VIA Rail

[reaperexpress]

I wish I could write more about this, but I'll have to limit myself to the two following remarks:

At the same time, other, more industry-specific sources quoted 110 mph (177 km/h) as maximum speed (i.e. still compatible with level crossings, if I read the Grade Crossing Regulations correctly) and the fleet specifications released by VIA mentioned 125 mph (201 km/h) as anticipated maximum speed of its future fleet...

I think it's been pretty consistently stated that HFR would operate at up to 110 mph (177 km/h), which makes sense because that's the highest speed permitted through a level crossing. But the difference between 100mph and 110 mph isn't really going to change the fact that there's absolutely no way they could achieve those average speeds without some very serious investment in the ROW.

The fastest scheduled time I could find in my timetable archive was 1:35 (train 37 in VIA timetable effective 2002/10/27). You might also recall that modest realignments of existing ROWs can be done even without triggering an environmental assessment. Then, compare the current route with the map posted by alexanderglista and you might notice a small detail. Finally, take a train from Montreal to Ottawa (or track it online) and analyse the average speed until it reaches the "mainland" at Dorion...

But the problem with the Havelock sub is the 200 km between Havelock and Smiths Falls, where modest realignments are not an option. In Southern Ontario, you can widen curves, because they connect two straight segments of track. But the Havelock Sub is continuous 600-metre-radius curves, which can support what, maybe 55 mph at most given that the 900-metre-radius curve through Kingston is 65 mph. If you realign all the curves slower than 85 mph, then there's nothing left of the original ROW! If we are talking about bypassing the 200km of meandering ROW between Havelock and Smiths Falls with a brand new 200km/h line, then I'm all in, but that's not the rhetoric we've been hearing or the budget we've been seeing.

I do actually have a GPS track somewhere from one of my trips from Montreal to Ottawa... I seem to recall there were a number of beautifully banked curves that were remarkably high-speed given how sharp they are, probably in the 80-85mph range if I recall correctly? VIA could widen some of those curves and eliminate the speed restrictions, but you're not going to make up 30 minutes by raising a handful of curves from 80 mph to 100 mph. It would be great if they did realign some curves on the Alexandria Sub, which could go ahead regardless of HFR given that they already own and use the line.

 

[MisterF]

I think it's been pretty consistently stated that HFR would operate at up to 110 mph (177 km/h), which makes sense because that's the highest speed permitted through a level crossing. But the difference between 100mph and 110 mph isn't really going to the fact that there's absolutely no way they could achieve those average speeds without some very serious investment in the ROW.



But the problem with the Havelock sub is the 200 km between Havelock and Smiths Falls, where modest realignments are not an option. In Southern Ontario, you can widen curves, because they connect two straight segments of track. But the Havelock Sub is continuous 600-metre-radius curves, which can support what, maybe 55 mph at most given that the 900-metre-radius curve through Kingston is 65 mph. If you realign all the curves slower than 85 mph, then there's nothing left of the original ROW! If we are talking about bypassing the 200km of meandering ROW between Havelock and Smiths Falls with a brand new 200km/h line, then I'm all in, but that's not the rhetoric we've been hearing or the budget we've been seeing.

I do actually have a GPS track somewhere from one of my trips from Montreal to Ottawa... I seem to recall there were a number of beautifully banked curves that were remarkably high-speed given how sharp they are, probably in the 80-85mph range if I recall correctly? VIA could widen some of those curves and eliminate the speed restrictions, but you're not going to make up 30 minutes by raising a handful of curves from 80 mph to 100 mph. It would be great if they did realign some curves on the Alexandria Sub, which could go ahead regardless of HFR given that they already own and use the line.

According to this, a superelevated curve with a 450 m radius can support tilting trains going 120 km/h. So if the Havelock sub indeed has 600 m curves and Via buys modern tilting trains, speeds would be faster than that. BTW where did you get the information about the Havelock sub curves?

The Western Mainline in Britain was mentioned a while ago as having an abundance of sharp curves and speeds in the 200 km/h range made possible by tilting trains. Does anyone know the curve radius on that line?

 

[steveintoronto]

According to this, a superelevated curve with a 450 m radius can support tilting trains going 120 km/h. So if the Havelock sub indeed has 600 m curves and Via buys modern tilting trains, speeds would be faster than that. BTW where did you get the information about the Havelock sub curves?

The Western Mainline in Britain was mentioned a while ago as having an abundance of sharp curves and speeds in the 200 km/h range made possible by tilting trains. Does anyone know the curve radius on that line?

I don't have specs handy, but indeed, this string has seen this discussion before, and many nations run far faster trains than VIA now does on far curvier and challenging RoWs, Norway, Switzerland, UK being just a few. The answer is both electric propulsion and tilting mechanism (cue the tired old arguments of the early Bombardier LRC attempts):

UK West Coast Mainline:
[...]
Much of the line has a maximum speed of 125 mph (201 km/h), meeting the European Union's definition of an upgraded high-speed line,[6] although only Class 390 Pendolinos and Class 221 Super Voyagers with tilting mechanisms operated by Virgin Trains travel at that speed. Other traffic is limited to 110 mph (177 km/h).
[...]
The geography of the route was determined by avoiding large estates, and hilly areas, such as the Chilterns (Tring cutting), the Watford Gap and Northampton uplands followed by the Trent Valley, the mountains of Cumbria with a summit at Shap, and Beattock Summit in South Lanarkshire. This legacy means the WCML has limitations as a long-distance main line, with lower maximum speeds than the East Coast Main Line (ECML) route, the other major main line between London and Scotland. The principal solution has been the adoption of tilting trains, initially with British Rail's APT, and latterly the Class 390 Pendolino trains constructed by Alstom and introduced by Virgin Trains in 2003. A 'conventional' attempt to raise line speeds as part of the InterCity 250 upgrade in the 1990s would have relaxed maximum cant levels on curves and seen some track realignments; this scheme faltered for lack of funding in the economic climate of the time.
[...]
(Signalling): Central to the implementation of the plan was the adoption of moving block signalling, which had never been proven on anything more than simple metro lines and light rail systems – not on a complex high-speed heavy-rail network such as the WCML. Despite this, Railtrack made what would prove to be the fatal mistake of not properly assessing the technical viability and cost of implementing moving block prior to promising the speed increase to Virgin and the government.
[...]
Increased line speed
Virgin Trains put forward plans in 2007 to increase the line speed in places on the WCML – particularly along sections of the Trent Valley Line between Stafford and Rugby from 125 to 135 mph (200 to 217 km/h) after the quadrupling of track had been completed. This would permit faster services and possibly allow additional train paths. 135 mph (217 km/h) was claimed to be achievable by Pendolino trains while using existing lineside signalling without the need for cab signalling via the use of the TASS system (Tilt Authorisation and Speed Supervision) to prevent overspeeding.
[...]

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

As for curves, no EA is required for reducing curve radius up to 100 metres from the centre of the RoW under the Transportation Act.

 

[Allandale25]

Here's the Minister on when VIA will get a response to their proposal:

"Garneau said he hoped to be able to provide an answer soon.

“I hope to have something to say in the next six months, but I can’t predict that.”"

Story here:
http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/new...overnment-close-high-speed-rail-decision.html

 

[crs1026]

Just to put those speed calculations in context - a 2005 chart that came my way shows the CN Kingston Sub as having 207.8 miles of its 335 mile length rated at 100 mph for LRC equipment. Taking the top speed of every track segment and assuming 95 mph top speed Coteau-Dorval, (the chart doesn't show data east of Coteau) the non stop travel time at the theoretical maximum speed (not much has changed since '05) results in a theoretical best end to end trip time of 217 minutes - 3:37. The difference between 3:37 and today's schedules is due to scheduled stops, freight trains, and reductions for slow orders. The schedules are padded a little for recovery time, also.

A key constraint is that the territory has a number of permanent slow orders that break the 100 mph territory into smaller lengths, with acceleration and deceleration happening frequently. That accelerate/decelerate distance has to happen outside of the restrictive zones, so it reduces the true "full-speed available" distance. West of Brockville, there are only three segments that allows continuous 100 mph speed for a sustained distance - the longest is 38.2 miles (west of Belleville), the next two are 19.6 and 19.2 miles. The rest consists of 6 segments of between 8.4 and 13.4 miles in length. The territory east of Brockville - which does no good to the Ottawa route - is the fastest with one continous segment of 48 miles and one of 13.3 miles.

To achieve faster speeds, *every* slow order has to be removed, or the trains will not cover the territory at the full track speed. Superelevation and tilting is certainly feasible on a dedicated right of way, but not on a shared right of way, because the geometry of slower freights won't mix well with passenger speed superelevation.

If you posit a single track line, there has to be enough passing capacity and high speed turnouts so that trains never slow down to make meets. For an hourly service pattern, meeting points will be needed every 50 miles, but the meeting tracks will need to be 10-15 miles long so that trains clear each other before restrictive signals are encountered. If you add even a single train beyond the rigid hourly headway, you need to double the number of meeting points. That gets close to complete double tracking.

My point being - even at 100 mph, the potential to achieve better end to end times requires a very favourable track design. Not all slow orders are curve related. Tilting is not a silver bullet.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's the Minister on when VIA will get a response to their proposal:

"Garneau said he hoped to be able to provide an answer soon.

“I hope to have something to say in the next six months, but I can’t predict that.”"

Story here:
http://m.metronews.ca/#/article/new...overnment-close-high-speed-rail-decision.html

Here's where I have an issue with that story, and it's been reported in a number of stories (and it is necessary public posturing, but faulty logic):

[...]
It also estimates that $150 million in subsidy the government gives the corporation now to run service in the area would no longer be needed.

That claim will cause endless grief, as in the UK and elsewhere, *subsidies* are necessary to make any kind of sustained business case. Is that a large cost to the taxpayer? It all depends on the context. Building roads is a massive cost to the taxpayer. Network Rail is the former privatized Railtrack, a failed economic model, now back in Gov't hands, and now considered not able to be privatized again, topical, but essentially true.

From the Financial Times, even though dated two years ago, this situation has gotten even more abject since, some Train Operating Franchises are now back in Gov't hands since no company will bid on them unless they are offered a subsidy (I chose the FT article as the FT is very neutral on the issue)

Network Rail subsidies worth £3.9bn to be handed to train groups
July 9, 2015 by: Gill Plimmer and Tanya Powley

The government has begun a big overhaul of Britain’s state-owned railway infrastructure operator, but experts questioned whether the measures would fix its severe management and performance problems. The moves strip Network Rail of £3.9bn a year in government subsidy and hand the money to private train operating companies such as Virgin and Stagecoach. They will in turn pay higher fees to Network Rail for using the tracks. The changes will fundamentally alter the structure of Network Rail for the third time since Britain’s railways were privatised in 1996 At the same time Nicola Shaw, the well-regarded head of High Speed 1, the privatised rail link between London and the Channel tunnel, has been drafted in to draw up a rescue plan for the crisis-hit rail infrastructure operator. [...]

Lessons to be learned!

Allandale's linked article continues:

Garneau said that’s what the government is trying to test before it decides to commit money.

“Those are all factors that would have to be looked at very carefully, because we’re talking about the taxpayers’ money.

The project could theoretically be funded under the government’s infrastructure bank, which looks to invest in projects that would demonstrate a financial return.

Garneau said he hoped to be able to provide an answer soon.

“I hope to have something to say in the next six months, but I can’t predict that.”

Today's Globe and the excellent Bill Curry have a very good hint of why this is taking time, and I agree, the Libs have to get this right. I've quoted a number of Aussie cases prior, but again, lessons to be learned before jumping into this:

Ottawa insists infrastructure bank will avoid Australia’s pitfalls
Bill Curry
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Jul. 05, 2017 8:13PM EDT

After spending four days in Sydney, Infrastructure Minister Amarjeet Sohi says he’s convinced Canada can attract private infrastructure investors while avoiding some of the fallout that similar efforts have faced in Australia.

But as Canada follows its Commonwealth ally’s lead, Australia is showing signs of softening its full-throated embrace of privatized infrastructure.

Australia cancelled a signature program called “asset recycling” last year that was aimed at selling off government assets to fund new projects. More recently, the Australian government said it will change its budget reporting to reflect the distinction between good and bad debt in an effort to promote the benefits of traditional government borrowing to build infrastructure. Australia’s 2017 budget also announced direct public funding of major road and rail projects.

Read more: Infrastructure bank susceptible to ‘political interference,’ ex-banker says

The Canada Infrastructure Bank, a $35-billion initiative that was approved by Parliament in June, is heavily inspired by Australia’s efforts to attract private infrastructure investors. Whether Australia’s record is one of success or failure remains a point of heated debate there. Some projects have clearly been controversial, including massive tunnel programs worth billions that ended with private backers in receivership. [...]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...r-from-australian-model-sohi/article35569345/

One of the UK rail franchises going begging now for bidders is the East Coast Mainline (ECML), designed for purpose compared to the WCML (the curvy one which was cobbled together from about twenty different extant rail lines) much faster and more direct. And yet for a number of reasons, it's just not as competitive as the one that runs the Pendolinos.

Distance alone is not the determining factor, and basing decisions on that will get Canada into a failing rail model *yet again*! All present factors considered (and VIA have published their rationale many times for this) it is *reliable speed* that counts most, and affordable track charges. Remember, VIA is to be the operating company. The RoW is to be private. That in itself is open for discussion as being the best arrangement for an IB type project, but that will be further analyzed and discussed by *beady eyed financial planners and accountants* (from all parties, VIA included via Transport and Infrastructure Canada) to arrive at an answer suitable for all.

 

[steveintoronto]

Factors to consider if Canada is to improve on passenger rail:

Does Stagecoach row prove rail privatisation has failed?
Jun 29, 2017
After another East Coast franchise runs into trouble, is it time to bring the railways back under state control?

There are very few people outside the Tory front bench who are willing to defend rail privatisation, despite another headline appearing to strengthen the argument that the networks should be brought back into public ownership.

See related
Government refuses to sack Southern Rail operator
This morning, Stagecoach reported its East Coast franchise has suffered significant losses that had "punched an £84m hole in its finances", says The Guardian.

Boss Martin Griffiths said the company had overpaid by bidding £412m a year for the eight-year contract in 2015 and that because of Network Rail failing to deliver promised infrastructure upgrades, it would demand a change to the contract terms.

The Department for Transport dismissed the comments, but "the dispute raises the possibility that Stagecoach could end up paying something closer to the £235m" paid previously by the public operator Directly Operated Railways.

This only adds to the disastrous history of the East Coast franchise, which has seen two private companies fail since 2006.
[...]
Complex structure
The structure of the privatised railway does look messy, as this diagram from the industry regulator the Office for Rail and Road makes clear.

Most tend to think of the railways in terms of franchised operators, but the reality is much more complicated.

The infrastructure, including the lines themselves, electrical cables, signalling and stations, are owned by Network Rail, which since the failure of Railtrack in the early part of the last decade is a public company.

Then there are the rail operators, which are mostly the companies running the 15 main franchises plus a few smaller firms running "open access" services on some routes. Operators also lease most of the stations along their route from Network Rail.

These firms also lease the rail rolling stock, which is owned and provided mostly by three companies, referred to as rolling stock companies, or "Roscos". For some big infrastructure projects this is bought and provided by the government.

This means that train companies pay for access to track space that is owned by a public company, using trains that are leased from and maintained by other third parties.

The arrangements for these operating companies differ, too. Some run under a full franchising deal that transfers most of the risk to the private sector, like Stagecoach.

Others are franchises like Southern Rail, which because of the upheaval of the Thameslink programme is managed for an annual fee of around £1bn by Govia. Any financial risk is borne by the government.

All of this also means that when you face delays on your rail journey, due to a signalling failure, say, or a train failure, it's probably not the fault of the company from which you bought your ticket.
[...]

http://www.theweek.co.uk/86187/does-stagecoach-row-prove-rail-privatisation-has-failed

The lesson to be learned from others all comes down to the *balance of risk and costs associated with that*. This is something the Cdn Public is woefully ill-equipped to comprehend, and thus the need for the Libs and VIA to make superlative statements when the reality is much more complex.

And judging a model by the shortest distance alone feeds directly into that quagmire.

 

[Allandale25]

High Speed Rail Canada has this post on the consultants doing the High Frequency Rail studies. The information is from a response the Library of Canada sent to an opposition MP who asked for details. The full report is here.

 

[Allandale25]

Churchill update:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...-keewatin-rail-spence-pc-government-1.4191900

 

[steveintoronto]

Churchill update:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...-keewatin-rail-spence-pc-government-1.4191900

What impresses me, at least in the sections shown on the vid linked above, is how good the condition of the unaffected track is. Unless that section(s) shown is in a condition, other than the washouts, better than the rest of it, it appears to be a no-brainer to repair it at the cost of two houses in Toronto. That's a bargain...

This might end-up being a fortunate turn of events. Omni-Trax bow out, someone steps in to buy (hopefully the locals with a deep-pocket backer) and the strategic importance of that line is retained, if not improved. Behind the scenes, the Feds and Manitoba might be ready to step-in, if even on a temporary basis.

 

[crs1026]

The mug's game in those

What impresses me, at least in the sections shown on the vid linked above, is how good the condition of the unaffected track is. Unless that section(s) shown is in a condition, other than the washouts, better than the rest of it, it appears to be a no-brainer to repair it at the cost of two houses in Toronto. That's a bargain...

This might end-up being a fortunate turn of events. Omni-Trax bow out, someone steps in to buy (hopefully the locals with a deep-pocket backer) and the strategic importance of that line is retained, if not improved. Behind the scenes, the Feds and Manitoba might be ready to step-in, if even on a temporary basis.

Omnitrax is not the right owner for this kind of proposition. They are basically aligned to extracting value but not putting anything into the capital base. I like the idea of someone like Keewatin taking ownership. If the line does have any viability, building it into the aboriginal-owned enterprise base is the way to go.

If the cost is only two million, that's a very reasonable amount to spend to fix the line - it's only a few turns of an Ontario windvane.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

... If the line does have any viability, building it into the aboriginal-owned enterprise base is the way to go....- Paul

Even if Omni-Trax now decide to keep it, an offer should be made to buy them out. This has such incredibly positive political capital to seeing Keewatin w/ other locals take stewardship of what is essentially 'their backyard', and a piece of infrastructure that not only ties them to the greater world, but gives them incentive to improve it and take responsibility doing it. It's almost exactly what Trudeau has been trying to accomplish on the First Nations front. Doing so would also allow investment into Churchill to be far more beneficial across many portfolios, not the least Indian Affairs. Investing in this...let me be more diplomatic...*backstopping this* fiscally would be money well-spent to satisfy many social programs as well as strategic ones.

 

[muller877]

The mug's game in those


Omnitrax is not the right owner for this kind of proposition. They are basically aligned to extracting value but not putting anything into the capital base. I like the idea of someone like Keewatin taking ownership. If the line does have any viability, building it into the aboriginal-owned enterprise base is the way to go.

If the cost is only two million, that's a very reasonable amount to spend to fix the line - it's only a few turns of an Ontario windvane.

- Paul

Keewatin Rail receives funding from the gov't every so often. HBR also used to receive indirect funding (via a monopolistic power...CWB). It was inevitable that this lines has to be subsidized to maintain operations. I believe it should be but its a debate that should be discussed.

 

[steveintoronto]

I believe it should be (supported) but its a debate that should be discussed.

Absolutely agree. In reading a bit on it last night I was reminded that Omnitrax also own the port, as well as the railway.

Northern group signs deal to buy Port of Churchill and rail line
Missinippi Rail consortium offers $20M to Omnitrax; head of northern group slams Ottawa for lack of support

By Sean Kavanagh, CBC News Posted: Jun 05, 2017 4:00 AM CT

CBC News has learned a deal has been struck to sell the Port of Churchill in Manitoba and the rail line connecting it to the south, but one of its principals is slamming the federal government for its lack of support.

The port's owner, U.S.-based Omnitrax Rail, has signed a memorandum of understanding with a First Nations consortium called Missinippi Rail LP to transfer the assets for $20 million.

The agreement would see Omnitrax finance the purchase through a loan to Missinippi.
[...]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/churchill-rail-port-omnitrax-dumas-1.4143982

Read the entire article, as there's a second more supported group vying for ownership.

 

[nfitz]

At the same time, other, more industry-specific sources quoted 110 mph (177 km/h) as maximum speed (i.e. still compatible with level crossings, if I read the Grade Crossing Regulations correctly) and the fleet specifications released by VIA mentioned 125 mph (201 km/h) as anticipated maximum speed of its future fleet...

110 mph would make sense.

Finally, take a train from Montreal to Ottawa (or track it online) and analyse the average speed until it reaches the "mainland" at Dorion...

I haven't done it recently, but when I used to do it frequently, it seemed to move pretty good until it reached the curve in St-Henri, and then it crawled. Don't see much solution to this now that they've built on all the dead-straight ROW from there to Bonaventure station. Unless someone wants to resurrect the old thoughts of running in on the CP alignment instead, and then dropping into a tunnel somewhere between Guy and de la Montagne. Though de la Gauchetiere is presumably out out off the question now, with the new forum built on the Windsor Station platforms. Not sure if St-Antoine is doable, at the bottom of the hill - and further from the existing Central Station infrastructure - and doesn't align up well with the tunnel for Quebec City services.