rtm skytrain maxcap final report

Report

Maximum Capacity for SkyTrainOn the Existing SkyTrain Network

An Analysis with the Regional Transit Model (RTM)

Vancouver, B.C. / Wilmington, DE, April 2008

PTV America Inc.

408-675 West Hastings Street Vancouver, BC, V6B 1N2

(604) 435-2895

South Coast British Columbia

Transportation Authority 4720 Kingsway, Suite 1600

Burnaby, B.C., V5H 4N2 (604) 453 3058

Maximum SkyTrain Capacity

PTV America Inc. / TransLink 01-May-2008

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................4

2. Assumptions ................................................................................................................5

2.1. Fleet 5

2.2. Service Patterns and Run Times 6

2.3. Headways 7

2.4. Train Assignment 7

3. Schedule and Line Blocking Analysis........................................................................8

3.1. 108s Headway 8

3.2. 90s Headway 10

4. Maximal Capacity Scenarios.....................................................................................12

4.1. Definition of Scenarios 12

4.2. Results: Fleet Requirement and Capacity 12

4.3. Results: VISUM Test Runs with 2021 Ridership 15

5. Conclusions................................................................................................................17



Tables

Table 1: Capacities for Various Train Types ...........................................................................5

Table 2: Definition of 12 Scenarios........................................................................................12

Table 3: Maximal Capacity Scenarios: Fleet Assignment and Fleet Requirements ..............13

Table 4: Maximal Capacity Scenarios: Train and Link Capacities.........................................14

Table 5: Key Results for the most important SkyTrain Capacity Scenarios ..........................18

Figures

Figure 1: Lines and Route Schemes .......................................................................................6

Figure 2: Time Tables Outbound in VISUM, Scenario 108s....................................................8

Figure 3: Line Blocking Gantt Chart for Expo Line, 108s Headway ........................................9

Figure 4: Time Tables Outbound in VISUM, Scenario 90s....................................................10

Figure 5: Line Blocking Gantt Chart for Expo Line, 90s Headway ........................................11

Figure 6: 15-Minute Peak Volume/Capacity Ratio (Scen. 8, 5-car/108s, 2021 Ridership)....15

Figure 7: 15-Minute Peak Volume/Capacity Ratio (Scen. 11, 5-car/90s, 2021 Ridership)....16

Figure 8: Comparison of Important SkyTrain Capacity Scenarios.........................................17



1. Introduction

This analysis aims to determine the maximal capacity (“MaxCap”) that can be achieved for the existing SkyTrain network by increasing the fleet to increase train capacity and reduce headways. It is assumed trains that are as long as technically possible will be used. Six cases of fleet composition and train consists are studied:

• 4-car Mark-II and 6-car Mark-I trains;



• 4-car Mark-II only;

• 5-car Mark-II only;

• 6-car Mark-II only.

It is assumed to have a split-tail Expo line with 3 of 5 trains going to Surrey and 2 to Lougheed. A short Millennium Line runs from VCC to Lougheed. Headways of 108s and 90s on the main Waterfront-Columbia line are tested.

The major study questions are:

• Is it possible to double the capacity on the main segment of the Expo Line (WF to CO)?

• How many additional Mark-II cars are required to operate the different scenarios?

The study is performed with the Regional Transit Model (RTM) - Phase A model – for the AM peak period.



2. Assumptions

To determine maximal capacities for the SkyTrain network, a set of assumptions are necessary that cover fleet, route and service schemes and train assignment.

2.1. Fleet

The existing fleet used in this analysis includes 150 Mark-I and 60 Mark-II cars. 34 Mark II cars are on order for 2009 delivery. In addition the TransLink board has approved 14 further cars and approval of a further 24 is likely. Thus the Mark II fleet is likely to total 132 cars by 2011. For various train types the following capacities have been assumed, which have been jointly defined by BCRTC and TransLink for peak-capacity planning at the start of the RTM project:

Table 1: Capacities for Various Train Types

Length (Cars)

Capacity (Seat only)

Capacity (Seat & Stand)

4-Mark-I 4 144 300

6-Mark-I 6 216 450

2-Mark-II 2 84 238

4-Mark-II 4 168 476

5-Mark-II 5 210 595

6-Mark-II 6 252 714

In 2006, the peak spare rates have been 9% for Mark-I cars and 7% for Mark-II. With the extended peak-hour service in 2007/08 the Mark-II spare rate has dropped to 3.5%, which can not be maintained permanently. As the Mark-I cars are past mid-life, they will require an even higher spare rate. For the MaxCap study, the following spare rates have been assumed:

• At least 10% spare rate for Mark-I cars

• At least 7% spare rate for Mark-II cars



2.2. Service Patterns and Run Times

The service is based on a split-tail Expo line with the following assumptions in detail:

• Run and dwell times at and between all stations have been set the same as in 2006.

• The lines and routes are defined as follows

1. WF-LH (Expo-1), 2 out of 5 Expo trains;

2. WF-KG (Expo-2), 3 our of 5 Expo trains;

3. VC-LH (Millennium).

Figure 1: Lines and Route Schemes



2.3. Headways

Two headways on the main branch WF-CO are tested:

• 108s (as in 2006), which is optimal for reliability and recovery with the current fleet size.

• 90s, which is confirmed by BCRTC as minimal headway that can be operated, assuming upgraded systems and staffing are in place.

Corresponding headways on Millennium have been set equal to the Expo1 branch (WF-LH), which has resulted in equal v/c ratios for Expo and Millennium in 2021 passenger assignment tests:

• Millennium 270s for Expo 108s

• Millennium 225s for Expo 90s.

2.4. Train Assignment

It is assumed that the mix of train types is identical for both Expo branches and for Millennium. Also, it is assumed that interlining between Expo-1 and Expo-2 is acceptable. In other words, the next available train at Waterfront station will be assigned to the next scheduled Expo trip no matter which branch it came from.



3. Schedule and Line Blocking Analysis

Schedules have been developed for each scenario and line blocking has been performed.

3.1. 108s Headway

A line blocking for the Expo split-tail with combined 108s headway plus for the complementary Millennium line from VC to LH with 270s headway has been performed in VISUM. The number of blocks during AM peak has been found to be 58 total with:

• 47 blocks for the combined Expo service, and

• 11 blocks for Millennium.

Figure 2: Time Tables Outbound in VISUM, Scenario 108s



The Gantt chart for all 47 blocks of the Expo line shows that interlining between Expo-1 and Expo-2 occurs all the time:

Figure 3: Line Blocking Gantt Chart for Expo Line, 108s Headway



3.2. 90s Headway

In the 90s headway scenario, 69 blocks were needed with:

• 57 blocks for the combined Expo service, and

• 12 blocks for Millennium.

Figure 4: Time Tables Outbound in VISUM, Scenario 90s



Figure 5: Line Blocking Gantt Chart for Expo Line, 90s Headway



4. Maximal Capacity Scenarios

Based on the assumptions of uniform train mix over all three routes, the number of trains that are needed in peak service (58 for 108s headway and 69 for 90s) can be translated into fleet requirements and system capacities.

4.1. Definition of Scenarios

Twelve MaxCap scenarios are analyzed. The first parameter of each scenario is the headway (108s or 90s). Then there are three different assumptions for the length of the Mark-II trains:

• All Mark-II trains have 4 cars (maximal length in current fleet);

• Mark-II trains with 5 cars will be assembled and used

• Mark-II trains with 6 cars will be used, which would require extension of most platforms on the existing stations and might not be technically feasible.

The third parameter to distinguish scenarios is the fleet mix. Either a fleet consisting of Mark-II only or one with the existing 150 Mark-I’s together with Mark-II’s.

Table 2: Definition of 12 Scenarios

Headway Fleet Mix and Maximal Length of Mark-II Trains

1 6-car Mark-I and 4-car Mark-II 2 6-car Mark-I and 5-car Mark-II 3

108s 6-car Mark-I and 6-car Mark-II

4 6-car Mark-I and 4-car Mark-II 5 6-car Mark-I and 5-car Mark-II 6

90s 6-car Mark-I and 6-car Mark-II

7 4-car Mark-II only 8 5-car Mark-II only 9

108s 6-car Mark-II only

10 4-car Mark-II only 11 5-car Mark-II only 12

90s 6-car Mark-II only

4.2. Results: Fleet Requirement and Capacity

The following two tables summarize the key findings for all 12 scenarios.



Table 3: Maximal Capacity Scenarios: Fleet Assignment and Fleet Requirements

Assigned Trains, Peak Used Cars, Peak Necessary Cars Spare Rate

4-

M-I

6-M

-I

2-M

-II

4-M

-II

5-M

-II

6-M

-II

Tota

l

Mar

k-I

Mar

k-II

Tota

l

Mar

k-I

Mar

k-II

Tota

l

Mar

k-I

Mar

k-II

Tota

l New Mark-II cars required

2006 34 14 7 55 136 56 192 150 60 210 9.3% 6.7% 8.6%

2007 34 15 7 56 136 58 194 150 60 210 9.3% 3.3% 7.6%

1 108s 4car 22 36 58 132 144 276 150 156 306 12% 7.7% 9.8% 96

2 108s 5car 22 36 58 132 180 312 150 195 345 12% 7.7% 9.6% 135

3 108s 6car 22 36 58 132 216 348 150 234 384 12% 7.7% 9.4% 174

4 90s 4car 22 47 69 132 188 320 150 204 354 12% 7.8% 9.6% 144

5 90s 5car 22 47 69 132 235 367 150 255 405 12% 7.8% 9.4% 195 Mar

k-I &

Mar

k-II

6 90s 6car 22 47 69 132 282 414 150 304 454 12% 7.2% 8.8% 244

7 108s 4car 58 58 232 232 250 250 7.2% 7.2% 190

8 108s 5car 58 58 290 290 315 315 7.9% 7.9% 255

9 108s 6car 58 58 348 348 376 376 7.4% 7.4% 316

10 90s 4car 69 69 276 276 298 298 7.4% 7.4% 238

11 90s 5car 69 69 345 345 375 375 8.0% 8.0% 315

Mar

k-II

only

12 90s 6car 69 69 414 414 446 446 7.2% 7.2% 386



Table 4: Maximal Capacity Scenarios: Train and Link Capacities

Average 60-Minute Capacity Headways

Average Train

capacity WF-BW

BW-CO

CO-KG

CO-LH

VC-LH

WF-BW

BW-CO

CO-KG

CO-LH

VC-LH

2006 307 10,800 10,800 7,200 3,100 3,100 108 108 162 324 324

2007 305 12,100 10,800 7,200 3,100 3,100 96 108 162 324 324

1 108s 4car 466 15,500 15,500 9,300 6,200 6,200 108 108 180 270 324

2 108s 5car 540 18,000 18,000 10,800 7,200 7,200 108 108 180 270 324

3 108s 6car 614 20,500 20,500 12,300 8,200 8,200 108 108 180 270 324

4 90s 4car 468 18,700 18,700 11,200 7,500 7,500 90 90 150 225 324

5 90s 5car 549 22,000 22,000 13,200 8,800 8,800 90 90 150 225 324 Mar

k-I &

Mar

k-II

6 90s 6car 630 25,200 25,200 15,100 10,100 10,100 90 90 150 225 324

7 108s 4car 476 15,900 15,900 9,500 6,300 6,300 108 108 180 270 324

8 108s 5car 595 19,800 19,800 11,900 7,900 7,900 108 108 180 270 324

9 108s 6car 714 23,800 23,800 14,300 9,500 9,500 108 108 180 270 324

10 90s 4car 476 19,000 19,000 11,400 7,600 7,600 90 90 150 225 324

11 90s 5car 595 23,800 23,800 14,300 9,500 9,500 90 90 150 225 324

Mar

k-II

only

12 90s 6car 714 28,600 28,600 17,100 11,400 11,400 90 90 150 225 324



4.3. Results: VISUM Test Runs with 2021 Ridership

Integrated VISUM runs have been performed for selected scenarios with the 2021 ridership (Phase A scenario with Canada Line and Evergreen Line as LRT). The model runs have confirmed the computations and consistency of the assumptions. The following pictures show passenger volumes and volume-capacity rates for the peak 15-minutes for scenarios 8 and 11 (108s and 90s headways with 5-car trains and Mark-II only):

Figure 6: 15-Minute Peak Volume/Capacity Ratio (Scen. 8, 5-car/108s, 2021 Ridership)



Figure 7: 15-Minute Peak Volume/Capacity Ratio (Scen. 11, 5-car/90s, 2021 Ridership)



5. Conclusions

If the headway is lowered to 90s on the main branch then the capacity can be almost doubled with the use of 4-car Mark-II trains. The assumption of a fleet with or without Mark-I cars does not make too much difference to overall capacity, as Mark-I cars are assumed to be assembled to 6-car trains, which have a very similar capacity to 4-car Mark-II.

With 90s and the deployment of 5-car Mark-II trains, the capacity can be more than doubled.

With the assumption of platform extension and the use of 6-car Mark-II trains, today’s capacity could be almost tripled (265% of 2006 capacity).

The key results for the most relevant scenarios are summarized in the following table and figure:

Figure 8: Comparison of Important SkyTrain Capacity Scenarios

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

4-car 4-car 4-car 5-car 5-car 6-car 6-car

108s 108s 90s 90s 90s 108s 90s

Max length of M-II trains and WF-CO headway

Hou

rly c

apac

ity W

F-C

O

Existing fleet

Expanded Mark-IIfleet plus 226-Mark-I trains

Expanded fleetof Mark-II only

+44%+73%

+104%+120%

+165%

+120%

2006



The additional fleet (in Mark-II cars) that is required is between 100 and 315 cars for the 5-car scenarios and up to 386 maximal for the 6-car-Mark-II scenarios. For the 5-car scenarios, another study has to determine how future fleet orders should be split in 3-car and 2-car train units. The upper limit of the 2-car fleet size with the current network, based on 69 peak 5-car trains, would be 138 cars plus 8% spares, for a total of 150 cars. With the 2011 Mark II fleet size anticipated to be 132 cars, including pending orders, only 18 additional 2-car Mark II cars should be procured before purchase of 3-car units commences, assuming no SkyTrain extensions increase fleet requirements.

Table 5: Key Results for the most important SkyTrain Capacity Scenarios

Headway Fleet Mix

New Fleet (Required

Mark-II cars)

Average Train

Capacity

Average Peak Link

Capacity WF-CO

Capacity Increase WF-CO

108s Today * n/a 305 10,800 +0%

108s 6-Mark-I & 4-Mark-II 96 466 15,500 +44%

90s 6-Mark-I & 4-Mark-II 144 468 18,700 +73%

90s 6-Mark-I & 5-Mark-II 195 549 22,000 +104%

90s 5-Mark-II only 315 595 23,800 +120%

108s 6-Mark-II only 316 714 23,800 +120%

90s 6-Mark-II only 386 714 28,600 +165% * represents the 2006 peak service with a 108s headway, not the 2007/08 increased WF-BW service

rtm skytrain maxcap final report

Documents