VIA Rail

[steveintoronto]

Bumping this up for retrospect:

alexanderglista, Dec 11, 2016
SamStar said: ↑

I find this article very interesting.
First, the is a mention that discussions will happen between VIA and the CDPQ facilitated by the federal ministry of Transportation to examine the share of the Mount-Royal Tunnel. I see a lot of positivism in such discussions regarding the funding of the HFT project by the Federal Governement. Even better if the insfrastructures can be shared between the future REM and VIA.

Second, Labeaume says trains to Ottawa-Toronto will use the Mount-Royal tunnel as well. I had not foreseen that coming and always assumed future HFT between Ottawa and Montreal would use a very similar path that they use today given VIA already owns the Alexandria sub.
I take Labeaume's words with a big train of salt. I don't know how they would reach Ottawa North of Mount-Royal. Using the Lachute or M&O sub maybe ? Time will tell.

I don't know much about signalling systems, but due to REM being fully automated, would VIA need to be fully automated too? For VIA trains in the Mont Royal Tunnel to operate with REM, would they need to enter an "automatic" or "ATC-style" or "moving block" mode when they start to run on REM tracks, and disengage when they leave? This might allow the two systems to co-exist, as well as alleviate some concerns about light and heavy rail on the same tracks.

Alex' answer has resonance to the discussion of "ETCCS" in the signals string
http://urbantoronto.ca/forum/thread...cs-ertms-safety-shorter-headways.21483/unread

And platform string:
https://urbantoronto.ca/forum/threads/the-great-platform-height-debate.21140/page-11#post-1304503

Platform height is also going to be a concern if the station at the north portal is shared. (If VIA is sharing the tunnel, will RTM also do so?)

Addendum: Googling to find any technical articles on how the tunnel would be shared, especially for signalling, as it's a given that REM will be moving block marked up, and digital communication based. Will continue to search later, but for now, this string is intriguing, all of this is discussed:

Example:

Re: Will VIA Rail And REM Trains Share The Mount Royal Tunne
by mdvle » Mon Jan 29, 2018 2:18 pm

Guessing that the spokesperson was referring to some sort of automatic signal system / control system, but that would be problematic in a number of ways.

But I suspect it's irrelevant, and that these comments are political posturing.

The Réseau électrique métropolitain website gives us their service frequency. For the tunnel they are talking about 24 trains an hour(*) (or one every 2.5 minutes) and I don't see the ability to get a VIA train through every now and then.

* Deux-Montagnes every 5 minutes, West Island every 10 minutes, Airport every 10 minutes

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=59&t=166840

 

[dowlingm]

A version of SNCF's B82500 (Bombardier AGC family) could operate under 1.5kV DC REM, 25kV AC AMT and diesel. Would need to meet collision and other standards of course, and fire standards for the Mont Royal tunnel, plus compatibility with signalling and possibly automation depending on REM's access conditions. It would probably also cost a pretty penny per unit.

 

[crs1026]

^Trains equipped with more than one system of cab signalling or train control are not unusual. Nor is it rare to find trains with different power pickups and switchgear to transition between different electrical supply systems. I'm sure Alstom can figure those things out. I would be more interested in physical clearances. The Mount Royal tunnel already copes with overhead catenary, and railway size plate dimensions, so I'm pretty sure it will work out.

What's a big relief is just getting the agreement that the two lines will share the tunnel rather than the half-a-loaf idea of a distant northern terminal for the Trois Rivieres route.

- Paul

 

[aquateam]

Huge news for Via's HFR:

They've announced the contracts for REM, and it includes allowing VIA to use the Mont Royal tunnel:

CDPQ Infra, the Caisse subsidiary created to operate the REM, now called the Réseau express métropolitain, will now pour in $2.95 billion into the project, an increase from the original estimate of roughly $2.7 billion.

The project will also allow for VIA Rail’s projected high-frequency rail project to eventually share the Mount Royal tunnel.

CDPQ Infra president Macky Tall said the renovated tunnel will be able to accommodate VIA’s heavy trains and the REM’s light-rail trains. However, the VIA trains will have to adapt technology now only used on light-rail trains so they can communicate with each other before switching tracks, to avoid collisions.

While Tall said he is confident VIA’s trains can be adapted, the REM station north of Highway 40 will serve as a transfer point for VIA rail passengers until VIA can run in the tunnel.

Edit: Seems SamStar beat me to the punch about Via, but before the news of the finalized contracts

 

[dowlingm]

What's a big relief is just getting the agreement that the two lines will share the tunnel rather than the half-a-loaf idea of a distant northern terminal for the Trois Rivieres route.

The Caisse may have "agreed" but without funding to provide VIA with the means to own and operate compatible equipment it isn't worth more than a couple of slices.

 

[Allandale25]

Huge news for Via's HFR:

They've announced the contracts for REM, and it includes allowing VIA to use the Mont Royal tunnel:



Edit: Seems SamStar beat me to the punch about Via, but before the news of the finalized contracts

So, good news?

 

[steveintoronto]

The Caisse may have "agreed" but without funding to provide VIA with the means to own and operate compatible equipment it isn't worth more than a couple of slices.

Something not yet mentioned is the track bed for what Caisse plan. I suspect it will be optimized for lighter 'metro' type cars, and HFR EMUs would be fine (with dual current capability, no tech challenge there that hasn't been solved already), and an overlay for mixing moving block digital com and analog fixed block signalling, but the track nature barring heavy locos. Any references I've read so far haven't gone into the engineering detail of how this will be accomplished. And there's the translations from French to discuss the 'box' to do the 'overlay' and HFR/Metrolinx "ETCCS" compatibility.

This could still go wrong...even though RTM and VIA should have always have had priority to begin with in my estimation.

 

[crs1026]

Something not yet mentioned is the track bed for what Caisse plan. I suspect it will be optimized for lighter 'metro' type cars, and HFR EMUs would be fine (with dual current capability, no tech challenge there that hasn't been solved already), and an overlay for mixing moving block digital com and analog fixed block signalling, but the track nature barring heavy locos. Any references I've read so far haven't gone into the engineering detail of how this will be accomplished. And there's the translations from French to discuss the 'box' to do the 'overlay' and HFR/Metrolinx "ETCCS" compatibility.

This could still go wrong...even though RTM and VIA should have always have had priority to begin with in my estimation.

Considering that we are talking about the tunnel, mostly, and not the full length of the REM line, this should work out fine. The tunnel already has a base that would support locomotive hauled trains. If we were talking about the entire line, which might have any number of new bridges and culverts, I'm sure that REM would want a lighter standard to keep the construction costs down. That one segment, with maybe a short bit of trackage at the north end, is short and already constructed to bear the weight of a loco hauled train. It's analogous to the KW LRT. So I suspect VIA won't be limited to EMU if it cares not to go that way. To the signalling circuitry, done right, VIA and REM should all look the same. The only issue would be making sure that VIA maintained a longer stopping distance behind a preceding REM train, and most flavours of ETC (or whatever acronym one prefers) can do that.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

From CBC's coverage of the REM announcement. Note the train length appearing in the rendition, and this is appearing in others too. This is not what was originally touted. The original plan called for 'single pods'. What's shown are off the shelf metro (by the European term) stock. If these are what's to be used, then standard "European" emus use the same catenary height. Either someone's made REM change their plan, or circumstance has dictated it...which may include the Feds threatening to withdraw support unless a compatible geometry was used.

 

[steveintoronto]

Already some 'conditions' being attached.

Montreal Gazette:

CDPQ Infra president Macky Tall said the renovated tunnel will be able to accommodate VIA’s heavy trains and the REM’s light-rail trains. However, the VIA trains will have to adapt technology now only used on light-rail trains so they can communicate with each other before switching tracks, to avoid collisions.

While Tall said he is confident VIA’s trains can be adapted, the REM station north of Highway 40 will serve as a transfer point for VIA rail passengers until VIA can run in the tunnel.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...o-break-ground-in-april-start-rolling-in-2021

It's unlikely that VIA would want or need to run 'accommodated heavy trains' through the tunnel. Chances are high that they'd be EMUs, and pre-equipped with a number of compatible signal formats. Hopefully VIA and/or Transport Min will have a statement on these things soon.

To the signalling circuitry, done right, VIA and REM should all look the same.

I don't see how. The REM trains don't need visual trackside signals, they're driverless. Think London Docklands. And not just moving block, but digitally assisted and intuitive intelligence enabled. Probably in-cab signalling will be required for manual over-ride, as it is on the DLR.

I was scanning the web for information on this last night. I could find no example of moving block on any mainline track in Canada. This is the essence of Metrolinx' "ETCCS"...an 'overlay' to integrate newer RER trains, ostensibly digital CBTC equipped for moving block, with fixed block CN, CP and extant Metrolinx trackage.

VIA is going to be facing a very similar challenge.

DLR signalling

The fixed-block system

In an automated train system it is important to know exactly where all trains are and to keep them a safe distace apart from each other. Most train systems use a so called 'fixed block' system to do this. This system devides the track into a number of blocks and will only allow a train into a block if the next block is cleared.

In this example train A can only enter block B (A123) when train B has cleared block C (A125).

This means that there's always a distance of more than one block between two trains. To run a frequent train service like DLR does, the track has to be devided into many short blocks, requiring installation and maintenance of lots of signalling equipment. The number of blocks is limited by the minimum length of a block, which is the distance it takes for a train at full speed to come to a complete stop in the worst possible conditions. The biggest disadvantage of this system is the long distance needed between two trains which limits the capacity of the railway. The original DLR control system was a fixed-block system which could run a 2 minute service frequency.
This system was later replaced by the latest technology: a transmission-based or moving block system.

The moving-block system

On railways using a fixed-block system trains are always at least the lenght of one block apart from eachother. So even at low speed it's impossible to decrease the distance between two trains. The real safe distance between two trains is the distance needed for a train to come to a stop before hitting the train in front of it, which is much shorter than the fixed-block lenth and even shorter at low speed. The moving block system allows trains to travel much closer to eachother. Instead of cutting a piece of line into fixed blocks, the train itself and a part of the line in front of it and in its back becomes a moving block which no other train can enter. The length of this block (also called the safety zone) depends on the braking distance of the train which in its turn depends on the speed of the train and the track conditions locally.
For a moving block system to work, the system needs a reliable train position and speed to calculate the safety zone surrounding the train. The system onboard the train itself continually calculates its own position and transmits it, along with other data like speed, direction and other onboard status data, to the wayside systems. In return the wayside systems transmit data like maximum permitted speed and the current target point of the train, which is a point along the line that can be reached safely without any obstructions in the way. By advancing the target point of a train along the way, the train is safely guided to it's next stop at a safe speed and a safe distance to the train in front of it. This way trains can run much closer together making it possible to run trains at a much higher frequency, even as short as one minute apart.

Seltrac

When replacing the old system, DLR had to look out for a new but yet operational system. The chosen system was Seltrac, supplied and installed by Alcatel of Canada. It was already in use on railwaysystems in Vancouver, Detroit and Toronto where it had proven to be a reliable system. Seltrac is a transmission-based moving-block automatic train control (ATC) system, combining both automatic train protection (ATP) and automatic train operation (ATO). The seltrac system consists of 3 main parts ('primary control levels'). Two of those are vital for running the trains, the third system provides the human interface to the system so operators can regulate the service and change scheduling. As Seltrac is an automatic train operation system, the system can run without human help, some people even say the system runs better if no one touches it...[...continues at length...]

https://dodger.home.xs4all.nl/tech.htm

 

[crs1026]

I don't see how. The REM trains don't need visual trackside signals, they're driverless. Think London Docklands. And not just moving block, but digitally assisted and intuitive intelligence enabled. Probably in-cab signalling will be required for manual over-ride, as it is on the DLR.

Well, that's basically what I was trying to say. They all work by giving the train data on where the limit of its authority is, and where it must begin to stop. VIA doesn't need to be using the same auto pilot, it just needs that limiting position defined. Some combination of a driver and a driving system will figure that all out.

My point was, VIA may require a gap in REM service because it will likely not be able to follow the previous REM vehicle quite as closely as a REM following a REM (bigger heavier train with different braking performance and likely longer stopping distance). Depending on REM's headway, that may not matter. But to the traffic control, it's just another train, communicating with the wayside system in the same manner.

Your research is interesting but imho you are way overthinking what the result will be. AFAIK GO's ETCCS is just an internal name for their project and not a distinct technology. They will design a system by selecting from what's available from vendors and what's in place now, based on their spec of what's needed. When we don't know the spec, it's not possible to predict the selection.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Has this article from Railway Age on VIA HFR and REM already been posted? If so, I'll delete this post.

http://m.railwayage.com/index.php/n...int-for-canadian-passenger-rail-projects.html

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

As much as I want to be optimistic I highly doubt that. This is GO; Metrolinx; MTO; Queens Park that we are talking about. With some consultant(s) and managers interspersed with pet legacy projects. This will probably become another "proudly made in Ontario" invention that has never been tried or created yet in the world. Ontario will be a champion of this new technology and industry...oh wait haven't we heard this before. Oh yes, Presto! Let's not kid ourselves, this will be another cock up by the government.

Your research is interesting but imho you are way overthinking what the result will be. AFAIK GO's ETCCS is just an internal name for their project and not a distinct technology. They will design a system by selecting from what's available from vendors and what's in place now, based on their spec of what's needed. When we don't know the spec, it's not possible to predict the selection.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

This is curious, especially in light of questions of compatibility in the Mount Royal Tunnel, and yet this claim:

The three passenger service operators (AMT - Mont-Saint-Hilaire Line, Amtrak and VIA Rail) currently using the South Viaduct will not be affected by its acquisition by CDPQ Infra.The EMR project will also require construction work to be carried out and, potentially, changes to the structure.This work will be done without interfering with existing passenger services.

JEAN-VINCENT LACROIX
Director, Media Relations
Such.: 514 847-2896
jvlacroix@cdpqinfra.com

https://translate.google.ca/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&u=https://www.cdpqinfra.com/fr/content/cdpq-infra-et-le-cn-concluent-une-entente-d%C3%A9terminante-pour-le-projet-de-r%C3%A9seau-%C3%A9lectrique&prev=search

How can REM (EMR) be compatible enough to use the CN track (yes, the same CN that "won't let catenary on their RoW") over the South Viaduct along with Amtrak and VIA?

And on the other hand, claim "While Tall said he is confident VIA’s trains can be adapted, the REM station north of Highway 40 will serve as a transfer point for VIA rail passengers until VIA can run in the tunnel."

Hmmmm....

 

[kEiThZ]

Cart before horse. All this talk about REM and we don't even have an HFR train coming into Montreal. Actually we don't even have a serious study to plan for HFR coming into Montreal.