Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In other words, there is no plan, strategy, or even a mission statement for rail yet. Case closed.

Actually, this shows that there are parameters that need to be met. That is not case closed.

However, since we all now know that it has been studied and they have a plan that once conditions are met, they will revise and build; if we can agree on that, then this can rest......

[Migrant_Coconut]

High capital cost. High operating cost. Low service. "Beyond the long-term transit strategy" implies that equalizing those isn't being considered by anybody who could try and make it happen; it's definitely not part of TransLink's Transport 2050.

On that, we can rest.

[VancouverOfTheFuture]

Originally Posted by Changing City

The circumstances are so different that it's like comparing you and a rational human being.

haha thats a good one. i like it. its so true to. i like factual jokes.

this is why i keep looking at this thread. i just scroll looking for posts by anyone except swimmer_spe or Migrant_Coconut. who cares what they post, the others are great.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

We can both clearly see that the bottleneck is Commercial-Columbia, and that Commercial-Sperling is barely half full. Which part of the Pacific Central CN route covers Metrotown or Columbia?

Brentwood will be big in the future, and Production Way has SFU, but with both, it's as easy to just ride the SkyTrain all the way. If you're hoping to pick up the Valley-Burnaby drivers, congratulations, that's another... 718 riders at most.

Actually, the bottleneck is Main Street to Commercial-Broadway.

Assuming the ultimate capacity of the system is 28,000pphpd, this is what the usage for each segment before the pandemic:

Stadium-Broadway: 55%
Broadway-Metrotown: 45%
Metrotown-Edmonds: 40%
Edmonds-New West: 35%
New West-Scott Road: 30%
Scott Road-King George: 20%

Once the Broadway extension opens, it should alleviate the busiest segment a bit, but it is still projected to be busier than Broadway to Metrotown.

So maybe we should talk about commuter rail to shadow the SkyTrain service when the Expo Line is actually 80-90% full. There is still tons of capacity left after moving to 5-car trains and frequency is increased to 90s. The last major service adjustment (when Evergreen extension opens), TransLink actually cut the frequency from 108s to 133s.

By the way, the other "busy" segment previously talked about... Commercial-Sperling is at about 15% capacity right now.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by VancouverOfTheFuture

haha thats a good one. i like it. its so true to. i like factual jokes.

this is why i keep looking at this thread. i just scroll looking for posts by anyone except swimmer_spe or Migrant_Coconut. who cares what they post, the others are great.

Hell, I've been posting that one study over and over again for weeks; at least it was finally clicked on and read this time...

Originally Posted by nname

Actually, the bottleneck is Main Street to Commercial-Broadway...

... Once the Broadway extension opens, it should alleviate the busiest segment a bit, but it is still projected to be busier than Broadway to Metrotown.

So maybe we should talk about commuter rail when the Expo Line is actually 80-90% full. There is still tons of capacity left after moving to 5-car trains and frequency is increased. The last major service adjustment (when Evergreen extension opens), TransLink actually cut the frequency from 108s to 133s.

By the way, the other "busy" segment previously talked about... Commercial-Sperling is at about 15% capacity right now.

Got it... though Granville-Main and Commercial-Metrotown are going to be problems too, eventually.

I believe you said sometime around 2070-2120. That's a very long way away.

[nname]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Got it... though Granville-Main and Commercial-Metrotown are going to be problems too, eventually.

I believe you said sometime around 2070-2120. That's a very long way away.

The business plan for Langley extension is to run Expo Line at 90s frequency by 2050, so maybe the time Expo reach capacity is closer to 2070 than 2120 now

But then, they could still try to see if they can push the system further by reducing frequency down to 75s (which is actually the designed minimum frequency for Expo Line), and/or change the seat layout to fit more people. All these aren't considered yet.. I guess it's just simply not needed for now?

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Who said more than a second track?
We have already discussed and proven that CN has plans to add a second track. There is no reason that with that added track that CN cannot fit in a few trains. Remember, the biggest bottleneck is actually not in the Lower Mainland, but it is the Coast Mountains and the fact that CN and CP only have single track through there and adding more will be horrendously expensive. So, until that happens, the CN twinned double track will not reach peak use. I doubt any of us will be alive when that happens.

I said it, and it was discussed. You apparently ignored it because it doesn't fit your alternate reality. If CN add the second track that they've been planning, it's because they want to operate trains in two directions through that stretch.

The line was effectively abandoned only 20 years ago. The City of Vancouver did a planning exercice for the False Creek Flats that assumed the rail uses would almost disappear. The tracks alongside Terminal Avenue were torn up, and the land sold off for development. Few trains came through, and there were almost no delays to the few passenger trains that went into Pacific Central.

Then container traffic grew and the yards became busy again. The plan for The Flats was revisited, with rail staying and even expanding. Centerm has nearly doubled capacity. Amtrak and VIA trains can be delayed for minutes, and sometimes hours, when freight operations are in the way. Freight engines break down. Couplings break. A brake seizes on a railcar, and someone has to be called out, walk along the train, find it and free it. There are limits to the hours a driver is allowed to operate the train - if an incident delays a train, sometimes it has to stop until a new driver can be driven to the nearest convenient place that they can take over. The trains are assembled and broken up into shorter sections using the line. The same train can pass through the same stretch of track two or three times, reversing direction.

For the freight operations, a delay is inconvenient, but it can be accomodated and it doesn't make a huge difference. There's enough padding in the schedules that it shouldn't stop a ship sailing, for example.

For passenger operations it's a huge problem. The West Coast Express has had terrible problems in recent years, and despite attempts to improve things they continued . It would be just the same through The Cut. It's why CP aren't interested in expanding WCE service - they can sort out any delays to freight, but the passenger service complicates things more.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Remember, the biggest bottleneck is actually not in the Lower Mainland, but it is the Coast Mountains and the fact that CN and CP only have single track through there and adding more will be horrendously expensive.

Almost all of that bottleneck was eliminated with the bilareral running agreement between CN and CP which designates the CP track as a unidirectional easbound track and the CN track as a unidirectional westbound track for trains operated by both companies between Mission and Basque (just south of Ashcroft).

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

I said it, and it was discussed. You apparently ignored it because it doesn't fit your alternate reality. If CN add the second track that they've been planning, it's because they want to operate trains in two directions through that stretch.

The line was effectively abandoned only 20 years ago. The City of Vancouver did a planning exercice for the False Creek Flats that assumed the rail uses would almost disappear. The tracks alongside Terminal Avenue were torn up, and the land sold off for development. Few trains came through, and there were almost no delays to the few passenger trains that went into Pacific Central.

Then container traffic grew and the yards became busy again. The plan for The Flats was revisited, with rail staying and even expanding. Centerm has nearly doubled capacity. Amtrak and VIA trains can be delayed for minutes, and sometimes hours, when freight operations are in the way. Freight engines break down. Couplings break. A brake seizes on a railcar, and someone has to be called out, walk along the train, find it and free it. There are limits to the hours a driver is allowed to operate the train - if an incident delays a train, sometimes it has to stop until a new driver can be driven to the nearest convenient place that they can take over. The trains are assembled and broken up into shorter sections using the line. The same train can pass through the same stretch of track two or three times, reversing direction.

For the freight operations, a delay is inconvenient, but it can be accomodated and it doesn't make a huge difference. There's enough padding in the schedules that it shouldn't stop a ship sailing, for example.

For passenger operations it's a huge problem. The West Coast Express has had terrible problems in recent years, and despite some attempts to improve things they continued . It would be just the same through The Cut. It's why CP aren't interested in expanding WCE service - they can sort out any delays to freight, but the passenger service complicates things more.

I was going to let it lie.
I felt we were at a point where we all agreed on the potential and what is needed.

Then you post a fantasy thing.

Right now, with existing port traffic, CN is doing what it can to handle it being single track. Double track would work well for them to have the necessary space for the traffic, but, unless the port is expected to double in size from that area, there will never be enough freight traffic to make it congested. Remember, most of what comes in is heading over the mountains, and they are only 2 tracks for both CN and CP combined to use.

That does mean that there is a good chance that passenger service can fit there. Granted, it won't be RER, but it doesn't have to be to be effective.

Also, in places where there is double track, it is not exclusively one direction on one track and the opposite direction on the other track. That means a passenger train moving faster could move to a different track to pass a slower freight train.

What CN really should be looking into is a new yard somewhere around Abbotsford or further east to be able to clear the ports quicker.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

Almost all of that bottleneck was eliminated with the bilareral running agreement between CN and CP which designates the CP track as a unidirectional easbound track and the CN track as a unidirectional westbound track for trains operated by both companies between Mission and Kamloops.

Yes, but no. Lets say both companies have double track from the ports to Mission. What happens as traffic rises? There will come a point where the agreement section will become congested while the rest of the double track still has space.

The good thing is, east of Kamloops, double tracking it would be not horrendously expensive. In some areas, CP was double tracked, but removed 1 of the tracks.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I was going to let it lie.
I felt we were at a point where we all agreed on the potential and what is needed.

Then you post a fantasy thing.

Right now, with existing port traffic, CN is doing what it can to handle it being single track. Double track would work well for them to have the necessary space for the traffic, but, unless the port is expected to double in size from that area, there will never be enough freight traffic to make it congested. Remember, most of what comes in is heading over the mountains, and they are only 2 tracks for both CN and CP combined to use.

That does mean that there is a good chance that passenger service can fit there. Granted, it won't be RER, but it doesn't have to be to be effective.

Also, in places where there is double track, it is not exclusively one direction on one track and the opposite direction on the other track. That means a passenger train moving faster could move to a different track to pass a slower freight train.

What CN really should be looking into is a new yard somewhere around Abbotsford or further east to be able to clear the ports quicker.

You really have no clue about rail operations do you? Once a train is stopped it can be hours before it moves. Even double tracks don't allow an instant access to allow a passenger train to pass, as there's likely to be a train coming in the other direction. I've travelled extensively on Amtrak in the past twenty years. There are very few times I've reached the destination on schedule, and many times I've been delayed for several hours. For regular travellers it's expected. VIA trains into Vancouver have been no better. It's inconvenient, but not a game changer unless a passenger has a tight schedule. For regular daily passenger commuter service reliability is key. And as the WCE shows, sharing with freight makes it unreliable. If any serious investment is made in future for commuter rail, it only makes sense with dedicated tracks. And the costs then become so high, that it makes no economic sense to develop it with current demand. That's why we aren't seeing any new commuter rail projects developed in The Lower Mainland.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You really have no clue about rail operations do you? Once a train is stopped it can be hours before it moves. Even double tracks don't allow an instant access to allow a passenger train to pass, as there's likely to be a train coming in the other direction. I've travelled extensively on Amtrak in the past twenty years. There are very few times I've reached the destination on schedule, and many times I've been delayed for several hours. For regular travellers it's expected. VIA trains into Vancouver have been no better. It's inconvenient, but not a game changer unless a passenger has a tight schedule. For regular daily passenger commuter service reliability is key. And as the WCE shows, sharing with freight makes it unreliable. If any serious investment is made in future for commuter rail, it only makes sense with dedicated tracks. And the costs then become so high, that it makes no economic sense to develop it with current demand. That's why we aren't seeing any new commuter rail projects developed in The Lower Mainland.

That is because:
1) a lot of track is single track
2) freight carriers regularly have "over siding" trains.

Why is it that EXO and GO can maintain a schedule?

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/drivin...xploring_possibilities_fraser_valley.pdf

They already have.....

Have you even read it? Here are a some quotes from it:

Pg 33 (most trips are local and the ones that aren't primarily travel to SoF)

As noted, regional and inter-regional travel markets comprise approximately 20% of all trips generated by Fraser Valley communities. The other 80% of the trips generated to and from Fraser Valley communities start and end in the same community. Overall, the significant markets include connections from Abbotsford and Mission to Langley and Maple Ridge respectively with further limited connections to destinations within Metro Vancouver such as Surrey, Northeast Sector, Vancouver and Burnaby/New Westminster.

Pg 60 (a bus connection is the more reasonable choice vs extending the WCE from Mission to Abbotsford)

Although the extension of West Coast Express is not considered an alternative to the expansion of the Highway 11 Valley Connector service, the economic evaluation of both concepts shows that they are serving two different markets. None-the-less, the Highway 11 service appears to be the more realistic alternative to providing enhanced regional access to West Coast Express as well as an attractive increase to regional service between Abbotsford and Mission.

Pg 63 (trip forecasting)

These results indicate that the forecast 2031 daily ridership would be approximately 3,770 trips with a peak only service and 6,550 trips for a daily commuter rail service. It should be recognized that almost 70% of all projected trips generated on the Inter-urban Line are concentrated within the Langley-Surrey segment where more urban forms of rapid transit services are being considered. For comparative purposes, it is also worth noting that the West Coast Express serves over 12,000 trips per day as a peak only service.

Pg 70 (financial implications)

Once again, the results of the Inter-urban Line analysis should be compared with the bus-based regional and inter-regional services examined in Section 3.4 – specifically the Highway 1 service (Chilliwack – Abbotsford and Abbotsford – Langley/Surrey). The projected transit travel markets for these differing services would strongly suggest that an attractive bus-based system would provide significantly more service hours while effectively serving the communities of the Fraser Valley for at least the next 20 years.

Pg 73 (summary)

Although an inter-regional railway service between the Fraser Valley and Metro Vancouver may be part of a long-term future, a strong foundation of local, regional and inter-regional services is an essential starting point over the next 20 years or so. None-the-less, opportunities for rail service between Chilliwack-Abbotsford and Langley/Surrey should be retained for a possible future service. This would include preserving rail corridors in the Fraser Valley Regional District and adjacent Metro Vancouver, in addition to establishing agreements between TransLink, BC Transit, the Ministry of transportation, local municipalities as well as various railway companies.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is because:
1) a lot of track is single track
2) freight carriers regularly have "over siding" trains.

Why is it that EXO and GO can maintain a schedule?

You're the 'rail expert' - you tell me. Has the Port of Toronto increased the number of containers using the port by 50% from 2008 to 2021? Vancouver increased from 2.4m TEU to 3.6m.

[Migrant_Coconut]

The Port of Vancouver moves about 147 million metric tons of cargo each year, making it the busiest in Canada; Montreal is at #2, with 40 million tons, or half as much; Toronto moves 2.2 million and isn't even in the top five. 70x less freight, 70x more track time.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Port of Vancouver moves about 147 million metric tons of cargo each year, making it the busiest in Canada; Montreal is at #2, with 40 million tons, or half as much; Toronto moves 2.2 million and isn't even in the top five. 70x less freight, 70x more track time.

...and Vancouver does it on a far less developed rail infrastructure.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're the 'rail expert' - you tell me. Has the Port of Toronto increased the number of containers using the port by 50% from 2008 to 2021? Vancouver increased from 2.4m TEU to 3.6m.

It is not about the stuff that is arriving, but the stuff that is also passing through. Toronto has a lot of train movements. There are hundreds of trains a day passing through Toronto.There are the 6 lines of GO with varying amounts for each, plus multiple Via trains and the UPX. Freight no longer goes downtown, but outside of that, some GO and Via are in the mix.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

The Port of Vancouver moves about 147 million metric tons of cargo each year, making it the busiest in Canada; Montreal is at #2, with 40 million tons, or half as much; Toronto moves 2.2 million and isn't even in the top five. 70x less freight, 70x more track time.

What about the stuff passing through?
For instance, a car made in Windsor will pass through Toronto to points west.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

...and Vancouver does it on a far less developed rail infrastructure.

This!
Toronto has been fixing the choke points and in some places putting 4 tracks in due to traffic. If Vancouver did the same, the ports would not get so backed up, and you might even see a decent Commuter Rail system serving more people.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Toronto has been fixing the choke points and in some places putting 4 tracks in due to traffic. If Vancouver did the same, the ports would not get so backed up, and you might even see a decent Commuter Rail system serving more people.

As most of the track is operated by the same rail companies (CN, CP) there must be a reason why they can put money into extra freight tracks in Toronto but not so much here. They have been adding double tracking in places here, but some of the rights of way are really tight to fit a second track. Forget four, without huge expense.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

What about the stuff passing through?
For instance, a car made in Windsor will pass through Toronto to points west.

To where? Vancouver is literally the end of the line for cargo; a grand total of two freight trains/day use the North Van-Squamish corridor. BNSF goes to the States and Nanaimo, but that's Tsawwassen, not Vancouver.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

This!
Toronto has been fixing the choke points and in some places putting 4 tracks in due to traffic. If Vancouver did the same, the ports would not get so backed up, and you might even see a decent Commuter Rail system serving more people.

As usual, you're missing the point: if CN and CP ever feel the need to fix any chokepoints, that means we're going to have twice the freight and no room for passengers.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

As most of the track is operated by the same rail companies (CN, CP) there must be a reason why they can put money into extra freight tracks in Toronto but not so much here. They have been adding double tracking in places here, but some of the rights of way are really tight to fit a second track. Forget four, without huge expense.

They are tight in the Toronto area too. What has been the reasons for fixing those choke points actually has nothing to do with freight, but all to do with GO service. As GO ridership increases, they increase the number of trains.As those number of trains increase, congestion at various points, including a few diamonds occurs. So, the government sees that as a problem as it will slow the GO trains down, so they pay for it. CP and CN do not care as they can work with what they got.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

To where? Vancouver is literally the end of the line for cargo; a grand total of two freight trains/day use the North Van-Squamish corridor. BNSF goes to the States and Nanaimo, but that's Tsawwassen, not Vancouver.

That is my point. All of Vancouver traffic is either coming in or going out of the ports or other businesses along the lines. That is not the same for places like Toronto, Montreal, or Winnipeg. Winnipeg, for instance has the largest yard in canada; Symington Yard. The second largest in Canada is the The MacMillan Yard in Vaughan, which is just north of Toronto. Both of those are CN's. CP's largest is the Toronto yard, located in,...Toronto, While Vancouver is the largest Canadian port, it is not the busiest for freight movements.

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

As usual, you're missing the point: if CN and CP ever feel the need to fix any chokepoints, that means we're going to have twice the freight and no room for passengers.

CP pulled out some double track to save money on maintenance and make more profit. Although they would benefit from double track across Canada on their mainline, the costs for them are not going to bring a high enough return. However, there is no reason that they would say no if a government agency was going to pay for it.