The ULTRA LIGHT RAIL concept

A recent comment about Ultra Light Rail deserves an entry in the Rail for the Valley Blog. Though I do believe that ULT is not applicable for the 90 km. Valley Interurban, where larger vehicles are needed, Ultra light rail could have applications in specific niche areas in Metro VancouverAi??Ai??such as a downtown Vancouver to Stanley Park Link, Granville Island tram (tracks in situ), or a Davie St. Denman St. circulator. Certainly ULR could be used in tourist sensitive cities such a Victoria or Kelowna.

The following is from:Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??

Cost-effective, Sustainable, Public Transport SystemsSustainable Transport Company Ltd(SUSTRACO)

• ULR is a intermediate transport system that uses self-powered or externally powered trams with or without some form of energy storage.IsAi??Ai??a cost effective alternative to Light Rail, Guided Bus and Bus Ways (BRT) for many routes.
• Carry traffic of 350 – 9,000 p/h/d and have A?ai??i??Ai??tramway, LRT, BRT and Guided Bus characteristicsA?ai??i??A? it is able to mingle with pedestrians, negotiate historic city centres with , narrow streets.
• All this for a cost that is between 75% and 30% less then standard LRT systems.

Ai??Ai??It is low cost because:Ai??

• Vehicles use automotive and tram type technology/ economy of scale through standardisation.
• There maybe no external electrification, overhead wires, sub-stations, and cables.
• It is thus easier to route and find cheaper more attractive alignments.
• ItAi??Ai?? uses a number of lower cost innovative track technologies .
• It can use standard, off the shelf, not specifically designed components.
• Services (gas, electricity, telephone, water pipes etc.) do not have to be relocated.
• It can carry more people per driver than a bus.
• One driver can move more people in a given time than is possible with a bus on congested roads.
• It uses substantially less energy per passenger than a bus.
• Trams last a lot longer than buses.
• Stops are the same as bus stops.
• It only needs a bus type depot and bus-operating organisation.
• The public see it as a tram giving a superior quality service.
• It is a fixed link system showing commitment whilst retaining its flexibility.
• Significant environmental benefits.Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??Ai??
• Stimulus to development.
• Easy level access to low platforms
• High safety levels.

Ai??Ai?? It also provides:Ai??

ULR is a novel concept but it uses well-established technologies. The principle is similar to the A?ai??i??Ai??streetcarA?ai??i??A? approach now being adopted in many US city centres in reaction to the high costs of conventional Light Rail, and may include the advantages of energy storage.

It can be powered by any locally produced sustainable energy such as:-

Biogas (from organic waste), Fuel Cells, Ethanol (from sugar) , Green Electricity (Wind, Wave, Sun, Hydro etc), SUSTRACO works with the local community to identify the most sustainable long term fuel .

http://www.ultralightrail.com/index.htm

The apportioned fare – what is it? Will TransLink do it?

In London England, if one wishes to travel from ones residenceAi??Ai??near Morden Road in South London to the City of London Airport in the East end, one would have to travel in three travel zones, taking a CroydonAi??Ai??Tram Link Tram to Wimbledon;Ai??Ai??transferring to a ‘Southwest Trains’ to Waterloo Station;Ai??Ai??transferring again to the Jubilee Tube; and finally transferring toAi??Ai??the Docklands Light Railway to the City of London Airport, completing ones journey. Four transfers onto four different Transportation Operating Companies, yet all done without fuss with an ‘Oyster‘ travel card, where each portion of the journey was recorded an each transportation company had their portion of the four transfer journey automatically and correctlyAi??Ai??’apportioned‘ from the 3-zone fare.

To simplify, a $12, 3-zoneAi??Ai??fare was ‘apportioned’Ai??Ai?? four ways so that each of the Transportation Operating Companies received their fair share of the 3-zone fare.

With TransLink, there is no method of apportioning fares between bus, Seabus, or SkyTrain, as there is no method in determining how a fare is used or how many transfers take place on one ticket. This suited TransLink fine because they could make all sorts of claims, such as “SkyTrain pays its operating costs“, etc. with full knowledge that they did not apportion the fares between buses and the metro, even though they do know that at least 80% of SkyTrain’s ridership first take a bus to the metro and no one knows how many transfer again to a bus.

This is about to change because the new Canada line Metro system is a Public, Private, PartnershipAi??Ai??or P-3, where the ridership potential was so bad that TransLink must subsidize the operating consortium until ridership reached a 100,000 passengers a day. There is a problem; how many people will first take a bus to the Canada line and how many more transfer again toAi??Ai??a bus afterwords? This is important because if TransLink counts full 1, 2, or 3-zone fares as strictly Canada Line fares and does not apportion them between bus and metro, the bus system will suffer great financialAi??Ai??loses.

Example: A $5.00 cashAi??Ai??3-zone fare from Whiterock to UBC involves a bus trip to the Canada line (used to be direct to Vancouver); a forced transfer to the Canada Line; and another transfer to a bus to UBC, two transfers, from bus to metro and back onto the bus. The $5.00 fare should be apportioned two ways, one third ($1.66) to the Canada line and two thirds ($3.34) to West Coast mountain Bus (bus operating company). The issue gets even trickier with Day-passes, with unlimited daily travel on all of TransLink’s services.

Concession fares again will create havoc with Canada line revenue as using the the above example, the Canada Line portion of a 3-zone concession fare would be $0.84!

More problems arise with the airport surcharge and how it will fit into the ticketing scheme of things and the cost of enforcing the Airport surcharge.

Rail for the Valley worries that transit revenue for the buses will be skimmed off to pay for the Canada Line, which will lead to cutting of services and a degradation of regional transit, just like what happened when the first SkyTrain line was opened.

Volk’s Electric Railway, the oldest operating electric railway in the world.

Today, a history lesson on electric railways. The Volk’s Electric Railway (VER) is the oldest operating electric railway in the world (the world’s first electric railway, in Lichterfelde from 1881, no longer operates). It’s a narrow gauge railway that runs along a length of the seafront of the English seaside resort of Brighton, built by Magnus Volk, with the first section being completed in 1883.

The Volks Electric Railway is not an interurban or a tramway, but a niche railway, built for the tourist trade, not unlike Disneyland’s monorail. That being said the Volks Electric Railway is the oldest operating railway in the world.

Today the line runs between terminal stations at Aquarium (a short distance from the Palace Pier) and Black Rock (at Black Rock, not far from Brighton Marina), with an intermediate station and depot at Paston Place. The line has a gauge of 2Ai??Ai??ft 8+¹A?A?ai??z₂Ai??Ai??in (825Ai??Ai??mm), It is electrified at 110 V DC using a third rail, and is just under 1+¹A?A?ai??z₄Ai??Ai??miles (2Ai??Ai??km) long.

The initial 1883 line was intended as a temporary summer attraction and ran for only ¹A?A?ai??z₄Ai??Ai??miles (402Ai??Ai??m) between Swimming Arch (opposite the main entrance to Brighton Aquarium, and adjacent to the site of the future Palace Pier) and Chain Pier. It was built to a gauge of 2Ai??Ai??ft (610Ai??Ai??mm) and electrical power at 50V DC was supplied to the cars using the two running rails. In 1884 the line was extended from Chain Pier to Paston Place, the gauge widened to 2Ai??Ai??ftAi??Ai??9Ai??Ai??in (838Ai??Ai??mm), and the electrical supply increased to 160 V DC. In 1886 a third rail was added to avoid power loss along the extended line, and the gauge tightened to its current 2Ai??Ai??ft 8+¹A?A?ai??z₂Ai??Ai??in (825Ai??Ai??mm). (The voltage was reduced to the present 110 V in the 1980s.)

In 1896 the unusual Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway was built by Volk. This was unsuccessful and closed in 1901, when the Volk’s Electric Railway was extended from Paston Place to Black Rock. In 1930 the line was cut back 200Ai??Ai??yards (183Ai??Ai??m) from Palace Pier to its present terminus, still known as Aquarium, and in 1937 the Black Rock end was also shortened by around 200Ai??Ai??yards (183Ai??Ai??m). (In 1935 a lido had been built at Black Rock.)

In 1940 the Brighton Corporation took control of the line. It was closed during the Second World War but reopened in 1948. Winter operation ceased from 1954, although the line did reopen temporarily in the winter of 1980 to cash in on the large numbers of sightseers who had come to look at the Athina B, a freighter that had beached near the Palace Pier. 2-car multiple operation was introduced in 1964. In recent years there has been a decline in visitor numbers due to package holidays. In 1995 the Volk’s Electric Railway Association was formed to help preserve the line.

Nottingham’s light rail system – a real P-3 project!

The Nottingham (city pop. 275,000) light rail project should be of interest, because it was and is a true example of a P-3 (Public/Private/Partnership), where the operating consortium, Transdev, not only went to the international banks for financing, but assumed all risk. Today, Nottingham’s NET light rail systems, operates at a profit, even after paying its debt servicing charges. The cost to build Nottingham’s light rail system was CAD $25.6 million per kiliometre and the annual ridership now exceeds 10 million passengers a year. So successful is Nottingham’s new light rail system, that a second line from Clifton to Chilwell has just been approved at the end of July, with construction starting in 2011 and completion by 2014.

Nottingham Municipality has realized that a modern LRT lineAi??Ai??would alleviateAi??Ai??the increasingAi??Ai??car congestion in the city center and to contribute to a new economical development of this area, characterized by a massive industrial closure and conversion.
The north-south Line 1 route (about 14 km), opened in 2004,Ai??Ai??links Nottingham city center to Hucknall and Bulwell suburbs, with an intermediate branch to Cinderhill and Phoenix Park. Hucknall-Wilkinson Park section runs in segregated lane alongside the so-called “Robin Hood Railway” railway line, while Cinderhill-Phoenix Park branch is set on an disused freight line. The central section (from Wilkinson Park to Station Street) runs on street, serving the very central Old Market Square, and important commercial and leisure attractions (Royal Center, Lace Market).

Tech. stuff.

Country	United Kingdom
Line	Nottingham Express Transit (NET)-Line
Inhabitants	City 275.000, District 670.000
Date opening	2004
Future development:	Line 1 potential extensions: Station Street-Chilwell, Station Street-Clifton
Length (km)	14
Track sections	10 km in segregated lanes, 4 on street
Stops	23, average distance m 650
Platforms	—
Platform doors	—
General characteristics	—
n. of vehicles	15
n. of cars per vehicle	5
Type	steel wheels bi-directional
Vehicle dimensions (m)	length 33, width 2.40
Vehicle capacity (pax)	191 (62 seated)
Frequency	5’/15′
Current/Voltage	750 V DC overhead
Type of guide/gauge	standard gauge rails (1435 mm)
Speed Km/h	Max 80
Accel./Decel. (m/sec2)	1.2/1.4
System capacity	2640 pphpd
Ridership	10 millions pax/year
Total cost	14.5 M Ai??A?/km
Staff	—
System builder	BOMBARDIER
Model	Incentro
NOTE	maximum vertical gradient: 8.5%

Ai??

The Last of the Interurbans #4 – The Electroliner, the last great Interurban!

The Electroliners were a pair of electric triple articulated interurban train sets operated by the Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad, which ran between Chicago, Illinois, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin. These streamlined electricAi??Ai??articulated interurban trains were built by St. Louis Car Company in 1941. Each train set carried two numbers, 801-802 and 803-804. Although the Electroliners were equipped with retractable couplers, the couplers were only used for towing purposes.

Ai??Ai??Each trainset is made up of four sections: two end units and two center units. Each end unit is divided at the side doors into a Luxury Coach, which seats 30, and a Smoking Coach section, which seats 10 and also has a restroom. Each door had steps and a trap door for boarding from street level, low-level and high-level platforms. One center unit is a coach unit that seats 40, and the other center unit is a Tavern Lounge which seats 26.

The Electroliners were cleverly designed to operate with the high platforms, sharp curves, and narrow clearances of the Chicago Loop and the Chicago ‘L’, to run at speeds of 80Ai??Ai??miles per hour (130Ai??Ai??km/h) or more on the North Shore’s main line, and to make their way up Milwaukee city streets to the North Shore Milwaukee Terminal in downtown Milwaukee. The Electroliners’ styling resembled that of the Pioneer Zephyr and influenced the styling of future electric trainsets, notably the OdakyAi??Ai?? 3000 series SE Romance Cars. Although they were streamlined, the Electroliners were not faster than the conventional equipment operated by the North Shore Line. When the Electroliners were first received in 1941, during one test run the traction motors were allowed full field shunt to determine absolute maximum speed. The Electroliner reached just over 110 mph, and North Shore personnel noted that at that speed, the train would reach highway crossings before the crossing gates could fully close, a dangerous situation. Thereafter, the Electroliners were limited to 90 mph.

The Electroliners were in a classAi??Ai??by themselvesAi??Ai??with speed, passenger comfort, and route adaptability, being able to operateAi??Ai??on, on-street trackage, mainline railways and on the elevated or “L” metro routes. What is interesting is that the Electroliners are not unlike the modern TramTrain of today and what was though of state-of-the art in customer-friendly transportation vehicles, is now again considered state-of-the-art, nearly 70 years later!

International News from Tramways & Urban Transit – Alstom wins Brasilia tramway contract

Ai??Ai??

August 19, 2009

Alstom wins Brasilia tramway contract

The last of the interurbans #3; the last American Interurban – The Chicago, Illinois / South Bend, Indiana: The South Shore Line

The The South Shore Line, operating on both regular railway tracks and on, on-street trackage, is strong evidence that the Fraser Valley could still do the same in 2009 and beyond. In an age of expensive SkyTrain light-metro and even more expensive, glitzy subways like that RAV/Canada line, it is still interesting to noteAi??Ai??that the South Shore line still survives, working as it always had done as an interurban, taking people where they want to go affordable.

What should be of interest to ‘Rail for the Valley’ is that the South Shore Line is roughly the same distance as the Chilliwack to Vancouver Interurban and the quote “Peak speeds are now in the 65 to 70 mph range, and trains take 2 hours and 20 minutes to cover the 90 miles between Chicago and South Bend. During the Insull era, some trains managed to make the trip in just under two hours!”, indicates that the valley interurban could travel from Chilliwack to Vancouver in two hours or less. This means a 7 am departure from Chilliwack would arrive in downtown Vancouver by 9 am; not bad when comparing a 70 minute to 90 minute car trip or even longer due to congested highways.

America’s last interurban can give valuable lessons for Canada’s newest interurban!

The following is from Jon Bell’s web site. Jon Bell is anAi??Ai??Associate Professor Department of Physics and Computer ScienceAi??Ai??Presbyterian CollegeAi??Ai??Clinton, South Carolina 29325 USA

History and Description

The South Shore Line, sometimes called “America’s last electric interurban railroad,” was originally built in 1908 as the Chicago, Lake Shore & South Bend Railroad. In 1925 it became part of Samuel Insull’s transportation and utilities empire and was renamed the Chicago, South Shore & South Bend Railroad. After Insull’s empire collapsed during the Great Depression, the CSS&SB outlasted the other interurbans with the help of significant freight revenues, and survived into the era of government subsidies. The portion of the line in Indiana is now owned by the Northern Indiana Commuter Transportation District, which operates passenger service and grants a franchise for freight traffic to the Chicago SouthShore and South Bend Railroad (note no space in SouthShore!). All freight service is now hauled by diesel locomotives.

The South Shore does not use its own tracks into downtown Chicago. Instead, it shares the tracks of the Metra Electric (formerly Illinois Central) commuter rail lines between Kensington (115th Street) and the terminal at Randolph Street in downtown Chicago. Originally, the South Shore used 6600-volt alternating current power, and the Illinois Central lines were steam powered. There were some through coaches, but most passengers had to change trains at Kensington. After Insull took over the Illinois Central and the South Shore, he converted both lines to 1500-volt direct current power. Since 1926 the South Shore has run through to Randolph Street.

From its beginnings as the CLS&SB, the line was built to high standards. Most of it is on private right of way, with few sharp curves and little in-street operation mixed with automobile traffic. Peak speeds are now in the 65 to 70 mph range, and trains take 2 hours and 20 minutes to cover the 90 miles between Chicago and South Bend. During the Insull era, some trains managed to make the trip in just under two hours!

There were once three sections of in-street operation, in East Chicago (Indiana), Michigan City and South Bend. The East Chicago section was eliminated by a new route alongside the Indiana Toll Road in 1956, and the South Bend section was eliminated when the eastern end of the line was cut back to the outskirts of the city in 1970.

Between Gary and Chicago especially, the South Shore now feels like a suburban commuter railroad. But in Michigan City, trains still run down the middle of 10th and 11th Streets, and passengers still board electric interurban trains streetcar-style, the only place in the U.S. where this is still done. The eastern section of the line running from Michigan City to South Bend still has much of the flavor of the old rural Midwestern interurbans: a single-track line through meadows and cornfields.

From 1970 until 1992, the eastern end of the line was in the outskirts of South Bend, at a shabby concrete-block station shared with Amtrak, which uses a parallel freight line through South Bend. In 1992, the line was rerouted over a former industrial freight spur and some new trackage to the South Bend Regional Airport. The South Shore station is attached to the end of the airport terminal building, and part of the airport parking lot is set aside for railroad passengers.

Tech. stuff for light rail – The LR55 rail system

What is of interest is that the SkyTrain lobby decry any sort of LRT/streetcar installation on Broadway as catastrophic, yet tram tracks can be laid quite quickly, depending on the method used, in Nottingham, penalties were to applied against the contractor, if tram track installation were to directly affect merchants directly adjacent to the construction for more than 20 days. Susan Heyes & InTransit BC take note! It seems that planners in Vancouver and TransLink, still use the extremely old-fashioned, 19th century,Ai??Ai??tie & ballast method for streetcar installation, while ignoring developments abroad.

Not only is the LR55 rail method appropriate for Broadway or other streets in Vancouver, the LR55 could be used for the ‘Valley Interurban Project’, for on-street operations in Cloverdale, Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack!

The following is from NET, the New Edinburgh Tramways (NETCo) web site.

One of the major expenses of conventional tram projects is the track. This is laid on a concrete raft set under the road. In order to accomodate these rafts the underground services, like gas and water, have been diverted out of the way of the tracks. This process took a considerable amount of time and money in schemes like Manchester and Sheffield. In addition it caused disruption to inhabitants while taking place.

To avoid or reduce these problems NET proposes to use the revolutionary LR55 rail system. This is laid in the road structure itself so that there is little or no disturbance to underground services. Instead a slot is cut in the road and the track laid in. The track exploits the strength of existing highway pavements by transmitting the static and dynamic loads from the upper surface, rather than the foot of the rail as in conventional track. This results in the load on the railhead being distributed onto the sub-base of the highway, being of a sufficiently low value not to require a separate foundation. Up to 100m can be laid in a night.

The track system consists of three main components:-

LR55 RailThe rail carries the weight of the tram, steers the tram and is the return conductor for the electric power supply. The LR55 rail has a wide lip compared to conventional tram rail. This is to allow the road structure to carry the weight of the tram. The rail top surface and the trough unit are treated to provide a compatible skid resistance to the adjacent highway surface.Elastomeric GroutThis is a rubber like compound that prevents vibrations from the tram being transfered to the road and surroundings. Old fashioned trams used to rumble along the street as the tracks did not have this feature. Modern trams are very quiet because of features like this grout. It also insulates the electricity returning to the sub station, so that it does not travel through other cables buried in the road.Precast Trough UnitThis forms the base for the rail and connects it to the road structure. It is fitted into a slot cut into the road.

Track installation

Where there is a road base thicker than 225mm the Trough Unit is bedded into the base.

Where the road base is less than 225mm the Trough Unit is bedded onto the sub-base.

The track can also be laid in concrete pavements, older road construction and block paving. These are outlined in the technical specification for the track.

Should it be necessary to work on services crossing the tramway, the track is self-supporting over a distance of one metre. This allows access trenches to be dug without affecting the tram service. Safe methods of working have been developed to ensure the safety of tramway passengers and staff, as well as utility workers. These methods are already established in existing tram schemes.

There are further details of LR55 track at the LR55 web site.

For more information on LR55 for our more technical visitors:

http://www.lr55-rail-road-system.co.uk/testing1.htm

Tech. stuff for light rail – Single track and interlaced operations

Since the proposed Interurban will run mainly on single track, with passing loops at strategic places, the following U-Tube video is instructive on the relative ease of single track operation. Of course single track operation is a lot cheaper than dual track (which can be added when demand warrants), construction and with an initial one hour headways, negates the need for more than double the investment.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jOTnmci9dJA]

Ai??

Hong Kong TramwayA?ai??i??ai???s, the wee trams (streetcars) that can!

The following is an updated version of the original January posting. The Hong Kong Tramway’s have reported an increase in ridership to about 280,000 passengers a day for 2008, showing that even little narrow gauge trams can carry large volumes of passengers for a fraction of the cost of a subway like RAV. So when the UBC SkyTrain lobby say “LRT can’t carry large volumes of ridership on Broadway“, just mention the Hong Kong Tramway!

Hong Kong TramwayA?ai??i??ai???s Ltd, which operate quaint narrow gauge double-deck tramcars on Hong KongA?ai??i??ai???s extremely busy streets give some insight on the ability of even the smallest trams (streetcars) to carry veryAi??Ai??high ridership. Hong Kong TramwayA?ai??i??ai???s Ltd. operates 163 double deck trams,Ai??Ai??running on 13 km (8 miles) long system, with a total track length of 30 km (18.6 miles), and it runs together with other vehicles on the street, carried an average of over 260,000 passenger a day in 2007!

So the next time a politician or a so-called transit planner claims that LRT/streetcar/trams do notAi??Ai??have the capacity or canA?ai??i??ai???t carry as much ridershipAi??Ai??as SkyTrain, just remind them of Hong KongA?ai??i??ai???s trams; the tramway that can!