Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Migrant_Coconut]

TBF if we hadn't experimented, we'd still be using coal-burning steam engines. Hydrogen's problem is that it doesn't offer any advantage (and indeed has several drawbacks) when making the switch.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

TBF if we hadn't experimented, we'd still be using coal-burning steam engines. Hydrogen's problem is that it doesn't offer any advantage (and indeed has several drawbacks) when making the switch.

The thing is people generally aim towards a viable use case when they're developing technology. The use case for hydrogen isn't going to be trains, it's things that can't take the weight of batteries and are willing to pay a massive premium to avoid that weight penalty. If that cost premium goes away at some point, that's awesome, but we're not anywhere near there yet, so there's no point in pretending.

That list is a who's who of cranks, and political ghouls. Resurrecting a 30 km/h interurban service in 2025 doesn't make any more sense if you add hydrogen into the mix, even if the tech is somewhat viable. They're basically resurrecting the same broken concept without changes to the things that matter.

Rail for the valley makes a ton of sense, but it will only deliver on the promises if they upgrade the physical track. The upgrades to the track they include in the example budgets are incredibly minimal, because they're trying keep to a shoestring budget.

A shoestring budget doesn't buy a modern tram if the underlying infrastructure was designed to compete with a Model T and a horse.

You must remember, a slow train service isn't a productive one. If it takes 3x as long for a train to move along the same route, there needs to be 3x the trains to achieve the same capacity, and about 3x the operating costs for those trains. The ridership is also inversely proportional to the speed, because nobody will take a train between Abbotsford and Langley that barely manages to be speed competitive with cycling.

This plan would bleed money.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Rail for the valley makes a ton of sense, but it will only deliver on the promises if they upgrade the physical track. The upgrades to the track they include in the example budgets are incredibly minimal, because they're trying keep to a shoestring budget.

[...]

This plan would bleed money.

Rail for the valley makes a lot of sense once we've connected Langley, UBC, SFU, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, North Delta, Newton, White Rock/South Surrey, Guildford, Kerrisdale, Hastings/Vancouver-Burnaby Heights, and honestly probably even Tsawwassen to the Translink rapid transit network first.

Before we get to rail for the valley, there are just other priorities that need rail more and also provide more transit utility per dollar.

Translink has two mandates: Improve transit coverage by connecting regional urban centres, and improve transit quality of service where demand requires it. All of the above come before rail for the valley.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Rail for the valley makes a lot of sense once we've connected Langley, UBC, SFU, North Vancouver, Port Coquitlam, Maple Ridge, North Delta, Newton, White Rock/South Surrey, Guildford, Kerrisdale, Hastings/Vancouver-Burnaby Heights, and honestly probably even Tsawwassen to the Translink rapid transit network first.

Before we get to rail for the valley, there are just other priorities that need rail more and also provide more transit utility per dollar.

Translink has two mandates: Improve transit coverage by connecting regional urban centres, and improve transit quality of service where demand requires it. All of the above come before rail for the valley.

It would probably be a BC Transit project if anything.

I also just can't help but think if they can do an all-day WCX extension to Abbotsford, it would catch most of the ridership that RftV is aiming at as well.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Dunno, most Valley commuters want to go to Surrey or Langley. WCE to Abbotsford gets you maybe 5k riders (Vancouver, Tri-Cities, Maple Ridge, end of story) out of 22k, but it'll go ahead because it also costs nothing to implement.

I'll say it again: a train down the TCH median would appear to solve 99% of RftV/SFCR's problems... but then it goes from a "Fast Ferries 2.0" snake oil pitch to an actual, serious plan costing serious money, and they don't have the credentials for that.

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Dunno, most Valley commuters want to go to Surrey or Langley. WCE to Abbotsford gets you maybe 5k riders (Vancouver, Tri-Cities, Maple Ridge, end of story) out of 22k, but it'll go ahead because it also costs nothing to implement.

I'll say it again: a train down the TCH median would appear to solve 99% of RftV/SFCR's problems... but then it goes from a "Fast Ferries 2.0" snake oil pitch to an actual, serious plan costing serious money, and they don't have the credentials for that.

It's pretty much a missed opportunity that could have been done with the Gateway project. The geotechnical issues (tunnels, new crossings, elevated guideways) along with land constraints across this corridor make this a near impossible project with a price tag that would probably exceed 20 bil.

At that price tag, you could potentially link Pitt Meadows/Maple Ridge to the Skytrain and build a Skytrain line out to Walnut Grove/North Langley.

[BaddieB]

Realistically how expensive would commuter rail down the TCH even be if the existing HOV lanes were repurposed? Stations are a matter of laying some concrete and walkways over the highway. I doubt it would be very expensive if done right.

[Axe]

It would be impossible to make it go at high speeds if you just reused the HOV lanes.
It would have to be slow train.
Ideally you would want a train that is faster then driving, this will get lots of people to use it. This means Gentle curves and Gentle grades.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Realistically how expensive would commuter rail down the TCH even be if the existing HOV lanes were repurposed? Stations are a matter of laying some concrete and walkways over the highway. I doubt it would be very expensive if done right.

Why the HOV lanes? That seems silly when there's still plenty of median in the middle that two+ tracks could fit in.

Stations should (mostly) be placed well outside of the highway area and near actual destinations otherwise it's not going to compete with just driving to those destinations if you get off the train and have to wait for a slow bus to get you to where you really want to go (unless you're a weirdo that likes hanging out on the side of the TCH).

[Migrant_Coconut]

OTOH, have the train detour here and there all over the Valley and you've basically got the interurban all over again.

Most of the Valley's lined up along the TCH anyway, so a RapidBus equivalent from, let's say, a station at 272nd, Peardonville or Riverside to Aldergrove or downtown Abbotsford is hardly ideal, but not the end of the world either (especially compared to the alternatives).

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by mcj

Why the HOV lanes? That seems silly when there's still plenty of median in the middle that two+ tracks could fit in.

I think the idea is that you wouldn't need the expense of regrading the median, you could just lay tracks right down on the pavement grade and put Jersey barriers between it and the regular highway lane - that could be done super cheaply. It also takes advantage of the existing Port Mann crossing and eliminates the need to build a new bridge.

I see no reason why doing that would restrict train speeds or even require train operators, as long as any other level crossings could be eliminated. It would be a pretty trivial matter to do the bit of grading needed to create super elevations on the sharper curves in order to keep the ride comfortable.

Station locations are still an issue, though. No part of the freeway is decently situated for people to walk to or from destinations. The best you could probably do is to somehow integrate the train stations into co-located bus stations on overpasses or underpasses with an elevator to carry people between the levels.

[Xrayal]

Found this in burnaby’s 2025-2029 capital budget.
Sounds like triple tracking will be extended further into burnaby.

The city was contacted to extend the watermain for the caribou rail crossing as soon as possible because the railway is adding another line. This project will extend the casing and replace old portions of the watermain.

[jollyburger]

I guess an extension of the Willingdon to Piper siding? I don't think they can fit another track under Gaglardi Way with the current track configuration.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by jollyburger

I guess an extension of the Willingdon to Piper siding? I don't think they can fit another track under Gaglardi Way with the current track configuration.

This is very interesting. When I shot my video of The Canadian several years ago there were only two tracks, but on Google Maps I'm seeing three tracks all the way from where the Thornton tunnel merges through to beyond Piper. They've obviously been working on this for some time now.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This is very interesting. When I shot my video of The Canadian several years ago there were only two tracks, but on Google Maps I'm seeing three tracks all the way from where the Thornton tunnel merges through to beyond Piper. They've obviously been working on this for some time now.

That 3rd track was built 2021-2022.

[Vin]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

This sort of thing infuriates me. Hydrogen is NOT a green fuel because hydrogen doesn't just sit around somewhere to be harvested. You have to produce it, and almost all hydrogen is produced from fossil fuels using a process that emits several tons of carbon dioxide for each ton of hydrogen.

Sure, it burns clean. But it's incredibly dirty to get it.

Compare with Skytrain, which has virtually no emissions where the electricity is produced OR consumed.

Journalists who paste this kind of misinformation into their publications ought to be held accountable for the misleading statements they contain, IMHO.

Not totally dirty. There are cleaner ways to obtain hydrogen. If we choose hydrogen as an alternative fuel, we need to make sure that the process to obtain it is green before we do further planning. Even without hydrogen, trains can also run on electricity: just like the skytrain except they are powered via overhead pantographs. The two technologies need not be mutually exclusive for the Lower Mainland's commuter train system.

Quote from Wiki:

Most hydrogen in the lithosphere is bonded to oxygen in water. Manufacturing elemental hydrogen requires the consumption of a hydrogen carrier such as a fossil fuel or water. The former carrier consumes the fossil resource and in the steam methane reforming (SMR) process produces greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. However, in the newer methane pyrolysis process no greenhouse gas carbon dioxide is produced. These processes typically require no further energy input beyond the fossil fuel.

Illustrating inputs and outputs of steam reforming of natural gas, a process to produce hydrogen. As of 2020, the carbon sequestrastion step is not in commercial use.
Decomposing water, the latter carrier, requires electrical or heat input, generated from some primary energy source (fossil fuel, nuclear power or a renewable energy). Hydrogen produced by electrolysis of water using renewable energy sources such as wind and solar power, referred to as green hydrogen.[16] When derived from natural gas by zero greenhouse emission methane pyrolysis, it is referred to as turquoise hydrogen.[17]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

OTOH, have the train detour here and there all over the Valley and you've basically got the interurban all over again.

Most of the Valley's lined up along the TCH anyway, so a RapidBus equivalent from, let's say, a station at 272nd, Peardonville or Riverside to Aldergrove or downtown Abbotsford is hardly ideal, but not the end of the world either (especially compared to the alternatives).

That's a rather lovely thought....

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not totally dirty. There are cleaner ways to obtain hydrogen. If we choose hydrogen as an alternative fuel, we need to make sure that the process to obtain it is green before we do further planning. Even without hydrogen, trains can also run on electricity: just like the skytrain except they are powered via overhead pantographs. The two technologies need not be mutually exclusive for the Lower Mainland's commuter train system.

You're missing the point. The proponents for the Valley Line are suggesting a hydrogen powered train because they're trying to avoid the much greater expense that would be associated with adding overhead wire infrastructure. There are at least two problems with that idea. There is no source of green hydrogen in BC, and there's no 'spare' renewable electricity to make hydrogen. Until we generate excess non-carbon electricity that we can't sell off or store in batteries, there's not likely to be any green hydrogen.

Running trains on hydrogen also turns out to be difficult. Just like hydrogen buses didn't work out in Whistler, and hydrogen cars are a bust in California, hydrogen trains are proving to be so unreliable that they've been replaced with diesels in Germany.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Vin

Not totally dirty. There are cleaner ways to obtain hydrogen.

Yes, but until clean hydrogen actually does replace what we've got now, hydrogen is a dirty fuel. It's a total fraud to claim that hydrogen is "green" as long as it actually isn't.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by Vin

That's a rather lovely thought....

"Imagine a train that could only run as fast as a bike!" ... said no majority of commuters ever.

[RedArbutus]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Just like hydrogen buses didn't work out in Whistler

I'm confused...this was announced in 2014? I swear I saw hydrogen-powered BC Transit busses scooting around Whistler as recently as last year.