VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

To be fair, shaving 15 minutes off the 4h10 trip from Ottawa to Toronto is nowhere near as ambitious as achieving 3h59 to Montréal.

Ottawa-Toronto in 4h10 = 106 km/h average
Ottawa-Toronto in 3h55 = 113 km/h average
Montréal-Toronto in 3h59 = 135 km/h average.

Given that the LRC speed limit is often 10 mph (16 km/h) higher than the P+ speed limit through curves and 5 mph (8 km/h) higher on the straights, it doesn't seem unreasonable to guess that it could provide that 7 km/h increase in average speed.

It seems like a stretch to ridicule the notion of a 3h55 train from Ottawa to Toronto given that Via operated a 3h59 schedule between Ottawa and Toronto for many years (and attemped the aforementioned 3h48 schedule for one year in 2014). I think it's not inconceivable that a Venture set could achieve it westbound in the morning and eastbound in the evening (so there are no meets on the Brockville or Smiths Falls subs)

I have to admit that I wrote „grotesquely“ before I actually got the calculator out and that I was actually slightly surprised by the results (classic case of of doing some research only after you‘ve already decided what your story is!).

Would a higher maximum speed and higher acceleration allow a better travel time? Without traffic and with optimal dispatching: certainly! However, an increased average speed increases the speed gap to freight trains and thus excaberates the mutual interference. I therefore suspect that traveling faster just means that you still get stuck behind the same freight train and that you just catch up to it earlier, leaving little (if any) gain. That‘s why it is so hopeless to achieve attractive end-to-end travel times along the Kingston Sub (at least as long as CN controls the dispatching, which we can safely assume as an unchangeable fact!), whereas it‘s much easier to adequately serve the intermediary markets with all-stop services (thanks to their lower average speed and emphasis on end-to-end travel time)…

 

[roger1818]

I have to admit that I wrote „grotesquely“ before I actually got the calculator out and was slightly surprised by the results.

Would a higher maximum speed and higher acceleration allow a better travel time? Without traffic and with optimal dispatching: certainly! However, an increased average speed increases the speed gap to freight trains and thus excaberates the mutual interference. I therefore suspect that traveling faster just means that you still get stuck behind the same freight train and that you just catch up to it earlier, leaving little (if any) gain. That‘s why it is so hopeless to achieve attractive end-to-end travel times along the Kingston Sub, whereas it‘s much easier to adequately serve the intermediary markets with all-stop services…

This reminds me of the quote by Yves Desjardins-Siciliano:

If the VIA Rail train doing 100 miles an hour leaves Montreal one hour after the freight train leaves Montreal going 50 miles an hour, when will they meet?​

When you are president of VIA Rail, they will meet too often, too fast...​

That's where, as @reaperexpress said, focusing on upgrading the tracks owned and controlled by VIA rail can make a huge difference. The Kingston Sub is a lost cause for fast operations and those fixated on the glory days of having one 3h 59m train a day (which may not fit your schedule) and only a few other slower trains a day as compensation for the priority given should move on.

 

[TerryJohnson]

To shave time off the Ottawa-Toronto schedule, the 20 minutes in takes to get from Fallowfield to Ottawa would seem to be an area for improvement that would also eventually benefit HFR.

There are also anomalies in the existing corridor schedule like not being able to board a train to Montreal in Brockville until 15:00 that probably exist because of underlying infrastructure constraints that could be addressed to significantly improve service for intermediate cities, even before fully implementing the proposal for 651/650 to be accompanied by early trains to Montreal and Ottawa and late trains back to create a "Kingston Hub" as promised alongside the HFR project.

 

[reaperexpress]

To shave time off the Ottawa-Toronto schedule, the 20 minutes in takes to get from Fallowfield to Ottawa would seem to be an area for improvement that would also eventually benefit HFR.

Definitely. And those 20 minutes are the best case scenario. Take a look at train 647: it's scheduled to take 50 minutes to cover 16 km from Fallowfield to Ottawa, which is an average of 19 km/h:

This additional time is due to the poor track configuration between Fallowfield and Ottawa stations. The segment is a single-tracked, with a single short siding near the Rideau river, and sidings at Ottawa and Fallowfield stations.

But although Fallowfield has a siding, it does not have a proper second platform. So when trains use the siding, passengers need to walk across the main track to get to the building. Which obviously makes the main track in accessible to trains during that time, and makes it impossible for two trains to serve the station at the same time.

Here's how the meet works between trains 644 and 647:

At 17:00, train 644 arrives and serves the station. I don't know which track it uses, but let's say it uses the siding.

At 17:03 it departs, but the single track ahead is occupied by train 647 coming westbound. So it can only roll forward to the end of the siding.

At 17:06 train 647 arrives at the station on the main track which is now available because train 644 has finished loading.

Finally once the switch is thrown, train 644 can proceed eastward.

As you may have noticed, this manoeuvre only creates about a 5 minute delay, which is far less than the 30 extra minutes in train 644's schedule. But this manoeuvre only works if both trains are exactly on time. If train 644 is any more than 3 minutes late, it wouldn't be able to clear the station in time for train 647's arrival. It appears that the other 25 minutes of extra time in 644's schedule are schedule padding which allows VIA to always prioritize train 647 over 644 (which makes sense since delays to 647 could have cascading effects down the line).

So in the very likely event that train 644 is more than 3 minutes late, it wouldn't be able to start unloading until 17:09 when 647 clears the platform. So it wouldn't depart Fallowfield until about 17:13 at the earliest.

This situation could be improved by building a second platform at Fallowfield station, allowing two trains to serve it at the same time without delaying each other. Extending the double track eastward from Fallowfield to the Rideau River would further reduce the delay caused by train meets by providing a larger margin of error for timing the meets. Increasing the track speeds to 60 mph along the current 45 mph zone from the Rideau River to Ottawa station would reduce the amount of time trains need to occupy the single-tracked segment, additionally reducing the delay caused if two trains meet at the single-tracked segment.

 

[Northern Light]

Definitely. And those 20 minutes are the best case scenario. Take a look at train 647: it's scheduled to take 50 minutes to cover 16 km from Fallowfield to Ottawa, which is an average of 19 km/h:
View attachment 505318

This additional time is due to the poor track configuration between Fallowfield and Ottawa stations. The segment is a single-tracked, with a single short siding near the Rideau river, and sidings at Ottawa and Fallowfield stations.

But although Fallowfield has a siding, it does not have a proper second platform. So when trains use the siding, passengers need to walk across the main track to get to the building. Which obviously makes the main track in accessible to trains during that time, and makes it impossible for two trains to serve the station at the same time.

Here's how the meet works between trains 644 and 647:

At 17:00, train 644 arrives and serves the station. I don't know which track it uses, but let's say it uses the siding.
View attachment 505341

At 17:03 it departs, but the single track ahead is occupied by train 647 coming westbound. So it can only roll forward to the end of the siding.
View attachment 505339

At 17:06 train 647 arrives at the station on the main track which is now available because train 644 has finished loading.
View attachment 505338

Finally once the switch is thrown, train 644 can proceed eastward.
View attachment 505337

As you may have noticed, this manoeuvre only accounts for about a 5 minute delay, which is far less than the 30 extra minutes in train 644's schedule. But this manoeuvre only works if both trains are exactly on time. If train 644 is any more than 3 minutes late, it wouldn't be able to clear the station in time for train 647's arrival. It appears that the other 25 minutes of extra time in 644's schedule are schedule padding which allows VIA to always prioritize train 647 over 644 (which makes sense since delays to 647 could have cascading effects down the line).

So in the very likely event that train 644 is more than 3 minutes late, it wouldn't be able to start unloading until 17:09 when 647 clears the platform. So it wouldn't depart Fallowfield until about 17:13 at the earliest.

This situation could be improved by building a second platform at Fallowfield station, allowing two trains to serve it at the same time without delaying each other. Extending the double track eastward from Fallowfield to the Rideau River would further reduce the delay caused by train meets by providing a larger margin of error for timing the meets. Increasing the track speeds to 60 mph along the current 45 mph zone from the Rideau River to Ottawa station would reduce the amount of time trains need to occupy the single-tracked segment, additionally reducing the delay caused if two trains meet at the single-tracked segment.

Can you, or perhaps one of other rail experts ballpark a cost figure for the changes you suggest?

I'd like pitch that as 'early works' or a down payment on HFR/HSR, but I always like to be able to make an informed pitch with a price tag.

 

[reaperexpress]

Can you, or perhaps one of other rail experts ballpark a cost figure for the changes you suggest?

I'd like pitch that as 'early works' or a down payment on HFR/HSR, but I always like to be able to make an informed pitch with a price tag.

I don't know how much it would cost, but we could look at other track improvement projects for reference. The Guelph second platform project is a similar scope to the proposed second platform for Fallowfield, assuming the Guelph work included a new (second) pedestrian tunnel. If Guelph doesn't include a new ped tunnel, then Fallowfield would be a bit more expensive than it, but cheaper than the Agincourt and Milliken upgrades which also included two ped tunnels* and new station buildings.

*one of the ped crossings at Milliken is the Steeles Avenue underpass so the pedestrian underpass itself was built through the separate City of Toronto grade separation project but I assume that the elevators were included in the GO expansion project.

The Feds budgeted $491 Million over 2021-2027 for HFR early works. What happened to all that money?

 

[Urban Sky]

Can you, or perhaps one of other rail experts ballpark a cost figure for the changes you suggest?

I'd like pitch that as 'early works' or a down payment on HFR/HSR, but I always like to be able to make an informed pitch with a price tag.

Most industry outsiders will intuitively believe that “just adding a switch” is a relatively cheap and straightforward operation, but this is only true for the installation, not the operation of that new switch. In order to use that new switch, you have to create a new interlocking and recalculate (and potentially change) all signals in the area, to determine things like sighting distances (a signal has to be visible for X seconds when traveling at maximum speed, so reduced visibility can lead to lower speed limits than what track geometry might allow).

Therefore, it doesn’t make sense to alter the signalling when you already know that more changes will become necessary on the same segment in the near future, but the design for these changes has not yet been determined and finalized. I suspect that the years-long delay with connecting West Harbour Station on the Southeastern Side was due to similar reasoning…

 

[Northern Light]

Most industry outsiders will intuitively believe that “just adding a switch” is a cheap and easy operation, but this is only true for the installation, not the operation of that new switch. In order to use that new switch, you have to create a new interlocking and recalculate (and potentially change) all signals in the area, to determine things like sighting distances (a signal has to be visible for X seconds when traveling at maximum speed).

I was thinking of the entire idea proposed by @reaperexpress of the additional platform at Fallowfield (presumably with tunnel underneath), the additional track to the Rideau and then any associated signal works.

 

[crs1026]

A VIA platform at Fallowfield need not be 12 coaches long, nor as elaborate - hence a bit cheaper than a GO station - but the over/underpass and elevator components would be of similar cost.

It's not clear to me why the speed from Ottawa to Fallowfield is so low. The speeds appear to have been set with the installation of CTC when the new Ottawa station was built in 1966.

The route is mostly grade separated and the curves are not severe. The line is already pretty well fenced. There is only one major river bridge. Possibly the placement of signals for the interlockings at Federal, Wass, and Ellwood presents visibility issues at speed - and the signal progression along these may be primitive, so resignalling cost may have discouraged speed upgrades.

If it's just a matter of track condition, one would think that is fairly easy to fix with some tie and surfacing work.

I won't guess at a price, but it has to be pretty reasonable, and hardly a stranded assett for HxR. I imagine the proponents might want double tracking in places, but they likely won't push for more than moderate speed between Fallowfield and Ottawa, unless someone is proposing to skip that stop for some runs (that seems unlikely to me). So not money wasted..... although the bureaucrats will want any improvements placed in whatever new envelope is negotiated once a vendor is chosen.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

I was thinking of the entire idea proposed by @reaperexpress of the additional platform at Fallowfield (presumably with tunnel underneath), the additional track to the Rideau and then any associated signal works.

Something like this will inevitably need to get build for HFR to happen. However, and as I already said, it makes little sense to start building before the successful proponents have decided what and how exactly they want to get their required infrastructure built. I suspect that the same logic also applies to any of the “low-hanging fruits” (i.e. any major “early work” on infrastructure presumably reused by future HFR services)…

TLDR: in Engineering, you rarely achieve good value-for-money if you start building before you have obtained a somewhat advanced understanding of how the finished structure is going to look like…

 

[reaperexpress]

A VIA platform at Fallowfield need not be 12 coaches long, nor as elaborate - hence a bit cheaper than a GO station - but the over/underpass and elevator components would be of similar cost.

I imagine that a Via platform would be a bit more expensive per metre because it would be raised to 1220mm ATR vs 127mm ATR for a GO platform. Order of magnitude I figure they'd be similiar (but VIA indeed a bit cheaper given the shorter length).

It's not clear to me why the speed from Ottawa to Fallowfield is so low. The speeds appear to have been set with the installation of CTC when the new Ottawa station was built in 1966.

The route is mostly grade separated and the curves are not severe. The line is already pretty well fenced. There is only one major river bridge. Possibly the placement of signals for the interlockings at Federal, Wass, and Ellwood presents visibility issues at speed - and the signal progression along these may be primitive, so resignalling cost may have discouraged speed upgrades.

If it's just a matter of track condition, one would think that is fairly easy to fix with some tie and surfacing work.

I won't guess at a price, but it has to be pretty reasonable, and hardly a stranded assett for HxR. I imagine the proponents might want double tracking in places, but they likely won't push for more than moderate speed between Fallowfield and Ottawa, unless someone is proposing to skip that stop for some runs (that seems unlikely to me). So not money wasted..... although the bureaucrats will want any improvements placed in whatever new envelope is negotiated once a vendor is chosen.

The main geometric constraint I see along the line is the bridge over the Rideau River, which appears to be a double-track structure with single-track spans and fairly sharp curves on both ends (which currently have 40 mph limits). If not for these curves, this would be where trains could be travelling the fastest, as it's halfway between the two stations.

There are three main options here:
1. Leave the bridge as-is, with single track
2. Add a second span to the existing bridge, or
3. Bypass it with a new double-tracked bridge which would allow continuous 70+mph operations.

Conceptual alignement for a new bridge in yellow. Would require acquisition of 2 industrial properties and 2 residential properties.

 

[crs1026]

^Building a new bridge is probably beyond the scope of a "quick fix", but it's exactly what a proponent might decide to do down the road.

FWIW the limit over the bridge in 1970 was 50 mph..... the through route back then was westwards to the CP and CN transcon lines. The 45 mph zone started at Wass, where the line to Walkley cut off.

In those days, the switch to the Smiths Falls Sub at Federal was 15 mph and some trains had to stop to sign the register anyways. I don't have documentation showing what the switch is good for these days.

- Paul

 

[yrt+viva=1system]

 

[Northern Light]

Might be better suited to the 'General Rail Discussions' thread as I don't think it bears on VIA at all.

***

Worth adding, lots of statistics rattled off there aren't wrong, but are misleading.

'Rail travel in the U.S. is up 45% in the last 20 years'........

Uh huh..........this includes what kinds of rail travel (ie. NYC commuter rail?)

Also, how do you factor that against population growth which was just over 16% in the period in question.

Allowing for the above, per capita rail usage would still be up 25%, but that is not 45%

****

I also note that Brightline only aims to achieve (up to) 125mph service, which while good and potentially useful is not reasonably describable as HSR which the piece seems to imply.

 

[CapitalSeven]

I don't know where reaperexpress found that wonky schedule with 50 minutes from Fallowfield to Ottawa but it doesn't seem to be valid. I checked VIA's site for that day and there is no train from Kingston at 1530. There are trains at 1447 and 1638. Both show 17 minutes from Fallowfield. Which is too slow but only by 5 minutes or so.