A C.P. Huntington Train, made by Chance Rides, being shipped to a customer.
The Stanley Park miniature railway fiasco demonstrates the mindset of Vancouver politicians including incompetence, hubris and dishonesty.
The fact of the matter is that the Vancouver Parks Board wanted rid of the train and they let it rot until it failed safety inspections.
The “single” driver C. P. Huntington locomotives and passenger cars are made by Chance Rides, a well know company making carnival rides. Spare parts are readily available and track maintenance is reasonably easy, that a lay person could do it.
If the Parks board really wanted to see a well run miniature Railway, they should go to Confederation Park and Visit the Burnaby Central Railway and they operate live steam trains requiring more strict regulations!
People should be fired over this, but in true Vancouver fashion, they will be probably promoted.
It seems the truth is just not in the Park’s Board lexicon.
Live steam on the Burnaby Central Railway.
Documents reveal funding issues, safety concerns for shuttered Stanley Park train
The Stanley Park train was pulled out of service last year and now documents obtained by Global News show the beloved miniature railroad failed a safety inspection. The train fell into such disrepair under the last park board, it posed a serious risk to children and families who rode it. The board had been warned repeatedly the attraction was not getting proper maintenance.
Damaged brakes, rusted tracks and lose spikes securing rails to the ground are just some of the problems that forced regulators to shut down Stanley Park’s beloved miniature train.
The new details were revealed in documents obtained by Global News through a freedom of information request, that show just how badly degraded the popular attraction was before it was taken offline last year.
Following an inspection in September 2022, Technical Safety BC ordered the train be shut down due to significant safety issues, and ordered an assessment by an independent engineer.
Vancouver Park Board surprised train failed inspection
Since then, it has been out of service for several key events, including the annual Ghost Train, Bright Nights and attendant Firefighters Burn Fund fundraiser and Easter.
According to internal Vancouver Park Board emails, issues with train maintenance appear to stretch back more than a decade.
The train had a dedicated maintenance person for more than 30 years. That ended in 2012 when the worker retried and maintenance was folded into the city’s Fleet and Manufacturing Services, a massive department that oversees thousands of city vehicle.
Problems soon cropped up, with FMS superintendent John Pezzolesi writing on one email that the train’s four ageing engines came with “no documentation of any kind,” and “no history of parts purchased, maintenance done, or what repairs were done to any of the units.”
Labour and funding also appear to have been major issues.
“Right from the start, there was very little to no maintenance budget to service these trains,” Pezzolesi wrote.
“We have discussed on a few occasions late 2018/early 2019 with Parks … for future budgeting to no avail. We repaired units as required, when required.”
Loss of the Stanley Park train for Bright Nights a blow to charity
The email adds that the department had seen a staff shortage for “many years” making it hard to get crews out to work on the trains in the face of “more priority units” from other departments needing work, and that staff availability hit an “all time low” in the wake of COVID-19.
Acting park board general manager Steve Jackson insisted that the city has always focused on preventive maintenance, but said the train’s maintenance schedule was derailed by the pandemic. He told Global News we wasn’t aware of any funding requests being turned down.
“Many assets, again, we would love to maintain them at tip top conditions, we do have to make priority decisions every day whether its the train or a truck or a fire engine and what have you,” he said.
“I’m not personally aware of any situations where we’ve gone to request money to maintain the trains in a more significant fashion where that’s been declined.”
Jackson instead pointed to the train’s six-decade age as the key issue, with its manufacturer no longer stocking key parts, and maintenance work becoming progressively less effective on old components.
Safety report outlines major issues
The train’s ageing locomotives, passenger cars, rails and tracks were, according to Technical Safety BC, in concerning condition.
According to the regulator’s full report, also obtained by Global News, outlined a laundry list of issues that would need attention before the train could get back in service.
The report found the train’s black engine had “excessive oil leaking on a brake lining which could (pose) fire hazard during operation” while the Green locomotive’s “brakes were not releasing after being applied” and the red locomotive had “overheating and radiator issues.” The fourth, blue locomotive was already out of service at the time of inspection.
Portions of the track were rusty, “multiple” rail ties were rotten and some of the spikes that held the rails in place were loose
“Observed excess rust and corrosion on track lower surface, spike heads not contacting track rail allowing movement as train pass over,” the inspector wrote in one note.
Stanley Park train condition under assessment
It also observed excessive wear on multiple undercarriages, and brake issues with every single passenger carriage.
“I don’t think it’s a report that any of us feel good about,” Jackson said.
“Again there are so many pressures on our system, at times we can’t prioritize everything. There’s not any situation I can point to where we de-prioritized the train, but we’ve been making do with what we have, the assets we have, the resources we have whether its labour, money, parts.”
Jackson said the city immediately shuttered the trains after they failed their safety inspection.
But when pressed on the fact they had been carrying passengers just a short time before that failure, he acknowledged there could have been risks.
“I don’t disagree in terms of there being a risk, but again, we rely on that safety report, we rely on those inspections, if we were told this is unsafe to operate we would not operate,” he said. “And as soon as we knew we were offline.”
Exactly when the trains will be back in service remains unclear.
Jackson said the city has put in a crucial part order to get one of the locomotives back in action, with the goal of having it moving some time by the fall or winter.
That could mean in time for the Halloween Ghost Train, but more likely would see it in service in time for the holiday Bright Nights event, he said.
Off the rails: Stanley Park Ghost Train cancelled for 2022
There’s also the outstanding question of cost. Jackson estimated with parts and labour each locomotive would cost at least $300,000 to get back in service.
In the long run, he said the city will need to have conversations about potentially replacing the equipment, either with a modern rail gauge and parts that can more easily be maintained, or with a new electric system.
“We’re going as fast as we can, and as soon as the train is fixed we’ll be looking to open with whatever we can open with,” he said.
“To be honest we just want the train functioning, we want to see the smiling faces again, we want staff to be enjoying their time here and not worrying about a broken train.”
It seems several TransLink and City of Vancouver bureaucrats are tying the spin that subways are cheaper in the long run.
Of course, they do not give firm numbers on anything!
Some transit blogs seem to think that building a subway is easy peasy , costing only a little more than a surface operation. This train of thought comes from a grand ignorance of subway construction and operation; with Translink’s grand subway plans based on the myth that subways carry more people.
As we all know in BC, all mayors are experts are experts on transit and the holy grail in transit planning is a subway.
Yippee!
The mayor’s council on transit is like an old boys rugby game, thirty one referees on the field, but I digress.
The staggering costs for subway construction is clearly evident with subway planning in Toronto.
The following quote should put an end of any discussion for new stations for the Canada line or future stations on the Broadway subway.
“The three stations recently built on New York’s Second Avenue line reportedly cost about $644 million-$812 million (U.S.) each.”
In Canadian funds this cost is $856.2 million to $1,079.5 billion!
Staggering!
Memo to Ontario Tories — there’s no such thing as a free subway
Ah, free transit. Is there anything our politicians like promising more?
Remember departed former mayor Rob Ford promising the private sector would construct a Sheppard subway extension in Scarborough at no cost to taxpayers? Remember when current mayor John Tory promised that the life-changing magic of Tax Increment Financing would deliver a 22-station “surface subway” at no cost to property taxpayers?
Now, as reported by the Globe and Mail, Premier Doug Ford, through his Transportation Minister Jeff Yurek, promises to change the one-stop Bloor-Danforth Scarborough extension back into a three-stop extension, with private sector developers entirely picking up the difference in cost.
They love the idea of something for nothing. I get the appeal. When it comes to prices, $0 looks pretty attractive.
Thing is, you tend to get what you pay for — and to not get what you don’t. Instead of free transit, basing plans on skipping out on the bill might ensure we remain transit-free.
That would be my primary concern when examining the provincial government’s recent idea to revert to the three-stop subway plan in Scarborough. “The developer would pick up the cost of those stations (in Scarborough) as we go forward, and it will not be a cost to the taxpayer,” the Globe reported Yurek saying on the weekend.
Let’s be clear about a something up front.
Wherever and whenever we are building transit, we absolutely should be working with developers to put intense commercial and residential uses on the station sites themselves if possible. It provides job sites and housing in transit-served locations, and can bring in significant revenue for the governments doing the building.
The hitch is that that money — decent as it may well be — is unlikely to be enough to cover the costs of the stations. Not nearly.
The three-stop subway extension was estimated to cost about $1 billion more than the one-stop version, partly because the topography of the area requires the stations and tunnels to be deep underground, and partly because subway stations are monstrously expensive to begin with. (The three stations recently built on New York’s Second Avenue line reportedly cost about $644 million-$812 million (U.S.) each.)
So if this is coming free of cost to the taxpayer, as Yurek says, we’d need a developer to essentially pay the province $500 million each for development sites at Lawrence and Sheppard.
It’s hard to know, in general abstract terms, how much land and development rights above a subway station at Lawrence and McCowan would be worth.
Right now, there’s a two-acre strip mall-and-housing site in Scarborough a few blocks from the proposed subway site listed for sale for $9.7 million. But land in the area would no doubt be more valuable with a subway line there, and land directly atop a subway more valuable still.
How much more valuable? It’s hard to know, exactly. But to get some sense, how about looking at a spot directly beside Finch subway station on the Yonge line with an underground tunnel connected to the subway station? That’s about as close to being on top of a station as a building can get.
Last year, such a building on Yonge St. in North York, a fairly new 18-story office tower, LEED certified and with 92 per cent of its 274,000-square-feet of commercial and retail space leased to mostly government and credit-grade tenants, sold for $85.15 million. That was for an existing highrise tower in an area of the city that is already fairly densely developed and populated.
Or, to look at it from another angle, in 2017 a developer bought a site at Yonge and Steeles — where a subway extension to the 905 is one day expected — with hopes of putting three condo towers and a hotel on it. The price? $53.9 million.
I don’t know which may be a better comparison to a site like the ones Yurek is discussing. But perhaps between the three examples, we see the ballpark value for commercial real estate of that type. It’s a big-league park — the numbers are huge!
But if the province essentially needs someone to buy the land and development rights above a station for $500 million in order for us to get a free subway station, we’re talking about a different order of magnitude.
Some might shrug and say, “Well, so what? This is still more real estate revenue than we were discussing before. It’s better than nothing.”
Perhaps. My concern is that when you promise something for nothing, and it turns out that something may instead cost hundreds of millions of dollars, you either wind up with a shocking and unexpected bill, or you get exactly what you planned to pay: nothing. Both results are as disappointing as they are sadly familiar.
In Metro Vancouver, again and again, one hears calls for the light metro system to operate 24/7.
It cannot, or put in another way, it can but it would increase maintenance costs considerably and TransLink is near broke.
The reason is quite simple, automatic or driverless operation.
Simply, the light metro system need preventative maintenance every night, especially the Expo line, to ensure continuous operation during the day. Sections of line must be shut to make sure it is safe for maintenance staff to do their work.
LRT/tram (streetcar) is much simpler to operate and maintain and can operate 24/7 with little problem.
So, if one wants a more flexible transit service, one that can operate 24/7, keep it simple with modern light rail.
Keeping a transit system simple makes it more user friendly!
Information on night buses and S-Bahn, subway and tram service at night on weekdays and weekends.
After a concert, on the way to the next party, or back to the hotel: Berlin’s buses and trains will take you where you want to go even at night. The S-Bahn and subway are in operation 24 hours a day on weekends. On weekdays, night buses and the Metrotram provide transport connections throughout the night.
Public Transport at Night: Monday to Friday
On weeknights from Sunday to Monday until Thursday to Friday, subway and S-Bahn trains operate only until 1 or 1.30 AM, depending on the line. After that, they are replaced by night buses.
The S-Bahn operates until around 1 to 1.30 AM.
The U-Bahn operates until around 1 AM.
The Metrotram operates 24 hours a day. From 0.30 AM, trams arrive in 30-minute intervals.
Night buses, recognizable by the letter N, replace all important bus lines. The night bus lines N1, N2, N3, N5, N6, N7, N8 and N9 roughly follow the corresponding subway routes.
Public Transport at Night: Weekends
On nights from Friday to Saturday, from Saturday to Sunday, and before public holidays, the S-Bahn and subway operates all through the night. Night buses and trams run all night as well.
The S-Bahn operates 24 hours. At night, trains run in 30-minute-intervals.
The U-Bahn operates 24 hours. At night, trains run in 15-minute-intervals.
The Metrotram runs 24 hours. From 0.30 AM, trams arrive in 30-minute intervals.
Night buses, recognizable by the letter N, replace all important bus lines.
Light rail is not a panacea, but it is a proven method in reducing auto traffic, something those promoting SkyTrain cannot claim.
Building with trams opens an opportunity for not only providing a user-friendly and environmentally- friendly alternative to the car, the mode offers an almost universal transit mode as the modern tram can operate as a streetcar, operating in mixed traffic; as light rail, operating on a dedicated rights-of-ways; as a light-metro, operating on a totally segregated R-o-W’s; and as a commuter rail train on the railway mainline: all on the same tram route!
The main issue in Australia and Canada is the same, if one wants to reduce auto use, one must have a user-friendly and taxpayer-friendly public transit alternative. The modern tram fits the bill, if designed and operated properly.
Though the price tag of $1.2 billion(CAD $1.08 billion) for 6.7 km of tram line seems excessive but it does include the cost of rebuilding 6.7 km of highway. Many city engineers hide the cost of road construction onto the cost of the new LRT line!
One hopes Australian politicians can see 20 minutes into the future, unlike their counterparts in Canada who firmly believe an ever higher carbon tax will cure Global Warming and cannot see past the next election window.
From down under………………
A modern tram can economically adapt to almost any situation.
The latest extension to the Gold Coast line will cost $1.2 billion — $500 million more than initially expected.(ABC Gold Coast: Dominic Cansdale)
They increase property prices, take cars off the road and governments seem keen to splash billions to roll them out in rapidly growing cities.
But light rail is facing increasingly passionate opposition in some of the very areas it’s meant to benefit.
What’s happening with light rail?
Light rail has sprung up in Canberra, Newcastle, the Gold Coast, and Sydney — where an additional line is expected to open in Parramatta next year.
Studies are also underway for potential new lines on Queensland’s Gold and Sunshine coasts, both rapidly growing cities north and south of the capital, Brisbane.
Canberra is one of several cities to embrace light rail in recent years.(ABC News: Ian Cutmore)
South-east Queensland’s population is set to balloon with 1.4 million new residents by 2040, so all levels of government are looking at ways to improve the liveability of cities.
Right now, the only Queensland project under construction is stage three of the light rail on the Gold Coast — a 6.7-kilometre extension of the existing 20km track, which has been in operation for almost a decade now.
The latest stage of the Gold Coast light rail line will run to Burleigh Heads.(ABC Gold Coast: Dominic Cansdale)
A $5 million business case is underway looking at the feasibility of extending the line further south to the Gold Coast Airport.
On the Sunshine Coast, north of Brisbane, similar investigations are being made to improve public transport offerings.
Why light rail?
Queensland Transport Minister Mark Bailey shared a summary of a study into the southern Gold Coast on social media recently.
These two lines from the report give an insight into the state government’s approach:
“Current urban policy is focused on creating more sustainable and liveable urban areas by consolidating land uses within existing urban areas (reducing urban sprawl) in particular around town centres and high capacity public transport nodes.
“The study found the Gold Coast Highway from Burleigh Heads to Tugun could be transformed into a high amenity community focused boulevard with priority given to walking, cycling and a world class light rail system that enhances the livability and character of the southern coastal suburbs.”
Mr Bailey has said light rail was an increasingly popular transport solution globally and pointed to the roughly 69 million trips that had been made on the first two stages of the Gold Coast light rail so far.
Is light rail just an excuse for increased development?
That is a big concern for those who don’t want it running through their areas.
But public transport works best when it is located near where people live, Cairns-based independent town planner Nikki Huddy said.
“The best public transport has density along it, that’s true,” said Ms Huddy, who recently travelled to the US to look at public transport solutions as part of a Churchill Fellowship.
“I think it’s a magnificent opportunity.”
She said light rail could help reduce traffic without impacting existing roads.
“You can run it parallel to roads and still have your traffic running its own way, so there’s no real interference between those two modes of transport,” Ms Huddy said.
“You’ve just taken how many cars off the road. It’s going to make driving better for those who want to drive. I think it’s a really good idea.”
Why don’t locals want it?
More than 600 people packed a hall on the Gold Coast at a recent light rail meeting organised by Liberal MPs Michael Hart and Karen Andrews.
The vast majority of the group was against the proposed route to the Gold Coast Airport.
Residents gave passionate arguments against the light rail at a recent community meeting.(ABC News: Nicholas McElroy)
Among them was Kath Down from community group Save Our Southern Gold Coast.
She said light rail would cut off access to the beach, despite most people currently having to cross four lanes of highway to get to the surf.
“They’ll lose access to things like the beaches, nippers, surf clubs, but they’ll also lose access to the trams. It really doesn’t service the majority of the population,” Ms Down said.
“It’s a ruse for overdevelopment and urban renewal to support high-rises.”
Light rail will run down the middle of this section of the Gold Coast Highway as part of stage four of the roll-out.(ABC Gold Coast: Dominic Cansdale)
Despite the light rail running down existing sections of the Gold Coast Highway, Ms Down said the project was not suitable for the southern Gold Coast.
“If you put a tram through Palm Beach, number one, it doesn’t fit,” she said.
She said the rail lines would also change the feel of the area, which was already undergoing increased development.
“We’re losing the vibe of the southern Gold Coast, we’re losing why we live here and quite frankly, locals would like excellent public transport. Light rail just isn’t excellent transport.”
What about the Sunshine Coast?
Tracey Goodwin-McDonald helped found the Sunshine Coast Mass Transit Action Group after plans were announced for improved public transport in her city.
She said a mooted 13-kilometre transit line from Maroochydore and Caloundra “starts nowhere and ends nowhere”.
Like some of those opposed to light rail on the Gold Coast, Ms Goodwin-McDonald said she supported an extension of heavy rail.
She said heavy rail on the Sunshine Coast would take pressure off the clogged Bruce Highway.
She said she was concerned that the Sunshine Coast would become more like the Gold Coast — renowned for high-rise towers near the beach.
“Light rail with the overhead wires came out in the business case, surprise surprise at 10 out of 10 and the most preferred option. The reason it [won] is because of its ability to change the urban structure.”
Ms Goodwin-McDonald said she also supported higher-density development, just not on the coastal strip.
“We do need some higher-density living, yes, but when you’re living with two-storey housing, and then they’re now looking at six-storey apartments, that’s a radical, radical change,” she said.
“So what we’re saying is that there’s land masses, that in our case is the town of Nambour which is crying out for investment, and people and business, that could take some of the load. But that’s not even been considered.”
Back to the future
Australian cities used to be well serviced by tram networks.
Trams running down Stanley Street on Brisbane’s southside in the late 1960s.(Supplied: Brisbane City Council Archives)
According to studies, Australians made more than one billion annual trips by tram in 1945.
But Ms Huddy said things started to change in the decades that followed.
“California highway engineers came to Australia to teach us how to build highways like they did. Overnight, the tram tracks were bitumened,” she says.
“So for the last 70 years now we’ve been planning only for a car and the opportunity truly to retrofit light rail in is magnificent.”
She said it was a rare opportunity for regional cities, adding that other cities around the state could be in line for similar projects.
“The ability to get around in multiple modes is one of the greatest gifts that you can give to your community.”
“I think Townsville would be primed for it, and I bet you Queensland Transport thinks the same.”
Alas, poor SRT! I knew of it, TTC: A system of infinite cost, of most expensive fancy: It hath
taken us more than thousand times; and now, how abhorred it is! My gorge rims at it. Here, it cost much money, I know not how much. Where be your new systems now? Your
LIM’s so disappointing? Your screeching wheels?
Your flashes of of electrical arcing from being stuck in the snow?
Not one now, to mock such folly? Quite chap-fallen? Now get you to the Mayors chamber, and tell them,
make call for more taxes and more taxes, to this favour
subways must come; make me shake my head at that.
Apologies to the Bard……
Toronto’s Scarborough Rapid Transit system
Toronto’s SkyTrain, the Scarborough Rapid Transit system ceases operation in November of this year.
And then there will be only six of the ICTS/ALRT/ART/MALM systems left..
Last day for SRT train service is targeted for November 2023
Last year, the TTC Board approved decommissioning Line 3 Scarborough and replacing train service with an express bus service to begin in Q4 2023.
The last day for the SRT train service is targeted for November 18, 2023.
Express buses are scheduled to start running the following day on November 19. The closure of the SRT will require a very frequent bus replacement service to provide alternate services for customers connecting between important nodes, such as Scarborough Centre and Kennedy stations.
As Europe is rediscovering travel by rail, in Canada rail travel is treated with disdain, yet in the age of Global Warming and climate change, the train is making a strong comeback for travel.
It is my contention, that when federal and provincial politicians and bureaucrats are banned from taking planes for travel under 1500 km, only then will rail see the investment needed for a strong regional rail system.
Do our politicians have the moral fibre to do the same?
I doubt it, especially when the Carbon Tax is just a tax, with revenue going into both the provincial and federal treasuries and is doing little to mitigate the current environmental crisis.
Rail is not a panacea, but it is a proven alternative to the car and if government is serious about reducing auto and truck use (which they are definitely not), rail is the proven alternative.
If government is honestly wants to reduce motor vehicle use, government must invest in a viable and user-friendly regional and long haul rail services.
Sadly, honesty is not in the Canadian politcal lexicon.
The Stadler DMU’s now used on Ottawa’s Trillium Line could be a template for regional rail services across Canada
Europe is currently in the midst of a full-blown night train renaissance. In fact, the number of new and revived sleeper train routes in Europe is getting so numerous that it’s getting pretty hard to keep track of them all. Up and down the continent, new routes are providing more and more alternatives to travelling by plane – alternatives which are greener, nicer and maybe even cheaper.
But hold on to your hats: European Sleeper has barely launched its latest route, and already another sleeper-train service linking Brussels and Berlin is in the works.
Run by NightJet (the sleeper arm of Austria’s national rail provider ÖBB), this new service has a number of potential advantages over European Sleeper’s. It’ll be more frequent, with a daily shuttle service. It’s expected to feature the company’s brand-new sleeper carriages, which are set to come into service this summer. And it’s set to launch this year: to be precise, in December 2023.
It’s worth noting that ÖBB/NightJet is a massive player in European train travel, whereas European Sleeper is a new start-up: in fact, the Berlin route is its very first venture. The new Brussels-Berlin NightJet service is expected to directly compete with European Sleeper’s trains, which could lead to lower prices for all passengers on the route.
Initially billed to launch in 2022, the so-called ‘Good Night Train’ will link Brussels and Berlin via Amsterdam and Rotterdam, letting travellers shuttle between three dazzling European capitals via one overnight service. What’s more, the route will link up with Eurostar, meaning passengers from the UK will be able to join the sleeper train service to Berlin with one quick change in Brussels. That’s right: from this week, you’ll be able to hop on the 15:04 from London St Pancras, enjoy a quick beer in Brussels and wake up in Berlin.
The service from Brussels will initially run three times a week, and tickets from Brussels or Amsterdam to Berlin start at €49 for a seat – though you’ll want to spend a bit more and book a couchette or sleeper bed for a better night’s kip. Depending on the size of your group, taking a sleeper train could be cheaper than flying. And all services will include free wifi, coffee and a light breakfast – something you wouldn’t get on a budget flight, that’s for sure.
If that’s not exciting enough, the pan-European sleeper route is set to extend even further in 2024, sweeping passengers from Brussels all the way to Prague, with an additional stop in the historic German city of Dresden. European Sleeper also recently announced plans to set up a direct night train route between Amsterdam and Barcelona in spring 2025, which will also serve the north and south of France. Eventually, the service might even link up with the UK – thereby criss-crossing a huge chunk of the entire European continent.
All this is a big win for green travel. Apparently, a single trip from one of these trains will produce 75 fewer tonnes of carbon than the equivalent plane journey. Honestly, flying is so last year.
I thought this would be an interesting article as we have in Vancouver two incompatible light metro systems, the Canada Line and the Expo and Millennium Lines.
The Canada Line uses ROTEM built EMU’s, standard railway fare and can be used on most standard gauge electric railways.
The Expo and Millennium lines use the proprietary, Linear Induction Motored Movia Automatic Light Metro cars and is nor compatible in operation with any other railway except its family of seven light metro’s.
The problem in Sydney is not as serious for future planning as Vancouver is now finding out. Most train companies offer dual voltage vehicles that can operate on systems with electrical supply different than the ‘home’ line.
Karlsrhue’s famous Tramtrains are dual voltage as they can operate on DC on the tram network and AC on the mainline railways.
Dual voltage trains will cost more but they would permit through operation on the other lines.
In Vancouver, LIM powered trains just cannot operate on non LIM lines, making the system all that more expensive to maintain and operate with two totally different railways.
Being LIM powered, the MALM system cannot operate on any other railway except for its family of 7 transit systems.
Sydney’s new driverless metro trains and stations might end up looking the same to commuters but key differences in the mega-projects mean the city is set to construct three lines run by three separate private operators with trains that cannot be switched between them.
The use of different power and trains built by separate manufacturers will make the new $11 billion metro line to Western Sydney Airport at Badgerys Creek incompatible with the first two stages of Sydney’s metro rail network.
Part of the 45-strong train fleet for the Metro Northwest and City and Southwest lines. Credit: Nick Moir
As a result, the 12 autonomous trains to be built by German company Siemens for the airport line will be unable to run on the Metro Northwest and connecting City and Southwest line. The airport line’s trains will be about 30 centimetres wider than other metro trains to cater for flyers who are lugging bags.
The different electric current also means the 45 driverless trains built in India by French company Alstom for the city’s first two metro lines will be unable to be switched to run on the airport line. Neither will they be able to operate on the $25 billion Metro West line – the biggest of the four lines which is due to open in 2030 – because it will run on 25 kilovolts, too.
The airport line is being designed for trains comprising up to four carriages whereas those for the Northwest and City and Southwest lines can be trains up to eight carriages long
At 2am on April 21, a single-deck metro train traversed its way from Tallawong through Chatswood and North Sydney before running under Sydney Harbour.
Transport and planning consultant Alex Gooding said it was highly unusual for metro lines in the same city to be deliberately planned to be as different as the airport line was from both the Northwest and City and Southwest lines.
“We are building a system from the ground up, but the previous government appeared to have deliberately designed a range of incompatible features which makes no sense,” he said.
Gooding said a likely reason for the difference was that building the airport line to match the greater passenger capacity of the first two metro lines would have substantially increased the former’s cost, while it also avoided a “single-private operator monopoly” in Sydney.
“Instead of getting one metro, we will end up with three distinct and, to varying degrees, incompatible systems,” he said.
“Metros in cities overseas tend to have different lines but where possible they are built with consistent rail systems and trains.”
Main differences
Metro Northwest/City & Southwest
Power supply: 1500 V DC
Carriages per train: six with ability to increase to eight
Train builder: French company Alstom
Operator: Metro Trains Sydney comprising MTR, John Holland and UGL Rail
Metro Western Sydney Airport
Power supply: 25 kV AC
Carriages per train: three with ability to increase to four
Train builder: German company Siemens
Operator: Parklife Metro comprising Siemens, Plenary, Webuild and RAPT Dev
Metro West
Power supply: 25 kV AC
Other details to be decided because contracts yet to be awarded
When the main section of the City and Southwest line opens next year, it will be operated by a private consortium led by Hong Kong’s MTR Corporation which runs Metro Northwest.
In contrast, a separate consortium that includes Siemens, Australian infrastructure investor Plenary and Italian company Webuild will construct and operate the airport line.
Gooding said the decision to electrify the Metro West line between the Sydney CBD and Parramatta with 25 kilovolts and set up a special entity to manage that project was likely to result in it having a different operator to the other lines.
The new Labor government last month flagged a major overhaul of the Metro West line as part of a wide-ranging review into Sydney’s metro rail projects.
Transport Minister Jo Haylen said the integration of Sydney’s metro lines with one another and with the broader transport network was important, and was why the Minns government had commissioned a review into the projects.
“It’s important to make sure that these projects are being delivered in a way that works for passengers, and properly embed metro services into the transport network as a whole,” she said.
Sydney Metro said each line was designed to operate independently to ensure the highest reliability with train configurations to suit the customer requirements of the line. “Sydney Metro has a responsibility to procure rolling stock responsibly, driving optimal outcomes on price and safety for the benefit of taxpayers,” it said.
The agency said it ran competitive tender processes for each project to get the best outcome for taxpayers, which created resilience in the broader transport network and ensured passengers had access to the latest train technology and systems.
The design of the Metro Northwest and the City and Southwest lines was also influenced by the need to convert existing stretches of track such as the Epping-to-Chatswood rail line which, like the existing suburban rail network, operated on 1500-volt power.
Mr. Cow has been bang on with his predictions of the growing cost of SkyTrain light metro expansion and the following news item certainly shows the ongoing expensive problems TransLink faces.
Replacing two switches should take a weekend at most, but these are new high-speed switches, which needs a lot of engineering done to the guideway for the switches to fit.
Currently the Expo and Millennium Lines use small radius movable frog switches and with the newer, longer ART/MALM cars, the switches must have a larger radius for the cars to be able to traverse the switch at a speed greater than a crawl.
This Marx, O-gauge switch gives a good example of the movable frog switch.
As the Expo Line has scores of the older switches, the replacement process will be ongoing for several years and costing a huge amount of money.
A movable frog switch on the Expo Line.
Expect significant SkyTrain delays this summer due to repair work
They’re upgrading two Expo Line track switches that were first installed over 30 years ago
SkyTrain’s Expo Line will be reducing service to and from Surrey for six weeks between June 3 to July 18. TransLink
The two Expo Line track switches were first installed over 30 years ago and haven’t been replaced – until now.
From June 3 to July 18, TransLink will be working to replace the switches which are an essential component that allows trains to be rerouted to different tracks. While the work is important, it will create a significant slowdown for commuters.
Over the six-week period, SkyTrain service will be temporarily reduced on a portion of the Expo Line because trains will only be able to travel on one side of the tracks between Scott Road and King George stations.
During the maintenance work, Surrey customers are encouraged to use Scott Road Station, as it will have the most frequent SkyTrain service in the area, and to plan for at least 20 minutes of extra travel time and crowded train cars.
The station will operate with near-normal peak service, but some trains stopping are expected to reach maximum capacity and some trains will terminate there.
Some trains will terminate at Gateway Station which will operate at 66 per cent of usual peak service, and some trains will terminate at Surrey Central Station which will operate at 50 per cent of usual peak service.
King George Station will operate at 33 per cent of usual peak service and some trains will continue there as normal.
TransLink promises additional SkyTrain staff will be on-site to assist customers at impacted stations but people are advised to look at station platform screens to ensure the train they are boarding will reach their destination.
This track maintenance work will not affect Expo Line travellers who aren’t going as far as Surrey, not will it impact the Canada Line and Millennium Line.
Flexibility is the key in today’s transit planning.
More and more, freight that used to be carried on railways, then switched to heavily subsidized trucks on heavily subsidized highways, is now goring back to the railways.
Ignoring Global Warming and climate change is a fools game, played by civic, provincial and federal politicians to the detriment of the environment. You just cannot tax climate change out of existence.
When it comes to regional transit, the various levels of governments responses are dismal. The region is spending $11 billion to extend the SkyTrain light metro system a mere 21.7 km, yet this very expensive piece of kit cannot adapt for the future, unlike light rail.
It is pure Darwin, if a species or a transit mode cannot adapt, it has a doomed future.
Light rail’s inherent flexibility enables a transit system to adapt to future needs and sadly our proprietary light metro used on the Expo and Millennium lines cannot adapt, hence politicians just do the same thing over and over again, ever hoping for different results, not realizing that different results jut will not happen.
Doing the same thing over and over again, ever hoping for different results has been defined as madness!
In 2014, the Zillertal Railway stopped transporting timber by means of trolleys and thus the last remaining commercial freight transport. Thousands of additional truck trips were therefore necessary in the valley. I reported on this unpleasant development in my book (1).
Conversion of trolleys (manufacturer Jenbacher Werke – principle of use see Figs. 2 and 3) to stake wagons. This was done through a new top frame. In Figure 4 you can also see that the coupling rods, which are indispensable for the trolley trains, are being used again.
Construction of a transshipment terminal with eleven new switches, 2800 m of track [2] and a sufficiently large area for the loading excavator (Fig. 5) and for trucks. A modern loading excavator is obviously much cheaper than the time-consuming shunting work involved in rolling truck traffic.
Temporary rental of two diesel locomotives (Fig.1) until the company’s own locomotives (manufacturer Gmeinder) become available after the commissioning of the new hydrogen railcars for passenger traffic.
The freight trains, which now run three times a day, consist of eight to ten wagons and transport up to 400 t of round timber. This eliminates 20,000 truck journeys annually [2].
In addition to the direct business partners Zillertaler Verkehrsbetriebe AG and Binderholz GmbH, the federal State of Tyrol, ÖBB, Innofright Solutions GmbH Bruck an der Mur and the Austrian rail infrastructure company were involved in the project. In the future, the return journeys should be used more effectively by transporting sawn timber from Fügen to Jenbach.
A prerequisite for rail transport is an expensive infrastructure. Therefore, using them as widely as possible is a matter of economic reason. I am concerned about branch lines that see, in extreme cases, only a one-piece railcar per hour. In this extreme case cited as an example, the real great advantage of rail-bound traffic is also lost, which is the formation of trains. Before every expensive but necessary measure on the rail infrastructure, there will be a discussion of the economic and environmental justifiability, and with it the question of whether the “little bit” of rail traffic cannot also be shifted to the existing road network. A test from the point of view of environmental impact could also turn out negative, because it is essential to consider the so-called embodied energy of construction works [3].
An example of such broader uses of existing branch lines is the use of passenger railcars that can haul some freight cars (Fig. 6) or extra passenger coaches. In the case of mountain railways in Switzerland, the inclusion of goods traffic on the rack railways to car-free holiday resorts such as Wengen or Mürren is a necessity. A number of freight trains also run on other meter-gauge mountain routes, e.g. on the Rhaetian Railway, but freight wagons are also attached to regular passenger trains [1].
The Zillertalbahn uses its track network for local public transport but also for maintaining tradition in the form of the steam trains that are popular with tourists and residents alike, and now again for freight transport.
Picture Gallery (please click to open):
Freight trams
There is an interesting article on freight trams on Wikipedia [4]. Tram companies used to make their tracks available for the delivery of freight wagons. In the case of narrow-gauge networks, trolleys were also used, e.g. in Gera and Hagen [4]. The shunting trips were generally time-consuming, there were always disruptions in the timetable, so that this approach was discontinued soon after the Second World War. Figure 7 shows a historical postcard from the Romanian city of Arad.
The unsatisfactory traffic situation and air pollution in the inner cities has revived considerations in the last few years and decades to include the tram in the inner-city freight logistics. A distinction is made between the “last mile” approaches – directly to the end customer and “middle mile”. With the latter, the tram takes over goods on the outskirts or at the freight station and brings them to inner-city distribution centers, where they can be handed over to e-cars, cargo bikes or the like. The City Cargo Tram Amsterdam is an example for the middle mile approach. The classification into the two categories is sometimes difficult and is not necessarily handled uniformly.
A research report [5] presents in its chapter 3.1. a comprehensive overview of experiments and studies dealing with such use of the tram infrastructure. Unfortunately, many good, publicly funded projects did not succeed in the long term and were mostly abandoned for financial reasons (e.g. Güter (Freight)- Bim Wien and City Cargo Tram Amsterdam). In chapter 5.2. different types of transport are compared: Separate goods trams, partial use of the trams for goods in low-traffic times and regular trams with trailers. The advantages and disadvantages are compared. Notably, the last two variants do not require any additional drivers. There is thus a similarity to the passenger trains with goods transport that were often used in the past on the branch lines.
The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), the Albtal-Verkehrs-Gesellschaft (AVG), the FZI Research Centre for Information Technology and other partners are developing a vehicle technology and logistics concept for a “goods tram” based on a Karlsruhe dual-system light rail system and are investigating the effects on road and rail traffic. The tram-trains connect the region to distribution centers. Thus, a middle mile concept is being pursued. A first adapted high-floor tram-train is expected to run in 2022. LogIKTram is part of the overall regioKArgo initiative, whose partners want to research and implement new forms of cross-modal goods loading and delivery transport.
The joint project LogIKTram, in which both the AVG and the KIT are leading participants along with several other partners, aims to develop a logistics concept and an information and communication technology (ICT) platform for future freight transport in tram and light rail vehicles.
As part of LogIKTram, the researchers now want to go one step further and develop a logistics concept and an information and communications technology (ICT) platform for future freight transport in streetcar and light rail vehicles.
From 2001 to 2020, the flow of materials to the “Transparent VW factory” at the Great Garden in Dresden was carried out by means of a freight tram CARGO Tram (manufacturer Schalke GmbH-Fig. 8). This should relieve the city center of additional truck transports. A product change at VW ended this freight traffic.
In Zurich, there has been a bulky waste collection campaign known under the casual name of the Kehricht (rubbish) Tram since 2003, during which certain stops of the network are regularly called at by the CARGO and the E-TRAM. There, the population has the opportunity to dispose of bulky waste and electronic waste directly on the attached car. According to my research, it is the only currently practiced inner-city freight transport solution. It follows the “first mile” principle, which, however, comes very close to that of the “last mile” because of the direct customer contact.
The transport of round wood takes place in the Zillertal again on the train! Following on from this success, the importance of using the rail infrastructure as diverse as possible, i.e. also for freight transport, is explained. This idea also leads to the freight tram. In some large cities in Europe, air pollution limits are permanently exceeded, which shows the need of action in various ways. The trams can also take over freight transport.
The Urban Transport Magazine offers the opportunity to discuss the topic raised through comments. We would like to receive suggestions in this way and / or learn about other application examples, plans and initiatives.
Literature (only German)
[1]Iwainsky, H.: Von der Kunst, einen Zug zu bauen. Eigenverlag, Jenbach 2018
[3] Iwainsky, H.: Zu einigen Aspekten der Energieeffizienz und des Umweltschutzes. ZEV rail 144(2020) S.19-25
[4] Güter-Straßenbahnen- Wikipedia 2021
[5] Schocke,K.O.; Schäfer,P.; Höhl,S.; Gilbert, A.: Last Mile Tram – Empirische Forschung zum Einsatz einer Güter-Straßenbahn am Beispiel Frankfurt am Main. Forschungsbericht der Frankfurt university of Applied Science 3/2020 – abgelegt im Internet.
Part of the 45-strong train fleet for the Metro Northwest and City and Southwest lines. Credit: Nick Moir
Recent Comments