So the very front and back will not fit inside the platforms. Just enough so they will have a door inside the platform.
@@trevorvanderwoerd8915 yes. That would be my fear also. Hence making these cars high capacity seating areas with the intend that it gets used more by people that travel longer distances rather than just a couple of stops. May require some social engineering and cultural adaptation to catch on. But I think it’s a interesting idea for areas that might have a high cost for building stations but might not have high ridership or transit in that particular station. I believe that even if you have “mixed” station lengths it should be feasible if the correct communication and systems are in place (in train announcements, dinâmica visual signs on the doors, etc). After some initial confusion 99% of ridership would get a handle on it.
I love the SkyTrain!!! But I hate TransLink's buses lmao. I heard from one of my friends that popularity for TransLink drastically sank when they were asked about the Buses but if they could take the SkyTrain it would be heaven
The DLR followed on the heels of the automated Victoria Line (late 1960s), with the additional feature that the trains can operate driver-less. This was proven in the 1987 Hurricane, when the system continued to operate while environmental mayhem happened all around.
I know it has been more than year, but I'm intrigued by the local reaction (so far) to the Western Sydney International Airport Metro, currently under construction and to open in "late 2026". Initial capacity is just under 8000 per hour per direction, rising to 22,000. Fully automated, with 3 (expandable to 4) car sets, it fits the 'light metro' mould , but the most frequent public/railfan comment seems to be only that it is 'incompatible with anything else'. It seems existing Sydney's rail systems are just so good, that no further innovation of any kind is conceivable let alone acceptable.
Why even automatic trainsystems have still a last train like sth around 2 a.m. and a first train a day? I mean even my medium sized city (Dresden) with human drivers never drops below a frequency of 1 train an hour. (3 am on weekdays) Automatic trains should just run if there is no maintainance scheduled.
Automated, making it feasible to have high frequency and long hours of service, resulting in exceeding all expectations. Why is this a surprise at all? Why haven't more lines been built automated? Because job creation outweighs providing transit, by a lot. I recall the Calgary bus strike when drivers were incensed that most work was in the morning and evening rush hours (shocking, I know, but it's literally what they said to the press), and the city filled in between, before and after, and on smaller routes, with smaller 15 person buses that cost far less to operate. The drivers of the big buses won of course. Transit riders lost.
Seems to me, a system like described here is either too much infrastructure for a car-infested city where it's difficult to even get good bus or tram service or made completely redundant in cities that have good bus, metro, tram and/or rail service alreardy.
