steveintoronto
Superstar
And the two spurs of the Fergus Sub which connect right there?
Last edited:
|
|
|
High Speed Rail: London - Kitchener-Waterloo - Pearson Airport - Toronto
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
crs1026
Senior Member
Alma, Edinburgh, and Silver Creek are all good candidates for an underpass. Alma is the only one that is complicated by the spur to the north, but that just requires a bigger underpass.
I'd love to know the traffic counts over the remaining crossings. I bet they are inconsequential.
- Paul
I'd love to know the traffic counts over the remaining crossings. I bet they are inconsequential.
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
My point on the spurs is the switches. High Speed Rail and switches are problematic. And that alignment has a number of them. Edinburgh is a very busy crossing, Yorkshire is medium busy crossing. Dublin and Glasgow much less so. HSR along the existing alignment is just incompatible. Perhaps when Metrolinx can run RER let alone regular trains on schedule through the Malton sub, I might have a different opinion. VIA has only just finally got CTC up and running. That chain-link fence in the pic, btw, must have gone up in the last two months. I was cycling through there at the end of March and there was no sign of it then.
crs1026
Senior Member
I don't think we will ever see trains blasting thru Guelph at such a high speed as to make switches a problem.
Any upgrading would install enough service track that freight would not work on the mainline as they do today while switching. Take a look at how much industrial track was installed between Etobicoke North and Malton during the GTS project.
The only good thing I can say about the CTC is, it's such a bare bones installation that we won't piss away all that much money when RER rips it out for whatever comes next. (I wonder how much CTC remodelling the Barrie and Unionville doubletrack projects are causing....the CTC there is almost brand new also)
- Paul
Any upgrading would install enough service track that freight would not work on the mainline as they do today while switching. Take a look at how much industrial track was installed between Etobicoke North and Malton during the GTS project.
The only good thing I can say about the CTC is, it's such a bare bones installation that we won't piss away all that much money when RER rips it out for whatever comes next. (I wonder how much CTC remodelling the Barrie and Unionville doubletrack projects are causing....the CTC there is almost brand new also)
- Paul
steveintoronto
Superstar
Agreed. HFR, yes, unless a by-pass is built around much of the north mainline. Well at least the HSR concept keeps Collenette employed.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
The bypass does not seem to be set in stone, as per the newspaper article quoted below:
Source: http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-s...-discussion-of-guelph-s-high-speed-rail-stop/
steveintoronto
Superstar
Nothing is set in stone, but the default argument is that the bypass is a given (For HSR) unless Guelph can make it otherwise. Guelph is unlikely to do so, claims *by some* to wanting to do so to the contrary. Guelph is looking to the Feds to bring the present rail-line level crossing status up to Transport Canada directives. Silvercreek crossing was closed by Transport Canada some years back and the 'go slow' order placed on the rest of the west end of the city stretch at the same time.
http://www.guelphmercury.com/news-s...-discussion-of-guelph-s-high-speed-rail-stop/
Last edited:
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Given Metrolinx is wanting to deploy CBTC for RER...
Traditional block signalling (if fully maintained in in spec) can in theory be a fair fallback for CBTC failures. CBTC fails can simply cause trains to automatically brake, and can resume using block signalling as a fallback.
There will probably be a very long phase of block signalling (which may be CTC controllable) that operates concurrently with CBTC, and new operating rules permitting multiple trains into occupied traditional blocks in a fully-CBTC-compliant corridor, when both block and CBTC rules are simultaneously working properly, and only if every single train in the CBTC-controlled corridor all have required CBTC.
Transport Canada new rules for CBTC corridors may deviate from this, but it might in theory go somewhere apporoximately along these lines.
Distilled to an average railfan, it might be something roughly paraphrased like "Trains may enter an occupied legacy block in an approved CBTC corridor, if the CBTC system confirms to you it is safe to do so. You must continue to monitor the live GPS locations of the trains ahead of you. Although trains operating in CBTC automatic mode will automatically brake and speed up in a properly functioning CBTC corridor, it is the train driver's repsonsibility to pay attention, including reacting punctually to unexpected obstructions (e.g. Trespassing, etc). If you encounter CBTC-loss (signal loss, display not functioning, etc) the train will automatically brake. You must go into manual override mode to restart the train moving again, then confirm your current block is now clear before proceeding. You must follow legacy block rules in a CBTC-loss situation."). The operating rules will be worded more elaborate than that, or somewhat different, more restrictive possibly, or gradually phased over years of transition, but it can in theory be summarized as roughly that.
So they don't need to rip these out for RER during a CBTC-overlay transition.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
Yeah, I was thinking much along the same lines, that is forward compatible. There are some lines in Europe (and off-hand, some in the US too, albeit that may be APTA but not FRA compliant) where there are *no* external signals. Mind you, if it it's driverless, then visual signals are a bit moot anyway...
mdrejhon
Senior Member
Indeed, CBTC can be made the sole signalling system.
But I would be fully shocked if Metrolinx did a cold-turkey transitionless changeover.
Also the central CTC building isn't useless in a CBTC era, as the upgrades allow modern CTC video monitors to be displaying more accurate GPS positions of all trains, and can remotely send overrides via CBTC signalling instead of CTC-controlled blocks.
Given Metrolinx is only building CTC now, it will undoubtedly be designed for a CBTC transition too.
CBTC provides optional automatic modes (speed optimizers, or like an autopilot). If trains get their automatic modes that are so equipped, the CTC building can in theory program the switches and the automatic CBTC controlled train to automatically switch tracks for service optimization purposes, etc. Such level of automation is optional but is made possible with CBTC.
Last edited:
steveintoronto
Superstar
LOL! Hey, if the Tories get back in, watch out for the Slasher!
It's said that the SRT is totally automatic, they just have a person there to look good, and blow a whistle while he/she works. Paris and London, just to name a few, have totally driverless systems.
As much as I'm a techno-nerd, I'm against that, ditto for driverless cars. *Someone* has to be responsible for the vehicle. All the technical aids possible, great, but at the end of the day, you put your trust in an individual. Same for airplanes at equipped airports. They *can* do totally automatic landings, albeit that's not released to the public. The spiel is "It is done by the pilot for the last few minutes of landing".
mdrejhon
Senior Member
There are multiple levels of automation.
My guess is that Metrolinx probably would take advantage of the "speed optimizer" feature of CBTC to keep electric consumption low. It's kind of like adaptive cruise control for cars, but for trains. Automatic speedup/slowdown. Easier to keep short headways and consistent speed, allows train drivers to pay more attention to other things like safety, like communications, like negotiating with central which track is optimal because of unexpected situations (weather/congestion/etc), or paying attention to visuals like potential trespassers, focussing on timing the braking into stations, etc.
My guess is that Metrolinx probably would take advantage of the "speed optimizer" feature of CBTC to keep electric consumption low. It's kind of like adaptive cruise control for cars, but for trains. Automatic speedup/slowdown. Easier to keep short headways and consistent speed, allows train drivers to pay more attention to other things like safety, like communications, like negotiating with central which track is optimal because of unexpected situations (weather/congestion/etc), or paying attention to visuals like potential trespassers, focussing on timing the braking into stations, etc.
kEiThZ
Superstar
So. Does anybody see this simply folding into VIA's HFR proposal, now that we know a little more about that one?
nfitz
Superstar
Folding ... interesting choice of words.
I certainly don't think the HSR to London is going anywhere fast ...
I certainly don't think the HSR to London is going anywhere fast ...
ssiguy2
Senior Member
I hope not.
HFR will only bring VIA's rail speeds from London up to the level of where they were in the 1980s.
HFR will only bring VIA's rail speeds from London up to the level of where they were in the 1980s.