VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Periodic reminder that Transport Canada regulations are not laws of nature — they are federal government regulations implementing federal government policy.

And they're archaic in many respects. In all fairness to TC, they have granted a waiver to OCTranspo and the O-Train.

Answer me this: If the FRA can do it for California operations, (and elsewhere) why not TC for Metrolinx and VIA/AMT through Mont-Royal tunnel? It is recommended by Metrolinx planners and mid-level staff. Where is the movement on TC's part? Even if it were Ministerial change of policy, TC staff have shown a real reluctance to embrace change. I'll detail that more later. In the event, Garneau just might be the man to force progressive change on TC.

 

[dowlingm]

FRA grant waiver for %THING% so TC will (even probably) for %OTHERTHINGWHICHISNOTTHEFIRSTTHING%.

I suppose anyTHING is possible.

 

[smallspy]

The FRA grants waivers.

Transport Canada does not, however.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

The FRA grants waivers.

Transport Canada does not, however.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

This is an important point of discussion, and I went looking for the original Transport Canada document that in at least one instance states otherwise (re 'no waivers granted'), and it is no longer on-line. Fortunately, I have a truncated copy of it in my email records, as this was discussed with someone a few years back. I post in length (although this is a fraction of the original piece) since I can't offer an on-line link, albeit the City of Ottawa also had a lengthy discourse on this:

Ottawa, Ontario
Summary
Organization

City of Ottawa — Transportation Utilities and Public Works Department, OC Transpo
Status

Started 2001, extended to 2005
Overview

[The O-Train was Ottawa’s first experience with light rail transit. The O-Train travels an 8-km track past five stations, two of which connect to the city’s bus rapid transit system (the “Transitway”), over two bridges and through a tunnel beneath Dow’s Lake. The line serves Carleton University, a major employment centre, and a shopping mall in a densely populated neighbourhood.

The O-Train was initiated to assess the technical feasibility of using an existing rail corridor for rapid transit, to validate expectations about ridership, performance and cost, and to allow proper analysis of possible larger-scale implementation.
[...]
The O-Train travels on an 8-km length of existing freight rail track, and connects to the city’s bus rapid transit system (the “Transitway”) on each end of the line. The existing corridor is owned by Canadian Pacific Railway (CPR). The line serves Carleton University, a major employment centre, and a shopping mall in a densely populated neighbourhood.

The pilot project is unique by North American standards and involves four “firsts.” It is the first time that light rail
passenger trains had been mixed with heavy rail traffic on an existing rail network, and the first time passenger rail services had been operated by a single operator. In addition, this was the first time Bombardier Talent DMU trains had been used anywhere in North America, and the first trains driven by bus operators.

[...]
The O-Train was initiated to:

Assess the technical feasibility of using an existing rail corridor for rapid transit
Validate expectations about ridership, performance and cost
Allow proper analysis of possible larger-scale implementation
[...]
Negotiating an agreement with CPR. With no prior experience in light rail, the region needed considerable outside expertise to implement the pilot project. Municipal officials negotiated a lump sum build/design contract with CPR, which gave them access to CPR’s knowledge and experience and enabled the region to control the project costs and implement the service quickly.

Partner expertise. There were no examples in North America of a single operator passenger train, so municipal officials relied on the expertise of its partners to design and implement the O-Train. More than a dozen partners lent their experience and knowledge to the project. Some of them include:

CPR, as owner of the corridor, engaged Morrison Hershfield (an engineering and management firm) to manage the project. This included design and construction administration, upgrading the lines and maintenance facilities, and building the rail stations.
Bombardier provided and maintains the trains and, with AR Concepts, developed and installed the signaling system.
Transport Canada worked with the city to develop an operating plan that met federal legislation requirements under the Rail Safety Act. The plan includes operating rules, emergency procedures, employee training programs, and a Safety Management System.
[...]
The 8-km line. Prior to the O-Train project, the CPR freight line and its rail yard were seldom used and in poor condition. CPR upgraded the line to accommodate the O-Train, and no other trains use the track except when the O-Train is not operating.

The CPR track crosses two other active rail lines, making the signalling and braking systems (discussed below) important safety elements.
[...]
Bombardier Talent Diesel Multiple Units (DMU). Three Bombardier Talent DMU trains were commissioned. The trains were built in Germany and shipped first to Montreal before arriving in Ottawa in January 2001.

The trains use Clear No. 1 diesel fuel, which contains less sulphur than other grades. The trains comply with exhaust emission requirements of Euro-II contaminant standards (the standards set by the European Union).

Each train weighs 72,000 kg, is 48 metres long, with seating capacity for 137 passengers and standing capacity for 150.

Each train is equipped with two four-stroke diesel engines, water-cooled in-line motors, and a horizontal-shaft design with exhaust gas turbocharger and charge cooler. Top speed is 120 km/hr.
[...]
Recognition. The O-Train has won several awards:

Canadian Urban Transit Association’s Corporate Innovation Award (June 2002)
American Public Works Association’s Project of the Year Award (January 2003)
FCM-CH2M Hill Sustainable Community Award, in the sustainable transportation category (May 2003)

Participants

City of Ottawa
Transport Canada
Human Resources Development Canada
Canadian Pacific Railway
Canadian National Railway
VIA Rail
Carleton University
Public Works and Government Services Canada
National Capital Commission
Ottawa Police Services
Women’s Initiative for a Safe Environment
Transport 2000
Canadian Transport Agency
Local citizens and advocacy groups
[...]
The Bombardier trains were better suited for long distance commuter service. Although the trains were a good choice for this pilot project, as the city proceeds with a more in-depth Ottawa Rapid Transit Expansion Plan Study, alternative vehicles and propulsion systems will be studied. Several requirements including turning radius for inner city use, platform height, train acceleration and vibration would be problematic for downtown service. The new trains being studied are lighter and can be mixed with downtown traffic.
[...]
http://data.tc.gc.ca/archive/eng/programs/environment-utsp-otrainlightrailproject-973.htm

I'm now reading through the City of Ottawa report, it is highly detailed and extensive:
http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

As to why that document has disappeared is a good question, I've tried Googling sections of it, nothing shows...but clearly, Transport Canada were part of the approval of (de-facto, if not factually) a 'waiver'.

I'll keep searching. Any input others can offer on this most appreciated. To be clear, this line of the O-Train is not the one now being developed and tested with the Citadis Spirits that Metrolinx has also bought into, but the 'waiver' precedent appears to stand.

Google cache saves the day! Took some digging to find this, but here it is albeit stripped of mark-up language and pics:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...3.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=ubuntu

 

[steveintoronto]

RE: Previous post addendum:

The City of Ottawa's linked web-page is still extant, quick page search for "Transport Canada" shows:

In addition, consultation with Transport Canada, CP Rail, CN Rail, VIA Rail and Railway Association of Canada has been ongoing in the development of the operating plan and in the resolution of operational issues. We have also consulted with Carleton University, Public Works Canada and the National Capital Commission about station design and construction.
---------
Fencing Installation


$ 405,000

$ 566,000

$ (161,000)

Additional fencing to meet Transport Canada requirements
---------
Summary Evaluation

Overall, the Light Rail Pilot Project can be considered a success. The pilot project has demonstrated that a single-person operator passenger railway using diesel light rail vehicles can operate successfully on a lightly used freight line. All necessary approvals were gained from Transport Canada to allow the non-standard system to run.
---------
Regulatory Issues
To operate a rail service on the railway network, it was necessary for the Region to become a railway. The light rail pilot project was incorporated as a Federal Railway with the trademark ‘Capital Railway’ in early 2000. A simpler application, to become a provincial short line, could have been made but the federal designation will permit the railway to cross the provincial boundary into Quebec in the future.

Transport Canada is the approval authority for Federal Railways and it was necessary to obtain approvals for a non-standard system. The LRPP was the first diesel light rail system in North America and also the first one-person operation passenger railway.

The Department has hired staff with experience in rail operations to implement and supervise the operations of the railway. In addition to this, it was necessary to retain the services of consultants to assist in the development of appropriate rules to govern the operation, the safety management system and the training program for operators.

Transport Canada staff were helpful throughout the process but it was necessary for the LRPP to satisfy all the requirements that would have applied to a much bigger railway. Although this involved a large amount of effort, it positions the City well to expand the system.
-----------
Conclusions
The LRPP has demonstrated that a single-person operator passenger railway can operate successfully on a lightly used freight line. All necessary approvals were gained from Transport Canada to allow the non-standard system to run.
The major technical problems experienced have been associated with achieving the planned headway, the choice of Class 3 track for the project, and the two diamonds.

The current 20-minute headway reduces the attractiveness of the service and frustrates attempts to coordinate the train schedules with the bus schedules, which operate on a 15-minute pulse. This situation cannot be improved without the addition of another train and one or more passing tracks.

Experience gained through the pilot project indicates that simply applying conventional railway wisdom to determine the minimum track condition required was not successful. Although Class 3 track would allow trains to operate above the current speed of 40 mph, the condition of the track is not conducive to a comfortable operation for the passengers and noise and vibrations would be increased. Installation of continuous welded rail (CWR), which consists of lengths of rails up to 2000 ft. long instead of the current 39 ft., would reduce noise and vibration and increase ride quality. A beneficial side effect would be a reduction in required track and equipment maintenance.
-----------
The rail traffic control arrangements need to be negotiated with CN, but for budgeting purposes it has been assumed that they can be held to the current levels.

The need for significant effort on the safety management system has been identified by Transport Canada. An increase of $54,000 in service supervision should provide for the needed assistance in this area.
-----------
In addition, consultation with Transport Canada, CP Rail, CN Rail, VIA Rail and Railway Association of Canada has been ongoing in the development of the operating plan and in the resolution of operational issues. We have also consulted with Carleton University, Public Works Canada and the National Capital Commission about station design and construction.

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/ttc/2002/12-04/ACS2002-TUP-TRN-0012.htm

So where does Transport Canada's official position stand on this now?

 

[dowlingm]

The FRA grants waivers.

Transport Canada does not, however.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Dan, I feel like VIA got some kind of variance from crush protection zones in Renaissance consists' rearmost car - does that ring any bells?

 

[cplchanb]

Dan, I feel like VIA got some kind of variance from crush protection zones in Renaissance consists' rearmost car - does that ring any bells?

too bad really...TC seriously needs to be brought up to the 21st century in terms of some of their regs. Its a shame we cant have the MUs that the rest of the world can have simply because of our archaic laws that regulators are too lazy or too thick headed to change.

 

[crs1026]

TC has a warped approach to safety analysis that treats symptoms, not root causes.

What was the leading cause of injury in the last VIA derailment? Falling luggage.

What was the root cause of the accident? Lack of automatic speed control.

What did TC order? Closable overhead luggage compartments.

What did the FRA do when an Amtrak train took a corner too fast? Ordered the speed control enhanced. Left the luggage racks alone.

- Paul

 

[dowlingm]

What did the FRA do when an Amtrak train took a corner too fast? Ordered the speed control enhanced. Left the luggage racks alone.

I take it you refer to Amtrak 188. In that case, Amtrak owned the track and the rolling stock. Nobody seems to want to tell CN and CP up here they gotta have anything they don't want to have.

 

[steveintoronto]

Dan, I feel like VIA got some kind of variance from crush protection zones in Renaissance consists' rearmost car - does that ring any bells?

TC has a warped approach to safety analysis that treats symptoms, not root causes.
- Paul

With HSR being bandied about now, TC is going to be forced to embrace change. The more I search for "waivers" in the US under FRA regs, the more results keep showing, even if it is on a 'case-by-case basis'. And I do believe from memory, that one person operation had a 'waiver' for the North Shore:
http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96q0050/r96q0050.pdf

Obviously, MMA had same, as do/did others. The only excuse I've heard for TC not coming into the modern age is the reluctance of middle management to embrace it.

Huh? Can you imagine that being the case in law-enforcement, of which this is a form? I'm sure we'll be hearing a lot more on this soon, not the least for VIA's next rolling stock order, and having to comply with yesterday's restrictions. It truly limits their options for world class trainsets.

Edit to Add: Mark posted while I was still composing:

Nobody seems to want to tell CN and CP up here they gotta have anything they don't want to have.

Indeed...

 

[smallspy]

Dan, I feel like VIA got some kind of variance from crush protection zones in Renaissance consists' rearmost car - does that ring any bells?

I guess I should apologize - my original post was a bit more obtuse than I had intended.

The FRA uses waivers. There are specific things that various bodies and agencies can apply for, and have the FRA approve or deny as they see necessary. But beyond that? It seems that the FRA is not interested in hearing about it.

TC uses a process more akin to a "business case". And as such, they are willing to hear from anyone or anything about any variance from any regulation, provided they can make an adequate case to support it.

It is by this means that Capital Railway uses the O-train equipment, VIA operates the Renaissance equipment, and how the MMA was allowed to operate with one-man crews until Lac Mégantic.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

I guess I should apologize - my original post was a bit more obtuse than I had intended.

The FRA uses waivers. There are specific things that various bodies and agencies can apply for, and have the FRA approve or deny as they see necessary. But beyond that? It seems that the FRA is not interested in hearing about it.

TC uses a process more akin to a "business case". And as such, they are willing to hear from anyone or anything about any variance from any regulation, provided they can make an adequate case to support it.

It is by this means that Capital Railway uses the O-train equipment, VIA operates the Renaissance equipment, and how the MMA was allowed to operate with one-man crews until Lac Mégantic.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Indeed, this is described by the Transportation Safety Board:

http://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-reports/rail/1996/r96q0050/r96q0050.pdf

TC have come under heavy criticism for 'making it up as they go along'...and appear to still be doing it in many cases.

The QNS&L incident was the subject of a chapter in a massive US regulatory report on Amtrak train crew numbers that I can't find on-line right now, but have found reference to the report in a book:

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ogv-GUpN8xEC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=national+transportation+safety+board+QUEBEC+NORTH+SHORE+AND+LABRADOR+RAILWAY&source=bl&ots=kQbRmw5XWP&sig=zoEyYb7HdsO9oNREKntC41bhm9c&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiog4HRlIDUAhXi7YMKHc-RBy4Q6AEIXjAJ#v=onepage&q=national transportation safety board QUEBEC NORTH SHORE AND LABRADOR RAILWAY&f=false

As to how Transport Canada has used their own report (which was quoted verbatim in the NTSB report, but unavailable to Cdns in any published report) to set regs is a good question. Lac Megantic truly shook out a lot of shortcomings in TC regulations and/or oversight.

TC needs a massive shake-up and brought into modern times.

The FRA uses waivers. There are specific things that various bodies and agencies can apply for, and have the FRA approve or deny as they see necessary. But beyond that? It seems that the FRA is not interested in hearing about it.

I know the Obama Administration had to go to bat for certain interests to ram though new regulations for the FRA. FRA is like TC in many respects, except more accountable to it's governing department.

Here's an example (and Parliament Hill, take note!)

https://www.fra.dot.gov/Page/P0060

And the HFR/HSR we get? We won't go there, it's too painful...

 

[steveintoronto]

New Via Rail plan would increase train frequency through Barrhaven
Jon Willing
More from Jon Willing
Published on: June 1, 2017 | Last Updated: June 1, 2017 5:07 PM EDT

Via Rail would eventually send trains through Barrhaven at the rate of two per hour in its proposition to establish a high-frequency service between Ontario and Quebec.

The projections are included in the study on removing level train crossings at five locations in Barrhaven.

Via has a $4-billion proposal to upgrade its service in the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal-Quebec City corridor. In the Ottawa leg, Via wants to use existing or discontinued rights of way. The Via-owned track goes through Barrhaven.

It’s unknown if Via would operate a high-frequency service through Ottawa without having grade-separated crossings completed in the southern suburb.

“Via Rail submitted the high frequency rail project to the government for consideration and it’s currently under study. As such, it will be premature to answer your question,” Via spokeswoman Miriam Diaby said in an email.

The crossings at Woodroffe Avenue, the adjacent southwest Transitway and Merivale Road each see 26 trains daily and all but one are passenger trains, the study says. The Fallowfield Road and Jockvale Road crossings see 19 trains daily, and again all but one are passenger trains.

According to the numbers provided by Via to the study authors in March 2017, the company wants to run up to 38 trains through Barrhaven by 2021 under its high-frequency rail plan. Under a regular service plan, there would be up to 32 trains rolling through the suburb by 2021.

By 2031, Via wants to run up to 48 trains through Barrhaven on its proposed high-frequency service. If it’s a regular train service, the number of trains would be up to 32 by that year.

Some of the trains would be empty as Via prepares start-of-day and end-of-day services.

The city and Via hired Parsons for the study following an investigation by the Transportation Safety Board into the September 2013 fatal collision in Barrhaven between an OC Transpo double-decker bus and a Via train.

The study confirmed that the roads should be separated from the five train crossings, but the work would cost about $430 million. The city doesn’t have that kind of money, so it would need to get the federal government to help pay.

First, there needs to be environmental assessments for the work.

Barrhaven Coun. Jan Harder said safety should come before affordability.

“We’ll have ready-to-go projects and we’ll be looking to the feds and Via to contribute to the cost,” Harder said, adding that the city has already paid the full cost of grade separation on Greenbank Road in a $58-million road-widening project.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ld-increase-train-frequency-through-barrhaven

 

[44 North]

New Via Rail plan would increase train frequency through Barrhaven
Jon Willing
More from Jon Willing
Published on: June 1, 2017 | Last Updated: June 1, 2017 5:07 PM EDT

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local...ld-increase-train-frequency-through-barrhaven

Hopefully these grade-separations don't mean the death of this project, or any other new rail proposal for that matter. They're obviously needed in many locales, but are so costly and complicated that each and every one is like a big ticket project unto itself. In Toronto we'd obviously need Steeles done, and probably McNicoll too, in P.boro Landsdowne and the Parkway, and most likely a various assortment all the way to Quebec. Have these been factored into the cost of Via's proposal in any way, or are they assumed to be borne locally?

 

[steveintoronto]

Hopefully these grade-separations don't mean the death of this project, or any other new rail proposal for that matter. They're obviously needed in many locales, but are so costly and complicated that each and every one is like a big ticket project unto itself. In Toronto we'd obviously need Steeles done, and probably McNicoll too, in P.boro Landsdowne and the Parkway, and most likely a various assortment all the way to Quebec. Have these been factored into the cost of Via's proposal in any way, or are they assumed to be borne locally?

I must admit to a bit of initial alarm by the article stating the need for an "EA", one of the very things that could slow down full operability of HFR before the crossings are done. That being said, some EAs might be needed elsewhere too. Most infrastructure changes will be covered under the Transportation Act as not needing an EA, just a legal notification to the affected local jurisdictions, but in this case, it's being pushed by the local jurisdiction to do it:

[...] “In order for these projects to fit within the city’s long-range financial plan and affordability model, partnership funding from the federal and provincial governments, and potentially Via Rail, will be required, and it is anticipated that projects will be phased in over time,” the report says.
[...]
The city wants to get moving on environmental assessments in 2018 for Woodroffe Avenue, the Transitway, Fallowfield Road and the multi-use pathway at Jockvale Road, knowing that the federal and provincial governments are keen on funding transportation projects. The studies will be part of the city’s 2018 draft budget.

The city wants to leave it to Mayor Jim Watson, with advice from the ward councillors, to start funding discussions with the other levels of government and with Via.

The cost estimates by location are: Merivale Road, $75 million; Woodroffe Avenue and Transitway, $145 million; Fallowfield Road, $130 million; and, Jockvale Road, $80 million.

The city also plans to build an overpass above the tracks on Strandherd Drive as part of a road-widening project already in the transportation master plan.[...]

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/separated-rail-crossings-in-barrhaven-area-would-cost-430m

I had to catch myself from getting discouraged from this by realizing that this is already extant RoW, and it's not going to interfere with HFR, but in fact better run-times later. The real 'take-away' from this is how it's based on a 'foregone conclusion' (my term) that HFR is imminent.

In the absence of a definitive announcement (and it may yet be a few months away) this is a very positive sign of it being imminent.

Have these been factored into the cost of Via's proposal in any way, or are they assumed to be borne locally?

Yes, but remember, HFR runs at the highest speed permitted with at-grade crossings. That "125 mph" rated top speed is by no accident, bad pun unintended. Many at grade crossings will remain.

and most likely a various assortment all the way to Quebec

See above. Some of the most problematic crossings will be addressed, as will getting past the CP Agincourt yard and a few other large ticket items, but this has already been assumed in the RoW cost for HFR. No matter how this is looked at, using the existing ex-O&Q RoW saves vast sums of money and time to build.

Edit to Add: Just surveying some of the level crossings north of Toronto, some can remain without too much of a problem, but had to laugh at the bog obvious on Hwy #7 (which will need a bridge):