Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

At the time when the new fare system was being introduced, no, there were frequent enough problems that the current solution was adopted.

And no, the real time data for buses isn't perfect either. I don't use that version, but the same data is on the TransLink next bus page. Every so often you'll see a bus stop for a couple of minutes, and then apparently jump a significant distance on a sbsequent refresh. I assume the connection is dropped briefly.

Assuming we have >90% connection uptime, if there's a connection drop but the user does tap out, charge the 1 zone fare as a best try and apology. Simple as that. Users will still be incentivized to tap out to not get charged 3 zone fares, Translink will be incentivized to increase their connectivity, and people won't feel bad if the connectivity is bad.

Also a server connection isn't even really that necessary with some basic logic within the machines. As long as they have a GPS connection and some simple geotagged rules for fare calculations, the fare collection shouldn't need any external server for deduction.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Assuming we have >90% connection uptime, if there's a connection drop but the user does tap out, charge the 1 zone fare as a best try and apology. Simple as that. Users will still be incentivized to tap out to not get charged 3 zone fares, Translink will be incentivized to increase their connectivity, and people won't feel bad if the connectivity is bad.

Also a server connection isn't even really that necessary with some basic logic within the machines. As long as they have a GPS connection and some simple geotagged rules for fare calculations, the fare collection shouldn't need any external server for deduction.

Clearly the contractors and TransLink employees who were working on this were keen to make it work, so maybe you should offer to work on this for them and solve the problems, or you should accept that it's not as 'Simple as that'.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Assuming we have >90% connection uptime, if there's a connection drop but the user does tap out, charge the 1 zone fare as a best try and apology. Simple as that. Users will still be incentivized to tap out to not get charged 3 zone fares, Translink will be incentivized to increase their connectivity, and people won't feel bad if the connectivity is bad.

Also a server connection isn't even really that necessary with some basic logic within the machines. As long as they have a GPS connection and some simple geotagged rules for fare calculations, the fare collection shouldn't need any external server for deduction.

What about trying off-board fare collection? We could start on the 99 and RapidBus lines, just a pole with a weatherproof compass reader.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Clearly the contractors and TransLink employees who were working on this were keen to make it work, so maybe you should offer to work on this for them and solve the problems, or you should accept that it's not as 'Simple as that'.

They don't pay well enough. I've thought about it!

Clearly this does work in other jurisdictions, so it's not as simple as "it's not as simple as that". Sydney can make it work, Singapore can make it work. Unless you can identify to me what makes Vancouver so different compared to Sydney, I don't buy it.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by chowhou

They don't pay well enough. I've thought about it!

Clearly this does work in other jurisdictions, so it's not as simple as "it's not as simple as that". Sydney can make it work, Singapore can make it work. Unless you can identify to me what makes Vancouver so different compared to Sydney, I don't buy it.

TransLink finally gave up. I am too.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

They don't pay well enough. I've thought about it!

Clearly this does work in other jurisdictions, so it's not as simple as "it's not as simple as that". Sydney can make it work, Singapore can make it work. Unless you can identify to me what makes Vancouver so different compared to Sydney, I don't buy it.

Red tape probably?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by cganuelas1995

Red tape probably?

Just sounds poorly implemented to me.

[cganuelas1995]

Originally Posted by chowhou

Just sounds poorly implemented to me.

The bean counters might have had something to do with that me thinks

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

TransLink finally gave up. I am too.

I tapped out a long time back of this conversation. Good to see they will too....

[Dave2]

Ok, so when I take a bus to the SkyTrain, my card is charged $2.50 when I board the bus, and another $2.20 at the station bringing my total up to $4.70; the latter $2.20 is refunded when I leave SkyTrain in the same zone.

So my question is, how do the SkyTrain faregates know that I started my journey by tapping in on a bus? Is that information stored on the card, or on a remote server?

Hmm, on second thought, the faregate entering SkyTrain simply says Proceed. The fare deducted is only shown when tapping out ($0 in my example). I suppose all the tapping in and out will eventually make its way to the server and the journey reconciled.

[swimmer_spe]

A year ago, the Lower Mainland was cut off from the rest of Canada by an atmospheric river. It took out the CN and CP lines in the Fraser Canyon. It has me wondering whether if they Kettle Valley railway was still around whether it could be used. Quick look, it does appear it was damaged as well. Also, would this line help alleviate traffic from the ports to the rest of Canada?

[logicbomb]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

A year ago, the Lower Mainland was cut off from the rest of Canada by an atmospheric river. It took out the CN and CP lines in the Fraser Canyon. It has me wondering whether if they Kettle Valley railway was still around whether it could be used. Quick look, it does appear it was damaged as well. Also, would this line help alleviate traffic from the ports to the rest of Canada?

I read a decent article from a UBC MA student. The conclusion was that the KVR was a horrific route in terms of hazards and maintenance and would be not economically viable to run nowadays. Additionally, rail lines that do not see heavy intermodal traffic are big money losers and are being abandoned at a rapid rate.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I read a decent article from a UBC MA student. The conclusion was that the KVR was a horrific route in terms of hazards and maintenance and would be not economically viable to run nowadays. Additionally, rail lines that do not see heavy intermodal traffic are big money losers and are being abandoned at a rapid rate.

I am thinking of a 3rd route out of the Lower Mainland for intermodal stuff. This line did connect to Kamloops and to Castlegar to the east.

Could some of those hazards and high maintenance issues be mitigated to have made it viable?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by logicbomb

I read a decent article from a UBC MA student. The conclusion was that the KVR was a horrific route in terms of hazards and maintenance and would be not economically viable to run nowadays. Additionally, rail lines that do not see heavy intermodal traffic are big money losers and are being abandoned at a rapid rate.

Not surprising - by the time a CP freight train gets through all those switchbacks, the regular route's probably back in business again. Kind of like the time I saw an 18-wheeler try to go downhill on a side street through five roundabouts.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am thinking of a 3rd route out of the Lower Mainland for intermodal stuff. This line did connect to Kamloops and to Castlegar to the east.

Could some of those hazards and high maintenance issues be mitigated to have made it viable?

No

[EMD710]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am thinking of a 3rd route out of the Lower Mainland for intermodal stuff. This line did connect to Kamloops and to Castlegar to the east.

Could some of those hazards and high maintenance issues be mitigated to have made it viable?

Is is only one economical way going east out of the lower mainland. Railways generally follow rivers, valleys and other natural cuts and routes. Railway outages comes with building in places like mountains and river valleys.

[aberdeen5698]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I am thinking of a 3rd route out of the Lower Mainland for intermodal stuff. This line did connect to Kamloops and to Castlegar to the east.

There is a third rail route out of Vancouver - the former BC Rail line (now being operated by CN) that connects to Prince George, and from there to Prince Rupert, Edmonton and points east and south.

That route was also taken out by the atmospheric river.

Sometimes s**t happens. Probably more often in a warming climate.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Not surprising - by the time a CP freight train gets through all those switchbacks, the regular route's probably back in business again. Kind of like the time I saw an 18-wheeler try to go downhill on a side street through five roundabouts.

Those are not switchbacks... switchbacks are not usually visible on a map of a 700km+ map.

Originally Posted by EMD710

Is is only one economical way going east out of the lower mainland. Railways generally follow rivers, valleys and other natural cuts and routes. Railway outages comes with building in places like mountains and river valleys.

I do get the viability of it.
My thought would be they fix the easiest route out first.

Originally Posted by aberdeen5698

There is a third rail route out of Vancouver - the former BC Rail line (now being operated by CN) that connects to Prince George, and from there to Prince Rupert, Edmonton and points east and south.

That route was also taken out by the atmospheric river.

Sometimes s**t happens. Probably more often in a warming climate.

I forgot about that route.Thank you for pointing out it was damaged too.
I guess the one good thing abut the KVR route is that it is a 3rd passage through the mountains going east. that does not need to connect to the other 2.

Another way to look at it, the Coq was shut down while it was rebuilt. All the other highways were opened quicker, and so traffic could move again. By having a 3rd route across the mountains, and 4th route out of the Lower Mainland, it means that rail traffic may have moved sooner.

An example of this was when the FN blocked the lines in ON in early 2020. CP was screwed and nothing went east of Toronto. CN had an agreement already in place with ONR for moving stuff anyways. So, CN headed north to North Bay, kept their engines on the intermodal trains, had ONR crew on the CN engines guiding the way, then got to their lines in Rouyn-Noranda Quebec, to then head to the ports of Montreal and Halifax.

https://railfan.com/canadian-nationa...-scenic-route/

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I do get the viability of it.
My thought would be they fix the easiest route out first

You're bored again? Maybe you need to find another hobby besides trolling up dumb ideas on the other side of the country. There's a reason the Kettle Valley route was closed over 60 years ago. Since then sections have had the tracks removed, some of it has been made into a bike and walking trail (part of the Trans Canada Trail), bridges have burned down and been rebuilt for trail use, some tunnels are now unsafe, (but might be reopened for trail use), and you can ride a steam train on a short section that still has rails. It would cost billions to reinstate it for trains, and would still have all the problems it faced before it was closed, and with more extreme weather events these days it would be a constant repair nightmare.

If the existing rail routes have issues because weather events potentially close them down, then it's worth spending money on making them more resiliant, not on diverting it to a different project that would still be a potential money pit.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Those are not switchbacks... switchbacks are not usually visible on a map of a 700km+ map.

I'm starting to think you don't understand rail at all. How tight do you think rail switchbacks are?

In 2018 the average CP train length was over 7200 feet which is over 2 kilometres.

CN guidelines allow for trains up to 12000 feet which is over 3 and a half kilometres.

Do you think switchbacks for these behemoths are on the scale of cars and people? The KVR switchbacks coming up out of Penticton are dozens of kilometres long for a 2km climb. Honestly, that's probably not even enough for the 10k feet trains they're running nowadays.