E&N Railway (VIA Rail) discussion
#21
Posted 06 January 2008 - 09:15 PM
#22
Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:23 AM
What a legacy that would be - an electrified E&N Corridor with hourly service!
Also, a comment on what I noticed about train stations while in Japan: Despite the huge size and capacity of Tokyo Station, Shibuya Station, etc., the majority of train stations I encountered while living there were basically two concrete platforms with fare gates. Where densities permit (like the above mentioned stations) larger stations are built, however the majority are simple (and cheap). Canada does not have the densities needed to build large stations for a system like the E&N, and to assume that we NEED a fancy and expensive station right off the bat is, in my opinion, a fallacy. What we NEED is an operating rail line that is economically viable, and until sufficient ridership and density is achieved, our stations should be as simple and functional as possible. Rebuilding of elaborate stations can come later, when rail re-emerges as our most important transportation system (after walking and cycling of course!)
#23
Posted 09 January 2008 - 12:06 PM
I'm interested to know why you think DMUs are good for the E&N. They are similar to electric trolleys -vs- diesel buses in that despite the cheaper up-front cost of the latter, the long-term costs of fuel (especially in today's market) will eventually outstrip any costs to electrify the E&N Corridor. This is before any consideration of the environmental costs of operating a fossil-fuel based system.
What a legacy that would be - an electrified E&N Corridor with hourly service!
Also, a comment on what I noticed about train stations while in Japan: Despite the huge size and capacity of Tokyo Station, Shibuya Station, etc., the majority of train stations I encountered while living there were basically two concrete platforms with fare gates. Where densities permit (like the above mentioned stations) larger stations are built, however the majority are simple (and cheap). Canada does not have the densities needed to build large stations for a system like the E&N, and to assume that we NEED a fancy and expensive station right off the bat is, in my opinion, a fallacy. What we NEED is an operating rail line that is economically viable, and until sufficient ridership and density is achieved, our stations should be as simple and functional as possible. Rebuilding of elaborate stations can come later, when rail re-emerges as our most important transportation system (after walking and cycling of course!)
What is environmentally friendly about an electric train?
From BC Hydro:
One of our other generation strategies is thermal. The Burrard Thermal Generating Station contributes 7.5 per cent (of BC's power requirements), and the remaining 14.5 per cent of the electricity requirement was supplied by purchases and other transactions
And you can bet that purchased power is at least 50% from coal or gas fired plants in the US and Alberta. So any additional electric demand placed on BC's system is likely to come from burning fossil fuels.
#24
Posted 09 January 2008 - 02:56 PM
#25
Posted 09 January 2008 - 04:34 PM
By the time we get an electric train system, local tidal power will be generating all the electricity that we will need.
So you are suggesting sometime late in the 22nd century...
#26
Posted 09 January 2008 - 06:17 PM
What is environmentally friendly about an electric train?
From BC Hydro:
And you can bet that purchased power is at least 50% from coal or gas fired plants in the US and Alberta. So any additional electric demand placed on BC's system is likely to come from burning fossil fuels.
Even if you take an electric vehicle and drive it as much as much as a gas/diesel one and 100% of that power is coal, you are still using a cleaner vehicle than a gas/diesel one. See this study . Now factor in that is talking about a car not an electric tram/streetcar, which is more effecient per km per passenger than an electric car (costs less to manufacturer per passenger with a lower electricity bill per passenger). And BC still gets a great deal of its electricity from hydro, although BC Hydro might try and resurrect that bloody cogeneration plant idea up island again.
#27
Posted 09 January 2008 - 08:00 PM
What is environmentally friendly about an electric train?
From BC Hydro:
And you can bet that purchased power is at least 50% from coal or gas fired plants in the US and Alberta. So any additional electric demand placed on BC's system is likely to come from burning fossil fuels.
I didn't say they were environmentally friendly, but I'm willing to bet that they have less of an impact than diesel units. Maybe I'm wrong though.
#28
Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:03 PM
I'm interested to know why you think DMUs are good for the E&N.
Based on cost, they are easier to implement. There are electric versions of the same DMUs, and I cant confirm this, but there could be hybrid versions as well.
I would love to see electric trains running on the E&N, but the current government isnt going to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars and neither are the FEDs. Imagine the E&N trains running on electric power generated by wind turbines or ocean waves.
Stantec Consulting, did a study on the Malahat, and estimated that to upgrade the E&N from Duncan to Victoria to commuter rail standards, would cost in the neighbourhood of $250million (that was based on using the Westcoast Express equipment). I believe this was based on a single track mainline with passing sidings. But the study didnt go into too much detail. Besides you wouldnt have to double track the entire line, as the Swiss have proven, you can still offer efficient rail service with a single track main line and stragetically located passing sidings at the stations and at points in between. It is may be possible to electricfy the E&N for perhaps the same price, but I dont know.
What one could do is have the DMUs built to allow conversion to EMUs when more money is available.
Where densities permit (like the above mentioned stations) larger stations are built, however the majority are simple (and cheap). Canada does not have the densities needed to build large stations for a system like the E&N, and to assume that we NEED a fancy and expensive station right off the bat is, in my opinion, a fallacy.
Obviously not every station on the E&N has to be big and fancy. For most station locations along the route, that is simply not viable (at least at the moment). Stations similar to the current downtown one, could be built at other major stops; Esquimalt, View Royal and perhaps a multi-use facility at Langford, down the road. These could be part of new transit/rail villages, similar to what is being proposed at the roundhouse site in VicWest. But we do need a proper transportation multi-modal terminal for the downtown core. Now I dont mean a Grand Central Station like in New York or a St Pancreas in London. The current one on Store St, is cute, but cute doesnt attract passengers. A multi-purpose facility that includes office, retail, etc, would be beneficial. This allows the facility to be used by commuters and non-commuters alike, so its not just a train station. The location at Centennial Square, has the advantage of being located by the busiest corridor in the region, and the busiest transit corridor. This could also be the location of a new library as part of the overall design. As to the actual design of the multi-use complex, its hard to say.
What is possible is using the designs similar to what I have posted from the 1984 study at the Centennial Square site, then expand it later on. But there needs to be a serious discussion on extending the line closer to Douglas St, with a better terminus.
But at the same time, you want to welcome commuters to the rail line by building sufficient shelters, not just little bus stops.
What we NEED is an operating rail line that is economically viable, and until sufficient ridership and density is achieved, our stations should be as simple and functional as possible. Rebuilding of elaborate stations can come later, when rail re-emerges as our most important transportation system (after walking and cycling of course!)
I completely agree. Now what I am suggesting wont happen overnight, but the discussion has to start now. I have heard that there is the possibility of commuter rail on the E&N within a couple of years, so we need to start planning for the future.
This region needs a better vision when it comes to transportation planning. Density along the E&N can happen sooner, rather than later, if developers see that the regions politicans and local citizens are serious about commuter rail.
#29
Posted 09 January 2008 - 11:10 PM
#30
Posted 04 March 2008 - 07:37 PM
Here is the website.
www.ourcorridor.ca
#31
Posted 04 March 2008 - 08:13 PM
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#32
Posted 04 March 2008 - 08:23 PM
What's the SRY and ICF, again?
SRY or SRVI (Southern Railway of Vancouver Island) which is a division of Southern Railway of BC (Washington Group). It is the operator that runs the freight on the island and provides crews for the Via train.
ICF (Island Corridor Foundation) is the owner of the E&N corridor (victoria to Courtenay, Parksville to Port Alberni, welcox yard in Nanaimo, and the old abandoned branch to Cowichan Lake. They took control in 2006 after CPR (Canadian Pacific Railway) and RA (Rail America) donated their shares of the E&N to the ICF, in return for tax receipts.
#33
Posted 04 March 2008 - 08:35 PM
commuter rail on the Langford to Victoria and Duncan to Victoria routes could remove the equivalent of 280,000 passenger trips a year and result in almost 700 fewer cars a day on the road.
-City of Victoria website, 2009
#34
Posted 04 March 2008 - 08:48 PM
#35
Posted 04 March 2008 - 09:17 PM
#36
Posted 04 March 2008 - 09:36 PM
#37
Posted 05 March 2008 - 08:41 AM
#38
Posted 05 March 2008 - 09:21 AM
We were having this E&N discussion 30 years ago and will still be having it 30 years from now. And BTW, rail isn't the future, it's desperately holding onto the past.
#39
Posted 05 March 2008 - 09:41 AM
#40
Posted 05 March 2008 - 10:02 AM
There is already both freight and passenger service running on the line together, just at low capacities.
Also you don't technically need to twin the entire line but instead have strategically located sidings. There are already a few of these sidings on the line.
Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users