Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I have come up with a proposal for an extension of the West Coast express servicing Surrey. Here's a map I made


Here is a link to the Google Maps: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pk5GpXbf6G1I2tUY4CLfZIJB_O0&usp=sharing

The line starts in Fort Langley and runs by Columbia station where a small walkway could be built under or above ground to connect to the SkyTrain. There is also an option to extend it along to the Marine Drive Canada Line station, perhaps to service the new River District Development.

This line uses existing rail, so really only the stations need to built, and perhaps the train schedules modified a bit for it to be able to go into service. There could be reassignment of rail cars from the Mission line as the ridership will be decreased with the opening of the Evergreen line. This could provide the initial rolling stock.

What do you guys think?

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RuRfK5O50ayec5Zp5nF1k-5MSUo&usp=sharing

Here is a plan I came up with. All lines terminate at Waterfront.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I have come up with a proposal for an extension of the West Coast express servicing Surrey. Here's a map I made


Here is a link to the Google Maps: https://drive.google.com/open?id=1Pk5GpXbf6G1I2tUY4CLfZIJB_O0&usp=sharing

The line starts in Fort Langley and runs by Columbia station where a small walkway could be built under or above ground to connect to the SkyTrain. There is also an option to extend it along to the Marine Drive Canada Line station, perhaps to service the new River District Development.

This line uses existing rail, so really only the stations need to built, and perhaps the train schedules modified a bit for it to be able to go into service. There could be reassignment of rail cars from the Mission line as the ridership will be decreased with the opening of the Evergreen line. This could provide the initial rolling stock.

What do you guys think?

Looking at that map what may also work is instead of New West cross over Anasis Island and the use the line in Richmond along the Fraser to get to Bridgeport skytrain. That has the added advantage of connecting Richmond, the Airport.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by casper

Looking at that map what may also work is instead of New West cross over Anasis Island and the use the line in Richmond along the Fraser to get to Bridgeport skytrain. That has the added advantage of connecting Richmond, the Airport.

I cant see a bridge there, and it looks like it would require laying new tracks.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1RuRfK5O50ayec5Zp5nF1k-5MSUo&usp=sharing

Here is a plan I came up with. All lines terminate at Waterfront.

I actually really like this plan. The only question I would have is how to deal with the river crossings with those new routes, as today they are swing bridges. A new rail bridge or tunnel would probably need to be built. Also, more double tracking might also be necessary as the lines look near capacity.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I actually really like this plan. The only question I would have is how to deal with the river crossings with those new routes, as today they are swing bridges. A new rail bridge or tunnel would probably need to be built. Also, more double tracking might also be necessary as the lines look near capacity.

If they ran it on current trackage, the shear demand would be enough that new crossing would be desperately needed. Double track would also become a priority.

If they put the lines in, there would be an excuse to upgrade most of the major rail routes through the area.

[scryer]

Looking at that map what may also work is instead of New West cross over Anasis Island and the use the line in Richmond along the Fraser to get to Bridgeport skytrain. That has the added advantage of connecting Richmond, the Airport.

Agreed. I would also like to see the east portion of the line terminate at Abbotsford. That way we would have a WCE north line servicing the municipalities north of Fraser and have a WCE south line servicing the municipalities south of Fraser.

[trofirhen]

I really liked Swimmer-Spe's plan, but I wondered two things: how would a Squamish bound train and a Vancouver-bound train from Squamish pass each other, and where?
Also, is it not worth going to Chilliwack? I think that may be a real commuter town in the future.

All in all, though, I think this one makes the most sense to date, IMHO:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RlINdAxUddA/U6DOjBvDbfI/AAAAAAAAI7o/S_57RwbAaQM/s1600/sry_route_map2.jpg

... if we can add in some of the lines that swimmer-spe suggested !

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I really liked Swimmer-Spe's plan, but I wondered two things: how would a Squamish bound train and a Vancouver-bound train from Squamish pass each other, and where?
Also, is it not worth going to Chilliwack? I think that may be a real commuter town in the future.

All in all, though, I think this one makes the most sense to date, IMHO:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RlINdAxUddA/U6DOjBvDbfI/AAAAAAAAI7o/S_57RwbAaQM/s1600/sry_route_map2.jpg

... if we can add in some of the lines that swimmer-spe suggested !

At that point it just becomes "revive the interurban"

Mission and Abbotsford are roughly the same distance from downtown Vancouver. If the SRY could be made exclusive to Translink, then it becomes doable to run all day service. But because it runs freight, it won't happen, and has the same trackage rights issue that the existing WCE does. So you might get two commuter trains in each direction, or just terminate it at Scott Road so there's no conflicts at the bridge.

As for building a new bridge, likely never going to happen unless Translink builds it, because heavy rail can't climb a steep grade, and you'd have to increase the grade, or raise the approach to the bridge to build a new bridge that ships can go under. Or combine it with a new Pattullo bridge.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

I really liked Swimmer-Spe's plan, but I wondered two things: how would a Squamish bound train and a Vancouver-bound train from Squamish pass each other, and where?
Also, is it not worth going to Chilliwack? I think that may be a real commuter town in the future.

All in all, though, I think this one makes the most sense to date, IMHO:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RlINdAxUddA/U6DOjBvDbfI/AAAAAAAAI7o/S_57RwbAaQM/s1600/sry_route_map2.jpg

... if we can add in some of the lines that swimmer-spe suggested !

Sidings and double track may need to be built. However, even if they were run like the current WCE, there would not be a need for this for the near future.

Originally Posted by Kisai

At that point it just becomes "revive the interurban"

Mission and Abbotsford are roughly the same distance from downtown Vancouver. If the SRY could be made exclusive to Translink, then it becomes doable to run all day service. But because it runs freight, it won't happen, and has the same trackage rights issue that the existing WCE does. So you might get two commuter trains in each direction, or just terminate it at Scott Road so there's no conflicts at the bridge.

As for building a new bridge, likely never going to happen unless Translink builds it, because heavy rail can't climb a steep grade, and you'd have to increase the grade, or raise the approach to the bridge to build a new bridge that ships can go under. Or combine it with a new Pattullo bridge.

Translink already built/owns/maintains several bridges including the Skytrain Bridge. This would not be much more of a stretch.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Translink already built/owns/maintains several bridges including the Skytrain Bridge. This would not be much more of a stretch.

But where Is TransLink they going to get the money? We're still waiting on a new Pattullo...

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Sheba

But where Is TransLink they going to get the money? We're still waiting on a new Pattullo...

If they put in the new routes using existing infrastructure, they could then get the money from the fares.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If they put in the new routes using existing infrastructure, they could then get the money from the fares.

The new routes if added would be like all of Translink's other services; they would operate at a net loss. So it would cost more to maintain than they would recover in fares.

[Anorak]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sidings and double track may need to be built. However, even if they were run like the current WCE, there would not be a need for this for the near future.



Translink already built/owns/maintains several bridges including the Skytrain Bridge. This would not be much more of a stretch.

I just remembered, there is a railway in the middle of the SkyBridge! Its currently used for maintenance, but with a little modification it could be used for commuter rail, assuming there is a locomotive capable of going up the grade.

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by Anorak

I just remembered, there is a railway in the middle of the SkyBridge! Its currently used for maintenance, but with a little modification it could be used for commuter rail, assuming there is a locomotive capable of going up the grade.

Yeeeaahh... I don't think so. Rail bridges tend to be much beefier than the skybridge. The skytrain cars don't weigh much in terms of locomotives.

The middle track is just for a maintenance cart.

[Kisai]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

Yeeeaahh... I don't think so. Rail bridges tend to be much beefier than the skybridge. The skytrain cars don't weigh much in terms of locomotives.

The middle track is just for a maintenance cart.

That maintenance track is probably not usable for anything except as tow-truck if a train stalls on the bridge.

There is a reason why Surface-rail bridges are suspension bridges or swing/draw bridge, they're flat so there's no grade for the rail engine to climb.

The Skybridge is only designed for the Skytrain, and would never be able to take any other kind of rail vehicle except for ones with the same loading gauge as the Skytrain. If there was ever a 8.5+ earthquake, it's likely to still be standing, while the other bridges crossing the Fraser (other than the Port Mann) would probably be critically damaged.

Adding twin heavy rail to a bridge is simply not done, so that means it would have to exist as part of replacing the Pattullo or the George Massey Tunnel.

Which you'd likely see push-back and the demands switch to light-rail lanes instead.

Incidentally Burrard Bridge was actually designed to have a lower railway deck.

The existing railway bridge (New Westminster bridge) used to have a road deck, so it's technically possible to put a second deck back on it, but I think that would be unwise for many reasons, one being earthquake survivability. The road deck was removed when the Pattullo opened.

We also lost the Marpole bridge, so that's another rail crossing option lost.

So you would think that there would be more demand for rail crossings.

[Trainguy]

The problem is not the rail bridge so much but the Fraser River. It is a very active river so any rail bridge would get open pretty much on demand. River traffic trumps rail traffic so trying to keep a schedule like commuter rail would be hit and miss.

South of the Fraser has no quick route into downtown.

I was crossing the border at Peace Arch last night around 7:10 and the cascades was sitting there. 10 minutes later it left. Assuming that it left on time at 5:35 pm, that is over 1.5 hours just to get across the border from Pacific Central. Now that's a slow passenger train. The problem is, no easy way to shorten the time.

[swimmer_spe]

Sounds like a rail tunnel is what is needed. It would need to be build to withstand an earthquake.

Is the Fraser shallow enough that a tunnel could be built?

[Alex Mackinnon]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Sounds like a rail tunnel is what is needed. It would need to be build to withstand an earthquake.

Is the Fraser shallow enough that a tunnel could be built?

Not sure about the river depth in that location, but immersed tube or deep bore would be an option either way.

There's the Port Mann water tunnel which just finished, and another planned water tunnel just downstream. Both are bored in soft ground.

[twoNeurons]

Originally Posted by Trainguy

As for bypassing White Rock, never going to happen. Not enough people take the train out of Vancouver to make it worth spending lots of money to improve the travel time. I lived in Japan for several years and most people use the train since they don't own vehicles. Their population density also justifies having a super fast and efficient rail network.

Not enough people take it because the travel time out of Vancouver isn't good enough. The bus is faster. Despite it being almost the perfect conditions for a train ( unpredictable border, only 200km away ) people drive because the train is too slow, unpredictable, inconveniently timed and infrequent.

And your statement about Japan isn't quite accurate. Most people take the train because taking the train is a good efficient alternative that is FASTER and at times more convenient than driving.

Highways are tolled and very speed-limited in urban areas and LOTS of people own cars in Japan. It's a common misconception that car ownership is smaller in Japan. Car ownership thrives. Car usage is lower and people use their cars for shorter trips.

Yes, Japanese cars are typically smaller, and many of them are 4-seater 700cc kei-class cars. Cheap to buy, super cheap to run and insure. They have a very comprehensive highway system and there is no shortage of cars, even though owning a car means paying for a place to park it, strict laws on maintaining them, and high fuel and insurance costs.

I'm assuming you lived in Japan on a student/exchange/teacher program. If not, I apologize for making the assumption. Perhaps your experience as someone who relied on the trains colored your opinion of the majority of people.
The reality is that most of those who take the train into work also have access to a car if they wanted... but they choose not to.

Japan has 588 motor vehicles / 1000 people ( same as Germany )
Canada has 662 motor vehciles / 1000 people.
USA = 809
UK = 519

You're right about the other aspects of Japan. They have dense cities conducive to rapid transit. However, Canada also is a VERY urban population. For all the wilderness that we have, more than 80% live in cities. The USA is more decentralized than we are.

Japan's rail system works because they built a rail system that works. They prioritize rail, they make the good of the people a priority over the individual, and they have a habit of building destinations around train stations. They're experts at TOD. In addition, most companies pay for the public transit of their employees.

[officedweller]

The easiest way to get Westcoast Express to Abbotsford is a southern extension from Mission across the Mission Rail Bridge on CP tracks to Abbotsford, and if rights could be obtained from CN, a direct branch could also originate from Chilliwack on CN tracks and cross the Mission Rail Bridge (without the circuitous routing of the SRY).
(This has been discussed on the forum before)

If and when SkyTrain (or LRT) gets to Langley, there would be less need for WCE through Langley, so crossing over to the north side of the Fraser wouldn't be a service loss for the south side of the Fraser west of Abbotsford.

This would, of course, be subject to the same constraints on sharing track time with freight trains as other proposals.

If any upgrades to trackage are needed, you're just dealing with one mainline, not splitting costs between multiple lines.

Commuters would have access to the SkyTrain network at Coquitlam Central.

There are probably a number of Abbotsford commuters who drive to Mission to catch the WCE.

http://www.buildinghistory.ca/mission-railway-bridge-1909/


http://www.buildinghistory.ca/mission-railway-bridge-1909/

Originally Posted by trofirhen

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-RlINdAxUddA/U6DOjBvDbfI/AAAAAAAAI7o/S_57RwbAaQM/s1600/sry_route_map2.jpg