Lower Fraser Valley British Columbia, Chilliwack to

Surrey Interurban

Proposal for Rail for the Valley

1010/LWP/RFTV/062010 – 03.1 September 2010

by David Cockle

LEEWOOD PROJECTS

Planning Project Solutions

38, Deacon Road, Kingston-upon-Thames.

Surrey. KT2 6LU, UK
Phone: +44 (0)20 8541 0715
Mobile +44 (0)7702 720766
Fax: +44 (0)20 8546 4260
E-Mail info@leewoodprojects.co.uk
www.leewoodprojects.co.uk

0|P a ge
1|P a ge
 Lower Fraser Valley British Columbia, Chilliwack to Scott Road, Surrey
Interurban - Community Rail

Table of Contents
1.0 Executive Summary 5

2.0 Introduction 5

3.0 Background 7

4.0 Benefits of Interurban & Community rail strategy 8

5.0 Assessment of existing infrastructure 9

6.0 Stage 1.0 (Initial scheme) 15

6.1 Phase 1 proposal: Chilliwack to Scott Road – Diesel Light Rail upgrade
6.2 Phase 2 proposal: Chilliwack to Scott Road – Electrification upgrade

7.0 Proposed Rail Stations, land use and employment opportunities 16

7.1 Railway Stations
7.2 Tram stops

8.0 Accessibility improvements for rail stations 20

8.1 Automobile Access & Parking
8.2 Pedestrian & Mobility Impaired Access
8.3 Feeder & Shuttle Bus Connections
8.4 Cycling Facilities (Carriage of Cycles)

9.0 Depot, Maintenance & Control centre 22

10.0 Infrastructure - Civil Engineering 24

10.1 Drainage
10.2 Bridges & culverts
10.3 Earthworks/embankment stability

11.0 Infrastructure - Permanent Way 25

11.1 Track [ROW] design & upgrade
11.2 Double track
11.3 Passing loops

12.0 Infrastructure – Signalling 30

12.1 Operational running proposals – Time separation
12.2 Signalling control proposal

13.0 Infrastructure – Communications 32

14.0 Infrastructure – Electrification 32

2|P a ge
15.0 Utility diversions 33

16.0 Highways 33
16.1 Traffic assessment at key at-grade Railway Crossings
16.2 At-grade Railway / Road Crossings, appraisal and proposals
16.3 Reference - Vehicle/Pedestrian Rail Crossings in Other Cities-Calgary

17.0 Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) options 37

17.1 Tram-Train
17.1.1 Diesel
17.1.2 Electric
17.1.3 Diesel/Electric hybrid
17.2 Tram/LRV
17.3 Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit [DEMU]
17.4 Electric Multiple Unit [EMU]
17.5 Electricity generator trailers
nd
17.6 2 use/reconditioned LRV’s

18.0 Operating criteria’s & options 48

18.1 Headway & Frequency
18.2 Ticketing
18.3 Heritage Tramcar Operations

19.0 Capital costs of Interurban/Community rail service 50

19.1 Exclusions
19.2 Stage 1.0; Phase 1 Capital budget
19.3 Stage 1.0; Phase 2 Capital budget
19.4 Stage 1.0; Capital cost per Km

20.0 Stage 2.0 (Further extension proposal) 51

20.1 Stage 2a proposal: Scott Road to Richmond – at grade
20.2 Stage 2b proposal: Richmond to Vancouver Central station – at grade
20.3 Stage 3 proposal: Chilliwack station to Rosedale

21.0 Safety considerations for Interurban/Community rail project 52

21.1 Certification, design, construction, operation & maintenance
of British Columbia commuter railways
21.2 Rail vehicle safety assessments
21.3 Vehicular/pedestrian rail crossings

22.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 54

22.1 Conclusions
22.2 Recommendations

Notes & Acknowledgements 55

List of Appendices 56
Appendix A Figure/Photograph references and acknowledgments
Appendix B Maps of proposed Interurban
Appendix C the Case for Light Rail
Appendix D - Proposed Interurban/Community vehicle references
- Diesel Trams? A New Way forward

3|P a ge
 Appendix E Train-Trams, Zwickau, Riverline & Seetalbahn
-Tram-train in the UK?
-Tram Train: The 2nd Generation; New Criteria for the `Ideal Tram Train City’
Appendix F Electric Traction Beyond the Wires
Appendix G Proposed Interurban/Community Rail Station layouts
Appendix H Chilliwack Interurban Stage1 Phase1 Pricing Schedule
Appendix J Interurban Cost Summary
Appendix K Background & Report References

List of Tables 77
Table 1: Proposed Interurban/Community Rail - distance matrix
Table 2: Proposed Interurban/Community Rail - journey time matrix
Table 3: Schedule of bridge structures
Table 4: Schedule of grade highway crossings

Angers

© Leewood Projects Ltd 2010

Leewood Projects Ltd, the author and all of the authors listed in the acknowledgements,
notes and references are the owners or the licensees of the intellectual property rights in
this report, and in the material contained in it. Those works are protected by copyright laws
and treaties around the world. All such rights are reserved

Date September 2010 Document Ref No: This document is uncontrolled Reference: DAC
Revision 03.1 1010/LWP/RFTV/062010 from time of printing

4|P a ge
1.0 Executive Summary

This report details, the line of the old BCER Lower Fraser Valley Interurban, an
overall distance of 98 km from the Fraser River and Surrey to Chilliwack.

The primary and immediate focus of this report is the upgrade of the existing railway
line and the early reintroduction of an 80 – 100 kph service between Chilliwack and
Scott Road in Surrey.
The Stage 1.0, Phase 1 option proposes, a diesel Light Rail/Interurban metro
service, with two/three car articulated diesel electric [DEMU] Interurban multiple unit
train-sets, 32 to 45 metres long, operating a minimum twenty minute service, in both
directions in the morning & evening peaks – Monday to Saturday (06:00 to 22:00)
and minimum half hourly, each way service, off-peak and on Sundays.
The proposed rail vehicles would be 75 to 100% low floor, providing mobility
impaired access, with a capacity of 120 to 240 passengers.
The Stage 1.0, Phase 2 option, proposes a subsequent overhead electrification
upgrade of the Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban.

The proposed Chilliwack to Surrey Light rail/Interurban will share the right-of-way
with the existing freight operations of CP Rail, CNR and the Southern Railway of BC,
a `Short line‟ railway under a mixed fleet operation, track sharing agreement.

Stage 2.0 proposes further extensions, from Surrey across the Fraser River to
Richmond, Burnaby, Vancouver and east from Chilliwack to Rosedale.

2.0 Introduction

First Interurban Train Bound for Chilliwack

October 3 1910 - Last Spike Driven on Chilliwack Tramline
Premier McBride Officiates at History-making Ceremony at Chilliwack

A BCR Interurban leaves Chilliwack station

Fig 1.

Chilliwack. Early this afternoon Premier McBride presided here at the ceremony of "driving the last
spike" of the tram extension of the British Columbia Electric Railway Company connecting Vancouver
and New Westminster with Chilliwack by means of a line equipped to be operated by electricity and
tapping every part of the rich and fertile south Fraser Valley. The ceremony was performed in the
presence of a notable assembly as was fitting on an occasion when is admitted to mark a new era in
the development of the southern mainland. Lieutenant Governor Paterson came from Victoria to
participate in the occasion. Premier McBride took the leading part in the function. Other members of
the provincial executive accompanied him.

5|P a ge
 From Vancouver and New Westminster came a large deputation of the civic authorities as well as
representatives of the boards of trade while every municipality tapped by the new line was
represented by the rank and file of its councillors. Every leading official of the British Columbia
Electric Railway Company was on the spot including General Manager Sperling, Assistant General
Manager Glover, and Superintendant Allan Purvis, under whose London board three survey parties
were at once sent out to run trial lines. To Mr. F.N. Sinclair, C. E. was allotted the field covering the
route finally selected and officials of the road today admitted that when Mr. Sinclair was sent out
there was but little thought that the extension would be constructed according to his surveys. His
report, however, showed such grades and promising territory tapped that it received far greater
consideration than was anticipated and was finally approved as covering the selected route.

How well the company has done its work was testified to today as praise without stint was given by
members of the party making the first through run over the line, the journey winding up with the
"last spike" ceremony at Chilliwack. This party set out from Vancouver at 9 o'clock this morning and
proceeded to New Westminster by way of Eburne and the line along the North Arm of the Fraser. At
New Westminster it was joined by the Royal City delegates and at 10 o'clock started on the opening
trip over the Chilliwack extension proper.

First Through Run

the first stop was made at Cloverdale where is located a substation of the company. This is one of the
five from which the current operating the line is sent on the wires, the locations being Cloverdale,
Langley, Matsqui, Sumas and Chilliwack. Only the Cloverdale, Matsqui and Chilliwack stations were
in operation today but the other two will be in service before the close of the month. The substations
are thoroughly fireproof structures and, with electrical equipment, each represents and expenditure
of over $25,000.

At Cloverdale the members of the Surrey Council were taken on board and the run through Langley
municipality made with a stop at Milner to take on the municipal councillors from that district.
Matsqui was the next section traversed, the municipal representatives joining the party at several
stations.
At Huntingdon, on the international boundary line, members of the party learned that the tram
company has a terminal site covering a large area, this leading to the immediate conclusion that the
concerns was well located at the international boundary to link up with some electric traction
company operating in Washington, thus forming the Seattle-Vancouver tram system such as is
judged to be one of the certain developments of the near future.
At Sardis the official opening party was completed by the representatives from Chilliwack joining the
number and the train then proceeded without stop to Chilliwack where the last spike was driven and
the line formally declared open.

Vast Area, Rich Land

Not only is the territory tapped by the line one which will be a valuable source of food supplies but in
many parts it is covered with valuable timber areas which have heretofore been untouched because
of lack of transportation facilities. Members of the party commented on this fact while on the trip of
the day and the officials of the tram company promptly replied that in ordering the rolling stock for
freight purposes over the extension consists of 100 flat cars, 30 box cars and the ten stock cars. For
hauling the freight traffic three powerful electric locomotives were ready for service and others were
on the section of the line which has already been in operation for some months, as the need
developed.

6|P a ge
Interviews with the municipal councillors from the various districts on the train showed the large area
of rich country which will be opened by the new tramline the acreage being as follows: Surrey,
75,000; Langley, 77,000; Matsqui, 55,000; Sumas, 20,000; and Chilliwack, 70,000. The districts are
improved to a varying degree, but it was stated that in no case has the improvement reached the
standard which will immediately result on account of the transportation facilities afforded by the
operation of the new line. The land was said to be admirably fitted to form the base of food supplies
for the hundreds of thousands who will certainly live in Vancouver and New Westminster in the near
future. In the words of one rural representative, "you need us and we need you and this line is going
to be the connecting link which will bring us together for our mutual advantage." After the "last
spike" ceremony, the official party opening the line sat down to a sumptuous banquet.1

The passenger service continued until 1950 when the costs of upgrading the now
forty year old tracks and rail cars proved to be too much, especially in the face of
new forms of transit.
100 years ago, the first Chilliwack-Vancouver Interurban rail service began, and it
fundamentally shaped the growth of the Fraser Valley. In the second decade of the
new millennium, public, municipal & business interests advocate building a new,
modern light rail network for the entire Lower Mainland, starting inexpensively with
track that already exists, giving the public a real alternative to the automobile. 2

3.0 Background

There has long been a sentiment among the populace of the Fraser Valley to bring
back the interurban passenger rail service that was suspended in 1950.

The campaign became more organized in the 2000's, with the formation of the
Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society (2001) http://www.fvhrs.org/index.htm , a
Surrey-based group which aimed at getting a heritage service up and running on the
interurban tracks, and then in 2004 with the Valley Transportation Advisory
Committee VALTAC http://www.valtac.org/, a Langley-based group representing a
South of Fraser regional perspective, advocating for a modern interurban community
rail service.

In August 2007, a valley-wide movement initially emerging out of Chilliwack, Rail for
the Valley was formed. RftV resonated with residents along the Fraser Valley, and
was very active, putting on many public forums, community and valley-wide actions,
and acting as a vocal advocate in the media for interurban passenger rail.
http://old-rftv.arx.ca/ and http://www.railforthevalley.com

South Fraser OnTrax was formed in 2008, another Langley-based group advocating
for the Interurban.
http://www.southfraser.net/

In the following years, politicians took note, and the South of Fraser Rail Task Force
was formed by Langley Township Mayor Rick Green in 2009.

7|P a ge
4.0 Benefits of Interurban & Community rail strategy

The BCER interurban rail corridor was built in 1910, as a major passenger transit
corridor. When the line was first built, it served a Fraser valley population of 18,000.
When the Fraser Valley passenger service was suspended in 1950 there were less
than 80,000 people living throughout the Valley; today 1 million people live in Valley
communities, with 1.5 million projected by 2031.
The route is still intact and operating for freight. The freight rights are held by
Southern Railway of BC along the entire route and a 13 km stretch through Langley
is also leased to heavy freight serving Deltaport. To re- introduce passenger transit
to the line would therefore once again serve to connect the Fraser Valley
communities to promote both the economy and the liveability of the region.3

The Case for Light Rail 4

Environmental Benefits
LRT produces environmental benefits because:
It has a proven ability to attract motorists out of cars, thus reducing pollution and congestion

It produces no significant pollution at the point of use and offers the opportunity to operate
on renewable or clean energy throughout the power supply chain

It can help focus development, rather than encouraging urban sprawl.

Appendix C – Presentations:
1. Liveable Cities – The Role of Tramways and Light Rail
2. Controlling Costs – Affordable New Starts
3. Widening the Potential Benefits of Light Rail to Combat Congestion
4. Light Rail & Trams, a Low Cost, Affordable & Sustainable Mode
5. Employment in Sustainable Transport

Affordable and sustainable Light rail/tramways for smaller towns & cities 5
A presentation given by James J. Harkins MCIT MILT of Light Rail (UK) Ltd, to John Moores University
Liverpool; looking at Trams, present and past, current problems of pollution and congestion, and the
resulting consequences for health. Why modern trams are so successful in reducing these problems.

http://www.lightrailuk.com/pdf/affordable_power_point.pdf

8|P a ge
5.0 Assessment of existing infrastructure

The proposed Light Rail/Interurban route from Chilliwack; runs for 98 Km along the
line of the old BCER (British Columbia Electric Railway) to Surrey and the Fraser
River.
65 km of the existing rail infrastructure from Chilliwack to Langley is owned by the
Southern Railway of BC [SRY]; the right-of-way (ROW) is owned by BC Hydro.
The 13 km section of rail, known as the Pratt-Livingstone Corridor runs from
Cloverdale to Langley; It is part of a longer interurban rail line that runs from the New
Westminster bridge, through Surrey, Cloverdale and Langley, and then on to
Abbotsford and Chilliwack.
The corridor, which runs from 184th Street in Surrey, to 232nd Street in Langley, was
owned and operated by BC Hydro until 1988, when BC Hydro sold the tracks and the
equipment to CP Rail, but retain ownership of the ROW as well as the right to
operate passenger trains on the track.
The 20 km of infrastructure from 184th Street through to the New Westminster Bridge
in Surrey is owned by SRY, with the ROW in the ownership of BC Hydro.

The existing SRY rail infrastructure is single track for the majority of its length from
Chilliwack to the Sumas, Huntingdon area, running mostly at grade or on a low
embankment in a westerly direction.

Fig 2.

From Huntingdon, through Vedder, Abbotsford and up to Clayburn Road the SRY
turns north paralleling the lines of the Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR)/ Burlington
Northern and Santa Fe Railway (BNSF), running from up from Seattle and Spokane
in the US to Sumas and Mission.
From Clayburn Road the SRY line turns North West, to Gifford, Mt.Lehman,
Glouchester and Spurling, paralleling Highway 1 to Trinity Western University
Langley campus near Livingstone.
At Livingstone, the SRY line curves South West on to the CPR/CN owned tracks of
the Pratt-Livingstone Corridor and runs via Milner, Langley and Cloverdale before

9|P a ge
swinging North West again, on BC Hydro ROW up through Newton, Delta and
Nordel to Scott Road in Surrey.

Assessment of existing track asset:

In August 2009, a visual inspection of three sections of the rail corridor in the Sardis,
Abbotsford & Langley areas was made.
The speed limit on sections of the SRY rail corridor, a freight line is 20 mph (32 kph).
To upgrade the line for 80 to 100 kph (50 – 63 mph) Light Rail/Interurban train
service running, will require a programme of track renewal to upgrade the existing
infrastructure.

30 ft jointed Bullhead rail – 85/97 1b/foot in chairs - condition fair

`Old for new/like for like‟ replacement, per schedule section 11.0

Hardwood sleepers (ties) - condition poor to fair

Part/full replacement, per schedule section 11.0

Turnouts & switches – condition fair

Replacement with new turnouts & switches, per section 11.0
1. New station track layouts
2. Provision of passing loops
3. Provision of powered facing & sprung trailing switches.

Assessment of Civil Engineering asset:

The permanent way ROW of the SRY/BC Hydro railway has been laid at grade, in a
valley corridor that also includes the Fraser River, Highway 1A & the Trans-Canada
Highway 1.
The ROW has been constructed on a shallow embankment, except for a few
sections in the Sardis, Yarrow and Langley areas where the ROW is adjacent or
alongside public roads.
Construction of the ROW is traditional with graded crushed rock and earth `hoggin‟
forming the sub-grade to the permanent way. Crushed rock track ballast, secures the
track ties in position; the 2009 visit indicated areas that had been re-ballasted and
areas where the track ballast was low particularly at the shoulder of the ties.

Structures on the ROW of the SRY/BC Hydro railway are of three types (table 2.)
a. Rail-Over bridges – Highways and roads
b. Rail-Over bridges –Rivers and streams
c. Rail-Under bridges – Highways and roads

The structures seen were noted, to be all maintained and in fair condition, although
10 – 20mph speed restrictions are in place on all rail over bridges.

10 | P a g e
Assessment of signalling asset:
The SRY/BC Hydro railway is operated and controlled under the Canadian Rail
Operating Rules (CROR), as with railways of BCR, CPR & CN.
The CROR rules are intended to enhance railroad safety. 6
The rules cover employee responsibilities, signalling equipment, procedures for safe
train movement, dealing with accidents and other topics that directly and indirectly
affect railroad safety.
On the SRY/BC Hydro railway, subdivisions or portions of subdivisions as specified
in the time table or special instructions, the use of the main track is governed by
Occupancy Control System (OCS) Rules. 7
The Automatic Block Signalling (ABS) 8 system is used on the SRY/BC Hydro single
track lines. ABS systems for single track were designed in the timetable and train
order days to allow trains to safely follow each other closer than what would have
been possible with timetable and train orders alone
The ABS system protects a single track line including any sidings along it. The
sidings are used to meet or overtake trains. All signals are automatic and there is no
interlocking or Centralised Traffic Control (CTC) system on an ABS line. Switches
are thrown by the train crew as needed. ABS lines may span hundreds of miles
without any controlled signals.

Delta BC, Gord McKenna

11 | P a g e
Assessment of stations & platforms asset:
The existing station at Chilliwack is on the Canadian National (CN) line & ROW. The
station is served by VIA Rail's The Canadian three times per week as a flag stop.
The station is only served by westbound train to Abbotsford and Vancouver.

Fig 3. Fig 4.

The Abbotsford railway station, located at Matsqui, is on the Canadian National (CN)
line & ROW is served by VIA Rail's The Canadian three times per week as a flag
stop. The station is only served by westbound train to Vancouver.
West Coast Express operates a weekday commuter service from Mission to
Vancouver Waterfront with five westbound morning trains and five eastbound
afternoon trains.

Fig 5.

It is not proposed to utilise the existing Abbotsford station as the Matsqui location is
not a `Trip Generator‟ for the Interurban; however the Chilliwack Interurban station
facility, could be incorporated into the existing VIA station yard subject to access
agreements being negotiated. There are no other station facilities, on the SRY/BC
Hydro railway, which could be utilised for the Interurban.

12 | P a g e
Assessment of grade road crossings & associated signalling asset:
The SRY/BC Hydro railway is operated and controlled under the Canadian Rail
Operating Rules (CROR). 6
Transport Canada http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/menu.htm is responsible for federal
transportation policies and programs. It ensures that air, marine, road and rail
transportation are safe, secure, efficient and environmentally responsible.
Transport Canada is the agency responsible for regulations, standards and
programs work to ensure the safety of grade road crossings.
Canadian Transport Agency www.cta.gc.ca resolves disputes on rail crossings
(including the apportionment of costs) between federal railways and other parties
who may interact with those railways.
The British Columbia Safety Authority is the regulator for provincial railway
operations http://www.safetyauthority.ca/regulations/railways

The standard North American method of grade crossing control equipment is the
Grade Crossing Predictor; such devices rely on the characteristics of tuned loops
being altered by the presence of train wheelsets. The detected alteration is
processed and then determines the arrival time of the train at the grade crossing.
Such devices drive audible and visual warning devices and where fitted, barrier
mechanisms. There is no interlocking with signalling systems, or monitoring by train
drivers or signalmen. They are also known as Motion Detectors and Constant
Warning Time Devices.
Existing grade crossings of the SRY/BC Hydro railway are of three categories:

Gated & signalled (Gate & light protected)

Scott Road 120th Street & 99th Avenue, Surrey

Fig 6.

Un-gated & signalled (Light & bell protected)

7124 King George Highway 99A, Surrey

Fig 7.

13 | P a g e
Un-gated & un-signalled (Stop sign protected)
45770 Airport Road Chilliwack

Fig 8.

Full details of the existing Grade Crossings and recommendations from the study are
detailed in Table 4.

Assessment of Depot & Control room options

The optimal preference for a purpose built depot & control room facility is in the
Abbotsford area.
A study of existing depot locations; for a maintenance workshop, washing plant and
vehicle stabling roads with an additional satellite yard in Surrey, on industrial lands
adjacent to the rail line and with road access was undertaken.
The utilisation of the CP/CN/SRY heavy maintenance base at Trapp Road Burnaby
for the Interurban Phase 1, was ruled out because of the cost of vehicle transfers to
the west side of the Fraser River.
The study did not find an existing facility that could be adapted for Interurban use.
The recommendations from the study and the new depot proposals are detailed in
section 9.0

14 | P a g e
6.0 Stage 1.0 (Initial scheme)

The Canadian Transportation Agency www.cta.gc.ca processes applications for

certificates of fitness for the proposed construction and operation of railways, and
approvals for railway line construction.
The Agency has primary responsibility for carrying out the provisions of the Canada
Transportation Act. http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-10.4/index.html It also shares
responsibility for the following laws:
The Railway Safety Act (1985)
The Railway Relocation and Crossing Act (1985)
The British Columbia Safety Authority is the regulator for provincial railways. All
provincial railways must comply with the safety criteria specified in the provincial,
and in the provincially-adopted, federal legislative requirements. These requirements
call for railway companies to operate and maintain their railway systems within an
approved set of safety standards. http://www.safetyauthority.ca/regulations/railways

6.1 Phase 1 proposal: Chilliwack to Scott Road – Diesel Light Rail upgrade
The proposal calls for the upgrading of 98 km of the SRY/BC Hydro railway between
Chilliwack & Scott Road Surrey, to an 80 – 100 Kph Interurban/Community rail route,
with diesel or LPG/diesel electric Tram Trains, Light Rail Vehicles (LRV) or Multiple
Units (MU)
The scheme proposal will include:-
Retention of existing single track ROW.
Upgrading of permanent way ROW; embankment stability, drainage and
corridor enhancement for minimum 80 Kph running. (sections 10.1& 10.3)
Improvement of structures on route; culverts and bridges including
enhancement of rail over bridges for minimum 80 Kph running. (section 10.2)
Renewal & replacement of track rails, track ballast, ties & switches, upgraded
for minimum 80 Kph running. (section 11.0)
Retention of existing passing loops. (section 11.3)
Laying a 1 km switched spur, off the SRY Interurban between Old Yale Road
and 110th Avenue, with a new grade crossing of 110 th Avenue near the
intersection of 126A Street, to a new terminus at the Scott Road Sky Train
station car park at 120th Street. The land corridor that connects the Sky Train
station with the Interurban track is in the ownership of the City of Surrey.
Provision of ten stations, with signalled double track passing loop, two
platforms with one serviced station building and one weatherproof
shelter.(section 7.1)
Provision of a minimum of eight tram stops with signalled double track
passing loop, two platforms, with one weatherproof shelter per platform.
(section 7.2)
Depot, maintenance shop & control centre. (section 9.0)
Enhancement of signalling control system.(section 12.2)
Installation of enhanced communication systems.
Installation of passenger operated ticketing machines and assistance points.
Upgrading & replacement of, at grade road crossings, where applicable. (table
4) refers

15 | P a g e
6.2 Phase 2 proposal: Chilliwack to Scott Road – Electrification upgrade
The Phase 2 proposal calls for electrification of the upgraded 98 km Phase 1
Interurban/Community rail route between Chilliwack & Scott Road Surrey, with a 750
v DC supply for 80 – 100 Kph electric Tram Trains, Light Rail Vehicles (LRV) or
Multiple Units (MU).
The proposal is based on substations at 10km intervals, 9 No + one at each terminus
& one at the depot; total 12 No.
Overhead contact wire, single supported on droppers from single off-set poles at
20m intervals. The proposed track layout at stations will have a switched passing
track off the single line, the overhead line [OHLE] will be supported from span wires
between pairs of poles.
The Phase 2 electrification proposal will have to address the diversion/relocation of
the BC Hydro overhead electricity transmission and feeder distribution lines, which
have been installed on both sides of the ROW for much of the proposed Chilliwack to
Surrey Interurban‟s length.
For the high voltage 3-phase transmission lines, relocation will be more than likely
necessary; for the low voltage single-phase feeder distribution lines, sharing of a
common pole with the Interurban may be possible subject to mitigating stray current
leakage & potential electromagnetic interference (EMI)

7.0 Proposed Rail Stations, land use and employment opportunities

The Chilliwack to Surrey Interurban scheme proposes, the provision of ten stations,
with signalled double track passing loop, two platforms with one serviced station
building and one with a weatherproof shelter and eight tram stops with double track
platforms, signalled passing loop and one weatherproof shelter per platform.
Foot passenger and bicycle access, from one platform to another will be by way of
boarded foot crossing, sited at the extremities of both platform ramp ends. The
platform height & consequent ramp to the foot crossing will be dependent on the
proposed LR vehicle boarding height. The ramps and foot crossings will be designed
to be compliant with Federal & Provincial disabled access requirements. (see Fig 9 &
10)

Fig 9. Beddington Lane Fig 10. Morden Road

Croydon Tramlink Croydon Tramlink

16 | P a g e
7.1 Railway Stations
Purpose built, traditional Canadian BC single-storey design; timber frame with
marine ply sidings, larch cladding & larch roof shingles.
Proposed building footprint: 300 to 500 m2 [3230 to 5382 ft2], subject to available
land area.
Services:-
1. Mains or sceptic tank drainage.
2. Potable water supply
3. Electrical power – The report proposes installation of roof mounted
photovoltaic panels, solar water heating panels and a small wind turbine
(subject to land area) to generate a total of about 20 -30 kW. Sufficient to heat
building, heat water & power all facilities. Surplus generated electricity could
be routed into the grid & sold back to BC Hydro. It is envisaged that a metered
connection from the local BC Hydro grid is also provided so as to ensure
continuity of electrical supply.
4. Telephone, Internet connection
Facilities:
Washrooms.
Deli & grocery store.
Coffee shop/Internet café.
Bank ATM
Small community meeting/conference room, gallery etc
Ticketing will be via Passenger operated ticket machines (POM); cash &
Smart Cards
Passenger help/information point, GSM-R connection to control room, also
local RCMP office
Platform Information display [next train countdown] also GSM-R connection to
control room.
External platform lighting.
External platform CCTV.
Platform seating.
Platform information & advertising frames.
Platform litter bins.
Platform surfacing, local stone or PC concrete slabs. Platform height
dependant on vehicle loading height.

17 | P a g e
With the possible exception of an information desk, which could double as tourist
information centre, car rental desk etc all facilities would be run as a concession by a
local business/community organisation. The station building design is `modelled‟ on
traditional Canadian rural railroad designs; examples:-

Fig 11.
Sackville New Brunswick

Fig 12.
Casselman Ontario

Fig 13.
Pemberton British Columbia

Reference details at:

http://yourrailwaypictures.com/TrainStations/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/84263554@N00/2330441312/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ssmt/sets/72157600516234012/

18 | P a g e
It is a key, that the interurban is accepted by the local population; therefore the
stations should become a community focus point, with facilities for meetings;
antiques, art & craft shows and sales.
Station List:
1. Scott Road. (Sky Train connection)
2. Delta - Nordel Way
3. Newton - King George.
4. South Surrey - 152nd Street.
5. Cloverdale - 180th Street.
6. Langley - #10 Road / Kwantlen Polytechnic University (Langley Campus).
7. Abbotsford - McCallum Road.
8. Yarrow / Cultus Lake.
9. Sardis - Knight Road.
10. Chilliwack Station, Yale Road W and Young Road

7.2 Tram stops

In addition to above 10 stations, there would be 8 additional stops similar to the
example in figure 14, at:

1. Langley – 200th Street.

2. Trinity Western University – Glover Road / Fort Langley
3. Gloucester Estates / Aldergrove.
4. Abbotsford, Essendene Avenue.
5. Abbotsford - Marshall Road / University of the Fraser Valley (Abbotsford
Campus)
6. McConnell Road / Abbotsford International Airport.
7. Huntingdon / Sumas U.S.A.
8. Chilliwack - Airport Rd / University of the Fraser Valley (Chilliwack Campus)

The tram stops could be like the image of a `decor style‟ French tram stop, in this
case Vincent Gâche on the Nantes tramway.

Fig 14.

19 | P a g e
Facilities:
Canopy.
Pole mounted photovoltaic panels for power provision, also connection to
local electricity grid.
Passenger operated ticket machines (POM); cash & Smart Cards
Passenger help/information point, GSM-R connection to control room, also
local RCMP office
Platform Information display [next train countdown] also GSM-R connection to
control room.
Platform lighting.
Platform CCTV.
Platform seating.
Platform litter bins
Platform surfacing, local stone or PC concrete slabs. Platform height
dependant on vehicle loading height.
Information & advertising poster frames.

The actual location of the new Community Rail stations and Tram stops will be
determined in the final Interurban scheme by:-
Land availability & cost/Land use variables
o Parking space
Access from public highways
o Park-and-ride space
Population & Employment within walking distance
Trip Generators
Traffic generation
Pedestrian Access
Rights of Way negotiation
Services and utility connections
Station Spacing
Detailed appraisal of existing track vertical & horizontal alignment
Detailed assessment and design of passing loops, with regard to transition
curve geometry
Signalling Sighting Lines & distances

8.0 Accessibility improvements for rail stations

8.1 Automobile Access & Parking

The scheme proposes that stations & tram stops are located close to existing
highways and roads. Provision of access and parking facilities will be incorporated
into the location and site layout design. Sharing of parking facilities, with an existing
provider; a shopping mall, grocery market etc would be favoured over constructing a
new area for parking.

20 | P a g e
8.2 Pedestrian & Mobility Impaired Access
All proposed Interurban stations & tram stops, will be located, designed and
constructed with access for pedestrians and specifically the disabled/mobility
impaired taken into consideration at the conceptual design stage of the project,
taking into consideration Federal & Provincial acts & statutes.

8.3 Feeder & Shuttle Bus Connections

This Interurban report proposes integration of services with the scheduled bus
services in the Central & Lower Fraser Valley; Surrey, Langley, Aldergrove, Mission,
Abbotsford & Chilliwack operated by TransLink and BC Transit/FirstCanada ULC.
There is a potential for a summer bus shuttle, for the 10 minute journey from Yarrow
Station to Cultus Lake. Cultus Lake is a popular destination for people throughout
the Fraser Valley.

8.4 Cycling Facilities (Carriage of Cycles)

A key consideration for the planning, upgrading and delivery of the Lower Fraser
Valley Interurban will be provision of facilities for carriage of bicycles.
As by way of a comparison:
SkyTrain permits bicycles on board except during rush-hour times, and with
restrictions of 2 bicycles per car.
http://www.translink.ca/en/Cycling/Bikes-on-Transit/Bikes-on-SkyTrain.aspx

Calgary's C-Train permits bicycles on board except during rush-hour times, and with
restrictions of 4 bicycles per car.
http://www.calgarytransit.com/html/bikes_on_board.html

Edmonton Transit System [ETS] permits bicycles on board except during rush-hour
times.
http://www.edmonton.ca/transportation/ets/bikes-on-ets.aspx

West Coast Express permits bicycles, with no service restrictions, but with a 2
bicycles per car limit:
http://www.westcoastexpress.com/bike.asp?PageID=SERVICEINFO&MenuSubID=B
IKELOCKER

Toronto Transit Commission (TTC), prohibits carriage of bicycles on the current

ALRV & CLRV streetcar services, but will permit bicycles to be carried on the new
generation LRV‟s to be introduced.

OCTranspo, operators of Ottawa‟s 0-Train, permit the carriage of bicycles:

http://www.ottawa.ca/residents/onthemove/travelwise/cycling/cy_8_en.html

In the USA,
TriMet, the operators of the Metropolitan Area Express (MAX) Light Rail system,
permit the carriage of cycles but with restrictions:
http://trimet.org/howtoride/bikes/index.htm

21 | P a g e
Sound Transit, the operators of Seattle‟s Central & Tacoma Link‟s Light Rail
systems, permit the carriage of bicycles, with no service restrictions, but with a 4
bicycles per car limit:
http://www.soundtransit.org/Riding-Sound-Transit/How-To-
Ride/Bicycles.xml#CentralLinkLightRail

This report for the Lower Fraser Valley Interurban, proposes that the carriage of
bicycles is permitted, with the following service restrictions:
Weekday, morning & evening peak services – 2 bicycles per car limit.
Weekday, off peak – 4 bicycles per car limit.
Weekends – 6 bicycles per car limit.
It is proposed, that cycle & touring clubs can arrange in advance with the operator,
for permits enabling carriage of additional bicycles on specific services.

It is not proposed to include dedicated vehicles fitted with racks for the carriage of
cycles on the Interurban because of the increase to the loading (dwell time) at 15 No
intermediate stations & stops, between Chilliwack & Scott Road. Estimated at 1½
minutes dwell at each station, for bikes to be loaded/ unloaded, secured & for
passengers to make their way to the cars which would add a total of 22½ minutes on
the journey.
The one exception might be the option, for the incorporation of an electricity
generator trailer in the train/tram set, (section 17.5) also Appendix F; additional cycle
storage being accommodated in this car.
The Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition (VACC) 9 http://www.vacc.bc.ca/ actively
advocates for better cycling facilities in the Lower Mainland; relevant issues to the
Interurban proposal would include:
Bike access to Interurban stations & Tram stops
Bike carriage on the Interurban
Bike lockers and racks at Interurban stations & Tram stops

9.0 Depot, Maintenance & Control Centre

1. Single depot proposal.

2. Depot, workshops, control room & offices in the Abbotsford area, central
location almost equidistant from Surrey & Chilliwack.
3. Second stabling area or layover area, with fence & security and small facility
for crews signing-on, washrooms & cafeteria, in Surrey near the Scott Road
terminus.
4. A `turn-back‟ siding with storage for 3 – 4 LRV‟s (during operating hours) at
the interim Chilliwack terminus, laid as spur off the stub end, for the Phase 3
extension to Rosedale is proposed.

a. The depot land take, would be in the order of 12-15,000 m2 (129,167 –

161,459 ft2)
b. Provision of external stabling, 6 roads with vehicle, internal valeting
facilities

22 | P a g e
 c. A 1,500 m2 (16,145 ft2) industrial building of steel frame & cladding
construction; incorporating four- roads, stores, inspection pits,
bogie/wheel drop, wheel lathe, body repair shop, traction train repair
shop.
d. Fuelling facilities, storage tanks & dispensers, for diesel LRV‟s
e. Control room built adjacent or integral with depot, offices, training
room, welfare facilities, cafeteria, washrooms, and locker rooms. Staff
car parking.
f. Separate washer road & washer plant (large car wash). Also sand silo
for vehicle sanders
g. Separate road [for Road-Railers/on-track plant] & building/shed for
permanent way maintenance crews, including truck parking and stores.
h. Security entrance gate, fenced & CCTV controlled.
i. Provision of roof mounted photovoltaic panels, solar water heating
panels and a wind turbine to generate a total of about 60 -70 kW.
Sufficient to heat building, heat water & depot power requirements,
also connection to local electricity grid.

An example is the proposed new Starr Gate depot for the modernised Blackpool –
Fleetwood system in UK.

Fig 15. Fig 16.

Plan of proposed depot http://www.tramstore21.eu/sites/default/files/247030-SK-

010_p1.pdf

Details of planning, design & construction of a tram depot:http://www.tramstore21.eu/

The actual location of the new Depot, Maintenance & control Centre will be
determined in the final Interurban scheme by:-
Land availability & cost/Land use variables
Compliance with the functional statements and City & Provincial development
zoning and conditions
Access from public highways for Low –Loader trucks.
Availability of local skilled labour
Rights of Way negotiation
Services and utility connections
Detailed appraisal of existing, entry road vertical & horizontal alignment
Signalling Sighting Lines & distances for depot entry road

23 | P a g e
10.0 Infrastructure - Civil Engineering

10.1 Drainage
The report proposes enhancement of existing ROW drainage, to ensure adequate
rainwater run-off and the prevention of flooding.
Specific improvements are proposed for track drainage in the vicinity of at-grade
highway & road crossings and new drainage for stations & tram stops.
As in the case of the existing SRY/BC Hydro railway, surface water will be
discharged into ditches along the ROW.

10.2 Bridges & culverts

A number of culverts, carrying minor water courses under the ROW, will require
realignment or replacement as part of the line upgrade. A key requirement will be to
maintain embankment stability and mitigate any likelihood of flood damage &
washout due to spring snow-melt.
The report does not envisage any work being necessary to the rail-under bridges,
scheduled in Table 3. These structures carry highways & roads over the railway
ROW and would be in the ownership of the BC Provincial or city/town highway
authority, which would also be responsible for maintenance & upkeep.
Table 3 lists twelve rail-over bridges, in which responsibility for maintenance &
upkeep would lay with the SRY/BC Hydro. All these structures will require an
inspection, survey and evaluation to assess the degree of enhancing and
strengthening required to enable 80 kph running.

10.3 Earthworks/embankment stability

For the majority of its 98 Km length the SRY/BC Hydro railway runs at grade or on
shallow embankments. In Yarrow, Arnold and Upper Sumas; between the Vedder
River & Huntingdon, the ROW runs on an approximately 3 meter high embankment.
An inspection, survey and evaluation to assess the stability of the embankment and
whether Geotextile strengthening or Soil Nailing is required to enable 80 kph
running.

24 | P a g e
11.0 Infrastructure - Permanent Way

Sources have been referenced by the author, in the preparation of this and other
report sections, relating to the Interurban right-of-way [ROW], permanent way
alignment and track design & renewal. 10 References to specific sections are listed in
the Acknowledgements and Appendices – Appendix H

Summary assessment of track renewals – proposed schedule:

General System Requirements

The trackwork design should apply a design philosophy that will provide continued
acceptable performance, ease of operation and maintenance, and stresses the
following principles:
• Minimal changes to the design of the existing SRY/BC Hydro permanent way.
• Ensuring design compatibility with existing trackwork components
• Interchangeability
• Modular design
• Use of standard off-the-shelf components
• Maintainability
• Availability and reliability
• Ability to interface with work to be done by other disciplines

Based on preliminary assessment of:-

a. 30% spot renewal [1 in 6 tie replacement and 50% of rail length], re-ballasting
shoulders, tamping top & line
b. 30% heavy renewal [all ties & 100% rail length], complete lower ballast
replacement, re-ballasting shoulders, tamping top & line
c. 40% ballasted track replacement, [including new rail, ties & ballast] plus sub-
grade & drainage upgrading, to permit higher speeds.

11.1 Track [ROW] design and upgrade

An important consideration of the proposal is to differentiate between light rail transit
track and those similar, but subtly different, track systems used for freight,
commuter, and heavy rail transit operations. These differences present challenges
both to light rail track designers and to the designers and manufacturers of light rail
vehicles.
Much research has been conducted in an effort to understand the mechanisms
involved in track-vehicle interaction and its impact on track design. However, no
widely accepted guidelines exist to specifically aid in the design and maintenance of
light rail transit track. Consequently the light rail transit industry frequently relies on
practices developed primarily for heavy rail transit and railroad freight operations that
are not necessarily well suited for light rail systems. 10a

Key parameters include:-

Wheel profile
Wheel/Rail interface
Restraining wheel flange lateral movement on curved track work & switches

25 | P a g e
 Track horizontal alignment
Track vertical alignment
Gauge issues for joint LRT and Railroad (mixed fleet) operations

Wheel profile is one of the most critical vehicle parameters to consider in track
design, since the wheel is the primary interface between the vehicle and the track.
The wheel profile must be compatible with the rail section, in particular special
trackwork components; 10a
I. Switch points
II. Frog flangeways or moveable point sections
III. Guard rails, protecting special trackwork components or restraining rail
positions on short radius track curves.
Many transit agencies have adopted a “worn wheel” design, featuring wheel contours
that approximate the template to which railway wheels wear in service. These
designs are intended to:
Reduce wheel and rail wear
Reduce likelihood of derailment under adverse operating conditions
Enhance stable performance over the nominal range of speeds
Provide reasonable contact stress characteristics.

Wheel profile is a flexible design decision, drawn from the different profile sections
used throughout the transit industry. The same flexibility is not provided in the
selection of standard rail profiles. Only a few standard rail sections exist for use by
the transit industry.
However, wheel and rail profiles must be compatible, which means that the wheel
profile should conform to the rail head profile. As with wheel profiles, the majority of
the research and development on rail head profiles and rail profile grinding has been
undertaken by and for the railroad industry.
The transit industry can also benefit from this research. However, recommendations
for heavy haul railroads may not be entirely applicable to the transit industry. A light
rail vehicle weighs (AWO) approximately 44,000 kilograms (97,000 pounds). A
loaded freight car weighs as much as 152,000 kilograms (335,000 pounds). This
represents a significant difference in wheel loads of 5,500 kilograms (12,100 pounds)
and 19,000 kilograms (41,900 pounds) for LRVs and freight cars, respectively.
Obviously, rails used in transit service will not be subjected to wheel forces of the
magnitude exerted by freight cars. Therefore, theories of rail gauge corner fatigue,
high L/V ratios, and the threat of rail rollover that pertain to freight railroads may not
be fully applicable on a transit system. The contact forces at the rail gauge corner on
curved tracks are usually twice as large as those between the rail crown and wheel
tread.
To reduce contact stresses at the gauge corner and gauge side rail base fastening, it
is important that the wheel/rail profile be compatible. The wheel profile is conformed
to the rail profile if the gap between the wheel and rail profile is less than 0.5
millimetres (0.02 inches) at the centre of the rail (in single-point contact) or at the
gauge corner (in two-point contact). 10a
To improve wheel/rail interface contact, alternate wheel shapes may be considered.
During the early design stage of new transit systems, transit wheel profiles should be
considered that match or conform to the rail section(s) to be used on the system.

26 | P a g e
In the process of wheel design, the design engineer must consider the rail sections
and the rail cant to be selected. 10b

The successful guidance of a moving rail vehicle will be governed by the response of
the vehicle to deviations in the track geometry, known as Vehicle-Track Interaction
(VTI), either by design (curves, switches, etc.) or because of component
degradation. In turn, the response of the vehicle to the track is significantly affected
by the interaction of each rolling wheel with the rail and the contact conditions
between the wheels and rails. A derailment is often the result of many factors
combining to create an undesirable VTI situation. For example, a modest track twist
(change in cross level) near a curve worn switch point could lead to less than
desirable wheel/rail contact geometries and the potential for a wheel to climb over
the rail, particularly for stiffly suspended trucks.
Several VTI scenarios can lead to derailment, including wheel climb resulting from
excessive lateral forces at the wheel/rail interface as compared to vertical forces at
the same interface, gauge widening and rail rollover, vehicle lateral instability, high
wheel loads and their effect on switch components and the forces on the rail that can
be generated by hollow worn wheels.
The scenarios that could lead to derailments & the strategies to prevent occurrences,
by restraining wheel flange lateral movement on curved track work & switches can
be found in the Ensco Inc paper Ref 10c

Light rail transit (LRT) geometry standards and criteria differ from freight or
commuter railway standards, such as those described in applicable sections of the
American Railway Engineering and Maintenance-of-Way Association (AREMA)
Manual, Chapter 5, in several important aspects. Although the major principles of
LRT geometry design are similar or identical to that of freight/commuter railways, the
LRT must be able to safely travel through restrictive alignments typical of urban
central business districts, including rights-of-way shared with automotive traffic. Light
rail vehicles are also typically designed to travel at relatively high operating speeds in
suburban and rural settings.
The LRT alignment corridor is often predetermined by various physical or economic
considerations inherent to design for urban areas. One of the most common right-of-
way corridors for new LRT construction is an existing or abandoned freight railway
line. The LRT vehicle is often required to operate at speeds of 65 to 90 kph
(40 to 55 mph) through alignments that were originally designed for FRA Class 1 or 2
freight operations; i.e., less than 45 kph (30 mph)
General guidelines for the development of horizontal alignment criteria should be
determined before formulating any specific criteria. This includes knowledge of the
vehicle configuration and a general idea of the maximum operating speeds.
Criteria for the design of LRT and freight railroad joint usage tracks are described
later in this section.
In addition to the recommendations presented in the following sections, it should be
noted that combinations of minimum horizontal radius, maximum grade, and
maximum unbalanced super elevation are to be avoided in the geometric design.
The following geometric guidelines are established to consider both the limitations of
horizontal, vertical, and transitional track geometry for cost-effective designs and the
ride comfort requirements for the LRT passenger.

27 | P a g e
The horizontal alignment of track consists of a series of tangents joined to circular
curves and spiral transition curves. In yards and other non-revenue tracks, the
requirement for spiral transition curve is frequently deleted.
Track super elevation in curves is used to maximize vehicle operating speeds
wherever practicable. An LRT alignment is often constrained by both physical
restrictions and minimum operating performance requirements.

The vertical alignment of an LRT alignment is composed of constant grade tangent

segments connected at their intersection by parabolic curves having a constant rate
of change in grade. Maximum grades in track are controlled by vehicle braking and
tractive efforts. On main line track, civil drainage provisions also establish a minimum
recommended profile grade. In yards, shops, and at station platforms, there is
usually secondary or cross drainage available.
Joint LRT/Railroad/Freight tracks are designed in conformance with the
requirements of the operating railroad and the AREMA Manual, as a guideline,
recommended criteria are as follows:
The horizontal alignment for joint LRTrailroad/ freight tracks consists of tangent,
circular curves, and spiral transitions based on the preferred maximum LRV design
speed and the required FRA freight class of railroad operation Lead tracks and
industrial spurs generally do not require spiral transitions.
Curves adjacent to turnouts on tracks that diverge from the main track should be
designed for the maximum allowable speeds of the adjoining turnouts. 10a

Gauge Issues for Joint LRT and Railroad and Mixed Fleet Operations
For a system with a mixed fleet, compromises may be required to accommodate a
variety of truck and wheel parameters. This problem is not new-early 20th century
electric street railway track designers frequently had to adapt their systems to handle
not only city streetcars with short wheel base trucks and relatively small diameter
wheels, but also “interurban” trolleys that typically had longer wheel base trucks and
larger diameter wheels. Some trolley companies even offered freight service and
routinely handled „steam” railroad engines and freight cars over portions of their
lines. Today, if the light rail system shares any portion of its route with freight
railroad, or if future extensions either will or might share freight railroad tracks, then
conformance with freight railroad gauge and other freight geometry constraints will
control the track design.
When a new light rail system shares track with a freight railroad, freight operations
normally occur only along ballasted track segments. It is unusual for freight trains to
share aerial structure or embedded track segments of a system. Nevertheless, the
mixing of rail freight and LRT operations on any portion of a system will govern track
and wheel gauge design decisions for the entire system. Even if the system‟s “starter
line” does not include joint operation areas, consideration should be given to whether
future extensions of the system might share tracks with a freight railroad.
The key issues to consider in accommodating mixed operations are the setting of the
back-to-back wheel dimension, guard check gauge, and guard face gauge criteria
that result from a particular wheel setting. Track design parameters that will be most
affected by these decisions include: 10a
The practicality of using available girder groove and guard rails that are rolled
with a specific flangeway width.

28 | P a g e
 The flangeway width and track gauge required for effective restraining rail or
guard rail applications.
Details for guarding of frog points in special trackwork locations.
To mitigate mixed operations, extensive work on minimising the affect of introducing
new rolling stock to existing and new lines is desirable. Proposed works include
friction management of the rail head gauge corner and the wheel-rail interface,
together with a planned programme of rail grinding to a worn wheel profile.
Experience from European systems, where similar measures have been undertaken,
was that the introduction of new rolling stock to the existing and new tracks has not
resulted in increased incidences of rail head wear problems.

11.2 Double track

The SRY/BC Hydro line is single track, for most of the 98 km length from
Chilliwack to Surrey; with the exception of a number of passing/freight loops (see
section 11.3).
The report recommends retention of the single track layout with passing loops; for
majority of the ROW, the study has determined the impracticalities and
uneconomical cost of double-tracking:-
Acquisition of rights to widen the ROW.
Land purchase costs.
Widening embankments
Relocation of BC Hydro, electricity power poles & cables
Replacement of Rail-Over bridges.
Widening of Rail-Under bridges.
Widening or replacement of at-grade road crossings.
Rise in cost of track & signalling upgrade.

11.3 Passing loops

On the SRY/BC Hydro ROW, between Chilliwack & Scott Road Surrey, there are a
total of eight existing passing loops:-
1. Chilliwack – between Young Road & Airport Road.
2. Gifford – Glenmore Road.
3. Spurling – 70th Avenue.
4. Milner – Crush Crescent.
5. Langley – between Highway 1A & 56th Avenue.
6. Langley – between 1st & 6th Street, Cloverdale Bypass
7. Langley – between 80th Avenue & 128th Street.
8. Surrey – 80th Avenue.

The Chilliwack – Surrey Interurban report proposes:-

1. Existing freight Passing loops to remain and be upgraded with;
a. Motorised switches and crossings
b. Enhanced loop occupancy detection.
c. Entry & exit signalling – LED point indicators.
2. Installing additional Passing loops at each of the sixteen stations and tram
stops and at additional locations as required, to permit the planned service

29 | P a g e
 operation - a timetabled peak service, 20 to 30 minute headway in both
directions.
Configuration and location of the new Passing loops will be determined in the final
Interurban scheme by:-
Distance between adjacent stations & tram stops.
Station & Tram stop horizontal & vertical track alignment.
Interurban operational headway and frequency.
Detailed assessment and design of passing loops, with regard to transition
curve geometry
Signal sighting - Lines & distances
Loop lengths to suit proposed rail vehicles

Many European Light Rail/Tramway systems operate successfully with single track
sections. Croydon Tramlink operates 8 minute (peak) and 15 minute (off peak)
services, over a 4.5 km single track section of the Wimbledon Line between Morden
Road & Beddington Lane, at a Line speed of 80 kph.
http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/info/infra/diag.php?num=2

The design of the Station and Tram stop, passing loops are to include:

1. Provision of and replacement of existing manual hand-switched points with

motorised Facing & Trailing switches and the possible use of sprung Trailing
switches.
2. `Mimic‟ Indicators, advising Control Centre & approaching LRV operator of
platform/loop occupancy.
3. Signalled entry & exit to platform Passing loops – LED point indicators

On many of the existing passing loops, particularly in the Abbotsford and Langley
areas, there are switched spurs off to freight sidings, CP Rail, CNR, Southern
Railway of BC and possibly some privately owned. This Interurban proposal will seek
to maintain these freight spurs & sidings, with the existing hand operated switches,
but with the addition of LED point indicators.

12.0 Infrastructure – Signalling

The use of the SRY/BC Hydro railway, main track is governed by Occupancy Control
System (OCS) Rules.
The Automatic Block Signalling (ABS) system protects the single track line including
the passing loops and sidings along it. The loops and sidings are used for trains to
overtake another; switches being thrown by the train crew. All the signals are
automatic and there is no interlocking or Centralised Traffic Control (CTC) system on
the line.
The report recommends the following proposals:-

12.1 Operational running proposals – Time separation

The Stage 1.0, Phase 1 proposal is for a Temporal separation ("time-sharing")
operation, with the Interurban operating from 06:00 to 22:00 and freights services
from 22:00 until 06:00. The proposal precludes 24/7 Light Rail operations, but to

30 | P a g e
enable an early commencement of Community Rail services, between Chilliwack
and Scott Road Surrey, the arrangement will be the simplest to instigate.

12.2 Signalling control proposal

Options:
1. Axle Counters – not likely due to cost and resistance from infrastructure
owner
2. Track circuiting - ruled out on cost of installing cabling & power supplies
3. Radio-Token Block [single line] signalling; likely to be resisted by Freight
operators
4. GSM-R controlled via base stations, linked to Control room, which has
visibility of all trains at all time. Light Rail/Interurban and freight trains will be
monitored from the Control room and Interurbans can be switched into
passing loop to permit freight to pass/overtake. With detection circuits at
passing loops to confirm occupancy & settings/position of turn-out/switches.
LED point indicators at entrance & exit of each passing loop.

LED Facing point Indicator signal

Nottingham Express Transit

Fig 17.

Prognosis:
The Report recommends the adoption of a GSM-R based system, to augment the
existing ABS Protection system.
GSM-R is typically implemented using dedicated base station towers close to the
railway. The distance between the base stations is 7–15 km. This creates a high
degree of redundancy and higher availability and reliability. The train maintains a
circuit switched digital modem connection to the train control centre at all times.
It is used to transmit data between train and control center. When the train passes
over a sensor/transponder it transmits its new position and its speed, then it receives
back agreement (or disagreement) to enter the next track and its new maximum
speed, so by removing the necessity for traditional trackside signalling to be
installed.
GSM-R will provide:-
Interurban LRV location.
Settings & position of turn-out switches.
Occupancy of Passing loops
Rail right-of-way confirmation at grade highway crossings.

31 | P a g e
13.0 Infrastructure – Communications

The Chilliwack – Surrey Interurban report proposes adoption of a GSM-R

communications system.
GSM-R, Global System for Mobile Communications - Railway or GSM-Railway is an
international wireless communications standard for railway communication and
applications.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM-R

GSM-R is a secure platform for voice and data communication between railway
operational staff, including drivers, dispatchers, signallers, train engineers, and
station controllers. It delivers features such as group calls (VGCS); voice broadcast
(VBS), location-based connections, and call pre-emption in case of an emergency.
This will support applications such as video surveillance in trains and at stations, and
passenger information services.
The GSM-R base stations will be sited at 10 km intervals.
GSM-R will provide:-
Cab to Control centre communications link
Station to Control centre communications link
Passenger help/information point link
Platform CCTV link
Platform Information display [next train countdown] link
Passenger operated ticket machine link

14.0 Infrastructure – Electrification

The Phase 2 proposal for electrification of the upgraded 98 km Phase

1Interurban/Community rail route between Chilliwack & Scott Road Surrey, with a
750 v DC supply for 80 – 100 Kph electric Tram Trains, Light Rail Vehicles (LRV) or
Multiple Units (MU), as follows:
12 No 11 kV AC substations at 10km intervals, 9 No + one at each terminus &
one at the depot, fed from BC Hydro supplies each with a 1,000 kW
transformer rectifier to provide 750 v DC output.
The power supply control in each substation is monitored by the Control
Centre using a Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) system for
Equipment, Intruder and Fire Alarm status, utilising the GSM-R system.
Single overhead 13mm diameter copper contact wire, supported on droppers
from single off-set poles at 20m intervals.
Switched station passing loop, overhead line [OHLE] supported from span
wires between pairs of poles.
OHLE tension is maintained by weights mounted on the poles.

32 | P a g e
15.0 Utility diversions

The Report has discounted the need for a wholesale diversion of the BC Hydro
overhead electricity supply lines and poles in Section 11.2, however to construct the
new station and tram stop passing loops, there may be the requirement for limited
local diversion, off the ROW of the power lines and poles.
Other utility diversions should be limited to areas of:-
Station & Tram stop footprints
Access roads & footways to Station & Tram stops
Enhancing & upgrading, at-grade road crossings
Strengthening & upgrading bridge structures & embankments
Improving track ROW drainage

16.0 Highways

In Stage 1.0 of the Chilliwack to Surrey Interurban proposal, highway, road & street
diversions and layout changes will be limited to:
Provision of new access roads to station and tram stops
Junction and light control for new access roads to station and tram stop car
parks/park & rides
At-grade road crossing enhancement and upgrading

16.1 Traffic assessment at key at-grade Railway Crossings

Traffic assessment for the Lower Fraser Valley Interurban/Community Rail scheme
will require a range of issues to be reviewed as project decisions move from a
conceptual level to detailed design and operation.
This report considers traffic levels in the City of Surrey for which data is readily
available. 11
Similar studies to chart traffic levels in the Langley, Abbotsford and Chilliwack areas
will be needed in order to assess the impacts on existing traffic control signal
locations and the corridors that are controlled by the affected signals. The rail line
under consideration is used by the Southern Railway of BC (SRY) for freight
movement up to four times per day mostly on weekdays. Roadways impacted are
under the authority of either the City of Surrey or the Ministry of Transportation
(MoT). In addition to roadway corridor issues that impact traffic signal operation there
may be local issues immediately adjacent to station locations such as pedestrian
access and parking requirements to be reviewed.
In general, two vehicles, peak period passenger trains, operating every 20 minutes,
will disrupt individual traffic signals cycles for 30-40 seconds, which is considerably
less than long freight trains which use the lines.

33 | P a g e
MoT

Highway 10 is affected at several streets in the Cloverdale area including the

following:
168th Street – Gate & Light Protected
56th Avenue/164th Street intersection – Gate & Light Protected
Except for the 56th Avenue/164th Street (Old McLellan Road) intersection the train
impact is relatively minor since 168th Avenue will maintain a green signal phase when
Interurbans cross the intersecting roads and only left and right turns from Highway
10 will be delayed during train movements. At the 164th Street/Old McLellan Road
intersection, Highway 10 will be stopped for the Interurban movement but this time
will be less than the existing time required for freight movements.

City of Surrey

152nd Street is affected at 64th Avenue. At this location 152nd Street carries
about 20,000 vehicles on a daily basis and will be impacted when the
operation of the signal at 64th Avenue occurs. This impact will be less than
the interruption caused by the passage of the freight trains.
64th Avenue is affected at 152nd Avenue and 148th Avenue due to train
movements at both signal locations. The daily traffic volume is approximately
26,000 vehicles. It is expected that the impact on 64th Avenue will be less
than the existing time required for the freight movements and within a few
cycles of the signal normal timing sequences will be in place.
King George Highway, with a daily traffic volume of 34,000, is affected near
72nd Avenue signal although the rail crossing is about 150 meters south of
the signal. The impact is expected to be relatively minor.
72nd Avenue, with a daily traffic volume of 30,000, is affected near the King
George Highway signal although the rail crossing is about 150 meters west of
the signal. The impact is expected to be relatively minor.
132nd Street and 76th Avenue, each with a daily volume of about 14,000, are
both affected at the same time due to a complex geometric situation caused
by the rail line passing through the centre of the intersection. In this case
roads, 132nd and 76th are impacted simultaneously and both must be
stopped for the passage of a train. Fortunately both streets have somewhat
lower volumes than many of the impacted streets.
80th Avenue, with a daily volume of 18,000, is affected east of the signal at
128th. The impact is expected to be relatively minor.
128th Street, with a daily volume of 24,000, is affected at the 82nd Avenue
signalized “T” intersection. The impact due to the train crossing is expected to
be relatively minor due to limited volume on 82nd.
88th Avenue/Nordel Way, with a daily traffic volume of 27,000, is affected east
of the Scott Road near the Mall Access signal. It is expected that the
interruptions on 88th Avenue will be less than the existing time required for
the freight movements and, after train passage, within a few cycles of the
signal normal timing sequences will be in place.

34 | P a g e
 Scott Road, with a daily traffic volume of 34,000, is affected near 92nd and
99th Avenues, away from major traffic signals; therefore little impact is
expected at this location.
96th Avenue, with a daily traffic volume of 12,000 and no traffic signal control,
is affected west of Scott Road. The impact at this location is expected to be
minor.
104th Avenue, with a daily traffic volume of 7,000, is affected away from major
arterials: therefore little impact is expected at this location.
Old Yale Road, with a daily traffic volume of 5,000, is affected away from
major arterials: therefore little impact is expected at this location.11

16.2 At-grade Railway/ Road Crossings appraisal and proposals

This report concludes that the introduction of Interurban services will not unduly
impact on the highway road traffic in the City of Surrey. A similar assessment is
projected for the Langley, Abbotsford/Huntingdon & Chilliwack areas, when the data
resulting from traffic surveys is analysed.
Table 4 - Schedule of grade highway crossings, lists 88 No grade highway crossings
between Chilliwack and Scott Road Surrey, in four categories by highway, road or
street reference:
1. No protection
2. Gated & signalled – gate & light protected
3. Un-gated & signalled – light & bell protected
4. Un-gated & un-signalled – stop sign protected

The report recommends the enhancement of fourteen existing crossings in

Chilliwack and Surrey and the provision of one new grade crossing in Surrey.
a. No protection to Stop sign protected
1. Chilliwack, Lumsden Road
b. Stop sign protected to light & bell protected
2. Chilliwack, Hocking Avenue
3. Chilliwack, Airport Road
4. Chilliwack, Knight Road
5. Chilliwack, Spruce Drive
6. Chilliwack, South Sumas Road
7. Chilliwack, Yarrow Central Road
c. Light & bell protected to gate & light protected
8. Chilliwack, Vedder Road
9. Chilliwack, Evans Road
10. Surrey, 138th Street
11. Surrey, King George Highway
12. Surrey, 72nd Avenue
13. Surrey, 76th Avenue
14. Surrey, 120th Street Scott Road
d. New gate & light protected grade crossing
15. Surrey, 110th Street

35 | P a g e
16.3 Reference - Vehicle/Pedestrian Rail Crossings in Other Cities-Calgary
This paper [Calgary light rail transit surface operations and grade-level crossings] presents an
overview of Calgary light rail transit (LRT) surface operations and grade-level
crossings. At present, the LRT system incorporates approximately 30 km (18.6 mi) of
double track and 31 stations. Approximately 87 percent of the LRT system is
composed of surface operation in a shared right-of-way. Outside of the downtown
area, the LRT operates adjacent to and in the median of arterial roadways and in an
existing rail corridor. In this environment, the LRT has priority over street traffic, pre-
empting the traffic signals at intersecting roadways. Downtown, three LRT lines
merge and run under line-of-site operation along the 7th Avenue Transit Mall along
with transit buses and emergency vehicles. Although trains are not given special
priority along 7th Avenue, traffic signal phasing provides progression to minimize
delays as the LRT travels between stations. Based on experiences documented in
this paper, it is demonstrated that LRT can operate harmoniously with private
vehicles, pedestrians, and bicycles in the right-of-way of city streets. Strategies
developed maintain an acceptable level of traffic operations at intersecting streets
while giving priority to LRT operation through traffic signal pre-emption. Existing
traffic signal and railway crossing equipment and control techniques have also been
adapted to manage the interaction between LRT operations and private vehicle,
pedestrian, and bicycle traffic at intersecting streets and LRT stations, and to
accommodate nonstandard crossing configurations such as skewed intersections. 12

http://www.lightrailnow.org

36 | P a g e
17.0 Light Rail Vehicle (LRV) options

In considering the type of Light Rail Vehicle for the Chilliwack to Surrey Community
Rail/Interurban project, a number of key factors are considered:-
Cost – new or 2nd hand/use
Availability
Traction mode – diesel, electric, hybrid
LRV configuration -
o single ended/double ended (bi-directional)
o articulated/trailer/coupled multiple-unit
o width
o length
Loading gauge
Bogie/Truck parameters
Wheel profile
Reliability
Operating & maintenance costs
Depreciation
Capacity –
o Seating
o standing
Loading level – high floor/partial low floor/low floor
Vehicle compliance
Impact resilience – standards compliance
Operating performance – acceleration, transit speed, station dwell time

The consideration of Light Rail vehicle [LRV] type to be adopted for the Community
rail/Interurban services is likely to be primarily driven by Cost, Availability and
Traction mode. With the cost of new Diesel/Electric Multiple, Light rail vehicles or
multiple-units supplied by North American, European or Far Eastern manufacturers,
in the range CD$ 2 to 3 million per unit, the acquisition of 2 nd hand or use vehicles is
attractive. (Sub-section 17.6)
The Phase 1 proposal recommends the introduction of diesel powered vehicles on
the line, as the most expedient way of achieving an early reintroduction of
Community Rail/Interurban services between Chilliwack and the city of Surrey with a
lower initial capital investment, than expenditure at this stage on full electrification
would need. In sub-section 17.5, the options for an on-board or trailer LPG electric
generator, to electrically power the LRV are discussed.
Phase 2 covers the later electrification option, which envisages that the diesel, dual
powered or LPG hybrid LRV‟s, introduced under Phase 1, could be adapted to 750v
DC electrical supply.
The most flexible and cost effective vehicle configuration will be double ended (bi-
directional driving cab), which renders unnecessary, the construction of termini
turning loops. The choice of articulated, gangway connected or trailer LRV‟s will
depend on the market availability of 2 nd use or the cost of new rail vehicles. DEMU &
EMU vehicles are coupled multiple-units with gangway connections between cars.
The generous BC Hydro ROW vehicle loading gauge will permit vehicle widths in the

37 | P a g e
range, 2.4 up to 2.9 meters; articulated LRV‟s 30 to 40 meters long; DEMU/EMU‟s
three to five cars long and 60 to 120 meters in overall length.
Light Rail Vehicles and Tram bogies are much simpler in design than heavy rail
vehicles because of lighter axle load. This and tighter curves that are found on
tramways means that tram bogies almost never have more than two axles.
Furthermore, some tramways also have steeper gradients and tighter vertical and
horizontal curves, which mean that tram bogies often, need to pivot on the horizontal
axis as well.
Some modern articulated LRV‟s have bogies located under articulations, a setup
referred to as a Jacobs bogie. Many low-floor LRV‟s are fitted with non-pivoting
bogies which can lead to a degree of rail and wheel wear unless the measures
discussed in section 11.1 are mitigated. The only 100% low floor tram with pivoting
bogies, the Škoda ForCity - uses the Jacobs bogie.
The desirability of a wheel profile that will give optimum performance and low
maintenance costs, in respect of the wheel/rail interface has been discussed in
section 11.1 The purchase of vehicles for the Interurban will need to address the
practicalities of either replacing vehicle wheel sets or turning the tyre profile on a
wheel lathe to achieve a compatible profile with the existing rail head. Full
replacement of the existing BC Hydro rails cannot be an economic option.
The three key operating variables; reliability, operating & maintenance costs and
depreciation will need to be factored in to the bid and future business plans, in
relating the three factors to new and 2 nd use vehicles.
Fully refurbished 2nd use LRV‟s; bogies, wheels, motors, operating systems, door
control mechanisms, floor coverings & seating will have lower depreciation and
probably lower maintenance costs due to proven design, construction and the
absence of hi tech electronic systems. New vehicles could prove more expensive to
maintain, once the manufacturers warranty has expired and will certainly attract
higher depreciation; though overall operating costs might prove to be lower, with
newer installed technology.
Given that the length of the proposed Interurban is 98 km with an overall transit time
of 1½ hours between Chilliwack & Scott Road, a seated verses standing passenger
ratio of 3:1 is desirable. With an end to end journey of this duration, the consideration
of passenger amenities should be a consideration and the provision of toilet and
refreshment facilities, would advocate the choice of DEMU or EMU style metro
vehicles rather than LRV‟s.
The matter of floor loading height and level/low floor percentage has become a
contentious issue for vehicle manufactures, infrastructure owners and system
operators, when faced with the lobbying of passenger groups, advocates for disabled
and senior citizens and the various equality and discrimination acts. This report
recommends that the eventual choice of vehicle should be that which offers the
greatest area of level floor access, commensurate with vehicle availability and cost.
Further the height of station & Tram stop platforms are to be designed for
compatibility with the selected vehicles door/floor loading height.

38 | P a g e
Fig 18. Fig 19.

Station platform infrastructure costs, for raising areas of the platform to vehicle floor
level to give level boarding access or as in the above images of London
Underground‟s Northern Line; incorporating a ramp which coincides with one or
more of the vehicle doors, will be the most cost effective solution.
In section 6.0, it was stated that the Canadian Transport Agency (CTA) is
responsible for the issue of certificates of fitness for the proposed construction and
operation of railways, and approvals for railway line construction.
The rail division of the National research Council Canada www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
provides research facilities for improving the reliability, safety and competitiveness of
rail transportation equipment and systems. Light Rail or Metro vehicles procured for
the Interurban will require to meet; CTA‟s compliance requirements for loading
gauge, impact and crash worthiness, operator and passenger accessibility and
safety, braking distance, noise and emission levels.
The operator of the Chilliwack – Surrey Interurban will set minimum vehicle
performance requirements in a specification which will encompass; servicing
intervals, acceleration and braking velocity & forces, transit speed, station dwell time,
ride quality, heating, cooling & ventilation and operator ergonomics.

17.1 Tram-Train
A Tram-Train is a light-rail public transport system where trams are designed to run
both on the tracks of an urban tramway network and on the existing railways for
greater flexibility and convenience. The Karlsruhe model pioneered this concept in
Germany, and it has since been adopted on the Randstad Rail RijnGouweLijn (RGL)
in the Netherlands and in Kassel and Saarbrücken in Germany
Most Tram-Trains are standard gauge, which facilitates sharing track with standard
gauge mainline trains. An exception is in Nordhausen Germany, where both the
trams and the trains are metre gauge.
Its advantage over separate tram and train systems is that passengers travelling
from outside a city need not change from train to tram. Tram-Trains have dual
equipment to suit the respective needs of tram and train, such as support for multiple
voltages and safety equipment such as train stops.
The idea is not new: in the early 20th century, interurban streetcar lines often
operated on the same tracks as steam trains, until crash standards made old-style
track sharing impossible. The difference between modern Tram-Trains and the older
interurbans and radial railways is that the tram-trains are upgraded to meet mainline
railway standards. The Karlsruhe and Saarbrücken systems use an automatic train

39 | P a g e
protection signalling system called PZB, or „Indusi‟, so that if the driver passes a
signal at stop the emergency brakes are applied.
The River Line Light Rail line in New Jersey runs along freight tracks with time
separation: passenger trains run by day, and freight by night. This, like the O-Train in
Ottawa and the Newark City subway extensions in Belleville and Bloomfield, New
Jersey (with similar FRA-imposed time-share waivers), does not qualify it as a Tram-
Train per se, whose chief characteristic is shared-use of mainline tracks at all times.
13

Saarbrücken Saarbahn, Bombardier

Flexity Link electric Tram-Train

Fig 20.

17.1.1 Diesel
Diesel Tram-Trains, offer an important solution to the establishment of the Chilliwack
- Surrey Interurban – obviating the necessity for electrification of the system in the
initial project capital costs.

River Line (Camden – Trenton) New

Jersey, Stadler GTW diesel Tram-Train

Fig 21.

40 | P a g e
17.1.2 Electric
The Sassari Tram-Train aka Sassari Metro-tramway is a 4km long tram-train
transport system in Sassari, Sardinia. It is a light-rail public transport system where
the tram is designed to run both on the tracks of an urban tramway network and on
the existing suburban narrow gauge railways operated by the Ferrovie della
Sardegna (Railways of Sardinia). The track gauge is 950mm, the tram vehicles are
built by AnsaldoBreda.

Sassari, AnsaldoBreda Sirio

Tram-Train

Fig 22.

The Karlsruhe Model

The prospect of riding into or out of the city without requiring a transfer is attractive to
transport patrons. To connect the Karlsruhe tramway network with the existing heavy
rail infrastructure would increase ridership, but some technical difficulties were
encountered. The German guidelines for heavy rail operation (EBO) are different
from German tramway specifications (BOStrab). In addition, the trams needed power
modification, to be able to operate in a DC power environment, as well as with AC
power. Consequently, a dual-mode light rail vehicle, called a "tramtrain", was
developed.
September 25, 1992 was the inauguration of the world's first actual Tram-Train line,
from Karlsruhe to Bretten. The Tram-Train operates between Karlsruhe Marktplatz
and Grötzingen like a tram, following BOStrab German tramway specifications. At
Grötzingen, the train experiences a DC to AC voltage change and then operates as
a heavy rail vehicle, following EBO heavy rail specifications on 18 km of track
towards Bretten. In addition to the voltage adjustment and specification shift, the
train's accountability is transferred from the AVG tram driver to the operation
manager of the Deutsche Bahn AG.
http://www.karlsruher-modell.de/en/index.html

The Karlsruhe Tramway and Stadtbahn system is a dual voltage system, electrified
to 15 kV AC & 750V DC.

41 | P a g e
The Karlsruhe Tramway and Stadtbahn system includes seventeen lines, in four
different forms:

Eight tram lines, in modernised form with a large proportion of segregated

track and priority at traffic lights. These lines are electrified at 750V DC.
Two tram line sections within urban Karlsruhe and the secondary lines of the
AVG, electrified at 750V DC.
Four tram line sections within urban Karlsruhe, Worth am Rhein, Bad
Wildbad and Heilbronn and the railway lines of the DB and AVG, electrified at
15 kV AC, 16.7 Hz.
Three `heavy rail‟ operations on DB and AVG tracks, electrified at 15 kV AC:

Fig 23. Fig 24.

Karlsruhe, Duewag/Siemens/ADtranz GT 8-100

Tram-Trains
RandstadRail

RandstadRail is a 64km network in the southern part of the Randstad conurbation in

the west of The Netherlands, connects The Hague, Zoetermeer and Rotterdam and
consists of a metro-like line between The Hague and Rotterdam and two light rail
lines between The Hague and Zoetermeer. http://www.urbanrail.net/eu/dhg/den-
haag.htm The former suburban railway, the Zoetermeer Stadslijn formerly operated
by NS (Dutch Railways), was converted from heavy rail to light rail operation and
linked it to the tram network of Den Haag. The stations were rebuilt with 30 cm high
platforms and new stops were added. The system is electrified to 750V DC

RandstadRail Alstom Regio

Citadis Tram-Train

Fig 25.

42 | P a g e
17.1.3 Diesel/Electric hybrid
The 122km Kassel RegioTram network service http://www.railway-
technology.com/projects/kasseltramtrains/ is worked by three-car, 75% low floor
Alstom Regio Citadis bi-directional vehicles constructed at Salzgitter,
Niedersachsen. Delivered 2004–2005, the air-conditioned fleet consists of two types
which are visually near identical. Numbers 701–718 are two-system overhead supply
electrics for operation on DB routes (15kV AC) and the Kassel tram system (750V
DC). To enable operation to Wolfhagen without disproportionately expensive route
re-engineering for electrification, different stock was required. Numbers 751–760
represent a world first in tram fleet operation, fitted with roof-mounted diesel engines
to maintain the low floor profile, a hybrid (electro-diesel) for use without an external
power supply or through the 750V overhead. The hybrids also are also used, as
required for routes that are fully wired.

Kassel, Alstom Regio Citadis

Tram-Train

http://www.regiotram.de/uploads/
media/RT_Broschuere.pdf

Fig 26. Fig 27.

43 | P a g e
17.2 Tram/LRV
The European and North American market for electric Light Rail/Tram vehicles is
dominated by manufacturers, Alstom, Bombardier & Siemens.
Smaller numbers of AnsaldoBreda, CAF, Skoda & Kawasaki vehicles have been
supplied world wide.
Over the past five years the trend has been towards families of modular articulated
vehicles, with common body shell, bogies, motors and gearboxes, electrical
equipment, control systems and floor loading level.
The customer specifying:
o Vehicle width
o Length – number of modules and number of doors
o Wheel profile
o Cab front design
o Cab interior layouts
o Passenger saloon – seating layout
o Communications & computer equipment
o Interior and Exterior finishing

Fig 28. Angers, Alstom Citadis

Fig 29. Brussels, Bombardier Flexity

Fig 30. Augsburg, Siemens Combino

Fig 28.

Fig 29. Fig 30.

44 | P a g e
Siemens AG build the S70, a 70% low-floor LRV/Tram, which is marketed as the
Avento in Europe.
It is in use, or on order, by several light rail systems in the United States, including:
o Houston METRORail, Texas
o San Diego Trolley, California
o LYNX Blue Line (CATS), Charlotte, North Carolina,
o MAX, Portland, Oregon
o Norfolk Light Rail, Norfolk, Virginia
o Utah Transit Authority, Salt Lake City, Utah,
Siemens S70 Avento‟s are in service in France as Tram-Trains in Mulhouse and
Paris, route T4

LYNX Blue Line, Charlotte

Siemens S70

Fig 31.

Siemens-USA AG also manufacture the SD-100, 160, 400 & 460 series of electric
Light Rail vehicles, developments of the Siemens-Duewag U2 LRV‟s, for the North
American light rail and metro transit market. Systems that use this range include:
o San Diego (SD-100)
o Salt Lake City (SD-100 & 160)
o Denver (SD-100 & 160)
o Calgary (SD-160)
o Edmonton (SD-160)
o Allegheny (SD-400)
o Pittsburgh (SD-400)
o St. Louis (SD-400 & 460)

Edmonton Transit System,

Siemens SD-160

Fig 32.

45 | P a g e
17.3 Diesel-Electric Multiple Unit [DEMU]
Contemporary models of DEMU‟s, are manufactured by; Bombardier, Siemens &
Stadler.

o Bombardier Talent
o Bombardier RegioSwinger
o Siemens Desiro Classic
o Stadler Regio-Shuttle

NordWestBahn, Bombardier
Talent DEMU

Fig 33.

17.4 Electric Multiple Unit [EMU]

Contemporary models of EMU‟s, are manufactured by; ABB/Adtranz/Bombardier,
Bombardier, Siemens, Stadler, Hitachi & CRC

o Bombardier Regina
o Bombardier Talent
o Siemens Desiro 380
o Stadler FLIRT

SBB, Stadler FLIRT EMU

Fig 34.

Modern EMU and DEMU‟s are supplied in single, 2, 3, 4 or 5 car sets; with
individual cars of between 17 & 26 meters long. Passenger capacity is of between 40
& 70 seated and 20 to 40 standing per car. On both types of Regional/Interurban
multiple units, toilet and refreshment counter/trolley service can be accommodated.

46 | P a g e
17.5 Electricity generator trailers
There are a number of potential ways of introducing 2nd hand/use Light Rail vehicles
on Community Railways, without incurring the expense of electrification.
An innovative proposal is the generator trailer or car. This scheme originated in the
1920‟s and was developed successfully in post war Europe. The basic concept is the
inclusion of a diesel or LPG electric generator set installed in a 'mobile power house',
in the LRV formation. Included in Appendix F, there is a report titled Electric Traction
beyond the Wires by Scott McIntosh which describes the concept.
Coincidently, the Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society
http://www.fvhrs.org/DonationsTo.htm , plan to acquire a replica BCER Express
baggage car that will contain generators for powering the vehicle, along 600 meter
spur line, connecting the FVHR car barn at Sullivan BC and on to the
SRY/BCHydro mainline.

17.6 2nd use/reconditioned rail vehicles

The market availability of 2nd use DEMU, EMU, LRV‟s is limited in North America as
the mode is relatively new with many of the systems having been opened in the last
two decades.
Possible sources might include:
The Siemens–Duewag U2 LRV‟s currently in use in Edmonton Alberta and on
Calgary‟s C-Train.
Toronto ALRV & CLRV streetcars belonging to the Toronto Transit Commission,
which are due to be retired when Toronto‟s expanded Light Rail system is
commissioned
The Bombardier Type 1 LRV‟s of Portland‟s MAX system.
The Siemens–Duewag U2A LRV‟s currently in use on the Sacramento Regional
Transit District system.
Siemens Regio Sprinters which ran in Calgary in trials in 1996.
Budd 2200 & Boeing-Vertol 2400, series rolling stock of the Chicago `L‟ Rapid
Transit system, due to be replaced in 2010/11.

European sources of 2nd hand/use vehicles might include:

a. Duewag – ex- Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Dortmund, Berlin, Augsburg, Hanover,
Leipzig, Nurnberg, Helsinki and The Hague
b. Bombardier – ex- Cologne and Essen
c. Tatra – ex- Berlin, Potsdam, Leipzig and Dresden
d. PCC – ex – Brussels
A number of the Bombardier/Adtranz A32 Tram Trains from the Gouda to Alphen line
(Netherlands) may now be out of regular use, since a contract has or will be placed
for the complete Rijn-Gouwe rolling stock, which may or may not match the A32 floor
loading height.

Some of these vehicles would require modifications to; bogies & wheel-sets, current
collection, voltage regulation or auxiliary diesel/LPG generators before they could be
run on the Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban.

47 | P a g e
18.0 Operating criteria’s & options

18.1 Headway & frequency

The Report proposes the following operating headway and frequency:-
1. Monday to Saturday - morning & evening peaks.
a. 06:00 to 09:00
b. 16:00 to 19:00
Three LRV‟s per hour in each direction = 20 minute headway, minimum twenty
minute service, in both directions.

2. Monday to Saturday – off peak.

a. 09:00 to 16:00
b. 19:00 to 22:00
3. Sundays – all day.
a. 06:00 to 22:00
Two LRV‟s per hour in each direction = 30 minute headway, minimum thirty minute
service, in both directions.

18.2 Ticketing
The Report recommends the adoption of a Smart Card ticketing system, for the
Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban.
A smart card is essentially a credit-card-sized piece of plastic which has a microchip
embedded in it. This chip is the „smartness‟ of the smart card, and performs all the
functions required by the card (storing data, processing data, writing data, etc.).
Smart-card chips come in two broad varieties: memory-only chips, with storage
space for data, and with a reasonable level of built-in security; and microprocessor
chips which, in addition to memory, employ a processor controlled by a card
operating system (similar to any PC), with the ability to process data onboard, as
well as carrying small programs capable of local execution.
A standard Smart card is a blue credit-card-sized stored value card which can hold a
variety of single tickets, period tickets and travel permits which must be added to the
card prior to travel. It is also a contactless smartcard which passengers must touch
onto electronic reader when entering and leaving the transport system in order to
validate it or deduct funds. The cards may be "recharged" in person from numerous
sales points, by recurring payment authority or by online purchase. The card is
designed to reduce the number of transactions at ticket offices. Use is encouraged
by offering substantially cheaper fares on a Smart Card than payment with cash.
The Report advocates though, that the opportunity for purchase of single, return and
multiple journey tickets (daily and weekly), should be available; from station & Tram
stop Passenger Operated Machines (POMS) and from designated outlets. Ticketing
integration with TransLink SkyTrain services and the bus services of TransLink, BC
Transit and First Canada should be a key implementation policy.

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/tickets/14836.aspx

http://www.thomastelford.com/journals/DocumentLibrary/ME1570109.pdf

48 | P a g e
18.3 Heritage tramcar operations
The Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society http://www.fvhrs.org/index.htm has as its
mission statement:
To restore and to operate heritage interurban cars on the original BC Electric
Railway Route through Surrey and the Fraser Valley to link heritage tourism
destinations.
The upgrading of the SRY/BC Hydro railway and reintroduction of a scheduled
Chilliwack to Scott Road Interurban service will assist the FVHR in their ultimate goal
of operating heritage interurban cars on the BCER.
This report acknowledges the aspirations of the FVHR and many in the Fraser
Valley, a limited weekend service with heritage interurban cars; possibly
incorporating a dining or bistro facility is envisaged.

FVHRS http://www.fvhrs.org/

49 | P a g e
19.0 Capital costs of Interurban/Community rail service

19.1 Exclusions and Contingencies

a) Any rental, lease or track access charges levied by SRY, CN or CP, for
running over 3rd party ROW infrastructure.
b) Compulsory building purchase & compensation
c) Land taxes
d) Government legislature costs
e) Local authority/city/township rates, taxation.
f) Federal & Provincial Taxation, including HST
g) Public Consultation costs
h) Public Inquiry costs
i) Operating costs
j) Contingency - Electromagnetic Compatibility [EMC] & Interference [EMI]
identification, design, testing & implementation
k) Contingency – disposal of construction waste - environmental landfill charges
l) Contingency -disposal & management of contaminated/hazardous waste
m) Contingency – Installation of pedestrian, stock fencing & noise barriers
n) 3rd party Licences, charges & compensation – BC Highways, BC Hydro, BC
Parks, BC Ministry of Environment

19.2 Stage 1.0; Phase 1 Capital budget

Project scope/Work break down structure (WBS):

1. (5.0) Surveys and investigation.

2. (all) Detailed design allowance
3. (11.1) Permanent way (track), renewal & upgrading.
4. (10.0) Civil engineering work, associated with permanent way renewal &
upgrading.
a. Track formation earthworks and embankments.
b. Highway/road crossings gated grade/level crossings.
c. Drainage
d. Bridge strengthening & modifications
5. (7.1) Stations – 10No.
6. (7.2) Tram stops – 8No.
7. (9.0) Depot building and infrastructure
8. (9.0) Depot equipment and fitting out.
9. (12.0 + 13.0) Signalling & communications
10. (18.2) Fare collection.
11. (17.0) Vehicles.

Stage 1, Phase 1 Pricing Schedule:

http://leewoodprojects.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/chilliwack-interurban-
stage1-phase-1-pricing-schedule_reva.pdf

50 | P a g e
Stage 1 Phase 1- Chilliwack to Scott Road [Diesel/hybrid option] summary capital
cost.

CAD $491,819,424.00 (CAD $5.02 m per km)

19.3 Stage 1.0; Phase 2 Capital budget

Stage 1 Phase 2 - Chilliwack to Scott Road [Electrification] summary capital cost

CAD $114,700,000 (CAD $1.2 m per km)

19.4 Stage 1.0; Total Capital cost per Km

CAD $606,519,424

CAD $ 6.2 million per km

__________________________________________________________________________________

20.0 Stage 2.0 (Further extension proposal)

20.1 Stage 2a proposal: Scott’s Road to Richmond – at grade

Stage 2a Scott Road to New Westminster/Richmond 10 km @ CAD $11.7m per km
= CAD $ 117 million

20.2 Stage 2b proposal: Richmond to Vancouver Central station – at grade

Stage 2b New Westminster/Richmond to Vancouver Central 18 km @ CAD $13.7 m
per km = CAD $246 million

20.3 Stage 3 proposal: Chilliwack station to Rosedale

Chilliwack to Rosedale 12 km @ CAD $ 2.4 m per km = CAD $28 million

___________________________________________________________________

For total 138 km route, Vancouver Central to Rosedale

CAD$ 998,519,424

CAD $7.2 million per km

__________________________________________________
The Stage 2 price summary has been based on;
28 km of double track between Scott Road & Vancouver Central stations, of which
no less than 45% will use the existing ROW‟s; including crossing the Fraser River.
The remainder of the alignment will be at-grade street-running on segregated track.

51 | P a g e
A Temporal separation operation, similar to Stage 1 is envisaged over the shared
running section, with at grade Tram stops at no > 3km intervals built to a similar
specification as those in Stage 1 for both the shared ROW & street running sections.
No major civil Engineering works are envisaged, light & bell protected grade road
crossings and signalled highway intersections will be installed on the segregated
street-running sections of the designed alignment.
No additional depot facilities are proposed, the number of vehicles priced in the
Stage 1estimate are sufficient to maintain, a 20–30 minute peak headway over the
entire route length.
Stage 2 will be designed, constructed & implemented in accordance with current
European and North American best practise.

21.0 Safety considerations for Interurban/Community rail project

21.2 Certification, design, construction, operation & maintenance of British

Columbia commuter railways
The British Columbia Safety Authority is the regulator for provincial railway
operations http://www.safetyauthority.ca/regulations/railways

All BC railways must comply with the safety regulations for their railway class.
http://www.safetyauthority.ca/regulations/railways

Commuter Railway Safety Regulation Guidelines

http://www.safetyauthority.ca/regulations/railways/commuter-railway-safety-
regulation-guidelines

21.2 Rail vehicle safety assessments

APTA Transit Standards Development Program Partnership
Recommended practices and design guidelines to achieve safety, reliability and
efficiency in transit system design and operation.
http://www.aptastandards.com/Portals/0/1GeneralFiles/FTA.pdf

Crashworthiness Standards for the U.S. Light Rail Environment

Steven Kirkpatrick & Martin Schroder American Public Transport Association
Transport Research Board http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=804788

US Department of Transport Federal Transit Administration published the paper;

Collision Safety Improvements for Light Rail Vehicles Operating in Shared Rights of
Way Street Environments in September 2009
http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/CollisionSafetyImprovementsforLRVs.pdf

52 | P a g e
21.3 Vehicular/pedestrian rail crossings
Transport Canada www.tc.gc.ca is the agency responsible for regulations,
standards and programs work to ensure the safety at grade road crossings.
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/railsafety/menu.htm
also;
http://www.tc.gc.ca/innovation/tdc/summary/13800/13819.htm

Transport Canada has published three safety assessments of road/railway grade

crossings:-
1. Canadian Road/Railway Grade Crossing Detailed Safety Assessment Field
Guide
2. Pedestrian Safety at Grade Crossing Guide (September 2007)
3. Grade Crossing Contraventions and Motor Carrier Safety Assessment –
Project summary (TP 13819)

The Government of Canada is investing in cross-Canada rail safety;

IMPROVEMENTS TO ROAD/RAILWAY GRADE CROSSING SAFETY
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/mediaroom/releases-2010-h041e-5899.htm

Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon, published:

Safety Criteria for Light Rail Pedestrian Crossings, written by Don Irwin,
http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec058/08_02_Irwin.pdf

53 | P a g e
22.0 Conclusions and Recommendations

22.1 Conclusions
You need look no further than the Fraser Valley newspapers to gauge the support for
re-establishing the Chilliwack to Surrey Interurban.
Courtesy of Rail for the Valley:-

"The most efficient and "green" way to move large numbers of people is via light-rail
transit. Given the population growth in the Fraser Valley, this transit option should
be a no-brainer." -The Province

"If the government is to meet its goal of cutting air contaminants by 4.7 million
tonnes in the next 12 years, the revival of the interurban line will be one of many
initiatives aimed at getting commuters out of their cars." -Abbotsford News

"Now is the time, when our population still allows it, to finally look at light rail. We
have the rail ready and the cost of getting it up and running would be a fraction of
the cost of building more SkyTrain routes... Not only are we convinced that rail is
the best solution for the Fraser Valley, we are convinced that it will be used." -
Abbotsford Times

"One of the biggest disappointments in Victoria's new transit plan is its failure to
include the possibility of light-rail passenger service -- along the old Inter-Urban rail
route from Vancouver to Chilliwack. In our view, any transit plan that doesn't include
such an environmentally-sound option is deficient to some degree." -The Province

"Where is the much-needed light rail for the Fraser Valley?" -Surrey Leader

"We can learn from history. Rail-based transit will work in the Fraser Valley." -
Langley Times

"There's far too much foot-dragging when it comes to the issue of a proper
transportation infrastructure for the Lower Mainland and the Fraser Valley. Maybe
the politicians need to take a load off and hop on the train." -Chilliwack Times

Make no mistake, passenger rail service from Chilliwack to Abbotsford, Langley,

Surrey, and even to Vancouver would be a great thing. -Chilliwack Times

22.2 Recommendations
This report concludes that the conversion to 21 st Century Community Rail/Light Rail
of the BCER Lower Fraser Valley Interurban, will bring positive benefits to the
communities it will serve in;
Economic & Inward Investment, Tourism, Environment, Health & Social Cohesion.

The early implementation of Phase 1, from Chilliwack to Scott Road in Surrey, will be
the beginning of the benefits.

David A. Cockle Kingston upon Thames September 2010

54 | P a g e
Notes & Acknowledgments

Notes:

1. The story of the BC Electric Railway Company, Ewert Henry

2. Twenty Nine years of Public Service – British Columbia Electric Railway
3. Rail for the Valley
4. Presentations by - Jim Harkins for LRTA/Transport 2000; Scott McIntosh for LRTF; Tony Young
for APPLRG.
5. Jim Harkins - Light Rail (UK) Ltd
6. The Railway Association of Canada
http://www.railcan.ca/documents/rules/1684/2008_03_19_CROR_TCO_093_en.pdf
7. Mark Cseles http://192.197.62.35/people/mcsele/railroad.htm
8. Railroad Signalling, Carsten Lundsten http://www.lundsten.dk/us_signaling/
9. Vancouver Area Cycling Coalition (VACC)
10a. Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit - Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas,
10b. City of Edmonton – LRT Design Guidelines (CA) 2009
10c. Keeping Your Trains on the Track – Strategies for Preventing Derailments, Ensco Inc. |
www.ensco.com (US) 2009
11. City of Surrey High Level Review of South of Fraser Community Rail Proposal, Final Report –
UMA January 2007
12. Calgary light rail transit surface operations and grade-level crossings, D Colquhoun, J. Morrall, J
Hubbell Calgary Transit, City of Calgary http://pubsindex.trb.org/view.aspx?id=453018
13. Wikipedia

Acknowledgments:

My wife & co-director, Kate for her belief, unstinting support and encouragement
My daughter Aisling Coward, my reason for coming over to Chilliwack
John Buker, Rail for the Valley
Malcolm Johnston, Rail for the Valley
Mike Chambers, Rail for the Valley
Peter Holt - Buckley Blair & Associates
Roger Nathan, Surrey BC, for his suggestions
Lyndon Henry aka Nawdry, for the US perspective
Scott McIntosh - Mott MacDonald http://www.mottmac.com/markets/transport/rail/ for
everything about Light Rail there is to know.
Stuart Hall a colleague on the CTRL King‟s Cross Project, for his advice on GSM-R
Ken Leach - LUL DSM King‟s Cross St.Pancras, for his wise words & knowledge
Steve Barber, Nottingham, for his advice & suggestions
Ron Denman - Director Chilliwack Museum
Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA)
Jim Harkins - Light Rail (UK) Ltd, for his encouragement
All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group APPLRG [Light Rail (UK) Ltd]
http://www.applrguk.co.uk/articles
Tony Young - Transportation Consultant
Light Rapid Transit Forum (LRTF)
Christof Henseler, Eduard de Jong, Ernst Kers & Jos Straathoff, Eurotram E-Group, for their
assistance on European Tram-Trains
Simon Smiler http://citytransport.info/Trams02.htm

55 | P a g e
List of Appendices:
Appendix A
Figure/Photograph references and acknowledgments.

Cover - David Cockle, Stephen Parascandolo – www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk, Stephen Dee –

www.nettrams.net , Jos Straathof, http://maninblue1947.wordpress.com/category/public-
transport/ , VALTAC, Tourism Chilliwack - Paul Enns, Harald Jahn
Frontispiece – David Cockle & Peter Relf
1. Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society
2. Neil Roughley http://www.vanc.igs.net/~roughley/whats_new.html
3. Aisling Coward
4. Aisling Coward
5. www.panoramacanada.ca
6. Google Street View
7. Google Street View
8. Google Street View
9. David Cockle
10. Stephen Parascandolo http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/
11. John MacDonald
12. Raymond S. Farand
13. John Means Whatever
14. David Cockle
15. www.tramstore21.eu
16. Blackpool Gazette
17. Stephen Dee http://www.nettrams.net/index.html
18. Churchill-Flickr
19. Churchill-Flickr
20. Jos Straathoff
21. Wikipedia
22. Wikipedia
23. http://www.karlsruher-modell.de/en/index.html
24. http://www.karlsruher-modell.de/en/index.html
25. www.urbanrail.net
26. K. Wunsche www.trambudgie.de
27. www.railway-technology.com
28. Michael Raclin
29. www.dexigner.com
30. Akos Varga aka Hamster http://hampage.hu/trams/e_index.html
31. C. Patriarca
32. Wikipedia
33. www.bahnbilder.de
34. Ikka Siissalo

56 | P a g e
Appendix B
Maps of proposed Interurban

Historical Map of the Fraser Valley Interurban

Courtesy of Valley Transportation Advisory Committee VALTAC
http://www.valtac.org/,

Proposed route of the Fraser Valley Interurban

Courtesy of Rail for the Valley RftV http://rftv.wordpress.com/

57 | P a g e
Southern Railway of British Columbia (SRY)
Courtesy of SRY http://www.sryraillink.com/

Fraser Valley railway lines

Courtesy of Canadian National Railway Company
http://cnplus.cn.ca/it/Shortlines/SL_Static.nsf/shortlines/150ECBF0AA9EC32F86256
826006DCA8F?opendocument

58 | P a g e
Appendix C

The Case for Light Rail

Liveable Cities – The Role of Tramways and Light Rail
Jim Harkins – Light Rail (UK) Ltd for All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group
[APPLRG]

http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lruk%20v.1%20role%20of%20light%20rail%20&%20t
ramways%20v.%20150610.pdf

Controlling Costs – Affordable New Starts

Scott McIntosh – Light Rapid Transit Forum [LRTF]

http://www.lightrailuk.com/applrg/pdf/applrg-04-11-2008.pdf

Widening the Potential Benefits of Light Rail to Combat Congestion

Tony Young – All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group [APPLRG]

http://www.lightrailuk.com/applrg/pdf/applrg-undated.pdf

Light Rail & Trams, a Low Cost, Affordable & Sustainable Mode
Tony Young – All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group [APPLRG]

http://www.applrguk.co.uk/files/lr%20applrg%20tony%20young%2004%2011%2008.
pdf

Employment in Sustainable Transport

A Report for Passenger Transport Executive Group (pteg), the Campaign for Better
Transport, Sustrans, 2010

http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/D09F59E8-72C6-438C-8964-
60A1993A8F48/0/EmploymentintheSustainableTransportSectorpdf.pdf

59 | P a g e
Appendix D
Proposed Interurban/Community vehicle references

2nd hand/used electric & diesel LRV/Interurban vehicles

References:
1. Siemens Regio Sprinter, as per trials in Calgary in 1996
http://www.barp.ca/bus/alberta/ct/regiosprinter.html
2. Bombardier Talent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talent_(train) also as per
Ottawa 0-Train http://www.octranspo.com/train_menue.htm
3. Stadler GTW http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_GTW in use on New Jersey
transit River Line, between Trenton & Camden.
http://www.njtransit.com/sf/sf_servlet.srv?hdnPageAction=LightRailTo
4. Siemens Desiro http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Desiro and
http://www.mobility.siemens.com/mobility/en/pub/urban_mobility/rail_solutions
/commuter_and_intercity.htm and San Diego Sprinter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprinter_(passenger_rail)
5. Possible Colorado Railcar
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Railcar#Mass_transit_DMUs
6. Possible second hand option; Duewag/Scandia MR
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/single-view/view/10/dsb-agrees-desiro-
dmu-framework-contract.html ex-Danish railways

Duwag TW6000‟s ex-Hannover

http://villamosok.hu/tipus/tw6000_a.html

German Stadtbahn B80 or 100 cars

Bonn. Akos Varga. Dortmund. Jos Straathof.

Bombardier K5000 ex-Bonn Jos Straathof

60 | P a g e
Bombardier A32 Tram Trains from the Gouda to Alphen line (Netherlands) may now be out
of use, since a contract has or will be placed for the complete Rijn-Gouwe rolling stock,
which may or may not match the A32 specification.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RijnGouweLijn

Surplus RandstadRail LRV‟s available http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RandstadRail

Also http://www.lightrail.nl/NL/nl-tour.htm and http://www.xs4all.nl/~rajvdb/lra/index.html

Both these lines are dual voltage 750/1500 v DC

http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tramtrain.htm

NCTD Sprinter/Siemens Desiro

http://www.gonctd.com/pdf_fact_sheets/Sprinter_FactSheet.pdf

Dutch site:
http://www.railfaneurope.net/list/netherlands/netherlands_nsr_del.html
Listing both Dutch heavy rail, light rail & interurban stock, which is withdrawn & possibly
available for sale, including the Rijn-Gouwe A32‟s

Ferrostaal, a German company specialising in reconditioning and sale of 2 nd use railway

vehicles
http://www.ferrostaal.com/index.php?id=411&no_cache=1&tx_editfiltersystem_pi1[cmd]=det
ail&tx_editfiltersystem_industry_pi1[uid]=92&cHash=cbf5503fbdac8b188c702f43e1bb7d57

Regio Citadis Tram Train

61 | P a g e
62 | P a g e
Appendix E

Train-Trams, Zwickau, Riverline & Seetalbahn

LRTA June 2006 via Light Rail (UK)

http://www.lightrailuk.com/pdf/axel_kuehn.pdf

Tram-Train in the UK?

Network Rail (INCOSE) February 2009

http://www.incoseonline.org.uk/Documents/Groups/Railway/RIG_090225_tram_train
_in_the_UK.pdf

Tram Train: The 2nd Generation; New Criteria for the `Ideal Tram Train City’

http://www.lightrail.nl/TramTrain/tramtrain.htm

Paris T4, Jos Strathoff

Alicante, Andrew Moglestue

63 | P a g e
Appendix F
Electric Traction beyond the Wires
Scott McIntosh April 2009

We discussed at our recent Abbey Line meeting potential ways of using recycled tramway
equipment for use on Community Railways. I pointed out that electrification at 600-750V dc
can be undertaken at lower cost than is initially thought. Nevertheless, we agreed that there
are lines where even low-cost electrification would not be economic and I pointed out that
this did not necessarily preclude the use of recycled tramway equipment.

The photograph above shows a train on the Rotterdamsche Tramweg Mij. (RTM) a series of
interurban light railways to the south west of the city of Rotterdam. The system was an early
user of diesel-mechanical railcars in the 1930s. Damage during the Second World War
meant that the company had to buy, rebuild and operate new vehicles from a number of
sources. Their most ambitions effort was railcar set M1700, created in 1963; this consisted of
two electric trams, previously operated by Deutsche Bundesbahn (DB) on a light rail line in
west Germany, sandwiching a home built generator trailer. This trailer contained a diesel
electric generator, a small supplementary passenger/luggage saloon and two end vestibules
and was styled to match the two tramcars; it fed current through the tramcar controllers to the
existing traction motors on the trams. When the railway was run down and closed in the mid-
late 1960s M1700 was acquired by the Zillertalbahn in Austria in 1966. It was used in
regular service until new railcars arrived in 1984, since then it has formed part of the reserve
fleet, although there have been attempts to return the unit to the Netherlands for use on a
preserved railway.

64 | P a g e
M1700 at Spijkenisse, RTM in 1965 M1700 in use on the ZB Austria

The photograph above shows the general arrangement of the set in use on the Zillertalbahn.
The two ex DB trams are little modified apart from the provision of a power bus line in
replacement for the pantograph. The home-built generator trailer is a remarkably good visual
match; it runs on bogies recovered from a scrapped carriage. The leading vestibule of the
trailer had provision for the fitting of a controller so the set could be run as a two car set if
required – I have no evidence that this was ever done - there is then an entrance vestibule and
a 2-bay seating area, the 3 bays with toplights only, is the motor-generator space.

The advantages of this arrangement are:

the passengers are well insulated from the noise and vibration of the motor-generator
the weight is distributed across a larger number of axles
the tramcars need minimal alteration
the maintenance facility can be a short shed only covering a single car.

65 | P a g e
A little history

These ideas are not new. Heilmann’s experiments in France in the 1890s explored a variety
of electric traction systems, including locomotives and trains where each vehicle was
powered by a through train busbar, fed from a conductor rail or a power station on wheels.

During the prosperous 1920s in Argentina the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway
(BAGSR) was interested in electrifying their suburban lines around the capital and ordered
two electric multiple units from the UK. The CME of BAGSR was reluctant to initiate full
electrification of the lines around Buenos Aires due to its cost, but believed in the idea of
powered coaching stock, in this case drawing power from a diesel electric generator set
installed in a 'mobile power house'. Accordingly, two 1,200hp mobile power houses,
numbered UE 1 & 2, were delivered in late 1930; each was powered by two Sulzer 8LV28
cylinder engines developing 600hp at 700rpm, powering an Oerlikon main generator.
Traction motors under the coaches were powered by the mobile power houses. They
remained in service at least until 1948.

The success of this experiment led BAGSR to order three 1700hp mobile power houses in
1933. Numbered UE 3, 4 &5 they were used to haul eight coaches. As with UE 1 & 2 the
performance of these three trainsets was impressive, particularly in light of their quick
turnround times at the termini, however for most of their lives they slotted in to steam
diagrams. These mobile power houses remained in service at least until 1959.

London Transport studied these units and one of the options for modernising the
Metropolitan Line under the 1935-40 ‘New Works Programme’ was to introduce electric
multiple units, with mobile power houses being coupled on at Rickmansworth to take the
train beyond the end of the conductor rails to the end of the line. The war and post war
spending restrictions killed the idea and when modernisation was finally approved it was the
far les innovative scheme of taking the conductor rails to Amersham and giving up the rest.

I looked at the concept when examining the possibility of an early tram-train operation in
Blackpool in the early 1990s. The concept was that trams would run ‘on the wire’ to Starr
Gate and then use a diesel generator to run over the Blackpool South – Preston line as far as
Lytham. I looked at two ways of doing this;

Taking one saloon in a Progress Twin-car set out of passenger use and inserting a
diesel generator in its place. The trailers were robustly built in the 1960s and
preliminary discussions with the rolling stock team at Blackpool indicated that the car
could carry a generator set – Blackpool already had some experience of fitting such a
set in the former passenger saloon of a works car. The problem with this approach
was that it would reduce passenger capacity by 25%, the noise and vibration would be
closer to the passengers and the dead weight of the generator set would have to be
carried under the wire from Starr Gate to Fleetwood. (You may care to share these
thoughts with tour Departmental colleagues specifying the IEP)

66 | P a g e
 Providing a small fleet of generator trailers. These adopted the concept of the BR
Brake Tender of the 1960’s, in that they would be low enough for the driver of a tram
to look over the tender to see the line ahead. A generator tender would be waiting at
Starr Gate, the tram would couple up to it and it would then be pushed to Lytham as it
provided the traction current. The unit would be towed in the reverse direction and
then dropped off at Starr Gate to await the next tram. The advantage of this system is
that it insulates the passengers from the noise and vibration; there would be no dead
weight to haul ‘under the wires’ and only a limited number of trailers would be
required. This seemed to offer an inexpensive option for extending tram services over
the line.

When diesel locomotive haulage of unfitted goods trains was first introduced, it was considered that
the locomotives would have insufficient brake power to control their trains, so some special "diesel
brake tenders" were introduced. These were heavy wagons (35½ - 37½ tons) fitted with automatic
vacuum brakes. On some BR Regions they were usually pushed by the loco, but on the Southern
Region it was normal practice to pull them.

Experimental operation of a standard Stadtbahn car in Essen coupled to a natural gas – powered
generator trailer. The unit was used to provide demonstration runs in 1999 as part of plans to bring
a non-electrified industrial railway back into service as a light railway

67 | P a g e
Applicability today

The RTM concept could be applied to the provision of a lightweight tram-train for non
electrified lines in the UK. The ex-Berlin Tatra T6 cars were examined for possible use on
the Abbey Line and a description of the car is included in the Phase1 Report. Briefly the car
is a single ended, single sided car, some 15m long. Coupling a pair of these cars back to back
would produce a double-ended set. The front doors could be left in their existing location to
provide driver’s access and emergency detrainment, the rear doors would be plated over and
the redundant equipment used to provide an off-side door. The two centre doors would then
be raised to provide UK platform-level access.

Interior and exterior views of Berlin rebuilt T6 cars

If a pair of these T6 cars was used to sandwich a central generator trailer then a modern
version of the RTM M1700 set would be achieved.

Tatra bogies identical to those in use under the T6 are readily available on the second hand
market at scrap metal prices. The majority of these bogies are motorised, but it is a simple
matter to remove the traction motors, retaining the drive train and cardan shaft friction
brakes. One motor could be left on one truck, thus permitting the motor trailer some limited
manoeuvring capacity, independent of the rest of the train, whilst under limited local control.
An alternative would be to obtain some of the trailer trucks provided under the Tatra
beiwagen trailers supplied to East Germany and Russia. All of these bogies could be
controlled from the motor cars, thus providing a fully-braked train.

The chassis of the generator trailer would be easy to fabricate and the body would only need
to be a lightweight cover for the motor generator unit – unless it is desired to provide some
limited passenger and luggage capacity on the trailer. The motor generator set could be a
normal commercial unit, since many of these are designed to be housed within a normal sea
container there should be few problems in fitting them within the confines of a normal rail
vehicle. It is recommended that thought is given to improving the environmental
performance of the set by introducing a form of ‘hybrid drive’; this could be achieved by
‘floating’ the output of the generator, using a battery, flywheel accumulator or a bank of
super-capacitors. Such an arrangement would allow the unit to accelerate by drawing on the
energy store and to decelerate using the regenerative capacity of the tram – feeding the

68 | P a g e
current into the energy store. Similar arrangements are used on ‘hybrid drive’ road vehicles,
in the Bombardier super-capacitor tram and in the Parry People Mover.

A 3 car set of T6+GT+T6 would be around 45m long and provide a capacity of over 150
passengers (72 seated and 80 standing in the two T6s, plus whatever is proposed for the
generator trailer. The train would have a top speed of around 65kmh and an acceleration of
around 1m/s/s. This performance may not make such a set suitable for longer-distance
interurban work, such as the Penistone Line, but it would certainly be an attractive substitute
for a Pacer on shorter lines (St Ives branch, Stourbridge, Severn Beach, rebuilt Alnwick, etc.)
where there is no need for physical inter-running with main line trains.

Experiment

An experimental set could be built very cheaply; the T6 cars are currently available at low
prices from Germany, spare parts are readily available at scrap metal prices and the diesel
generator set would be a standard commercial product. All that is required is the fabrication
of the diesel generator car body and the modifications to the two T6 cars. If the experiment is
not a success then the diesel generator set can be recovered and sold on, reducing the overall
cost of the experiment.

This experimental set could then be compared with the cost and performance of existing
diesel railcars in the 14X, 15X series – and the Parry cars at Stourbridge.

Whilst the current proposal is for a relatively small train, there is no reason why the concept
could not be enlarged to allow larger articulated trams to be used and the decouplable
generator trailer concept could be used to allow through operation of trams in places such as
Manchester (Manchester – Marple line) or Sheffield (Penistone Line), the concept could also
be expanded to allow the extension of Merseyrail services over the Bidston-Wrexham line –
without the cost of electrification. It is important to note that in the Manchester, Sheffield
and Mersey cases this type of operation could be considered as an intermediate stage in the
development of a full electric network; hybrids could prove the business case and then the
generators redeployed elsewhere once the funds for electrification are available.

SMcI v2 20 April 2009.

Annex A.

Mobile Power Houses in Argentina

In 1929 the Buenos Aires Great Southern Railway (BAGSR) obtained from
Armstrong Whitworth in the UK, two 1,200hp mobile power houses (MPH),
numbered UE 1 & 2, used to power five coaches, three 1st & two 2nd class. Traction
motors under the coaches were powered by the MPH's. One was loaned to the FC
Buenos Aires Pacifico. The CME of BAGSR was reluctant to initiate full
electrification of the lines around Buenos Aires due to its cost, but believed in the idea

69 | P a g e
of powered coaching stock, in this case drawing power from a diesel electric generator
set installed in a 'mobile power house'. These units were semi-permanently coupled to
five coach sets, the end coach being equipped with driving compartments, avoiding
reversals at the busy Buenos Aires terminals. These two locomotives were ordered
just after an order to Beardmore, the first diesel locomotives to work anywhere in
South America.
Delivered in late 1930, each was powered by two Sulzer 8LV28 cylinder engines
developing 600hp at 700rpm, powering an Oerlikon main generator & two 136hp
Metropolitan Vickers traction motors - each coach carried two 100hp motors. The
rigid frame supported four fixed axles, two of which were powered with a pony truck
at each end (1-A-2-A-1 arrangement). The components were all received separately in
Argentina, being shipped to the BAGS workshops, where the locomotives were put
together; because they were semi-permanently coupled to the coaching stock, the
MPH's carried only one driving cab. Locomotive weight was 92 tons; total train
weight was 314 tons.
They were most regularly operated out of the Plaza Constitucion terminal to Quilmes,
their acceleration was superior to the regular steam fleet, but the MPU powered trains
generally ran under the steam timings. Occasionally the two sets were combined. In
the early years it was the practice to stop the engines at each station stop, leading to
the engines going through the stop/start cycle over two hundred times a day! They
remained in service at least until 1948.

In 1933 Buenos Aires Great Southern obtained three further 1700hp mobile power houses, 2
x 850hp 8LV34 550rpm, cylinder dimensions 340mm x 400mm, with 8 x 134 hp traction
motors, tractive effort 38,000lb, weight in working order 148.50tons. Numbered UE 3, 4 &5
they were used to haul eight coaches, five 1st & three 2nd class. They had an increased top
speed of 70mph but had the same traction motors and reduction gearing as the first two power
houses. The newer machines were also lighter, 132 tons compared to 145 tons. The cost of
the two engine-generator sets and ancillary equipment was GBP16,400.

These three MPH's were direct descendants of the 1930 built UE 1 & 2. Improvements
included the use of two four axle trucks rather than the earlier rigid wheelbase. Each MPH
was comprised of two half units, each containing an engine generator set, though only one
unit had a driving compartment (an A-B unit in American diesel nomenclature). A third
innovation was the use of Messrs J Stone & Co's 'Skefco' roller bearings on all axles, a
welcome fitting in the dry dusty conditions of Argentina.

The Sulzer engines were coupled to Brown Boveri main generators and two English Electric
traction motors on the outer bogie of each half unit. The weight of each double unit was 133
tons, with eight coaches in tow the total train weight was 470 tons. As with UE 1 & 2 the
performance of these three train sets was impressive, particularly in light of their quick
turnround times at the termini, however for most of their lives they slotted in to steam
diagrams.

70 | P a g e
These MPH's remained in service at least until 1959, although one power-house was re-
engined with two Paxman 1,500rpm engines and Metropolitan Vickers generators.

A side view of one of the double unit mobile power houses.

A view from a 1933 issue of Diesel Railway Traction advertising Sulzer diesel engines shows the two
1,700hp mobile power houses with a lengthy train.

On November 8th 1933 the chairman of the BAGS included this statement about the early
diesel experiments on the BAGS in Argentina:

"....experiments with diesel engines were started by us some five years ago. Trials have
convinced us that this form of traction for branch lines and similar light service has
outstanding potentialities. We sent out two mobile power houses, each of 1,200bhp.
Encouraged by the results obtained from these original power houses the company acquired
three more powerful units, each of 1,700bhp. These were put into service in June this year
and up to the present have run some 45,000 miles. Each of these 1,700bhp power houses
operates an eight coach train, weight of which is 526 tons. Seating capacity is provided for
916 passengers. In addition to these units a diesel-electric locomotive of 1,700hp was sent
out. Trials of this locomotive were satisfactory. These pioneer developments in diesel traction
are being watched with great interest in railway circles and each step we have taken so far
has been attended with complete success....."

71 | P a g e
Appendix G
Proposed Interurban/Community Rail Station layouts

Mulhouse, Harald Jahn

Montpellier, Malc McDonald Dublin LUAS, David Cockle

Nantes, David Cockle Nottingham, Stephen Dee

72 | P a g e
 Appendix H
Chilliwack Interurban Stage1 Phase1 Pricing Schedule
Report
Item # Work Scope Unit Size Unit cost Qty Extension Sub Total Total
CAD$ CAD$ CAD$ CAD$

5.0 Surveys, Site Investigation & Bore holes.

Permanent way Item $ 450,000.00 4 $ 1,800,000.00
Bridges & Structures Item $ 490,000.00 5 $ 2,450,000.00
Grade crossings Item $ 420,000.00 4 $ 1,680,000.00
Embankments, Earthworks & Drainage Item $ 465,000.00 4 $ 1,860,000.00
Utilities Item $ 250,000.00 5 $ 1,250,000.00 $ 9,040,000.00 $ 9,040,000.00

all Detailed Design Fees Item $ 4,950,000.00 1 $ 4,950,000.00 $ 4,950,000.00 $ 4,950,000.00

Permanent way (track), renewal &

11.1 upgrading.
30% spot renewal km $ 38,500.00 29 $ 1,116,500.00
30% heavy renewal km $ 48,500.00 29 $ 1,406,500.00
40% heavy renewal km $ 65,000.00 40 $ 2,600,000.00 $ 5,123,000.00 $ 5,123,000.00

11.3 Passing loops

Stations & tram stops No $ 3,950,000.00 18 $71,100,000.00
Existing upgrades + capacity provisions No $ 3,350,000.00 9 $30,150,000.00 $ 101,250,000.00 $ 101,250,000.00

Civil engineering work, associated with

10.0 permanent way renewal & upgrading.
Drainage & Culverts allowance $ 4,250,000.00 $ 4,250,000.00
Track formation earthworks and
embankments. allowance $ 5,200,000.00 $ 5,200,000.00

Highway/road crossings gated

16.2 grade/level crossings.
Upgrade to Stop Sign protected No $ 45,100.00 1 $ 45,100.00
Upgrade to light & bell protected No $ 102,000.00 6 $ 612,000.00
Upgrade to gate & light protected No $ 195,000.00 7 $ 1,365,000.00
New gate & light protected crossing No $ 245,000.00 1 $ 245,000.00 $ 2,222,000.00 $ 2,222,000.00

Rail-Over Bridge strengthening &

5.0 modifications No $ 485,000.00 12 $ 5,820,000.00 $ 5,820,000.00 $ 5,820,000.00

7.1 Stations
Building m2 500 $ 1,786.00 10 $ 8,930,000.00
Station, building finishes, E & M services &
Equipment m2 500 $ 2,215.00 10 $11,075,000.00
Platforms No $ 78,000.00 20 $ 1,560,000.00
Shelters No $ 740,000.00 10 $ 7,400,000.00
Services No $ 885,000.00 10 $ 8,850,000.00 $ 37,815,000.00 $ 37,815,000.00

7.2 Tram stops

Platforms No $ 78,000.00 16 $ 1,248,000.00
Shelters No $ 740,000.00 16 $11,840,000.00
Services No $ 480,000.00 8 $ 3,840,000.00 $ 16,928,000.00 $ 16,928,000.00

9.0 Depot building and infrastructure

Depot, workshops, control room & offices m2 1,600 $ 3,725.00 1 $ 5,960,000.00
Stabling area, trackwork, fencing & security m2 16,000 $ 1,850.00 1 $29,600,000.00

9.0 Depot equipment and fitting out.

Depot, building finishes, E & M services &
Equipment m2 1,600 $ 17,500.00 1 $28,000,000.00
Fuelling facilities, vehicle washer, sand silo &
dispenser Item $ 11,250,000.00 1 $11,250,000.00
Stabling area, trackwork, fencing, facilities &
security @ Chilliwack & Scott Road No $ 9,500,000.00 2 $19,000,000.00
$ 93,810,000.00 $ 93,810,000.00

12.0,
13.0 Signalling & communications Item $ 75,000,000.00 $ 75,000,000.00

18.2 Fare collection. Item $ 21,000,000.00 $ 21,000,000.00

17.0 Vehicles. No $ 3,850,000.00 12 $46,200,000.00 $ 46,200,000.00 $ 46,200,000.00

Net Total $428,608,000.00

Provisional Sums
15.0 Utility Diversions Prime Cost $ 4,300,000.00
16.0 Highway modifications Prime Cost $ 3,850,000.00
7.0, 9.0 Land Purchase Acre 16 $ 230,000.00 1 $ 3,680,000.00
21.0 Approvals & Assurances - BCSA, CRSA, TC Prime Cost $ 4,950,000.00
Compliances & Licences - BCSA, CRSA,
21.0 RAC Prime Cost $ 4,800,000.00
21.0 Quality [ISO 9001, CSA 299.1] Prime Cost $ 2,500,000.00
6.0 Environmental Impact Report Prime Cost $ 2,250,000.00 $ 26,330,000.00 $ 26,330,000.00

Preliminary Sums
21.0 Safety Cases - BCSA, CRSA, TC Allowance $ 3,450,000.00
all Planning & Legal Allowance % Net Contract 2.50% $10,715,200.00
all Contract Insurance Allowance % Net Contract 0.80% $ 3,428,864.00
all Contract Project Management Allowance % Net Contract 4.50% $19,287,360.00 $ 36,881,424.00 $ 36,881,424.00

Total $491,819,424.00 $ 5,018,565.55 per Km

73 | P a g e
 Appendix J
Interurban Cost Summary
Stage Phase Total Cost Length Cost per Km
Km

Chilliwack to Scott Road

1 1 $491,819,424.00 98.00 $5,018,565.55 [Diesel/hybrid]

Chilliwack to Scott Road

2 $114,700,000.00 98.00 $1,170,408.16 [Electrification]

Stage 1 Total $606,519,424.00 98.00 $6,188,973.71

2 2a $117,000,000.00 10.00 $11,700,000.00 Scott‟s Road to Richmond – at grade

Richmond to Vancouver Central station

2b $246,500,000.00 18.00 $13,694,444.44 – at grade

Stage 2 Total $363,500,000.00 28.00 $12,982,142.86

3 $28,500,000.00 12.00 $2,375,000.00 Chilliwack station to Rosedale

Stage 3 Total $28,500,000.00 12.00 $2,375,000.00

Project Total $998,519,424.00 138.00 $7,235,648.00

74 | P a g e
Appendix K
Background and Report References
i. Diesel Trams – A new way forward, Charles King, Modern Railways (UK) March 2007
(Appendix D)
ii. Studie Light Rail SCI Cologne 2006 (D)
iii. LRT French comparisons - COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE DATA FROM FRENCH TRAMWAYS
SYSTEMS, SEMALY & FaberMaunsell December 2003 (UK)
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/B4142077-F4F3-4650-9012-
A65DD91E3B1F/0/LRTfrenchcomparisonsreport.pdf
iv. Making Tracks – Light Rail in England & France, Bertil Hylen +Tim Pharoah, Swedish National
Road & Transport Institute (SE)
v. Operation of Trams and Light Rail or Metro Vehicles Over Railtrack Controlled Infrastructure,
Railway Group Guidance Note (UK) 1999
vi. Advice notes for promoters considering a Light Rail scheme, PTEG (UK) 2009
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/19E6B342-4B5F-4D72-8BC0-
A96C84E53AD1/0/Lightrailadvicenotefinal.pdf
vii. Guidance on Tramways, Office of the Rail Regulator (UK) 2006
viii. Carbon Pathways for transport in the city regions, PTEG (UK) 2010
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/142EE585-84B5-4751-8632-
9F1A0FDD6F74/0/PTEGCarbonPathways_BriefingPaper_July2010.pdf
ix. What Modern Trams can do for Cities, PTEG (UK) 2006
http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/F37F7FEB-4756-4705-8185-
EEEA79F6287E/0/WhatLightRailCanDoforCitiesAppendices_0105.PDF
x. Rail in City Regions, PTEG 2006 (UK) http://www.pteg.net/NR/rdonlyres/08591B39-0DF6-
4CBB-8448-BB2E8AA333CD/0/FinalReporttoPTEGMarch2004.pdf
xi. What Light Rail can do for cities, PTEG (UK) 2005
http://www.pteg.net/PolicyCentre/LightRail/Whatlightrailcandoforcities.htm
xii. Cycles on Light Rail, Light Rail Scotland [LRTA] (UK) 2004
xiii. Technical assessment of Operating Passenger Rail on Interurban Corridors, DRL Solutions
2006 (CA)
xiv. South of Fraser Transit Plan, TransLink 2006 (CA)
xv. Rail for the Valley http://railforthevalley.wordpress.com/
xvi. Leewood Projects Ltd http://leewoodprojects.co.uk/
xvii. Light Rail Transit Association (LRTA) http://www.lrta.org/
xviii. Tramways & Urban Transit http://www.tramnews.net/
xix. Light Rail (UK) http://www.lightrailuk.com/index.shtml
xx. Light Rail Now, http://www.lightrailnow.org/
xxi. Evaluation of the E & N Railway Corridor, BC Ministry of Transport 2009 (CA)
xxii. City of Surrey High Level Review of South of Fraser Community Rail Proposal, UMA
Engineering 2007 (CA)
xxiii. Calgary light rail transit surface operations and grade-level crossings, D Colquhoun, J.
Morrall, J Hubbell Calgary Transit, City of Calgary
xxiv. Track Design Handbook for Light Rail Transit - Parsons Brinckerhoff, Quade & Douglas,
National Academy Press. TCRP Report 57, and sponsored by the Federal Transit
Administration, Transport Research Board & National Research Council (US) 2000
xxv. Office of Rail Regulation, Guidance on Tramways, Railway Safety Publication 2 (UK) 2006
xxvi. Office of Rail Regulation, Tramway Technical Guidance Notes (UK) 2008

75 | P a g e
 xxvii. Health & Safety Laboratory, A survey of UK tram and light railway systems relating to the
wheel/rail interface (UK) 2006
xxviii. Modern Railway Track 2nd Edition, Coenraad Esveld, Delft University of Technology (NL) 2001
xxix. Canadian Rail Operating Rules, The Railway Association of Canada (CA) 2008
xxx. Transport Canada – Regulation & Standards: Crossing Safety
http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/innovation/tdc-summary-14000-14030-129.htm
xxxi. City of Edmonton – LRT Design Guidelines (CA) 2009
xxxii. Keeping Your Trains on the Track – Strategies for Preventing Derailments, Ensco Inc. |
www.ensco.com (US) 2009
xxxiii. Use of Guard/Girder/Restraining rails – Transit Cooperative Research Programme, FTA (US)
2007
xxxiv. US Department of Transportation, Rail Transit Safety http://transit-
safety.volpe.dot.gov/safety/Rail/Newsletters/Winter2009/html/Winter2009.html
xxxv. Regional Transportation District Denver, Light Rail Design Criteria (US) 2005
xxxvi. Ottawa’s Transitway: From Busway to Light Rail - David James, University of Calgary
September 2008 http://homepages.ucalgary.ca/~dpjames/mdp/david_james-mdp-final.pdf
xxxvii. Handbook of Railway Vehicle Dynamics, Edited by Simon Iwnicki CRC Press
http://www.crcnetbase.com/isbn/9780849333217 (CA) 2006
xxxviii. Bombardier Transportation http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation
xxxix. Siemens Transportation (USA)
http://www.transportation.siemens.com/usa/en/pub/home.htm
xl. Unofficial Croydon Tramlink web site http://www.croydon-tramlink.co.uk/
xli. Unofficial Nottingham Express Transit website http://www.nettrams.net/
xlii. All Party Parliamentary Light Rail Group [APPLRG] http://www.applrguk.co.uk/
xliii. Modern Railways http://www.modern-railways.com/
xliv. International Railway Journal http://www.railjournal.com/
xlv. Transportation Research Board, TRB Publications Index (US) http://pubsindex.trb.org/
xlvi. Public Transport – an important key to the prosperity of a city, Carmen Hass-Klau (D)
http://www.tem.fi/files/19645/Hass_Klau_esitys_ti27052008.pdf
xlvii. Bus or Light Rail: making the right choices, Carmen Hass-Klau, Volker Deutsch. - April 2000
(D)
xlviii. FRB - A Cost Comparison of Transportation Modes, Professor Patrick M. Condon, Kari Dow
http://www.sxd.sala.ubc.ca/8_research/sxd_FRB07Transport.pdf
xlix. Rail Transit In America, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Todd Litman
http://www.vtpi.org/railben.pdf
l. Evaluating New Start Transit Program Performance Comparing Rail & Bus September 2006
Victoria Transport Policy Institute, Lyndon Henry Capital Metropolitan Transportation
Authority Austin, Texas http://www.vtpi.org/bus_rail.pdf

76 | P a g e
List of Tables

Table 1: Proposed Interurban/Community Rail – distance matrix

77 | P a g e
Table 2: Proposed Interurban/Community Rail – journey time matrix

78 | P a g e
 Table 3: Schedule of bridge structures

Proposal Location CTA/ Hwy Type Construction Crossing Comments

Ref No Agency
Designation
Highway River/ Railway
/Road stream
Airport Rd Rail
B10-01 _ Steel box girder _ Vedder _ Single span
Chilliwack Over
TCH &
Rail
B10-02 Chilliwack Highway 1 Steel box girder Luckakuck _ _ 3-span
Over
Way
Rail
B10-03 Yarrow _ Steel bowstring _ Vedder _ 2-span
Over
Rail Timber deck & Marion
B10-04 Arnold _ _ _ Single span
Over beam & pier Road
Rail Timber deck & Arnold
B10-05 Arnold _ _ _ Single span
Over beam & pier Road
Upper Rail Timber deck & Bowman
B10-06 _ _ _ Single span
Sumas Over beam & pier Road
Upper Rail Timber deck & Un- Un-
B10-07 _ _ Single span
Sumas Over beam & pier classified named
Upper Rail Timber deck & Lamson
B10-08 _ _ _ 3-span
Sumas Over beam & pier Road
Upper Rail Timber deck &
B10-09 _ Maher Rd _ _ Single span
Sumas Over beam & pier
Trans-
Rail PCC beam &
B10-10 Abbotsford Highway 1 Canada _ _ Single span
Under Insitu RC deck
Hwy
PCC beam &
Rail South
B10-11 Abbotsford Highway 11 Insitu-RC piers _ _ 4- span
Under Fraser Hwy
& deck
Rail PCC beam & Maclure
B10-12 Abbotsford _ _ _ Single span
Under Insitu RC deck Road
Diamond Clayburn
B10-13 Abbotsford _ grade _ _ CPR
crossing Rd
Gifford
Rail Un-
B10-14 [Glenmore _ Steel box girder _ _ Single span
Over named
Road]
Timber trestle,
Rail County
B10-15 Sperling 264th street steel beams _ _ Single span
Under Line Road
Insitu RC deck
Livingstone Trans-
Rail Insitu RC walls Twin Single
B10-16 /Trinity Highway 1 Canada _ _
Over & deck span
Western Uni Hwy
PCC beam &
Rail Duncan Multi span
B10-17 Langley 204a St Insitu RC piers _ _
Under Way viaduct
& deck
th
PCC beam & 176 Street
Pacific Rail
B10-18 Cloverdale Insitu RC piers Cloverdale
Highway 15 Under
& deck Bypass
Surrey 56th Rail
B10-19 10 Steel trestle _ Pit _ Single span
Ave Over

79 | P a g e
 Table 4: Schedule of grade highway crossings

Proposal Location Hwy/Avenue Hwy/Avenue/St Existing Grade Crossing Type Interurban Up- Comment
Ref No /Street Ref Name grade
Gate & Light & Stop Sign SSP ¦ GLP ¦
Light Bell Protected LBP
Protected Protected
8898 Young
G10-01 Chilliwack _ √ _ _ _
Rd
45822
G10-02 Chilliwack _ _ _ √ LBP
Hocking Ave
45722 Airport
G10-03 Chilliwack _ _ _ √ LBP
Rd
45786 Knight
G10-04 Chilliwack _ _ _ √ LBP
Rd
45786 Web
G10-05 Chilliwack _ √ _ _ _
Ave
7140 Vedder
G10-06 Chilliwack _ _ √ _ GLP
Rd
G10-07 Chilliwack _ Spruce Drive - - √ LBP
6974 Evans
G10-08 Chilliwack _ _ √ _ GLP
Rd
6520
G10-09 Chilliwack _ _ √ _
Unsworth Rd
44440 S.
G10-10 Chilliwack _ _ _ √ LBP
Sumas Rd
G10-11 Chilliwack _ Lickman Rd - - √ -
Keith Wilson
G10-12 Chilliwack _ _ _ √ _
Rd
Vedder North
G10-13 Chilliwack _ _ _ √ _
Dyke Road
Lumsden No existing
G10-14 Chilliwack _ _ _ _ SSP
Road protection
42762 Yarrow
G10-15 Chilliwack _ Central Rd
_ _ √ LBP
G10-16 Chilliwack _ Wilson Road - - √ -
G10-17 Chilliwack _ Belrose Road - - √ -
G10-18 Abbotsford _ Old Yale Rd - - √ -
680 Whatcom
G10-19 Abbotsford _ Rd
_ _ √ _
Kenny Rd
G10-20 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Angus
G10-21 Abbotsford _ Campbell Rd
_ _ √ _
34888
G10-22 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Boundary Rd
Cherry St
G10-23 Abbotsford 9 √ _ _ _
Sumas Way
G10-24 Abbotsford 11 √ _ _ _
4th Avenue
G10-25 Abbotsford _ _ √ _ _

80 | P a g e
Proposal Location Hwy/Avenue Hwy/Avenue/St Existing Grade Crossing Type Interurban Up- Comment
Ref No /Street Ref Name grade
Gate & Light & Stop Sign SSP ¦ GLP ¦
Light Bell Protected LBP
Protected Protected
34540 Vye
G10-26 Abbotsford _ _ √ _ _
Rd
Marshall Rd
G10-27 Abbotsford _ √ _ _ _
33842
G10-28 Abbotsford _ Essendene √ _ _ _
Ave
33813
George
G10-29 Abbotsford _ √ _ _ _
Ferguson
Way
2931
G10-30 Abbotsford _ _ √ _ _
McCallum Rd
Maclure Rd
G10-31 Abbotsford _ √ _ _ _
33618 Valley
G10-32 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Rd
33880
G10-33 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Clayburn Rd
33140
G10-34 Abbotsford _ Townshipline _ _ √ _
Rd
5142
G10-35 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Gladwin Rd
5336
G10-36 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Glenmore Rd
31421 Harris
G10-37 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Rd
30974 N
G10-38 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Burges Ave
5895 Mt
G10-39 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Lehman Rd
5658 Ross
G10-40 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
Rd
Bradner Rd
G10-41 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
5490 Rand
G10-42 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
St
56th Avenue
G10-43 Abbotsford _ _ _ √ _
5948 Jackman
G10-44 Abbotsford 272 St Rd _ _ √ _

26700 _
G10-45 Abbotsford 62nd Ave _ _ √ _

26306 64th _
G10-46 Abbotsford Ave --- --- √ ---

81 | P a g e
Proposal Location Hwy/Avenue Hwy/Avenue/St Existing Grade Crossing Type Interurban Up- Comment
Ref No /Street Ref Name grade
Gate & Light & Stop Sign SSP ¦ GLP ¦
Light Bell Protected LBP
Protected Protected
_
G10-47 Abbotsford 258th St _ _ √ _
th
6900 256 _
G10-48 Abbotsford _ _ √ _
St
6762 248th _
G10-49 Langley _ _ √ _
St
7060 240th _
G10-50 Langley _ _ √ _
St
23702 _
G10-51 Langley _ _ √ _
72nd Ave
7588 _
G10-52 Langley √ _ _ _
232nd St
7600 Glover
G10-53 Langley _ √ _ _ _
Rd
_
G10-54 Langley 216th St √ _ _ _
21482 Smith
G10-55 Langley _ _ _ √ _
Crescent
Crush
G10-56 Langley _ √ _ _ _
Crescent
G10-57 21150
Langley _ Worrell √ _ _ _
Crescent
G10-58 20780 Mufford
Langley _ Crescent
√ _ _ _
G10-59 20698
Langley 10 Langley √ _ _ _
Bypass
G10-60 5981 200th
Langley _ √ _ _ _
St
G10-61 19879 Fraser
Langley 1A √ _ _ _
Highway
G10-62 19462 Langley
Langley 56th Ave √ _ _ _
Bypass
G10-63 _
Langley 192nd St √ _ _ _
G10-64 _
Langley 188th St _ _ √ _

G10-65 Langley 184th St _ _ _ √ _

5566 168th
G10-66 Surrey _ √ _ _ _
St
th th
56 Ave/164 Old McLellan
G10-67 Surrey 10 St
√ _ _ _ Rd
6010 156th
G10-68 Surrey _ _ _ √ _
St
G10-69 Surrey 152nd St _ √ _ _ _
14851 64th
G10-70 Surrey _ √ _ _ _
Ave

82 | P a g e
Proposal Location Hwy/Avenue Hwy/Avenue/St Existing Grade Crossing Type Interurban Up- Comment
Ref No /Street Ref Name grade
Gate & Light & Stop Sign SSP ¦ GLP ¦
Light Bell Protected LBP
Protected Protected
6442 148th
G10-71 Surrey _ √ _ _ _
St
6692 144th
G10-72 Surrey _ √ _ _ _
St
G10-73 Surrey 138th St _ _ √ _ GLP
7046 King
G10-74 Surrey 99A George Hwy
_ √ _ GLP
13530
G10-75 Surrey _ _ √ _ GLP
72nd Ave
13236 76th
G10-76 Surrey _ _ √ _ GLP
Ave
7560
G10-77 Surrey _ _ √ _ _
132nd St
12898 80th
G10-78 Surrey _ _ √ _ _
Ave
th th nd
8116 128 128 /82 Ave
G10-79 Surrey √ _ _ _
St intersection
12090 Nordel
G10-80 Surrey _ Way
√ _ _ _
th
12066 88
G10-81 Surrey _ √ _ _ _
Ave
G10-82 Surrey 120th St Scott Road _ √ _ GLP
11944
G10-83 Surrey _ _ √ _ _
92nd Ave
11884 96th
G10-84 Surrey _ _ _ √ _
Ave
9880 120th
G10-85 Surrey _ √ _ _ _
St
12422
G10-86 Surrey _ _ √ _ _
104th Ave
106th Ave
G10-87 Surrey _ _ _ √ _
& 125a St
12538 Old
G10-88 Surrey - Yale Road
_ √ _ _
12566 New Grade
G10-89 Surrey _ _ _ _ GLP
110th St Crossing

83 | P a g e