VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I’ve spent less than 20 minutes on Google (search: “fire station near [village name] Ontario”) and found fire stations all along the Havelock subdivision, which is mostly covered by a 10 km radius and always covered by a 20 km radius. For larger emergencies, there are always the hospitals in Perth, Belleville and Peterborough and helicopters to transport critically injured people.

I agree that this is not a showstopper per se. The remote coverage does not deter use of Highway 7, which is a busy road and has a much greater potential accident risk today than a rail line would have. I can think of other situations - Nuclear Plants on Lake Ontario is one example - where proponents had to provide funding to municipalities to upgrade fire and rescue services to meet a desired standard.

Despite this rather desperate attempt, you all present valid concerns of varying severity and relevance, which would have to be overcome if the Havelock subdivision was to be chosen, which again: I can neither confirm nor dismiss as VIA Rail’s intent. However, if you dismiss the Havelock subdivision so easily, I would appreciate a similarly throughout and critical analysis of whatever alternative alignments are available.

Assuming you are still referring just to safety - I won't attempt this on the back of an envelope. One would have to know traffic counts at each crossing and one would look at the average distance and response time of first responders and the likely transport time to hospital for each location. One would sum this across all crossings. For what it's worth, average distances from level crossings to hospitals on the Lakeshore will be lower, which would lower the "risk score" for these. I doubt air ambulance can be an equaliser.

If, as suggested, the Havelock line will not be grade separated, then it will have a significant number of potential accident locations, although traffic levels may be lower than close to the lake. Both the CP Belleville or CN Kingston Sub have many grade separated crossings already, while the Havelock does not. It just seems counter intuitive that we would favour a new routing that would lower the current level of grade separation and raise risk levels.

Bottom line - I would guess the end "quotient" calculation would favour the Lakeshore, but that's pure speculation. Whether the difference is material is impossible to guess. I'm not going to dwell on this issue, recognizing that the EA process does attend to this and the results may be interesting either way.

Some of you have already commented on the report of the auditor general and I have struggle to reconcile the feedback I heard so far with the report I read:
These first two paragraphs set the tone for the entire report, which by the way is already the second to point out severe governance problems (recall that the CTA report also pointed out the lack of enabling legislation and coordination between the various levels of government).

It's encouraging that the A-G portrayed VIA as a fundamentally well run organization. A-G reports often are used to frame what the policy issues will be, rather than shotgunning an organization (unless there is a true scandal being exposed).

A-G audits are not the same as investigative journalism. There is often a back story. The A-G often works from auditees' self-reports, meaning VIA may well have been the one to flag this issue for discussion. It has certainly been pointed to by advocates and observers (and opposition parties, until they were voted in and became the government) over the years. What's disturbing is how obliquely the A-G framed this issue. The A-G could have poked the government a lot more.

To summarize: the federal government had approved to give CN $251 million through VIA Rail’s capital expenditure budget to triple-track 160 km of the Kingston subdivision, in order to receive 14 additional trains, reduce travel time, improve OTP and generate additional revenues and ridership. In the end, the project ran almost 50% over budget, while the scope was reduced to less than half, resulting in a tripling of the per-mile costs and no improvement on any performance criteria (even worse: OTP and ridership decreased even further).

I may have missed some of this at the time, but the first I heard of this project was after the limited (70 km) design was final. That's all that appeared on VIA's web site, at any rate. That was long before any shovels hit the ground. So, how did we get from 160 km at $1.x M per km to 70 km at $4M? Was the initial ask ever documented or put in the public domain? Did things change as the design work came in? I don't recall hearing that the project encountered any unforeseens or technical issues in the field. The construction actually was executed rather well, from my bleacher seat.

If, in asking for the funds, VIA initially represented the $1.x M per km cost as feasible, then they do deserve criticism - for poor forecasting, anyways. A lot of people would have laughed at a number that low. The $4M number sounds closer to reality, not runaway spending. One wonders if VIA had to shave this number to get it through the Ministry or Cabinet or Treasury Board - just as VIA has ended up buying HEP II cars, Ren fleet, and doing other things on the cheap.

It's important to know what happened here, because a lot depends on the validity of the $4B figure now being discussed for HFR. We can't have that number ballooning to $8B. Inquiring sidewalk superintendents want to know.


- Paul

 

[nfitz]

I agree that this is not a showstopper per se. ...

I have to say, the lack of emergency services comment just seemed off-base to me. I don't think it got much weight.

My only concerns are curvature, gradient, and the actual availability of the land itself.

If you could actually get from Union Station to Ottawa's unusually-named Station Station in 2.5 hours, then it's a brilliant solution.

But let's see what the other foot is wearing.

 

[MisterF]

I may have missed some of this at the time, but the first I heard of this project was after the limited (70 km) design was final. That's all that appeared on VIA's web site, at any rate. That was long before any shovels hit the ground. So, how did we get from 160 km at $1.x M per km to 70 km at $4M? Was the initial ask ever documented or put in the public domain? Did things change as the design work came in? I don't recall hearing that the project encountered any unforeseens or technical issues in the field. The construction actually was executed rather well, from my bleacher seat.

If, in asking for the funds, VIA initially represented the $1.x M per km cost as feasible, then they do deserve criticism - for poor forecasting, anyways. A lot of people would have laughed at a number that low. The $4M number sounds closer to reality, not runaway spending. One wonders if VIA had to shave this number to get it through the Ministry or Cabinet or Treasury Board - just as VIA has ended up buying HEP II cars, Ren fleet, and doing other things on the cheap.

It's important to know what happened here, because a lot depends on the validity of the $4B figure now being discussed for HFR. We can't have that number ballooning to $8B. Inquiring sidewalk superintendents want to know.


- Paul

The length of the route from Toronto to Montreal is something in the neighbourhood of 600 km regardless of which route is chosen. So that's around $6.7 million/km for the electrified option and $5 million/km for the diesel. But we don't know the route, let alone the scope of the work proposed. Presumably most of the work would be on the parts of the route that Via doesn't already own (Brockville, Smiths Falls, Alexandria subs), so it would stand to reason that the costs would be concentrated there. Either way, they're counting on it being more expensive than the $4 million/km it cost to do those sidings.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's sadly ironic that Desjardins-Siciliano is far better served by the foreign press than he is in Canada, and *quoted accurately*!

Railway Age has two excellent, extensive articles, up yesterday. I'm rushed right now, but will quote this from one, and link both:

As recently as the end of 2015, VIA purchased the Smiths Falls to Brockville portion of the line from CP, after investing some C$20 million in tenant improvements over the years, including new passing tracks, curve realignments and centralized traffic control. CP retains its Smiths Falls freight yard and running rights to connect with its Montreal-Toronto main line. That, perhaps, is a model for additional purchases of underutilized freight tracks between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. VIA anticipates acquiring a mixture of low-traffic freight lines and abandoned rights-of-way.

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/high-performance/national-dream-redux.html?channel=54

Other one:
http://www.railwayage.com/index.php...-panned-by-financial-watchdog.html?channel=00

Quick Edit to Add:
Fifty years in technology makes a radical difference. For tilting trains, the technology is very different, not the least that the enactment of mechanism is *software* enabled. That takes all sorts of factors into the parameters, not least *human senses* and the need to avoid nausea by jerky and wild contramovements.

Today's tilt technology is like day and night compared to fifty years ago, when it was in its inception. Even *freight* tracks are now critically canted (it is optimized at expected speed, weight, and wheel flange factors) and CP has been a leader in implementing this. Stating the performance parameters of a line fifty years ago to today is to compare propeller performance to jet performance and time over the same route. Also, the *optimal cant parameters* are different for passenger than they are for freight, so comparing line performance for passenger fifty years ago to a line optimized for freight is like comparing sedan performance with truck tires on it.

Not to mention that no-one has stated that improvements to soften the curves and digressions aren't being considered. It's not that the curves can't be handled at speed, it's the time that's lost doing it, and gradients for modern EMUs are far greater with no loss to performance than ever before in history. Looked at the hills on the TGV at all? Instead of going around them, they go over them.

 

[mdrejhon]

Performance parameters of EMUs certainly do add flexibility.

Perhaps a railway engineering company already did some computer simulations and found that a briefly slow slog theough dense Peterborough followed by a speedup through nursed gradients/curves/bankings (reoptimizing freight corridor to passenger performance metrics), using EMUs, actually resulted in a workable, predictable 2.5 hours. Software already exist to discover optimizations automatically along a ROW, that did not exist when this corridor was built.

Once out in the less dense areas and farmland, they are easily allowed to devite many meters away from the original alignment with no new EA, while re-banking many curves and/or exchanging gradient for curve -- unlike for freight, an EMU can still accelerate going up a 1.2 degree with fewer curves than an 0.8 degree with sharper curves -- many tradeoff opportunities I imagine.

And any freight-compatible line will have grades that are easy for an EMU, and likely added a few minor curves to soften a gradient. A number of those are apparently partially straightenable/rebankable (only a few tens of meter trackshift) with no EA for several tens more kph in that section, according to automated ROW optimizer software.

Does VIA know something we don't?

 

[crs1026]

One other thought. Suppose CN and CP agreed to a Directional Running arrangement from Toronto to Montreal. They would only need one track on the Kingston (for one direction) and the single track CP line for the other. Lots of precedent for CP and CN to figure that one out amicably.

That leaves one track for VIA on CN all the way from Toronto to Montreal. It has some long sidings, thanks to the VIA investment. That track would have to be purchased or leased from CN, but that's cheaper than buying the entire line. Instead of having to build new tracks on old lines, they get an existing track (a very good one) that is already better grade separated, signalled, and serves all the existing market. With no new environmental impacts. Add some more triple track (let's say 100 km's worth, at a proven $4M per km. Retain all the existing investment in stations. Shovel ready in a year or two max.

Food for thought.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Does VIA know something we don't?

Let me take that further: "Do private investors know something that we don't know?". Going by what the technical/industry press are saying, going by *worldwide experience* and going by D-S' caged but positive demeanour...I'd say a definite "yes"! It still remains to be seen if it is VIA or a new federally involved agency that pilots this. I don't want to pigeonhole or guess D-S' corporate ideal, but it would actually serve the project well to be unencumbered from VIA. If VIA fails, or is re-assigned the role of running heavily subsidized lines for the sake of national unity (perhaps its most apt role) then it would allow *far more flexibility* for a PPP model to emerge, and one that could/would include Metrolinx and AMT, not as the track infrastructure owners, which is the domain of the private investors, but as *operating partners*.

Let's look at how specifically the Pendolino has worked. (there are many competitors, but it has revolutionized using the curvaceous West Coast Line in the UK to set new speed records)

The modernisation of the 399-mile (641.6km) rail route between London and Glasgow and its key divergences to Birmingham, Liverpool and Manchester, was the largest rail project to date in the UK. It cost £9bn and Network Rail completed the project on 7 December 2008. The route has also been cleared for a W10 loading gauge, which allows 9ft6in (2.89m) container traffic on the line.

Key points on the network, in particular major junctions just outside London Euston, Manchester Piccadilly and Birmingham New Street stations and between Coventry and Birmingham, which were in need of drastic measures to increase capacity, have been developed. The route has brought numerous benefits to passengers with increased train services and reduced journey times.

The modernisation of the route was at the heart of the 15-year franchise agreement reached with Virgin Trains in March 1997; also included was a commitment to refurbish existing rolling stock.

Virgin announced plans for a new fleet of Class 390 Pendolino electric tilting trains, designed to operate at up to 140mph when route modernisation was completed.

The project encompassed a 125mph line between London, Birmingham and Manchester, with incremental improvements elsewhere. In September 2006, a new speed record was set on the WCML – a Pendolino train completed the 401-mile Glasgow Central–London Euston run in a record 3 hours 55 minutes, beating the existing record by 20 minutes.

The £350m project of quadrupling the largely double-track Trent Valley line, which runs from Rugby, avoiding congested Birmingham, to Stafford, was completed in September 2008. This extra capacity will be vital if traffic growth forecasts prove accurate. The traffic on the line doubled during the seven-year period between 2003 and 2011.

Upgrades to the West Coast Main Line
Network Rail has been investing on making improvements to the line in order to reduce delays. It has announced an £81m improvement project around Watford, which will include improvements to signalling between Kings Langley and Bushey, and construction of nine miles (14.4km) of new track. Power supply infrastructure along the route between London and Glasgow is also planned to be upgraded in 2014 to improve the reliability of service.

A new flyover has been sanctioned at Norton Bridge. In addition, the southern end of the line is being improved at a cost of £40m.
The upgrades form part of the Stafford Area Improvement Programme (SAIP), which aims to upgrade the rail network between Stafford and Crewe.
[...]
Track and signalling
The main constraint of the West Coast line is the lack of capacity imposed by outdated track layouts and signalling systems. It also crosses challenging terrain in its northern half and is hemmed-in by roads and buildings at its southern end. Attention has concentrated on rebuilding track for 125mph, renewing overhead line equipment and resignalling for higher speeds.

The quality of the upgraded track is claimed by engineers to be to continental high-speed line standards. Contractors have used a lot of innovative equipment and techniques, such as high-tech track renewal and flash-butt welding, more extensively in parts of this project than anywhere else in the world.

Rolling stock
Like the infrastructure, the trains Virgin inherited were from a previous generation, so Virgin quickly entered a deal with train builders Fiat and Alstom to replace the existing fleet with 53 nine-coach fixed-formation tilting trains, based on the Italian manufacturer's 'Pendolino' concept. The first pre-production train carried passengers in August 2002.

Each train has a shop rather than a traditional buffet, selling food and drink, magazines, CDs and headphones for the at-seat entertainment system. Lessons learned from sister franchise CrossCountry’s introduction of new trains, particularly in regard to interiors, were applied to Pendolino.

Despite delays in their entry to traffic, and technical problems caused by the complex nature of the trains, the Class 390 EMUs have been a general success. All 53 have been in service and new carriages were delivered in October 2012 increasing the total Pendolino fleet on the line to 56.

Train protection and warning system
Initially planned was European Train Control System (ETCS), a new Europe-wide standard signalling system for lines running at more than 125mph, for the 140mph phase of the project.

This has now been dropped until the new system has been proven. Alstom is working on ETCS for the UK at its Asfordby test centre near Nottingham.

Speed increase and new Pendolino trains on the West Coast main line
Virgin Trains plans to increase the speed on sections of the Trent Valley Line from 125 to 135mph. The high speed was planned to be achieved by using the existing signalling systems rather than installing a new cab signalling system. The plan, however, did not materialise as the required upgrades to allow the higher speed were not made.
[...]

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/

There are many examples of where tilting trains have been used to dramatically increase speed on curvy rights of way that otherwise limited the trains speed potential. Switzerland is an excellent example, Norway, Sweden, Slovenia, Italy are others amongst many.



A diagram of the tilting technology employed on Norway's Class 73 electric trains.

Steerable trucks also play a huge part in negotiating tight radii at speed:



A demonstration of the benefits of the trains' self-steering wheel axles.

http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/norway/norway7.html

I posted this prior, but alas, some are blind to the obvious, and then complain about "too much information":

The Swiss Federal Railways SBB set itself a target in the mid-nineties, to reduce the journey time on the major intercity connections. However indications showed that the necessary improvements on these curvaceous lines would require a substantial investment. A more cost effective solution was finally selected, using tilt-train-technology, which enables higher average speeds to be attained on existing lines. Therefore since 2001, on the two main lines of the Swiss Railways, 24 ICN Tilting Trains, have been in regular service operations.

In June 2001, based upon the successful performance of the existing ICN fleet, the SBB awarded the consortium Bombardier Transportation, consortium leader, and Alstom a further order for 10 additional ICN trainsets.These trainsets are now in service on the two passenger lines Geneva-Lausanne-Biel-Delémont-Basel and Biel-Zürich.

http://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/projects/project.icn-switzerland.html?f-region=europe

A state of the art tilting EMU will do the curvy O&Q alignment in faster time than a conventional EMU via Brockville. Even faster still if some of the excessive curves are softened.

What might be a problem is running freight over the highly banked track, but those sections aren't freight served right now anyway.

We have the answers, all we need is the will.

 

[steveintoronto]

High Speed Tilting Trains

Posted on October 9, 2012

0


I recently traveled by Virgin Trains from London to northern England. A rather peaceful journey, the service in first class was great – with wine, tea/coffee and snacks all served to you while enjoying the English countryside. I was however, particularly interested in the engineering of the train itself, since it was the first one I’ve been in which had a tilting mechanism that keeps the G force proportionate while the train is at high speed at a turn.

When you ride a motorbike and going at high speeds, the way to achieve maximum flexibility is to tilt the bike to one side while making a turn. Unless the turn is sudden and very sharp, slowing down isn’t necessary; it could be done with the same speed as going on a straight road using the right amount of tilt to the bike. The same principal applies to these trains that travel at high speeds and do not wish to slow down. Usually on train tracks, there are no sudden sharp turns so using the tilting technology helps keeps the things in the train from flying around, people who are standing from falling down and things on a table from tipping over.

The most successful company to make active tilting (computer-controlled power mechanism) is Italian based Pendolino (built and produced by Fiat, bought by Alstom in 2000). Most trains in Europe and China use Pendolino active tilting mechanism which is reliable and almost accurate in its timing. This company was one of the pioneers in train tilting which was brought into service in the 1970s after many people felt that high speed trains are the way forward.

Earlier, with passive tilting (inertial forces cause the tilting) passengers complained about feeling nauseate. This was because the human body did not reduce the Coriolis Effect (click to view video about this) during the tilting process. With the advancement of computers and the ability to sensor objects and distance, nausea has decreased immensely during the high speed tilting train travels.

https://anmolkarnik.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/high-speed-tilting-trains/

 

[smallspy]

Quick Edit to Add:
Fifty years in technology makes a radical difference. For tilting trains, the technology is very different, not the least that the enactment of mechanism is *software* enabled. That takes all sorts of factors into the parameters, not least *human senses* and the need to avoid nausea by jerky and wild contramovements.

Tilting technology hasn't changed at all in the past 50 years or more. There were three primary ways to do it back then (passive, electro-mechanical and hydraulic), and all three ways remain the primary ways of doing it today as well. Even the different ways of activating the system hasn't changed.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[mdrejhon]

Tilting technology hasn't changed at all in the past 50 years or more. There were three primary ways to do it back then (passive, electro-mechanical and hydraulic), and all three ways remain the primary ways of doing it today as well. Even the different ways of activating the system hasn't changed.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Han't using the tech properly has changed over the years -- timing of tilt, amount of tilt, comfort... It was quite flawed at first. And timeline of sixty years, rather than fifty, for a progression reference.

 

[smallspy]

Han't using the tech properly has changed over the years -- timing of tilt, amount of tilt, comfort... It was quite flawed at first. And timeline of sixty years, rather than fifty, for a progression reference.

Not really. For the active systems, they frequently used computers plugged in to gyroscopes. Another method used was to use track mounted devices that were read by sensors on the train. The tech has changed today - computers are smaller and more powerful, and they use different sensors rather than gyroscopes - but the methodology is still the same.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Tilting technology hasn't changed at all in the past 50 years or more. There were three primary ways to do it back then (passive, electro-mechanical and hydraulic), and all three ways remain the primary ways of doing it today as well. Even the different ways of activating the system hasn't changed.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

Well Dan...sorry to disappoint you, but computers have come a long way in fifty years. And tilting technology is now *prescient* rather than reactive, and lagging.

Edit to Add:

[...]Uncomfortable journeys
The first attempts to make trains tackle curves faster were made in the early 1970s, when an old concept well known to motorcyclists – leaning into the curve – was first applied to rail travel. That led to the first tilting trains. The idea was that passengers will feel less of the centrifugal forces of a high-speed train going into a bend when the whole train itself leans into the curve.

But with the first tilting trains and extra speed came great discomfort – partly because of a trick the eyes play on the brain. “If the tilting system is too good and you do not feel that you are going around a curve, but you can see it – such as the horizon changes - when your brain does not expect it, it can make you feel queasy,” says James Kennell, a bogie project engineer at Canadian train maker Bombardier.

Suspension sensors
Today’s tilting trains rarely cause motion sickness problems – mainly by reducing the degree of tilt slightly, so that the passengers still feel that they are going around a bend. French high-speed tilting Euroduplex TGVs, for instance, carry sea-starved Parisians to the sunny Cote d’Azur in less than five hours over a distance of nearly 430 miles (700km), sometimes getting up to speeds of 200mph (320km/h). In 2007, the company that makes the TGVs, Alstom, achieved the world speed record with 359mph (574.8km/h). These trains are regarded as being extremely comfortable, partly because fast trains in France are built on dedicated, ultra-smooth tracks that are welded together.


Bombardier’s new Zefiro high-speed tilting trains operate at speeds of 237mph (380km/h) in China, and are now undergoing tests in Italy before entering service in 2015. The firm has also developed a new tilting system called FlexxTronic Wako, which reacts to curves faster. It uses sensors and computer analytics to monitor the feedback from the track and improve the smoothness of the tilting, says Kennell. The system has been installed on new Twindexx trains that will soon enter service in Switzerland.

The Zefiro is also being fitted with an active suspension system, which uses data collected from sensors to detect when the train enters a curve, to prevent too much strain on the suspension. This allows the train to travel around curves at higher speeds, says Kennell. The system is also designed to detect sudden irregularities in the track ahead of the wheels, so that the active system can react and the passengers do not feel the effect. [...]

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140813-the-challenge-to-make-trains-fast

The mechatronic platform
FLEXX
Tronic
WAKO
is based on the innovative
mechatronic platform developed by Bombardier Research
and Development Engineering team.
The following products are derived from this concept:
•
FLEXX
Tronic technology with ARS (Active Radial steering
and Stability control)
•
FLEXX
Track (track condition monitoring)
•
FLEXX
Guide (bogie condition monitoring)
•
FLEXX
Tronic
WAKO
(roll movement compensation)
Those 4 applications use a modular system with standard
components which represent a major advantage in terms
of maintenance and costs. These applications can be
applied to any
FLEXX
bogies.
The FLEXX Tronic WAKO system
FLEXX
Tronic
WAKO
is an innovative system for the
compensation of the natural roll movement of a carbody,
integrated into the existing secondary suspension. The
system allows a speed increase in curves of ~15% and
therefore allows for shorter journey times with lower
investment in infrastructure. [...]

http://www.bombardier.com/content/d...rdier-Transportation-FLEXX_Tronic_WAKO-EN.pdf

 

[smallspy]

Well Dan...sorry to disappoint you, but computers have come a long way in fifty years. And tilting technology is now *prescient* rather than reactive, and lagging.

Edit to Add:
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20140813-the-challenge-to-make-trains-fast


http://www.bombardier.com/content/d...rdier-Transportation-FLEXX_Tronic_WAKO-EN.pdf

Well no kidding that computers have come a long way. But they still do the exact same things today that they did 50 years ago, too.

And the only way that they are "prescient" today is the same way as they were 50 years ago - by using beacons in the track. Look up the West Coast Mainline and the TASS system that Virgin Trains has installed as just one example.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

Well no kidding that computers have come a long way. But they still do the exact same things today that they did 50 years ago, too.

And the only way that they are "prescient" today is the same way as they were 50 years ago - by using beacons in the track. Look up the West Coast Mainline and the TASS system that Virgin Trains has installed as just one example.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

West Coast Mainline has *NOT* brought their signalling up to European standards! THAT is why the speed limit is 125 mph, not 135. WCML is not fully utilizing the *newest* technology to fully realize the benefits.

And did they have GPS, solid state accelerometers, fuzzy logic, laser track sensors, active processors, steerable trucks, vector sensing, regenerative and incremental braking and circuits 50 years ago? Hardly.

The same technology is being used by cars today, because they have wheels. Does it then follows in your logic that auto-technology hasn't come a *huge* way from fifty years ago?

Edit to Add: This was 2002, it's come leaps and bounds since then even:

Early tilt controller designs were based upon local vehicle measurements, however at that time this approach did not prove very successful. Nowadays most European manufacturers use the so called ‘precedence’ control scheme, utilising measurements from precedent vehicles to achieve ‘precedence’ information. However, achieving a satisfactory local tilt control strategy is still an important research target because of the system simplifications and more straightforward failure detection. The thesis describes a comprehensive study of tilt control, and its aim is to employ advanced control techniques - based upon practical sensors - with the particular objective of identifying effective strategies which can be applied to each vehicle independently, i.e. without using precedence control. The sensors employed for control design are in particular mounted on the vehicle passenger coach. Most of the work has been undertaken using Matlab, and this has included a proper assessment of the ride quality issues.
Description: A doctoral thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University. Please email the author regarding any queries: a.zolotas@ieee.org
URI: https://dspace.lboro.ac.uk/2134/4279
Appears in Collections: PhD Theses (Electronic, Electrical and Systems Engineering)

http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/15057/

Lots more on-line for anyone who cares to look.

Here's the link to the full study:
http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/15057/1/__ddat02_staffhome_jpartridge_ijicic-11-05125.pdf

 

[MisterF]

That, perhaps, is a model for additional purchases of underutilized freight tracks between Montreal, Ottawa and Toronto. VIA anticipates acquiring a mixture of low-traffic freight lines and abandoned rights-of-way.

We all know what corridor that describes.... And it's consistent D-S's interview by the Kingston media.
I'm sure we'll all gladly speculate until they get more specific.

One other thought. Suppose CN and CP agreed to a Directional Running arrangement from Toronto to Montreal. They would only need one track on the Kingston (for one direction) and the single track CP line for the other. Lots of precedent for CP and CN to figure that one out amicably.

That leaves one track for VIA on CN all the way from Toronto to Montreal. It has some long sidings, thanks to the VIA investment. That track would have to be purchased or leased from CN, but that's cheaper than buying the entire line. Instead of having to build new tracks on old lines, they get an existing track (a very good one) that is already better grade separated, signalled, and serves all the existing market. With no new environmental impacts. Add some more triple track (let's say 100 km's worth, at a proven $4M per km. Retain all the existing investment in stations. Shovel ready in a year or two max.

Food for thought.

- Paul

Something along those lines is what the Via Fast proposal that Paul Martin killed was going to do. Basically it was Via trains using one line and CN and CP sharing the other. It would have been a similar arrangement all the way to Windsor.