VIA Rail

[robmausser]

Train à grande fréquence - High Frequency Rail on LinkedIn: Field Studies

Today we mark the start of an important step forward for the HFR project.. We are launching the first phase of our environmental field studies which will take…

www.linkedin.com

Direct website link: https://hfr-tgf.ca/field-studies-2023/
Direct map link on Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=11SirbhC6vJ6EaRB_l6QH5YyiX0SxTFc&ll=45.339996406679674,-74.50419131076752&z=8

Screenshot:

View attachment 490062

I assume the Toronto -> Smiths Falls route isn't even at this stage yet because they have to first see if its even feasible at all.

 

[lrt's friend]

I assume the Toronto -> Smiths Falls route isn't even at this stage yet because they have to first see if its even feasible at all.

More likely because the exact route has not yet been established. East of Smiths Falls, the route is known.

 

[IRT_BMT_IND]

Nitpick: OCS can be "dark", ie unsignalled - eg Newmarket Sub north of Washago - or "not dark" - eg Galt Sub and Mactier Sub, which are both OCS with ABS signalling in place.

Traditionally "dark" meant not signalled, rather than not CTC.

- Paul

And you can definitely run multiple trains on one subdivision in dark territory. CP still has quite a bit of dark territory, basically everything east of Montreal, Guelph Junction to the CN interchange near Fort Erie, and almost all secondary main lines in the prairies (some of which are very busy). There are time separation requirements for trains in OCS territory AFAIK but I'm not sure of the exact details.

If Metrolinx wanted to run more than a unidirectional peak oriented service to Peterborough for instance they probably would need CTC, but it's not strictly necessary.

 

[crs1026]

If Metrolinx wanted to run more than a unidirectional peak oriented service to Peterborough for instance they probably would need CTC, but it's not strictly necessary.

True, but as with the Guelph Sub, I suspect there would be pressure from TC to signal any GO service.

For the money it will take just to fix the track to Peterborough, adding signalling is not such a big added expense.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

If Metrolinx wanted to run more than a unidirectional peak oriented service to Peterborough for instance they probably would need CTC, but it's not strictly necessary.

For all intents and purposes, CTC is necessary when operating passenger trains. TC will no longer approve any new passenger runs without it.

Dan

 

[Admiral Beez]

If I wanted to book a trip on the new Corridor train sets how do I know what's going to be running?

 

[littlewill1166]

If I wanted to book a trip on the new Corridor train sets how do I know what's going to be running?

Re: Minor Changes to Montreal - Ottawa Schedule effective June 19

groups.io

 

[nfitz]

For all intents and purposes, CTC is necessary when operating passenger trains. TC will no longer approve any new passenger runs without it.

Even for new long-haul routes?

 

[dowlingm]

For all intents and purposes, CTC is necessary when operating passenger trains. TC will no longer approve any new passenger runs without it.

Dan

Dan, does that include Northlander where that route runs over currently without CTC trackage, or will that be deemed grandfathered, or out of scope because ONR is provincial?

 

[Urban Sky]

Interesting that this person decided to promote their tweet. Their profile picture seems to indicate their RTC information with VIA and CN?

View attachment 489840

I am speculating that this tweet may have something to do with this incident.

It was discussed in this thread, back around message #14661

- Paul

I’m still not sure why that angry person believes that an isolated 84 minute delay on a 4 hour VIA journey should be something the transport minister is to be held personally responsible for:

I’ve been made aware that the same angry person was more specific in a previous Tweet:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1660191466239705088

 

[crs1026]

I’ve been made aware that the same angry person was more specific in a previous Tweet:

Well, that shoots my speculation all to bits. Perhaps I should not have.

It's quite apparent that CN is not sweeping the incident - whatever it was - under the carpet. Quite the opposite, they know that such internal "broadcast" communications do leak out.

The requirements to report incidents to Transportation Safety Board can be found here. Based on the CN description of the incident, and the criteria for reporting, at face value it should have been reported (criteria g).

Not every incident that is reported leads to a formal TSB investigation or report.

The TSB Database shows a reported incident ID# 133205 for the Kingston Sub with a date of 4/13/2023, at MP 69.4 which is classed as a "Movement Exceeds Limits of Authority" event. The database categorises this as having "risk of collision".

The verbal description of the incident in the database reads

"CN assignment M37231-13 was proceeding Eastward on the South Main track when it passed Signal 694S displaying a Stop indication at Wesco, mile 69.4 Kingston Sub. At the same time VIA Rail assignment #67-13 was proceeding Westward on the same track. VIA train came to a controlled stop approximately 20 car lengths east of M37231-13. No collision. No derailment. No injuries. Being assessed."

Obviously we armchair observers can't assess the incident, but clearly it was reported and the TSB was seized with dispositioning the report.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Well, that shoots my speculation all to bits. Perhaps I should not have.

It's quite apparent that CN is not sweeping the incident - whatever it was - under the carpet. Quite the opposite, they know that such internal "broadcast" communications do leak out.

The requirements to report incidents to Transportation Safety Board can be found here. Based on the CN description of the incident, and the criteria for reporting, at face value it should have been reported (criteria g).

Not every incident that is reported leads to a formal TSB investigation or report.

The TSB Database shows a reported incident ID# 133205 for the Kingston Sub with a date of 4/13/2013, at MP 69.4 which is classed as a "Movement Exceeds Limits of Authority" event. The database categorises this as having "risk of collision".

The verbal description of the incident in the database reads

"CN assignment M37231-13 was proceeding Eastward on the South Main track when it passed Signal 694S displaying a Stop indication at Wesco, mile 69.4 Kingston Sub. At the same time VIA Rail assignment #67-13 was proceeding Westward on the same track. VIA train came to a controlled stop approximately 20 car lengths east of M37231-13. No collision. No derailment. No injuries. Being assessed."

Obviously we armchair observers can't assess the incident, but clearly it was reported and the TSB was seized with dispositioning the report.

- Paul

If my understanding of signaling is correct, there would have been a signal before the stop one telling the crew to slow down, right? Do freight crews call out the signals? I think I remember hearing that once on a GO train in a cab car when the door was open.

 

[Allandale25]

 

[crs1026]

If my understanding of signaling is correct, there would have been a signal before the stop one telling the crew to slow down, right? Do freight crews call out the signals? I think I remember hearing that once on a GO train in a cab car when the door was open.

Yes, and yes.

Both trains would have passed "approach" signals telling them that the home signal ahead was other than clear. The available information states that the freight had a red signal (Rule 439) - from which one can be confident that the freight had already passed a signal that required them to slow down with the prospect of coming to a complete stop.

If both trains were on the same track as implied, one can deduce that the VIA was either also facing a stop signal or possibly a signal that was permissive but at less than full speed (as it may have been lined to cross over to the other track). In either case one would be confident that the VIA's approach signal would indicate this.

Crews on both freight and VIA are required to communicate with each other every time before passing every signal, to confirm they have a common understanding of the indication. (CROR Rule 34)

Any scenario where a train is able to enter the path of a loaded passenger train is problemmatic, but there is too little known about this incident to say much more. The Hinton disaster involved two trains that collided at full speed and the facts may be different here.

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]