Amtrak starts direct service to B.C.

[BCPhil]

I can't find any proof online, but I thought the bridge was built by Great Northern and is currently owned by BNSF? When it was built, the only railway on the south end in Surrey was the GNR. Other than my assumption, I can't find anywhere online that says who owns the bridge currently. If it is owned by BNSF, then shouldn't they be part of the solution? Why should ALL the burden of a privately owned foreign railway be on the shoulders of the BC taxpayer.

If Amtrak is complaining about the bridge, they have the power to fix it. The Canadian government doesn't need to pay for infrastructure upgrades on the Canadian side. If it's that important to an American company, they can at least offer to help pay for it. The BNSF is land owned by an American company, benefiting American enterprises. There is no law preventing Amtrak, the US government, WSDOT, or BNSF from upgrading the tracks they own on our side of the border.

I'm not saying the bridge shouldn't be built. And I'm not saying the government shouldn't help. I just don't think this is the government's fault or solely their responsibility.

[Stingray2004]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

I can't find any proof online, but I thought the bridge was built by Great Northern and is currently owned by BNSF?

Ownership of the New Westminster Rail Bridge as defined in an 18-year old Supreme Court of Canada decision on an unrelated liability matter:

The bridge and the tracks on and adjacent to the bridge are entirely owned by PWC [Department of Public Works]. Four railways were, by contract with PWC, licensed to use the bridge. The tracks owned by PWC connect with tracks owned by three of the railways on the north and south sides of the river. Of the four railways CN was the principal user, accounting for 85 to 86 per cent of the railway cars using the bridge in 1987.

http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...scr1-1021.html

[BCPhil]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Ownership of the New Westminster Rail Bridge as defined in an 18-year old Supreme Court of Canada decision on an unrelated liability matter:



http://scc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/199...scr1-1021.html

Interesting. It's hard to find that anywhere else. It must be the only piece of PWC that doesn't have "Canada" smeared all over it.

But as the court case lays out, the bridge is operated at zero net profit. How would all the parties involved (CN, SYR, Via, Amtrak, BNSF) react if their rates went up to pay for a new bridge? Unless the bridge came with a public benefit like South of Fraser commuter or light rail service, completely paying for a bridge that would be by volume almost entirely private freight seems like an unwarranted burden by the Taxpayer to benefit wealthy companies.

But I guess it depends on the cost. If we're talking about a low level crossing like the current one with a draw or swing span, but with higher speed approaches and spans, then it wouldn't be that expensive. But if we're talking high speed rail with lots of capacity, then it would need to be a tunnel or higher level crossing, which sounds like a ridiculous price for 4 passenger trains a day to the US owned by US interests.

[SpikePhanta]

Originally Posted by BCPhil

Interesting. It's hard to find that anywhere else. It must be the only piece of PWC that doesn't have "Canada" smeared all over it.

But as the court case lays out, the bridge is operated at zero net profit. How would all the parties involved (CN, SYR, Via, Amtrak, BNSF) react if their rates went up to pay for a new bridge? Unless the bridge came with a public benefit like South of Fraser commuter or light rail service, completely paying for a bridge that would be by volume almost entirely private freight seems like an unwarranted burden by the Taxpayer to benefit wealthy companies.

But wouldn't taxpayers technically pay for the bridge because Via is crown and Amtrak is US gov?

I think maybe they should try to include the commuter rail.

[twoNeurons]

The bridge is old an deteriorating. I doubt it meets seismic standards and it would make shipping things to Vancouver more desireable if it were upgraded.

Anything that the province can do to make it more efficient for a port city to operate is a good thing.

While there is the Delta super port, where most of the stuff goes to, Vancouver Port still does a considerable amount of traffic. That's the main artery south to the US, which is our largest trading partner.

It's not solely to line the pockets of railway operators. Besides, increased fees to USE the bridge could be offset by the ability to run more trains more efficiently across it. It's definitely a choke point in the region.

[Political_R]

There would be quite a bit of value added from an upgraded bridge. It would allow for many more trains to transit and allow numerous commuter rail lines to be added such as to White Rock, Langley, Delta, etc. Also, if designed for high-speeds, it would complement Amtrak Cascades in helping reducing time between Pac Central and the River. Although there will need to be improvements on that section, but I think that is needed anyways as it will be a valuable rail corridor.

[Metro-One]

Honestly, when is the last time a new major heavy rail bridge has even been built in our region? 30 years, 40 years, 50 years ago, more? Why is our heavy rail bridge infrastructure so pathetic in metro Vancouver? (and BC in general).

It seems of late we have been building many new bridges for cars, cyclists, pedestrians and even our metro system (all 3 skytrain bridges), so why no movement on our heavy rail bridges? Many of them are over 100 years old I believe, such as the one in Mission (correct me if I am wrong).

We need new heavy rail bridges across the Fraser, The Pitt and Burrard Inlet that do not need to swing open to allow boats to pass, and that have 3 or 4 rails beds on them, better allowing commuter rail and freight rail traffic to coincide.

A joint project between the provincial and federal government and the CP and CN should be initiated.

[jsbertram]

I've been hearing rumours that the new Pattullo bridge might include a lower deck for rail traffic. If so, the new Pattullo bridge would replace both the old Pattullo bridge and the old rail swing bridge.

Last year I was thinking about what to do with the old Pattullo after the new Pattullo bridge is open, and I wondered if the old Pattullo bridge steel can be removed leaving the concrete supports in place. Then a new box-bridge just for rail traffic could be built on top of the old Pattullo concrete. This of course is dependant on if the concrete portion of the old Pattullo bridge has any life left in it.

I think the width of the resulting rail bridge would accommodate three tracks over the river. The new rail bridge would be higher than the swing bridge, but that means it doesn't block river traffic. It also means that the approaches to the new rail deck would have to be lengthened to maintain the same grade.

[officedweller]

The Macdonald Tunnel was built in the Rockies in the 1980s.

From Wiki:

In 1984 CP Rail commenced construction of the Mount Macdonald Tunnel to augment the Connaught Tunnel under the Selkirk Mountains. The first revenue train passed through the tunnel in 1988. At 14.7 km (nine miles), it is the longest tunnel in the Americas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...2.80.93present

[jsbertram]

Originally Posted by officedweller

The Macdonald Tunnel was built in the Rockies in the 1980s.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...2.80.93present

I think the prime motivation for CP to build the Mount Macdonald Tunnel was to lower the grade over the Rogers Pass, allowing them to get freights through the pass without having to stop to add 'pusher' engines before the run over the pass and then stop again afterwards to remove them. The other tunnel was left in place so the line through Rogers Pass is effectively double tracked.

[sacrifice333]

Originally Posted by SpongeG

I agree but until the bridge gets fixed in new west i don't think amtrak wants to invest much on the route

There's also talk on the South Surrey Mud Bay trestle bridge (don't know it's official name) needing extensive repairs which may result in the railways building an alternative track more "on land" that bypasses White Rock altogether.

Don't know if that's been discussed here already or not.

[SpongeG]

speaking of railway bridges this is a cool pic


daily.nicholsonroad.com

[SFUVancouver]

High-speed rail sought for B.C. to U.S. run
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 | 6:25 PM PT
The Canadian Press | Source


B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire promise to get moving on a high-speed train that could transport passengers far down the U.S. west coast.

"We hope it will go not just from Vancouver to Portland, but on to California," Gregoire said in a joint news conference in Vancouver Wednesday.

Washington state has already won a $600 million grant from the U.S. government to amp up their rail line from Oregon through Seattle, and that also includes money for the track to Vancouver, she said.

But Campbell said he still has to convince the federal government to help out with the "significant investment" required north of the border.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...#ixzz12xr3pmVD

[Political_R]

We need less talk and more action on this front. I think you could easily speed up the Fraser River-border segment a high-speed section. It will be interesting to see if they use 1% grades or 3% grades along the 99 to bypass White Rock. Reducing the trip time below 3 1/2 hours will make the train more competitive and should allow a third trip in the future.

[madmigs]

Originally Posted by SFUVancouver

High-speed rail sought for B.C. to U.S. run
Last Updated: Wednesday, October 20, 2010 | 6:25 PM PT
The Canadian Press | Source


B.C. Premier Gordon Campbell and Washington state Gov. Christine Gregoire promise to get moving on a high-speed train that could transport passengers far down the U.S. west coast.

"We hope it will go not just from Vancouver to Portland, but on to California," Gregoire said in a joint news conference in Vancouver Wednesday.

Washington state has already won a $600 million grant from the U.S. government to amp up their rail line from Oregon through Seattle, and that also includes money for the track to Vancouver, she said.

But Campbell said he still has to convince the federal government to help out with the "significant investment" required north of the border.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-col...#ixzz12xr3pmVD

Where high speed being an average of 110 miles per hour -> aka 1 hour to seattle.

http://www.news1130.com/news/local/a...ouver-possible

[twoNeurons]

Highly doubt the federal government would give funding for high speed rail to Seattle until Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal is started.

[crazyjoeda]

Originally Posted by twoNeurons

Highly doubt the federal government would give funding for high speed rail to Seattle until Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal is started.

I would think it would be cheaper to build high-speed rail between the US boarder and Vancouver than in Ontario because Vancouver to the boarder is little more than 50km. It would make sense to build a short line in BC as a test project before building a more ambitious line in Ontario and Quebec.

They should aim for a higher speed than 175kph, most high-speed trains I've been on reach speeds of 250-300kph.

[simonfiction]

Originally Posted by crazyjoeda

They should aim for a higher speed than 175kph, most high-speed trains I've been on reach speeds of 250-300kph.

Why is the "high-speed" they're aiming for so low, even with upgrades? Is this because of the condition of the track and cost of upgrades to make the true high speeds?

[EastVanMark]

how fast does the train go now and how long does a typical trip between Vancouver and Seattle take?

[Xerx]

Originally Posted by simonfiction

Why is the "high-speed" they're aiming for so low, even with upgrades? Is this because of the condition of the track and cost of upgrades to make the true high speeds?

Probably because they will still share track will heavier freight trains.