VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Not exactly: All those graphs, tables and maps were compiled using nothing else than Microsoft Excel, Google Earth, Paint.NET and publicly accessible data sources. Unfortunately, I can no longer post any such material, but my posts are indeed still online. Nevertheless, if anyone wants to calculate somewhat realistic timetables, I will gladly share my Excel template with anyone interested...

I had second thoughts about using the term "proprietary" as it insinuated that VIA had the software exclusively. But I'm glad it got an answer from you.

Unfortunately, I can no longer post any such material,

Fully understood, for good reason, doubtless. I posit that delicate negotiations are underway at this time. I'm sure you'll be posting again once the last spike is driven...

if anyone wants to calculate somewhat realistic timetables, I will gladly share my Excel template with anyone interested...

There's a couple of sharp posters here who would, they know who they are as they post some magnificent charted analyses and maps.

Edit to Add:
There's an excellent blog here that details what went wrong for VIA and the Caisse, albeit since this was written, I suspect a second brake shoe has dropped, not the least investors with even more panache than the Caisse:
http://www.cat-bus.com/2016/10/via-torpedoed-regional-rail/

Read carefully between the lines with the knowledge of the latest on the Investment Bank.

 

[rbt]

VIA originally suggested a 2:30-2:40 trip time Ottawa-Toronto. Either that figure is unrealistic, or there just isn't time to make intermediate stops. Add stops into that tight a timing, and you have to assume higher running speeds.

Well, that depends on how many trains make the stops. VIA also proposed something like hourly service. With 18 trains you can add 18 stations to the line at a cost of under 5 minutes time for any given trip (18 different trains each make 1 additional stop).

One trip per day is significantly more service than these locations have today. If ridership exists then you stop more trains at those locations but it's justified due to customer demand rather than trying to buy political mind-share.

 

[steveintoronto]

Well, that depends on how many trains make the stops. VIA also proposed something like hourly service. With 18 trains you can add 18 stations to the line at a cost of under 5 minutes time for any given trip (18 different trains each make 1 additional stop).

One trip per day is significantly more service than these locations have today. If ridership exists then you stop more trains at those locations but it's justified due to customer demand rather than trying to buy political mind-share.

In the event, most of the HFR will only stop at the major stations, the small ones being left to a 'milk run' and to Metrolinx, which even with 5 minutes per stop for say, 10 stations, still allows it a time envelope between HFRs with ten minutes to spare, beginning of trip to end. Double that time allowed if a passing loop is used. The small towns other side of Peterborough could be served with a 'local' that also has a baggage car for bikes or skis as well as oversize carry-on. One both directions, one in the morning, one in the evening would be a superb service, and quite easy to accommodate especially if there's a passing loop used half way between Peterborough and Ottawa.

If scheduling is too tight for the milk run and GO to both do the trip Peterbro to Toronto at similar times, then the local VIA could terminate at Peterborough, and the GO train continue the pathing. Passengers would have option of waiting for the next HFR which due to that lost stopping time of the local, assuming ten stops at 5 mins loss each, would be along in ten minutes or so.

 

[crs1026]

Here's a simple spreadsheet comparison

Scenario A is the Havelock Sub refurbished to the same standard as VIA's other current lines - 95 mph. Assumptions are:
- Leaside to Tapscott is shared with CP, the time taken between Union and Tapscott is as good as CP's best time in RDC days.
- a small improvement over current time between Fallowfield and Ottawa.
- a slow order zone of 60 mph through Peterboro
- improved travel time on the Smiths Falls Sub
This scenario is important as it sets the baseline for the "most affordable", ie avoids cost of a Don Valley bridge, a Leaside flyunder, comparable CTC to VIA's other lines

At this level of investment, trains take a full 3 hours to cover the route. There is no "recovery time" contingency, no allowance for time lost in meets, and none for time spent making station stops.

Scenario B allows 110 mph running time. Again it assumes perfect timekeeping and no stops. It it just meets the 2:40 specification. This scenario refutes those who maintain that the HFR project would simply replicate other VIA lines. Clearly, to get to 2:40 VIA would be building an "enhanced" quality line, beyond any standard applied to date in Canada.

Scenario C allows 120 mph running time, and improved time to Tapscott. It gives a slight margin of recovery room. So, if we are going to add stops and retain 2:40 - we need 120 mph.

My point is simply - do not underestimate either the potential impact on travel time if stops are added en route, and/or if meets do not happen punctually.

These issues can be solved with money. The question is, will a line permitting 120 mph operation, and a non-shared access to Toronto, fit within the envelope that VIA is projecting as its project cost. Especially given the concerns we've expressed about the curvy 1880s quality right of way.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

And just to emphasise the point about meets - here's a hypothetical schedule assuming that VIA intends HFR to be a predictable, hourly schedule.

Assuming there is a meeting point every 55 miles and track speed is 110 mph. That works out to a nice neat meet every half hour.

Now, let's decide that Train A will make a stop between Toronto and Meeting Point A that will cost it 5 minutes' delay over a perfect, nonstop 110 mile run.

Its meet with Train D will now happen at 07:35, and with Train E at 08:05. But now Train D is late for its meet with Train B, and Train E is late for its meet with Train C. The delays cascade.

This too can be solved in a couple of ways with money. One is to make the meet sidings longer so that the meeting points become variable. Another is to add additional sidings every few miles so that Train D can meet Train A a bit further down the line, and so on. However, what is likely to happen is that trains begin waiting in sidings for other trains that are running outside the "pattern". As my last post suggested, there isn't time in the schedule to recover from these delays. If a train waits four minutes at each of 3 meeting points, that's a 12 minute late arrival.

The whole thing goes away if you double track the whole line, or bigger parts of it. But again, the question is, does that stretch beyond the envelope.

The envelope (Per VIA's Backgrounder) is $5.25 Billion. Deduct rolling stock, and deduct electrification. Is there enough left for enough bells and whistles in the infrastructure to fit the intended performance spec?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

And just to emphasise the point about meets - here's a hypothetical schedule assuming that VIA intends HFR to be a predictable, hourly schedule.

- Paul

"Meets". You still fail to consider the Lakeshore route also having to be doubled, to not have "meets". And it will have considerably more distance than the O&Q route, it will have more level crossings, it will need vastly more bridge and viaduct work to be done, and it will have to be within (from memory) 100 ft of the centre of an existing set of tracks or have to have an EA and meet other criteria as a "new railway" under various Federal Acts, let alone local and provincial considerations. There's a reason to use "existing underutilized freight lines and abandoned RoWs". The Transportation Act allows them to come alive again with the absolute minimum of red-tape.

As for "waiting for oncoming trains to meet" (gist)...CBTC virtually eliminates that.

That leaves one point that is somewhat unique:

Especially given the concerns we've expressed about the curvy 1880s quality right of way.

This has been addressed many times prior. I'll address it again.

From the Financial Times
September 21, 2004 3:00 am

For more than 150 years, the London-Glasgow west coast main line has periodically served as a byword for all that is worst about the railways. The line's last modernisation - its £175m electrification in the 1960s and 1970s - was done on the cheap. It was built on the cheap, too, back in the 1830s and 1840s.

But Virgin Trains, the route's main operator, will hope that the line can now begin a more positive episode.

An elaborate ceremony yesterday attended by Tony Blair, the prime minister, marked the completion of work on the first section of the line's latest, £7.5bn upgrade.

From Monday, the improvement to much of the track on the southern section and the introduction of Pendolino trains, which tilt into bends, will enable the launch of a new timetable on the busiest passenger and freight route on the network.

It will cut the best London to Manchester journey times by 35 minutes to 2 hours 6 minutes, and reduce journey times to all the other destinations on the route.
[...]
MODERN TECHNOLOGY HELPS HIGH-SPEED TRAINS NEGOTIATE 19TH CENTURY BENDS A tilting train has long looked a likely way of improving journey times on the west coast main line because, like many important rail routes built in the 19th century, it has far more bends than modern high-speed lines, Robert Wright reports. A train tilts into a curve for the same reason as a motorcyclist - to counteract the centrifugal force pushing it out of the curve, and it can go faster than it could if upright. However, the earlier attempt to put this principle into practice in Britain, British Rail's Advanced Passenger Train project, was abandoned in the 1980s because of cost, time over-runs and poor reliability. The APT was also notorious for making its passengers feel sick. So Virgin Trains has opted to buy trains based on the Pendolino technology, developed by Italy's Fiat Ferroviaria in the 1960s and 1970s. Like most other tilting trains, these rely on sensors in the leading vehicle to detect curves and decide how far over the train needs to lean. According to managers involved in the project, it was a challenge to adapt the technology designed for Italian railways - where bridges and tunnels allow plenty of space - to the more constricted environment on Britain's railways. The equipment and seating had to be fitted into a far smaller bodyshell for the carriages than on Italian versions. It was also even more important than in Italy to ensure the train stuck to a safe speed, to avoid hitting any lineside equipment or buildings. The British trains receive their "permission" to tilt from a series of what are known as balises - beacons which tell the train the maximum speed for the next section of track. Equipment on the train prevents it from exceeding the speed. The balises, however, are the only big signalling innovation on the upgraded route after efforts to introduce the moving block system, which would have allowed far more trains to use the route, were abandoned. Although Virgin Trains would like eventually to introduce such a system, it is not included in present plans for the line's upgrade. Passengers will benefit from one significant advance over the last attempt to introduce tilting trains on the route. The APT famously made some passengers queasy as they saw the world outside them tilt but felt none of the movement their brains told them to expect on curves. The Pendolino has been designed to avoid that problem by restricting the tilt so that passengers still feel some movement.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0608d0c4-0b6c-11d9-b403-00000e2511c8.html?ft_site=falcon&desktop=true

Since that story, CBTC has taken the Pendolino and competitors another huge step forward. It is a given that on any new passenger line hosting HFR, CBTC will be used. Even GO is looking toward using it.

Pendolinos are available, affordable, and dependable...and *tested*!

Pendolino (from Italian pendolo [ˈpɛndolo] "pendulum", and -ino, a diminutive suffix) is an Italian family of tilting trains used in Italy, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia, Finland, Russian Federation, the Czech Republic, the United Kingdom, Slovakia, Switzerland, China, and Poland, and soon Romania. Based on the design of the Italian ETR 401 and the British Advanced Passenger Train, it was further developed and manufactured by Fiat Ferroviaria, which was taken over by Alstom in 2000.

The idea of a tilting train became popular in the 1960s and 1970s when various rail operators, impressed by the high-speed rail services being introduced in France and Japan, wondered how they could similarly speed up travel without building a dedicated parallel rail network (as those two countries were doing). By tilting, the train could go around curves designed for slower trains at higher speeds without causing undue discomfort to passengers. [...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendolino

And in the case of the US, the Pendolino manifests as FRA compliant:

United States
Main article: Avelia Liberty
On August 2016, Amtrak and Alstom Unveiled the Avelia Liberty consist to replace the aged Acela Express that will take passengers between Washington D.C. and Boston, MA as part of a Northeast Corridor rehabilitation project starting in 2021. [45] The train has safety features that comply with Federal Railroad Administration standards, along with Greater Comfort, Built in Wi-Fi, Tiltronix, and with speed's up to 180 U.S. mph.

link above

The Pendolino:

HIGHLIGHTS
•
Alstom
Avelia
technology:
used in 1/3 high
-
speed trains in
service in the world
•
Speed increase:
Up to 30%
faster
in curves
with tilting
option
•
Over
300
trains
with
Tiltronix
tilting system
•
Pendolino
is certified
in 14
countries
and crosses 7 borders

http://www.alstom.com/Global/Transport/Resources/Documents/brochure2014/Pendolino - Product sheet - English.pdf

 

[CapitalSeven]

I would presume they need to double track all the way to Peterborough (or even Havelock), and from Ottawa to Smith's Falls, with some sort of agreement regarding the segment to Glen Tay. That leaves some 80+ miles through the back of beyond, including some puzzlers at Tweed and Sharbot Lake. Tweed is cute and prim, and wouldn't take kindly to dozens of fast trains a day over a level crossing or an elevated structure. There are some straightish section of 3-8 miles that could be double tracked without too much fuss.

The vast majority seems to have been built with about 2000 feet of curve radius. Does anyone have a clue what speed could be maintained on that with tilting technology? I've looked around a bit but the technical literature is beyond me.

 

[44 North]

Here's a simple spreadsheet comparison

Scenario A is the Havelock Sub refurbished to the same standard as VIA's other current lines - 95 mph. Assumptions are:
- Leaside to Tapscott is shared with CP, the time taken between Union and Tapscott is as good as CP's best time in RDC days.
- a small improvement over current time between Fallowfield and Ottawa.
- a slow order zone of 60 mph through Peterboro
- improved travel time on the Smiths Falls Sub
This scenario is important as it sets the baseline for the "most affordable", ie avoids cost of a Don Valley bridge, a Leaside flyunder, comparable CTC to VIA's other lines

Thanks for the math. A steady 95mph from Pboro to Glen Tay is a helluva lot higher avg speed than I thought. Was thinking best case would be 65 or something. Granted I don't know much about this.

 

[reaperexpress]

[The initial $4-billion project would be limited to the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor. Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano listed the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, Ontario Municipal Employees Retirement System, Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan, Public Sector Pension Investment Board and Canada Pension Plan Investment Board as interested investors.

Via’s plan falls short of full high-speed rail, but Mr. Desjardins-Siciliano insisted it’s better and more affordable. Via trains can travel up to 160 kilometres an hour
[...]
Toronto-Ottawa

Current trip: 4:01

Dedicated tracks: 2:30

Ottawa-Montreal

Current trip: 1:50

Dedicated tracks: 1:20

Toronto-Montreal

Current trip: 4:42

Dedicated tracks: 3:45]
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...e-along-quebec-ontario-route/article29638997/


[Currently, Via’s average speed in the shared Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor is 103 kilometres per hour, but a dedicated track for passenger rail would see the average speed increase to between 145 km/h and 153 km/h, with a top speed of 177 km/h.]
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...t-get-access-to-dedicated-track-fleet-upgrade

[Via trains could go far faster — up to 160 km/h — cutting travel times. For example, the trip between Toronto and Ottawa would drop to 2.5 hours from four hours now. A trip between Toronto-Montreal would be 3.75 hours — about an hour shorter.]
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ew-trains-frequent-service-to-woo-riders.html

[VIA says a dedicated rail track would allow its trains to travel at a "higher conventional speed" of 177 km/h, up from 100 km.h today.]
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/1...rail-yves-desjardins-siciliano_n_8473342.html

In the event, 160kmh (99mph) is the max allowed for level crossings in Canada for passenger unless a slow order is in effect. (Edit to Add: F40s are limited to 90 or 95 mph, and CN itself applies speed restrictions on the Lakeshore Route below what TC requires)

Most of these claimed average speeds are wildly optimistic, bordering on delusional. Grade crossings are not the issue (apart from a few places in towns/cities where a 15mph limit would be required due to adjacent buildings). We can run up to 110 mph (177 km/h) under TC regulations with the proper upgrades.

The problem the constant sharp curves, especially along the eastern segment of the line between Havelock and Smiths Falls. I don't have an easy way to measure curve radii, but I can visually compare them to curves along the Kingston route that I know the speed limit for. From what I can tell, most of the curves would be in the 70-85 mph range and they're frequent enough that trains would only be able to briefly hit higher speeds in between (not long enough to significantly improve average speeds).

Having dedicated passenger tracks may give a speed advantage over the current mixed-traffic line by allowing a higher cant (tilt) angle for the tracks. But based on the historical tilt train (LRC/Turbo) speed limits we had here, it's not a huge difference. In general the LRC speed limit was only about 5-10 mph faster than the limit for non-tilting passenger trains. A very welcome speed boost, but not a game-changer.

My hope is simply that the proposed Havelock line is no slower than the current Kingston line. Here's the speeds the line would need to achieve to do that:

Toronto - Ottawa
The current fastest train is #646, which covers the 444km Kingston route in 4h07, which is a 107 km/h average (66 mph).
The Havelock route is actually shorter, so the average speed can be lower while still maintaining the same trip time.
To cover the 401 km Havelock route in 4h07, the train needs to average 97 km/h (60 mph). That seems fairly doable given the tracks, so I'm pretty confident that they'll be able to meet or beat current trip times from Toronto to Ottawa.

Toronto - Montreal
The current 539km route via Cornwall takes as little as 4h49 (train 68), which is an average speed of 111 km/h (69 mph).
The proposed route via Havelock and Ottawa is a fair bit longer, so trains would actually need to be faster than the current service to match travel times.
To cover the 587km Havelock/Ottawa route in 4h49, the average speed needs to be 121 km/h (75 mph). That seems somewhat achievable, although it would be faster than current trains which operate on far faster railways than the proposed Havelock Subdivision. But we already know the travel time from Ottawa to Montreal because VIA already has a dedicated and recently-upgraded line for that segment.
The current fastest trains from Ottawa to Montreal take 1h47, so to match the 4h49 trip from Toronto to Montreal, the proposed route needs to cover Toronto-Ottawa in 3h02.
To cover the 401km Toronto-Ottawa segment in 3h02, the train needs to average 144 km/h (89 mph). Given that the Havelock Subdivision will rarely allow trains to reach 90 mph, let alone average 90 mph, there is absolutely no way that the new route will provide faster Toronto-Montreal times than currently scheduled.

 

[steveintoronto]

Most of these claimed average speeds are wildly optimistic, bordering on delusional. Grade crossings are not the issue (apart from a few places in towns/cities where a 15mph limit would be required due to adjacent buildings). We can run up to 110 mph (177 km/h) under TC regulations with the proper upgrades.
.

The challenge isn't to beat present *optimal* times on the Lakeshore route. It's to match them. On-time performance is bad and getting worse, due to lack of dedicated track. The challenge is then to find a dedicated RoW. So far, CN and CP have not offered any in their present lakeshore RoW, in fact, quite the opposite. CN would like for there to be NO VIA use of their tracks in that corridor.

So what is the alternative? Build an entirely new corridor?

 

[reaperexpress]

The challenge isn't to beat present *optimal* times on the Lakeshore route. It's to match them. On-time performance is bad and getting worse, due to lack of dedicated track. The challenge is then to find a dedicated RoW. So far, CN and CP have not offered any in their present lakeshore RoW, in fact, quite the opposite. CN would like for there to be NO VIA use of their tracks in that corridor.

So what is the alternative? Build an entirely new corridor?

I don't oppose dedicated tracks. As you said they are clearly needed if VIA is to have any chance of being competitive.

I do oppose publishing "facts" which can be debunked with simple back-of-the envelope calculations. Claiming that the speed can be nearly doubled, as per a couple of the articles you quoted is Trump-level fantasy given the geometry of the line they're proposing. And the notion that the average speed can be increased from 100 km/h (62 mph) to 177 km/h (110 mph) is against the laws of physics given that the maximum speed is only 110 mph (and especially since realistically the maximum speed will be 70-85mph for most of the line).

I'm concerned that the VIA proposal is vastly overstating the time-saving element of their alignment. From what I can tell, it will result in slightly better Toronto-Ottawa times and slightly worse Toronto-Montreal times than current. That's certainly not that bad of an outcome, since despite what YDS keeps saying, the current service is actually pretty fast if it can manage to keep to schedule. If the discussion were about the merits of massively improving reliability and frequency at the cost of longer travel times for certain trips, then I would happy to discuss that. But YDS+co are claiming that on top of the reliability and frequency improvements the proposal would significantly reduce travel times, which is clearly not true.

 

[kEiThZ]

@rearexpress

Thanks for chiming in.

So in your estimation what's more realistic travel times for HFR?
3 hrs T-O and 4.5 hrs T-O. That gets rather mediocre, given the sums involved.

I'm hoping this is an effort that allows continuous improvement. As in annual investment, improves speed and capacity.

 

[crs1026]

"Meets". You still fail to consider the Lakeshore route also having to be doubled, to not have "meets".

That investment has already been made in part: Grafton-Cobourg, Belleville-Napanee. When I did some math on VIA's triple track project, those tracks are spaced just right as meeting tracks for an hourly 95mph service, *if* VIA had dedicated use of the existing north main track. The key to that is directional running. DR is plausible on this route.

Or, yes, you could build passing tracks on the south side for CN freights to use, and fill in some more meeting tracks for VIA on the north side. The Kingston is flat and has more amenable soil so adding more track is likely cheaper per mile. The Havelock right of way is Canadian Shield for good parts, and the existing cuts are single track wide. You will do a lot of blasting and swamp filling to double much of it.

And it will have considerably more distance than the O&Q route,

Not if you route down the old Smiths Falls Sub towards Napanee, and then build a new track southwards from Portland or Elgin towards the lake. The reused portion is much straighter and simpler than the Havelock. The new section is not that long hence not unaffordable. That's my #1 option.

it will have more level crossings,

I counted. (and told you so, twice). There are more level crossings on the Havelock line, because it winds so much that it runs on a diagonal to the grid of concession roads. For every north-south concession it crosses, it also crosses an east-west road in many places. And much more money has already been invested in grade separation on the Kingston.

it will need vastly more bridge and viaduct work to be done,

On the Havelock, the Don Viaduct (that's a half-mile long span) needs replacing. Two long, high bridges to cross the Don Valley parallel to the North Toronto Sub would have to be twinned, otherwise shared use of the CP bridges is required (the same CP who reportedly don't want to play with the Bypass....will they feel differently here? ) A flyover at Leaside to get the VIA line to the north side. Widen a half dozen or more overpasses between Wicksteed and Kennedy. Grade separate Tapsc0tt Road and Steeles Ave, plus old Highway 7. You will spend $1B just getting the line from Union to Highway 7. Yes, some bridge work on the Kingston Sub will be required (I'm thinking of Port Hope as a challenge) but at worst it's a tie.

and it will have to be within (from memory) 100 ft of the centre of an existing set of tracks or have to have an EA and meet other criteria as a "new railway" under various Federal Acts, let alone local and provincial considerations. There's a reason to use "existing underutilized freight lines and abandoned RoWs". The Transportation Act allows them to come alive again with the absolute minimum of red-tape.

Relaying Havelock to Glen Tay can happen without an EA? I'm not a lawyer, but....... The court case initiated by the NIMBY municipalities en route will be longer and more expensive than just doing the EA.

As for "waiting for oncoming trains to meet" (gist)...CBTC virtually eliminates that.

No, it simply gives the first-approaching train advance warning so it slows down and doesn't arrive ahead of the second-arriving train. But that is an equivalent amount of delay. With pax speeds and stopping distances, the "advance block" point where the approaching train is warned that the route ahead is not clear will be several miles before it reaches the siding. That restrictive signal forces the approaching train to slow, until the opposing train enters the siding and the route clears. CBTC does that much more elegantly than traditional fixed signals, but some delay is inherent in every meet on a single track line. That has to be built into schedules as contingency.

Pendolinos are available, affordable, and dependable...and *tested*!

There are plenty of good equipment options out there. I am not interested in debating rolling stock. We should not design the right of way with a single rolling stock solution in mind. It digresses into train geeks dreaming about their most loved choo-choo. That's a choice that is made in a tendering process and the pro's and con's vary with the performance criteria sought and the bid.

(But to declare my bias - U2 Northerns and H1 Hudsons are both proven solutions at 100 mph+, on traditional track )

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

I don't oppose dedicated tracks. As you said they are clearly needed if VIA is to have any chance of being competitive.

Rushed here, will detail more answers later, but short answer is, and Paul might posit this in his latest post, *if* the Lakeshore entirely new dedicated track route taken, it would then make sense for it to be HSR. Whether that be single or double track is a side argument. The cause d'etre of O&Q route is acceptable time, cost, already protected under various Acts and no compromise by freight.

In the event, if the money is there for HFR and for Missing Link, pretty much everything is on the table for massive re-organization of southern Ontario trackwork. The Investors have such incredibly deep pockets that to go in for a penny is foolish, to go in for a pound is wise. We'll see shortly...

Meantime:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opin...aded-again-on-infrastructure/article32866044/

 

[robmausser]

I am not stating this in favor over the Peterborough route, but rather in conjunction, as trains will still need to run on the Kingston route: I wonder if rather than dedicated tracks in this area, if VIA could negotiate usage of both the CN (kingston) and CP (belleville) lines, and build crossovers between the two lines at various points.

The two corridors meet or get very close at several points along the route, up until Belleville.

This way, some sort of system could be setup (whether computer based or transit control) where freight traffic could be analyzed on both corridors, and a "bypass" using the CP line, (or vice versa depending on where the freight traffic is) could be done to route passenger cars around the freight. Almost using the CP trackage as a bypass.

This would require negotiations with CP, but not in the same manner of using their trackage outright; just as permissible when a delay is being caused on one line, but in that area there is available track on the other. Priority would still be on using the CN line as normal, the CP line would just be an alternative routing when there is a substantial freight or passenger traffic on the CN line.

All that would need to be built would be the crossovers at various points. The hard part would be negotiations with CP, and getting some kind of freight train monitoring system up that could predict and route around freight traffic on the fly.