CL528: Double tracking the Canada Line to Brighouse

CL#528. 2017-10-17

I took a look at just "how hamstrung Brighouse is" and I drew up a sketch for a potential station. It seems there is ample space for the second track pretty much all the way up to the station with the exception of the very end where the building is in the way. We have a few options.

1. Double track almost all the way up to the station. (cars wouldn't have to wait at Landsdown to leave for Brighouse).
2. Double track to the station, then rebuild the station as a stacked station.
3. Double track to the station and switch over the current brighouse platform to NB only. Create new SB platform that is accessed from the other side of the street. (shown below)

New Southbound Tracks, Platform and Concourse for the Canada Line at Brighouse Station

Comments

Migrant Coconut: Option 3 reduces half the foot traffic at street level!
I very much like Option 3. Creative, and since most Brighouse commuters are headed to the mall anyway, it reduces half the foot traffic at the pedestrian crossing!

roger1818: Option 1 is good enough but any double tracking would be disruptive.
I suspect option 1 is good enough considering the line is split anyway, so the Richmond leg won't be at maximum capacity. Even if they have more trains going to Richmond than the Airport, they could still have the trains leave Brighouse at even intervals (to avoid a bottleneck) and adjust the speed and dwell times of the trains to feather them in with the trains from YVR. Regardless, double tracking would be highly disruptive.

dleung: Note that the original decision to single track was political not financial.
We should recall that the decision to single track to Brighouse wasn't because of budget issue. Double track was originally intended, but the geriatrics at Richmond city council didn't like the heavy guideway ruining the quaint arterial that is No 3 Road, and wanted an at-grade LRT, but settled on single-track for less "visual impact".

officedweller: Columns would need rebuilding. Would need to use Lansdowne as a temporary terminus station.
Factors to consider:

Single to Double Tracks at Lansdowne

• The columns for the single guideway are smaller (guideway could also be rebuilt as a lighter steel box girder):
• availability of clearance and RoW space at the existing station for horizontal expansion to fit a new platform
• new platform wouldn't need to be a centre platform, as it would no longer be a terminus station (assuming expansion tied to southern extension)
• rebuilding in place would depend on feasibility of using Lansdowne as a temporary terminus station (i.e. if Lansdowne mall redeveloped in the interim, there may be no room for temporary bus bays)

Single track guideway and columns north of Richmond-Brighouse Station

waves: Are the columns the same diameter?
The columns look like they have the same diameter up until the top piece which is bigger for the dual track. Is this just the photos deceiving me? How much smaller in diameter are the single track ones? Interesting idea to use steel to reduce the weight. It's too bad the rotem trains are a lot heavier than the LIM skytrains.

officedweller: They are slightly narrower,
Yeah, come to think of it, the steel box girders may all be on the SkyTrain Lines, not the Canada Line. I think the shaft of the single columns may be a bit narrower.

officedweller: A median "Brentwood" like station could be a solution.
If the solution is a median station instead of rebuilding in place, it would need to have a mezzanine - i.e. taller guideway, but if new guideway is all the way from Lansdowne, could be doable. Platforms for a new median station could be cantilevered over the roadway - like at Brentwood Station. This would requiring only fat columns to support the whole station structure.  Overpass supports to the mezzanine would land on opposite sidewalks. A dual guideway would need to be located in the centre median of No. 3 Rd. Temporary terminus could be established at Lansdowne while the project is completed.

cornholio: Might be very faster and cheaper for this solution.
I assume that would be the simplest and cheapest solution. officedwellers ideas would shorten any rebuild if new columns were cast before the old guide-way was taken down. I assume if the columns are in place you could probably take down the old guideway and put up the new one in less then a month. Then the question is what you do with the station, rebuild it as well or do a patch job...the station is the difficult and time consuming part (unless you build a new one on the west side or center of the road).

cganuelas1995: It would eliminate all street level pedestrian movements.
For Option 3 by waves, you'd have to take into account that if a passenger were to enter on the wrong platform, they would have to tap out, cross the street, then tap in again. A center platform would eliminate that.

ryanmaccdn: The trade-off is that center platform have lower capacity.
Keep in mind however that center platforms however have significantly reduced capacity comparatively.

waves: Seems like a shame/waste to demolish the existing station.
As much as I think the station being in the middle of No.3 would have been a good idea if Richmond-Brighouse didn't exist, why would they bother demolishing the old station when they can just add on to it and meet the objectives just the same?

Migrant Coconut: This. If it ain't broke, don't demolish it. 
Plus the fact that the median is nowhere near big enough to fit a station. Having a platform on either end of the street works just fine in most cities; nothing that proper signage, basic observation, or just plain old asking for directions can't fix.

dleung: Terminus stations are usually center platformed for operation flexibility.
Terminus stations are always center platform because passengers can board the next train whichever side it arrives in. It should've been the case for Brighouse, but now, doubletracking with a switch just before the station is the only bandaid solution now that the station can't expand east due to new development.

Dave2: But what about King George and VCC-Clark?
Huh? King George and VCC-Clark are terminus stations with side platforms.

waves: They are only temporary terminus in lieu of final system build out.
King George and VCC-Clark were never intended as the final terminus stations. They were built with extending to UBC and to Langley in mind.

dleung: Ok, but how do they work in the meantime?
For those platforms, how do people know which platform to go up to? Is one of the platforms permanently closed? Or are there signs at the ground level concourse directing people towards one set of stair/escalators, while only arriving passengers use the other platform?

dpogue: One platform is only inbound only and the other is outbound (and sometimes inbound).
The track layout around VCC-Clark looks like this:

At the concourse level, the signage for VCC Inbound says Do Not Enter. That platform generally only ever used for offloading trains.

Sometimes when trains are running behind schedule or when they are doing staff training exercises, trains will be crossed over in front of the station, so the train arrives on the outbound platform for both unloading and loading.

The same sort of pattern (with almost identical switches) exists at Waterfront, and also applies to King George (but with inbound/outbound reversed).