Talk:SkyTrain (Vancouver)/Archive 1

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


 * Some points:


 * (Note: first bulleted point added unsigned by PeterAKer)
 * *E Line and M Line will now be accompanied by C Line the C Line is the Canada Line(RAV Line). I have heard E and M Line being coined. I Travel on TransLink alot as i dont have a car nor do i want to drive one but E Line and M Line are the Short Term of Saying Expo Line and Millenium Line.


 * I have never heard anyone refer to the Expo or Millenium Line as the "E Line" or "M Line" respectively. However, when I lived in Metrotown for 4 years up to 2001, the Millenium Line had not yet been completed; I could see this as possibly being a recent development in young kids' slang, or something forced upon us by CityTV (like "VILand," as used by "The New VI")....


 * Okay, a Google search for ["E Line" Skytrain] turned up only 25 hits, of which only 2 appeared to actually be non-Wiki-based pages about Vancouver SkyTrain. One was a blog by someone who was apparently too lazy to type out Expo and Millenium in full, while the other was by a poster to a transit-related chat page who was discussing the lines with someone where there was not the need to spell out the names in full.  But still, I have yet to hear anywone use "E Line" or "M Line." -Sewing (&#23665;&#36947;&#23376;) - talk 17:34, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * How could the MK I cars possibly be phased out? Is the Bombardier plant in Burnaby still active?  There's been no news of a plan to take delivery of more MK II cars in the immediate future.
 * The Millenium Line does not run through Coquitlam at all, except for possibly a few metres on the curve where it crosses over Highway 1. It runs on the New West side of the Brunette River, then crosses over to the west side of North Road, in Burnaby.


 * '''Whoops, I stand corrected. The Millenium Line does indeed run through Coquitlam, tucked into the narrow strip of land between the Brunette River (to the south) and the Trans Canada Highway (to the north).  I'll review the relevant section of the article page and see if I need to fix that (unless someone else has already done so within the last two years!).  -Sewing - talk 18:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Last time I checked, the RAV Line will not run to Richmond via the Airport. There will be a branch from Bridgeport Station to the Airport.


 * Sorry, but I take this minor points seriously, and I have fixed them accordingly. -Sewing (&#23665;&#36947;&#23376;) - talk 17:21, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * And also:


 * Isn't the RAV Line still in "best and final offer" stage? Or is SNC Lavalin (or whoever) out of the running?  Frankly, I wasn't able to keep track, what with all the TransLink votes and funding changes..... -Sewing (&#23665;&#36947;&#23376;) - talk 17:29, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * In all honesty, who can say they have ever seen a C Car for the Mk II's? I think it's just a big conspiracy Stormscape 13:46, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

RAV/Canada line

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


 * Oops, I'll fix it ASAP... maybe like next week... --User:Yllianos


 * Also... 4) Kyle-Queens and 5) Cambie (instead of Camble). - Hinto 01:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took me so long to fix the names but, my computer was broken! =( --User:Yllianos

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

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


 * There are actually plans to start a B-Line in Surrey, the "King George Busway". But yeah, I don't think any new skytrain extensions will begin until the Canada and Evergreen lines will be finished.  ikh (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Knowing Translink, I wouldn't be surprised if in 2030 there's a rapid transit line to White Rock and bloody Langley. For Langley they could do ground level or underground. Now imagine something like Go-Train along the West Coast Express tracks. All day service to Mission. Or furthur. Say Hope. Imagine how many people would get out of their cars then, eh? Stormscape 07:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * That could be, but TransLink seemed to be fairly cautious so far about building new lines... i.e. building them only when there's enough possible ridership and then only the type of line that warrants the ridership projections (that's in part why the Evergreen Line is a tram instead of SkyTrain). Would be interesting to see what the region would look like in 25 years tho.  ikh (talk) 19:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opionion, there's a lot higher "ridership" going to UBC than to to the airport, and that was going to be the next line they were going to do as it would be best for the city. The only reason they're doing the airport line is for the 2010 Winter Olympics. It's the same with the Sea-to-Sky Highway. It would have never been expanded if not for the Olympics. Zhatt  22:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I always thought a straight extension of the Expo line from King George Station to downtown Langley along Fraser Highway would make perfect sense, or, if that was just too far or the elevation change through the Serpentine valley posed problems, from King George Station to Fraser Hwy & 156 St. heqs 10:57, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Back in '94 I found some old GVRD/BC Transit Skytrain planning maps (I believe they dated from the late '80s) at a Vancouver area library and something very similar to the Canada Line already existed on paper. There was also an extension to Port Moody/Coquitlam, similar to what will be available when the Evergreen Line is completed (via Columbia/Lougheed), but no Millennium Line as such. heqs 11:15, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

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


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

Evergreen Line
I corrected some information about the Evergreen line over at Vancouver. I think it could do with its own article since the other 'lines' have their own articles. GeeCee 08:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. See Evergreen Line.  Comments/edits would be appreciated.  Ikh (talk) 00:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

The Evergreen Line should not be considered a rapid transit line since it is designed to be mostly at grade in mixed traffic (i.e. a streetcar). Therefore the statement "With both the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line, Greater Vancouver will have the largest rapid transit network in Canada (by length of track) by 2009" is probably not valid considering the length of track of the TTC streetcar network in combination with its Subway and SRT lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.71.52.50 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree. See below. --Usgnus 07:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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


 * Do passengers need to leave the station in order to make this connection? Waterloo station and Waterloo East are separated by a road, but there is an enclosed walkway between the two, and they (along with Waterloo International) are considered essentially one sub-divided station. David Arthur 17:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You never really leave the station. For those leaving Commercial Drive Station, you go up some stairs/escalators, go along a walkway that crosses over railway tracks and if you wish to continue to Broadway Station, simply board a escalator at the end of the walkway. If you don't wish to continue, you do not board the escalator and are in the station's non-fare zone retail section. Stormscape 07:50, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

trainset usage
I'm planning on doing a study soon to see which trainsets get more use. I will be sitting at a skytrain station for at least 7 hours and will record on paper the number of MK I and MK II trainsets that come through the station in one direction, say Westbound. The station would have to be between Waterfront and Columbia. Does anyone have any suggestions for a station (preferably one with a convience store within sight of the station so I can continue counting even if I leave the station :D) Stormscape 08:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I believe that MK I trains do get used more than MK II trains during the peak hours. I travel to school by transit everyday and have to take the SkyTrain as part of my route. It is more likely for me to be riding on a MK I train (as the first train I see coming into the station in the peak direction). --FlyingPenguins 19:25, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * From what I know, there are 150 MK I cars that make 37 4-car MK I trains (and a 2-car train that most likely won't get into service). There are 60 MK II cars, 28 of those are used in 4-cars MK II trains (7 trains total, and the cars that used to form it differ from time to time) and the rest run as 2-car trains (16 trains in total). So that's 60 trains in total. In a Translink report (forget which one), it mentioned that the percentage of trains that go into service at peak hours is in the low to mid-90s. So... that's about 55 to 58 trains in service at peak. Hope this helps. 64.180.239.213 06:57, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Aren't there 156 MK I cars? --FlyingPenguins 19:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The MK I's are numbered from 001 to 056; 061 to 118; 121 to 156... so that's 150 in total. 64.180.239.213 21:42, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok... I thought that the numbering just continued on in a row. I don't know why there is a break between 056 and 061 though... How do you even know this stuff? ;) --FlyingPenguins 23:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's the difference in the year that the cars were made (although the 1991 and 1995 cars does not have break in numbering..) Some information can be found here: http://www.barp.ca/bus/bctransit/vancouver/skytrainroster.html 64.180.239.213 01:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, I've been to that website, but never bothered to go there to that exact page. Thanks for the link. --FlyingPenguins 06:16, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I did a minor edit removing someones claim that MK I cars were "likely be retired before the platforms are extended". Given that the platforms are being extended starting next year and that MK I cars make up the body of the rolling stock, I find this unlikely. If anyone has heard of plans to scrap over half the cars next year please correct me. I also pulled the line "most of the MK I cars have buttons on the doors to keep the train at the station for a longer period so wheelchair users can station themselves in the wheelchair areas." I believe that this was once correct, although most of the cars have had the internal buttons removed and covered with metal plates and to my knowledge, all remaining buttons inside and on the doors have been disconnected. I have tried pushing them and have gotten no response. Pissedpat (talk) 18:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

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

New image
Is it a good idea to keep or remove this new image that User:Crazyjoeda put at the top of the page? I feel that the older one with Metrotown Station was better, but should we keep this image anyways or maybe move it to the Granville Station article? --FlyingPenguins 04:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know...I like this one better though. deadkid_dk 04:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't we have both? ;) heqs 11:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Largest rapid transit network in Canada (by length of track)?
The article says "With both the Canada Line and the Evergreen Line, Greater Vancouver will have the largest rapid transit network in Canada (by length of track) by 2009." Though surely, if you include the Evergreen Line Tram in the count, you would also have to include the Tram system in Toronto, which surely dwarfs anything (even if you only include the sections with their own right-of-way along Lakeshore, Spadina, St. Clair, and Queen's Quay)? To compare apples to apples, shouldn't the comparison be Vancouver's 2 Skytrain lines + Canada Line vs Montreal's 4 Metro lines vs Toronto's 3 subways + Scarborough LRT (same technology as Skytrain?). 17:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that you can't count the Evergreen line as rapid transit. -- Usgnus 18:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Though doing the math, Just the Skytrain (49.6 km) and the Canada Line (19.5 km) total 69.1 km ... compared to Toronto's 61.9 km of subway and 6.4 km of Skytrain-type LRT (total 68.3 km) ... though Toronto will total 77.0 km when the Spadina subway extension is finished in 2013. Montreal's Metro will total 66.1 km when the new 5.2-km extension opens next year (not that there is technically any track in Montreal).  Perhaps Toronto will have to count the new 1.5 km 3-station people mover at Pearson airport which is opening soon to keep at the top of the list.  :-) Nfitz 21:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The Evergreen Line has signal priority at every intersection I think, so I think that it can be included as rapid transit since it only stops at stations. None of the Toronto streetcar lines do. lee_haber8
 * Signal priority is not sufficient; grade separation is required for rapid transit. --Usgnus 03:38, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not true. The Portland Light Rail system as well as many others run at grade and are considered Rapid Transit. Rapid Transit means that the vehicles are unhindered by traffic, they have a dedicated corridor and signal priority. lee_haber8
 * Not according to the rapid transit article. --Usgnus 04:33, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The rapid transit article states grade separation is a quality of rapid transit in the intro, but changes to "completely independent from other traffic" in its definition. It should also be noted that the MAX_Light_Rail (Portland light rail) article never attempts to label it as rapid transit, only as light rail. On topic I really don't see how a transit system that relies on Vancouver motorists to yield full right of way at a level crossing could be considered rapid. Someone is going to stall or rear-end someone dead in the middle of the tracks and shut the whole thing down for an hour. If the system was fenced and all crossings were by overpass then yes, I would consider it rapid transit even if it is on the surface. As an aside, I was going to argue the feasibility and logic of the length that our track will be while other cities continue their tracks as well, but given that the article has been amended to no longer include the statement that sparked this all, I see no point.Pissedpat (talk) 08:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

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


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

Section on Canada Line
It appears, at least to me, that the section Canada Line is getting rather cluttered, and quite large compared to sections dedicated to other lines. Seems quite unnecessary, given that there's already a Canada Line article. Would anyone oppose to me moving some/most of the stuff to the main Canada Line article? If noone's against it, I'll probably do so shortly (unless someone else does it first). ikh (talk) 01:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. --Usgnus 03:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I changed today and why:

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

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

If you disagree with any of these changes, let's discuss them here before further changes are made. Perhaps we can find even better ways of conveying this information. Ground Zero | t 19:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "It should be noted that" -- these are just extra words. They add no value to the sentence. They are unnecessary, and can be removed without altering the meaning.
 * 2) "due to the fact that" -- this phrase means "because", so replacing it shortens the sentence and makes it easy to read without altering the meaning.
 * 3) "in any way, shape or form" -- this adds emphasis to a statement that is already absolute and unequivocal. ""SkyTrain" technology will not be used" is not unclear in any way, and so does not need emphasis.
 * 4) "due to legal issues" -- we are already told earlier in the sentence why it is not being used (because Bombardier's linear induction "SkyTrain" technology will not be used), so adding a vague "due to legal issues" is both unnecessary and gives the reader no additional information.
 * 5) "Although it will be under the same fare system/structure under Translink, in terms of operations and management, the Canada Line will be completely seperate and independent from the existing SkyTrain system." This is wordy, and seems to be designed to emphasise the point made earlier about it not being called SkyTrain, something that readers will have no trouble understanding from the statement "the line will not be labelled as SkyTrain". The revised version ("It will, however, use the same fare system as Skytrain and be managed by Translink.") provides the same key information in fewer words, and more clearly.

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

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

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

Anybody? :: Colin Keigher 17:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * hmmm... not sure, but from what I remember of the bus strike, one of the issues was whether Translink was the employer, or Coast Mountain Bus Co. Probably a good idea to be sure about this.Bobanny 07:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

- Neil916 (Talk) 17:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Why is the system called "SkyTrain"?. Is the entire train system elevated, or is there a different reason?  Is it named after the bridge, or is the bridge named after the train system?
 * I'm not too sure. No reliable source says why.
 * 1) The article mentions "fully automated trains". Does that mean there are no drivers?  I don't know if I misinterpreted that statement.  Have there been accidents as a result?
 * I've cleared that up. No accidents so far.
 * 1) How much did it cost to build the system?
 * Agian, nothing creditable says.
 * 1) How many employees are there in the system?
 * Nothing creditable says this.
 * There are 177 operators and 83 maintenance workers (Source). This number would probably not include the transit polices, but I'm not sure if it includes the personnel in the stations or not. 64.180.232.15 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) The article makes a statement about the trains being wheelchair accessible, but the TransLink (Vancouver) article mentions several stations not being accessible.
 * I'll fix that.
 * 1) A couple of very short sentence fragments in the "Rolling stock" section.
 * Thank you. -- Selmo  (talk) 04:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

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

GA Failed
This article has failed the GA nominations. See below for more details. Feel free to renominated it at WP:GAN once the above has been addressed. Tarret 00:01, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
 * Please convert all bulleted lists into prose.
 * Please add a history section detailing the train systems construction and use during the Expo 86 World's Fair.

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

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

Dramatically what?
The stations ended up being dramatically than those on the Expo Line. -219.171.99.132 14:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've patched that sentance. -- Selmo  (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

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


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

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

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

A Class?
Since this article has gone through featured article candadatcy, shouldn't it be rated A Class in the wikiproject banners? Why isn't there an A Class standred in plce for promotion to this class, like there is for good article? Canadianshoper 21:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It went through the FAC process but failed to be promoted, so all that tells us is that it's not considered up to snuff to be a featured article. It's only because of the external process for FA and GA that automatically qualifies an article for those labels, whereas 'A' and 'B' class are subjective judgments by individual editors. I haven't gone through this article with a fine tooth comb, but I think you're right that it's A class - it's highly informative, clearly written, well-structured, illustrated with plenty of useful images, correctly formatted, etc. I'd support bumping it up to A class. Bobanny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Evergreen Line
The Evergreen Line is actually planned as a light rail, unfortunately not a Sky Train. 216.86.113.233 (talk) 20:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite true. I think it’s still best, though, to cover it on this page, at least for the moment; there is no accepted term for ‘Vancouver local railways’ beyond SkyTrain, and the Evergreen Line is an extension of the network described here, even though it is to be a tramway. David Arthur (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Because of its lower operating cost and greater safety it's the SkyTrain system that will be used for this line. 216.86.113.233 (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

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

Fare Evasion Discrepancy
There appears to be a discrepancy in this article as to how much Translink loses in revenue due to fare evasion.

In the introduction (section above the Contents box), in the second paragraph, it is stated:
 * TransLink claims to lose about C$6 million in unpaid fares annually, including $3 million from SkyTrain alone.

However, in Section 3 "Fares", second paragraph, the article reads:
 * TransLink estimates it loses $4 million (5% of its revenue) annually from fare evasion on the SkyTrain.

Naisenu (talk) 01:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the comment about anecdotal evidence suggests that the Translink fare evasion surveys were completely biased (and flawed). What was revealed by callers to a popular CKNW talk show was that prior to such surveys being conducted, dozens of uniformed Translink officials would stand by the fare machines and doorways. Only an idiot would try evading the fares on such a day. In other words, they knew that something was up. On a regular basis I hear from friends and family about buses and trains being stopped and fares checked. One accordion bus on the Granville Street Bridge reportedly had 47 fare evaders! So, while I agree that my latest entry needs a citation (which no one can possibly provide), surely the numbers from Translink need a detailed reference as to how they were conducted and proof positive that the aforementioned bias did not occur? If not, then it's just pure propaganda but in no way constitutes any semblance of fact. Rwerner 13:46, 16 July 2008 (PDT)
 * While I agree that it would be difficult to find a source confirming the anecdotal evidence of family and friends, why not cite the talk-show you've mentioned as evidence of the survey's inadequacy? David Arthur (talk) 23:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Today's main page featured article proposal
Even though I did not contribute to this article, I am hoping that this article be on the Main Page at January 3, 2009. I picked January 3 because that was the date the Expo Line offically opened in 1986. I hope this article will do well in the future. Good luck to Selmo, the main contributor on his decision to request this article on Today's featured article. -- K. Annoyomous  24  GO LAKERS! Please reply on my talk page. Thanks. 02:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Another date I would propose is December 11, 2009, the date when SkyTrain itself started operating. I will nominate this date if there are no objections. ThePointblank (talk) 05:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Canada Line
I've restored the sections on the Canada Line that were recently deleted without discussion. It isn't at all settled whether it will be referred to as SkyTrain or not, and regardless of technology and branding, it will form part of the same integrated transport network (I expect most people will end up calling it 'SkyTrain' whatever the officials decide). If the branding does end up being resolved in a way that makes it inappropriate to cover the Canada Line in an article called 'SkyTrain', I'd suggest renaming the article (to something like 'Railways in Vancouver') before a split, so as to keep the coverage of Vancouver's metro system in one organised place. David Arthur (talk) 22:52, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I understand that there are currently no definitive indication of whether the Canada Line would be branded as SkyTrain (at least not to my knowledge). However, the inclusion of Canada Line under the Expansion heading implies that the Canada Line is part of the SkyTrain system, even though there are no evidence supporting that. Public perception should not come into play here. If the situation about branding is unclear, shouldn't that section be excluded from this article about the SkyTrain system? This article is not about Vancouver's metro system, but specifically about SkyTrain.


 * On a side note, I attended a SkyTrain tour last year hosted by the SkyTrain operating company (British Columbia Rapid Transit Co. Ltd.) The tour operators confirmed that the Canada Line is not part of the SkyTrain system. Since I cannot recall who said it, I am not going to quote anyone. My argument here is: Canada Line is not a part of SkyTrain. If there is no evidence supporting otherwise, information should not be presented as if there is. This is why I took the Canada Line sections out of this article. --Hyandrew (talk) 13:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * But public perception does matter; it's a long-standing Wikipedia policy that articles should choose the subject's most common name over the one given to it by any official body – hence Big Ben, which ‘properly’ refers to the bell rather than the clock or tower. As for what this article is about, who would it serve to separate coverage of Vancouver's metro into multiple articles that don't intertwine? The only justification that occurs to me is article length, and that's hardly a problem here. The Canada Line is an extension of the Vancouver metro network whatever they call it, and whether or not it's compatible with the existing trains. David Arthur (talk) 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As a "public perception" (I'm a Vancouverite), I think that the locals will still call the Canada Line part of the SkyTrain, but I don't think that the Canada Line will be branded as part of SkyTrain. And yes, it is a extension of TransLink. --  SRE.K.A nnoyomous .L. 24 [c] 21:33, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats on the TFA!
Congrats to everyone who have contributed to this article in any way possible. Since 13:08, October 22, 2002, to June 19, 2007, to now, the article has been deserving of a TFA spot. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 04:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Punctuality
In this article, i don't see any discussion about reliability or punctuality. Things like: are the trains on time, are there frequent or rare delays? Is the system ever shut down for several hours due to weather or other problems? Does anyone have any information about this? —fudoreaper (talk) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * On the whole, I believe it's been quite reliable – in Toronto, the same technology has had trouble with snow, but of course that isn't often an issue in Vancouver's climate. Punctuality is hard to define, since this is a metro system operating on a turn-up-and-go basis rather than to a timetable, but with short headways, a closed, modern system, and automatic operation, again I don't believe there are any substantial timekeeping problems except during unusual weather. David Arthur (talk) 20:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, i think it has 'good' reliability, i guess what i am really asking for is data of some sort, hopefully from SkyTrain itself, as they would probably be the only source with good data. Sure we have anecdotal information—trains sometimes stop when debris is on the tracks, causing delays—but i was hoping for something suitable for encyclopedic use, with complete stats, ideally.  The reason i'm curious is because the reliability and punctuality of train systems seems to vary from place to place, and can sometimes be quite poor.  My guess is that SkyTrain compares quite well to other train systems, but without data about an entire year of operations, it's hard to know.  Cheers —fudoreaper (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * According to this press release, the SkyTrain has ‘over 96% on-time performance’, and one of the main causes of delay is when passengers hold open the doors to let other people board. David Arthur (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Commercial-Broadway Station
After September 7th, Translink will amalgamate the Broadway and Commercial Drive stations into one station named "Commercial-Broadway Station". See, for sources.

When that happens, what we do to the Broadway and Commerical Drive Station articles? єmarsee •  Speak up!  17:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just as well – the name is a bit awkward, but they were always really one station in all but name. (Toronto similarly tried to present Bloor-Yonge as two stations for a good while.) I’d say merge the articles, and note the former naming pattern. David Arthur (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you really sure about this? I couldn't find any other source that talks about this merge... Also, maybe TransLink is only merging it so that they don't have to write Commercial Station and Broadway Station. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  20:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're merging it so people wouldn't confuse Broadway with Broadway-City Hall. I'm not really sure what to do here. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  01:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think they're going to merge them. Sorry for not believing, but there is currently no other source besides TransLink that says this. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  03:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe they have the new signs up at the current Commercial Drive Station according to what some person says on SkyscraperPage. Translink, by itself would be reliable source as they're the ones who are in charge of the transit system in Metro Vancouver. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  04:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ehh...if it's on the SkyTrain map, and the SkyTrain stations page, then I'll absolutely believe you, but right now, I'm not so sure...wait until September 7th. --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  04:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just remembered, the maps at the Canada Line stations have it as Commercial-Broadway. And they show transfers to the express buses (ie 99B, 97B, 84, etc.) Aug 16Jul 3 єmarsee  •  Speak up!  04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, now I believe you. :O --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, the 99 B-Line bus stops, at least the one at Broadway-City Hall Stn, says Commercial-Broadway. The 99 B-Line buses are also supposed to display "Commercial-Broadway Stn," but from what I heard, it only displays "Commercial Stn."  But obviously, they are changing it.User talk:Adrianhjleung 01:22, 26 August 2009
 * Fired off an email to The Buzzer as to when the renaming is going to take place. Please be patient. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  05:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Just got an email back from Jhenifer of The Buzzer. The renaming of the station is indeed September 7th and she will put a note of it on The Buzzer tomorrow. єmarsee  •  Speak up!  17:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Can't wait to get one. :D --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]]  22:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

New SkyTrain cars
Hey, I was on the (Expo line) skytrain the other day, there are new skytrain cars that have the same livery as the Canada line (Grey and blue), they sound different than the ART II cars, and have the same seating as the canada line as well. Did they put some of the Canada line cars on the Expo line, or are these Bombardier ART II cars with the canada line configuration? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.174.98.210 (talk) 19:37, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, those are nothing to do with the Canada Line. They’re the newest batch of Mark II ART trains, with various refinements including the seats and colours; in fact, they’re newer than the Canada Line trains. The new colours make it look quite different, but in fact the body of the train is essentially the same as the older Mark IIs. The Canada Line is quite distinct and incompatible with the previous system, so it wouldn’t be possible for Canada Line trains to run on the Expo Line. David Arthur (talk) 21:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Canada Line cars wouldn't even work on the Expo Line. Skytrain Classic runs on linear induction motors propelling the cars. The Canada Line cars use conventional metro technology.

Longest Rapid Transit in Canada?
This article states that "SkyTrain's 68.7 km (42.7 mi) of track make it the longest automated rapid transit system in the world and the longest rapid transit system in Canada." (emphasis mine) The article about the Montreal Metro states that "the Metro now incorporates 68 stations on four lines measuring 71 km (44.12 mi) in length." (emphasis mine) This would appear to make the SkyTrain Canada's second longest rapid transit system. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.179.18.91 (talk) 02:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * From the Metro's website: "The metro includes 71 kilometres of track, of which 65.33 are in "commercial exploitation" (usable by passengers)." So SkyTrain actually have longer in-service track compared to Montreal Metro. 99.199.189.150 (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Work needed
Hello everyone! This article currently appears near the top of Featured articles/Cleanup listing, with four cleanup tags. Cleanup work needs to be completed on this article, or a featured article review may be in order. Please contact me on my talk page if you have any questions. Thank you! Dana boomer (talk) 15:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Done two cleanup tags, chewing on the others. ThePointblank (talk) 23:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's all of them! ThePointblank (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work on the article. There appears to still be a citation needed tag at the very beginning of the History section and three tagged dead links. There are also a few other dead links that aren't tagged, see this tool. Dana boomer (talk) 21:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the last unsourced claim at the beginning of the page with better clarification on the proposed UBC Line, which included a fair bit of hearsay that contradicts the fact that TransLink has not confirmed that the UBC Line will be a true SkyTrain system extension. Maldaen (talk) 03:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Number of vehicles
There seems to be some disagreement over whether a Canada Line train should be counted as two vehicles (as seems to be standard for the Mark IIs, which can’t operate independently either), or as a single vehicle with articulation. I haven't been able to get a great view of the new trains' undercarriage, but as far as I can tell they appear to have separate bogies for each carriage just like the older stock, and the Canada Line fact sheet refers to them as ‘[t]wenty modern, fully automated, two-vehicle metro trains’.

I don’t have a strong objection to either method of counting, but we ought to choose one and use it consistently – preferably the same way for both types of stock. What is the rationale for considering the Canada Line trains as single-vehicle units? David Arthur (talk) 17:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So it counts the old ones as 2 vehicles? To me a train is each unit, no matter how many cars are attached.  I would have thought that's the standard way to count them...  TastyCakes (talk) 19:55, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I was thinking about it some more, and one argument in favour of counting by carriages rather than by units is that both types of trains can theoretically be extended by adding additional carriages to the centre of a unit; in fact, five-carriage trains (one current unit, and one extended unit) are being considered for the Expo Line. If this were to happen, counting by carriage would more accurately represent the system's capacity, since counting by unit would treat shorter and longer units as identical. David Arthur (talk) 15:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm could we just put both? Number of trains and number of cars?  Or if all the trains have the same number of cars we could put "X number of Y car trains".  TastyCakes (talk) 16:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The trains are attached in pairs. The expo line and mellenium line share the same trains, and there are three types of them - the short carrages with 2 doors on each side, the newer white carrages with three doors on each side, and the newest grey carrages with 3 doors on each side.  The Canada line carrages are wider, and have four doors on each side.  All four types of carrages are siumlar, the fact that two carrages are joined as one car (permanently), and multile cars are joined (temperarly, by megnetic attraction) to form one train.  For example, carrage number 001 and 002 are joined as one car.  That pair and another pair of carrages (003 and 004) are joined to form one train of 2 cars or 4 carrages.  That and another pair of carrages (005 and 006) are joined to form one train of 3 cars or 6 carrages.  This is the way I count them.  If this explanation is too confusing, I am happy to clarify.  TheApplePi (talk) 22:47, 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) 21:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Article naming standards
FYI, I left a long-ish message regarding naming and disambiguation standards for Skytrain and TransLink related articles over at Talk:TransLink (British Columbia). Feel free to discuss. --user:Qviri 21:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Rail for the Valley reference to South of the Fraser LRT - to move or to remove?
Recently supporters of the Rail for the Valley added a section for their cause. While I respect their opinions, I believe this should be placed either in the TransLink page or removed all together. This is because the section is an opinion and not about rapid transit technology and related expansions in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.74.244.19 (talk) 18:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Criticism
There is no section about Skytrain criticism. This should really be a part of any history of the development — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.98.118.69 (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are discouraged, for a variety of reasons. See: WP:CRITICISM.  It's better to integrate all viewpoints, including notable and verifiable criticism, throughout the article body.  So if you're aware of criticism not currently represented in the article...  please add it!  --Ds13 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Will The Bomb Threat Be Included
On Friday of this week a bomb was discovered on the SkyTrain tracks near Gateway station in Surrey. Should this recent bomb scare be included in this article?

Cheers,

Hero

Downdate (talk) 13:54, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist
 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/vancouver/specs.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:49, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on SkyTrain (Vancouver). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.b-t.com/projects/skytrain.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110706165322/http://translink.bc.ca/files/buzzer/2007/Buzzer_Mar2.pdf to http://translink.bc.ca/files/buzzer/2007/Buzzer_Mar2.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110611145320/http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/2005AnnualReport.pdf to http://www.translink.bc.ca/files/pdf/2005AnnualReport.pdf

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Fantasy map
It appears that a long time ago, a user made a fantasy map using Photoshop. Not bad. Due to strange copyrights, many public transport articles are missing good map images for current systems, let alone proposal or vision maps. B137 (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Station naming convention
See Naming conventions (Canadian stations) for details. Secondarywaltz (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Map
Are there any maps that are not under copyright that show just the skytrain. For anyone living outside the city, the map gives the impression that the skytrain goes to UBC! Mattximus (talk) 16:13, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Make one! Secondarywaltz (talk) 16:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You've done it! Thank you! Secondarywaltz (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I think the map should be edited. There is no direct interchange between Granville and Vancouver City Centre stations in downtown, unless you count going outside or passing through the mall as a direct interchange, which I doubt. Cganuelas (talk) 23:43, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That's a good point. I also really hate how the TransLink Major Route Diagram has B-Lines crammed in. Yes, they are "major routes" but including them in the diagram makes it seem like they are equivalent to SkyTrain, and they're not even full bus rapid transit. *sigh*
 * Granville and Vancouver–City Centre are also shown there as a single interchange. I checked some of TransLink's own maps and they are shown separately there, so I think there's a good rationale for separating them. Joeyconnick (talk) 07:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think there is value in having them on the map, but I agree that maybe they should not appear to be equivalents. The diagram template generator for the map does include a narrow line variant.  I could convert all the B-Lines to narrow lines an also use smaller station icons in my new version which will be going live on the Dec 2nd.  My version can be found here: Template:TransLink Major Route Diagram 2017.
 * As for removing the connection between Granville and Vancouver City Centre stations, I think this might be valid since it is not an official transfer point. I was going to say that the distance between them is comparable to the distance between the 95 B-Line Granville Street stop and Waterfront station, but after re-checking I see that the difference there is less, especially if using the southwestern entrance on Granville Street. Sweetnhappy (talk) 01:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a diagram template GENERATOR?! Where?! That would be amazing!
 * I would support narrow lines and smaller station icons for B-Lines for the diagram. Joeyconnick (talk) 01:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops, worded that badly - there is no 'auto' generator. What I meant to say is that the route diagram template icons include narrow lines.  I have updated my version accordingly.  Please let me know what you think. Sweetnhappy (talk) 03:16, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * It's great... I love it! Joeyconnick (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thirding that the implication of a direct, in-system transfer point at Granville/City Center must be removed as quickly as possible. It is objectively inaccurate, and with the opening of the new Skytrain extension yesterday, a lot of people are liable to come here this week looking to understand the "new" system map and connection points (as I just did). Inaccurate visual representations, anywhere in the system, are supremely unhelpful at this moment. 2601:182:CE00:C:6074:ABEA:B055:5C2C (talk) 18:21, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've made a request here. Joeyconnick (talk) 19:23, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I just did a little Googling and turned this up: https://www.tourbytransit.com/vancouver/public-transit/skytrain-map It appears to have been adapted directly from a pre-Evergreen Extension Wikipedia Commons map, but updated by the outside website to reflect the current system structure. Despite the revisions, does the adapted map not remain under the same open license, therefore permitting it to be used to illustrate the Skytrain article? Thoughts? I would love to swap the images out sooner rather than later, in order to stop showing an in-system transfer where none exists. 2601:182:CE00:C:CC92:F5DD:E9E4:24F2 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As to the licensing, yes, it would by design remain the same on the adapted work. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:23, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the map has been switched out. For all interested parties, a detailed discussion of map edits seems to have concentrated on the talk page for the image itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Vancouver_Skytrain_Map.png 2601:182:CE00:C:291F:1370:C536:8F27 (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

A few proposals
Wasn't sure where to put this. Was thinking of every single station related article, but that would be too time consuming for me. Anyway, one of my proposals is to add a route map to each infobox. Examples of what I'm talking about is the one on the 54th/Cermak station infobox, of which route map I copypasta'd here down below.

Another proposal I had was to split up the Waterfront Station article into separate articles for Canada Line, Expo Line, West Coast Express, and SeaBus services. Thoughts? Cganuelas (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on SkyTrain (Vancouver). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080411125756/http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/Provincial_Transit_Plan_LR.pdf to http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/Transit_Plan/Provincial_Transit_Plan_LR.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100223203138/http://www.skytrain.info/safetysecurity.aspx to http://www.skytrain.info/safetysecurity.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140715114725/http://www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-bridges.asp to http://www.discovervancouver.com/GVB/vancouver-bridges.asp
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?current_row=96&tf=tgam%2Fcolumnists%2FFullColumn.html&cf=tgam%2Fcolumnists%2FFullColumn.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam%2Fconfig&date=&dateOffset=&hub=paulSullivan&title=Paul_Sullivan&cache_key=paulSullivan&start_row=96&num_rows=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326090147/http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/canadaline/documents/20071214UpdatedFactSheetNo.1CanadaLineVehicle.pdf to http://vancouver.ca/engsvcs/transport/rto/canadaline/documents/20071214UpdatedFactSheetNo.1CanadaLineVehicle.pdf
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.translink.ca/en/Be-Part-of-the-Plan/Rapid-Transit-Projects/Surrey-Rapid-Transit-Study.aspx

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:47, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on SkyTrain (Vancouver). 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090808115201/http://canadaline.ca/aboutFinancing.asp to http://canadaline.ca/aboutFinancing.asp
 * Added tag to http://www.bclocalnews.com/surrey_area/cloverdalereporter/news/88932792.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100114204827/http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/About%20TransLink/Annual%20Reports/2008%20TransLink%20Annual%20Report.ashx to http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/About%20TransLink/Annual%20Reports/2008%20TransLink%20Annual%20Report.ashx
 * Added tag to http://www.translink.ca/~/media/Documents/Board/Board%202009/Board%20Meeting%2027%2003%202009/Finanical_and_Performance_Report_08.ashx
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20090910042918/http://archive.vancourier.com/issues02/095102/news/095102nn5.html to http://archive.vancourier.com/issues02/095102/news/095102nn5.html
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20090911040751/http://archive.vancourier.com/issues05/084205/news/084205nn8.html to http://archive.vancourier.com/issues05/084205/news/084205nn8.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/GIS.Servlets.HTMLTemplate?current_row=96&tf=tgam%2Fcolumnists%2FFullColumn.html&cf=tgam%2Fcolumnists%2FFullColumn.cfg&configFileLoc=tgam%2Fconfig&date=&dateOffset=&hub=paulSullivan&title=Paul_Sullivan&cache_key=paulSullivan&start_row=96&num_rows=1
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070112111316/http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc56.pdf to http://www.canadaline.ca/files/uploads/docs/doc56.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20090911040715/http://archive.vancourier.com/issues02/113102/news/113102nn9.html to http://archive.vancourier.com/issues02/113102/news/113102nn9.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

reverting mass changes to SkyTrain stations, May 2018
Given has provided zero rationale for switching the direction of the station listings for the Canada Line and other changes to various SkyTrain lines, I am reverting them and they can discuss here why they think such changes are warranted, per WP:BRD. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The Canada does not consist of two different lines, it consists of one line with two branches at the end. Hence, no need for double templates along the majority of the line.  Cards84664  (talk) 00:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

(Expo shown as an example)


 * I'm sorry... you didn't think it was worth stating that was your take on it and your reason behind the changes upfront? Or discussing it here (or somewhere else suitable) with other regular editors? And that still doesn't address why you decided to make the lefthand side the outbound direction for the Canada Line. Again, per WP:BRD, please reverse your changes and wait until we can discuss things further here. And stop edit warring. —Joeyconnick (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Everything with these templates is not consistent with other cities, i.e |line=Expo line (redundant), which should be |line=Expo. I made the Canada line terminate on the left because the Airport is the westmost station on the line. Also, the duplicate templates are not needed for the whole line, that only needs to be shown in a single template, as shown with the Chicago L below.  Cards84664  (talk) 00:55, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with you removing redundancies but other stuff exists doesn't mean we have to hew to it exactly. That's why, for instance, there is both a WP:CANSTATION and WP:USSTATION instead of a unified article—not everything is done exactly the same across the entirety of Wikipedia. The status of these stations has been stable for months, if not years, and it's extremely poor form for you to come in here and make major changes without starting a discussion first or, at the very least, explaining what you are doing in your edit summaries. The fact you started edit warring when you were understandably reverted also doesn't say much in your favour.


 * Very specifically, it makes no sense to have the Canada Line be backwards ordered from farthest out on the left to closest in on the right when the other lines are ordered from inbound (left) to outbound (right). The example at Waterfront makes it clear what a poor choice that is—it just looks awkward. Your reverse-ordering also messed up the station layout diagrams for the Canada line, which now say "Inbound towards Richmond–Brighouse or YVR–Airport" (instead of Waterfront) and "Outbound towards Waterfront" (instead of Richmond–Brighouse or YVR–Airport).


 * Beyond that, as to your contention regarding lines vs. branches, I would have been willing to be convinced on that front (even though we have used the existing double-row listing for years now) but again, that's something you should have raised as a discussion first. I think you should self-revert and give other people a chance to chime in here before we go ahead with your changes. —Joeyconnick (talk) 01:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)


 * I am inclined to agree with what has stated above.  A discussion should have been started before any mass changes like this were made, especially without the reasoning behind it or explanation of the need for it being made evident.  The ordering (and direction) of stations should remain consistent with other articles and with the fact that downtown Vancouver (Waterfront) is always considered the inbound direction (not just by the articles here but by TransLink as well - to my knowledge). Sweetnhappy (talk) 04:36, 27 May 2018 (UTC)