VIA Rail

[dowlingm]

Eliminating slow orders and widening curves is fundamentally different from going north of 100 because it means cab signalling, which might fly on the bits VIA owns or new/reinstated alignments but not on what it doesn't. Not sure what CN runs its freights at (50? 60?) but even 110mph VIA would create significant speed differential vs freight traffic and with the failure to complete the original extent of Kingston Sub 3-tracking would probably put a lot of pressure on RTCs

 

[kEiThZ]

Anybody seen any new on HFR lately?

 

[smallspy]

Eliminating slow orders and widening curves is fundamentally different from going north of 100 because it means cab signalling, which might fly on the bits VIA owns or new/reinstated alignments but not on what it doesn't. Not sure what CN runs its freights at (50? 60?) but even 110mph VIA would create significant speed differential vs freight traffic and with the failure to complete the original extent of Kingston Sub 3-tracking would probably put a lot of pressure on RTCs

It's even more complex than that.

The nominal maximum speed of any freight on the Kingston Sub is 65mph. But that's before taking into account any hazardous materials or high/wide cars, which may force a further restriction to 35mph.

And then you need to take into account the effects of slowing down and speeding up for all of the various on-line speed restrictions for work zones, crossovers and PSOs.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[reaperexpress]

Using Google Earth, I've been trying to conceptualize how the Havelock sub would need to be realigned to support the continuous 110mph (177 km/h) speed limit required to achieve VIA's 160km/h average speed claim. First I drew 1300m and 1800m curves on the ground, which are the minimum radii at 200km/h for tilting, and non-tilting trains respectively, according to that chart on Wikipedia. Then I tried to free-hand an alignment that keeps the curve radii above 1300m (tilting trains @ 200km/h).

In the image below, the current ROW is in blue, and my free-hand realignment is in yellow. This segment of the line is so curvy that when the minimum curve radius is increased, almost none of the original ROW can be reused. The current ROW has one beautifully wide curve on the right side of the image that can be reused, but then to the east the line gets very squiggly and would need to be bypassed again.

Location:
44°41'40.28"N
76°57'55.35"W

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 roughly measured the radius on Google Earth similarly to how I drew the radii in the image above, by trying to find the point equidistant to all points along the curve.

When they say the West Coast Mainline is curvy, it's relative. The East Coast Mainline and Great Western Mainline have enormous curve radii, on par with some modern high-speed-rail lines. The curve below on the Great Western Mainline just outside Didcot (randomly selected, they all seem similar in that segment) appears to have a radius of about 5000 metres.

 

[smallspy]

Using Google Earth, I've been trying to conceptualize how the Havelock sub would need to be realigned to support the continuous 110mph (177 km/h) speed limit required to achieve VIA's 160km/h average speed claim. First I drew 1300m and 1800m curves on the ground, which are the minimum radii at 200km/h for tilting, and non-tilting trains respectively, according to that chart on Wikipedia. Then I tried to free-hand an alignment that keeps the curve radii above 1300m (tilting trains @ 200km/h).

In the image below, the current ROW is in blue, and my free-hand realignment is in yellow. This segment of the line is so curvy that when the minimum curve radius is increased, almost none of the original ROW can be reused. The current ROW has one beautifully wide curve on the right side of the image that can be reused, but then to the east the line gets very squiggly and would need to be bypassed again.
View attachment 114284
Location:
44°41'40.28"N
76°57'55.35"W




I roughly measured the radius on Google Earth similarly to how I drew the radii in the image above, by trying to find the point equidistant to all points along the curve.

When they say the West Coast Mainline is curvy, it's relative. The East Coast Mainline and Great Western Mainline have enormous curve radii, on par with some modern 200-250km/h high-speed-rail lines. The curve below on the Great Western Mainline just outside Didcot (randomly selected, they all seem similar in that segment) appears to have a radius of about 5000 metres.
View attachment 114289

Don't forget to factor in your spiral easements and tangents between curves.

One thing that they found on both the West Coast Mainline and the North East Corridor was that there were locations where, despite the curves being of adequately large radius to allow for higher-speed running, the tangent linking curves was not long enough to allow for the unweighting of the wheels coming out of/going into the curves and centering of the tilt system in the cars. This forces additional speed restrictions - enforced by the TASS system on the WCML and ACSES on the NEC - beyond what the track geometry is actually capable of.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[nfitz]

This segment of the line is so curvy that when the minimum curve radius is increased, almost none of the original ROW can be reused.

This is what I've been trying to point out here for a year - but have been too lazy to map it myself. The alignment is completely unsuitable.

Now you've come up with something that might work. But remember the reason it was so curvy in the first place was elevation issue. So you'd both have to pretty much build a new alignment near the old one, and do a lot of blasting, cuts, and huge fills. And that's not happening for the $ amounts we've seen proposed.

I don't know which engineer (if any) has signed off on this, but if they have, I really have to question their competence. What's odd, is I don't see any studies in the list of 5, that would address this properly. So presumably there is an earlier study? The 5 reports seem to be related to Budget 2016. However, we were hearing about this alignment when Budget 2016 was announced, or shortly afterwards. So the feasibility study on this alignment must have been earlier.

Who did it? Are they qualified? Research and Traffic Group isn't qualified. CPCS Transcom as far as I recall is the old telecommunications division of CPCS Limited when they imploded in 1990, and had management, economic, and telecommunications specialties, but not the hard core rail and high speed expertise. Which is probably fine for these contracts.

So someone else must have done the hard-core engineering. But who? Because I don't think it passes the sniff test. I'd honestly be surprised if they could achieve much better than 4 hours from Toronto Union station to Ottawa Station station. 3.5 maybe. 2.5 - not happening.

Someone should FOI that report!

 

[crs1026]

I continue to wonder whether the Havelock line is just a straw man which is being used to talk CN and/or CP down to a more reasonable pricing on use of one of the better main lines. "See, if you don't agree, we have a fallback Plan B and it will only cost us $X......" In negotiating speak it's called BATNA.
I also can't believe that VIA would sacrifice the Kingston market. (Please don't tell me they will continue to serve the old route as well - if VIA does leave the Kingston line for HFR, CN will pull out the stops to force them to get off its tracks altogether)
So yeah - it just seems illogical to go that way. I would love to see someone FOI all the studies.
- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

Now you've come up with something that might work. But remember the reason it was so curvy in the first place was elevation issue. So you'd both have to pretty much build a new alignment near the old one, and do a lot of blasting, cuts, and huge fills. And that's not happening for the $ amounts we've seen proposed.

Yes, I forgot to mention this. The map is purely an illustration of how much change would be required in the ROW to widen the curves. I happily blasted the line through hills and across marshes, basically the only obstacle I didn't ignore was large lakes. Not really feasible within the shoestring budget they've been showing.

I continue to wonder whether the Havelock line is just a straw man which is being used to talk CN and/or CP down to a more reasonable pricing on use of one of the better main lines. "See, if you don't agree, we have a fallback Plan B and it will only cost us $X......" In negotiating speak it's called BATNA.
I also can't believe that VIA would sacrifice the Kingston market. (Please don't tell me they will continue to serve the old route as well - if VIA does leave the Kingston line for HFR, CN will pull out the stops to force them to get off its tracks altogether)

I don't know if CN would kick VIA off entirely, but with passenger traffic dropping to only a few trains per day, they would certainly stop maintaining the line to a 95mph standard. It would be 80mph at most.

 

[crs1026]

I don't know if CN would kick VIA off entirely, but with passenger traffic dropping to only a few trains per day, they would certainly stop maintaining the line to a 95mph standard. It would be 80mph at most.

When you compare Montreal -Toronto to Saskatoon - Edmonton, out west CN handles twice as many freights with a mostly single track railroad. CN has always known better than to strangle VIA's most important service linking the top cities in ON/QC - but if that service goes to a different line, then CN is no longer the bad guy if it downgrades speed or removes double track and that constrains secondary service. And, VIA can't continue to pay whatever it pays to maintain the extra track and the higher speeds, because both its revenue and its subsidy for the route would fall dramatically.
So yes, 80 mph speeds and maybe some single track segments too. And timekeeping more like what the Canadian gets.
- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Please don't tell me they will continue to serve the old route as well - if VIA does leave the Kingston line for HFR, CN will pull out the stops to force them to get off its tracks altogether

It's neither VIA's or CN's decision to make. It's the CTA's. CN could make life more difficult, if that's even possible, but that would then bolster VIA's case for dedicated tracks even further.

From the Transportation Act:
[...]
Running Rights and Joint Track Usage
Marginal note:Application by railway company

• 138 (1) A railway company may apply to the Agency for the right to
  • (a) take possession of, use or occupy any land belonging to any other railway company;
    
  • (b) use the whole or any portion of the right-of-way, tracks, terminals, stations or station grounds of any other railway company; and
    
  • (c) run and operate its trains over and on any portion of the railway of any other railway company.
• Marginal note:Application may be granted
  (2) The Agency may grant the right and may make any order and impose any conditions on either railway company respecting the exercise or restriction of the rights as appear just or desirable to the Agency, having regard to the public interest.
  
• Marginal note:Compensation
  (3) The railway company shall pay compensation to the other railway company for the right granted and, if they do not agree on the compensation, the Agency may, by order, fix the amount to be paid.

Marginal note:Request for joint or common use of right-of-way

• 139 (1) The Governor in Council may
  • (a) on the application of a railway company, a municipal government or any other interested person, or on the Governor in Council’s own initiative, and
    
  • (b) after any investigation that the Governor in Council considers necessary,
  request two or more railway companies to consider the joint or common use of a right-of-way if the Governor in Council is of the opinion that its joint or common use may improve the efficiency and effectiveness of rail transport and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies.
  
• Marginal note:Order in Council for joint or common use of right-of-way
  (2) If the Governor in Council is satisfied that significant efficiencies and cost savings would result from joint or common use of the right-of-way by two or more railway companies and would not unduly impair the commercial interests of the companies, the Governor in Council may make any order for the joint or common use of the right-of-way that the Governor in Council considers necessary.
  
• Marginal note:Compensation
  (3) The Governor in Council may also, by order, fix the amount of compensation to be paid in respect of the joint or common use of the right-of-way and any related work if the companies do not agree on the amount of that compensation.
  [...]
• 144.1
  [...]
  • Declaration that line is for general advantage of Canada
    (2) Whenever a railway company’s rights and obligations under an agreement with VIA Rail Canada Inc. are vested in another person or entity by subsection (1), the portion of the railway line to which the agreement relates is hereby declared, as of the day the transfer takes place, to be a work for the general advantage of Canada.
    
  • Marginal note Duration of declaration
    (3) The declaration referred to in subsection (2) ceases to have effect if
    • (a) VIA Rail Canada Inc. ceases to operate a passenger rail service on the portion of railway line to which the declaration relates; or
      
    • (b) the operation of the railway line is discontinued.
    [...]
  
  
• http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-10.4/page-20.html
  

 

[crs1026]

It's neither VIA's or CN's decision to make. It's the CTA's. CN could make life more difficult, if that's even possible, but that would then bolster VIA's case for dedicated tracks even further.

Nice research - but how it actually works is different than how the words read.

Ask anyone connected with the Canadian what happens when CN no longer wants your train on their tracks.

For that matter, ask the late greats Jean-Luc Pepin or Don Mazankowski, or Brian Mulroney for that matter, how much power the CTA holds when government decides a train isn't critical.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

but how it actually works is different than how the words read.

Agreed! If not Egregious...VIA Has been left out to dry. The law is on their side, clearly...but it would take a Government with back-bone to enforce it. And alas...

However, even before answering the point, I'm wondering, ,just as Potvin is doing (and winning!)(so far, albeit it's a struggle) with Moose, if an org like "Friends of VIA" could launch their own action before the CTA and/or Federal Court of some division to enforce VIA's rights?

I don't know if VIA's corporate/legal status allows it to go to bat for itself. It might have to be Transport Canada to do it, and alas, it's jellyfish yet again...

Pardon me for digressing, but the point of The Missing Link also looms large in this debate. The various Acts clearly delineate how this could/should happen, but there's those jellyfish again...and:
[...."The sound of crickets chirping"...]

 

[crs1026]

There have been relatively longstanding and rational advocacy groups before. They have been somewhat successful at making enough noise to correct misinformation and to give the government pause at some of its more hostile moments. But they haven't been sufficient to overcome public apathy or overcome lobbying from much more well funded factions eg the bus lobby, the RMTR faction, etc.

So, if you want to start a new one, or seize a power role in an existing one, knock yourself out.

Some of the VIA cuts have been tested in court, but it takes a lot of money. And, at the end of the day, with VIA not having its own enabling statute, the reality is the government does have the legal authority to have its way with VIA. Moose may have found a clause or two to lever, but Ottawa hold the face cards mostly.

As I. have said before, I suspect governments of all stripes have bigger rub point with CN/CP and see no advantage in starting a confrontation over rail passenger. CN does play nice in the Corridor, in the sense that VIA runs a lot of trains on CN today and timekeeping is relatively reasonable. I don't know what level of profit CN earns from this - not a lot, I'm sure, but not so little that they can push that point aggressively. Certainly, there is capital tied up in the corridor that isn't required for freight only. Ottawa must be making CN whole for this somehow, above or below the accounting.

The first rule of litigation is - be careful what you ask for. HFR is as close as we've come to a constructive win-win path forward. A win-lose offense in the courts may not be the best strategy right now. It's Ottawa's feet that need holding to the fire, not CN's.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

A win-lose offense in the courts may not be the best strategy right now. It's Ottawa's feet that need holding to the fire, not CN's.

Absolutely agree with that, and unfortunately, we need to wait possibly until the end of the year to see what, if anything, Parliament has on the boil.

 

[MisterF]

Using Google Earth, I've been trying to conceptualize how the Havelock sub would need to be realigned to support the continuous 110mph (177 km/h) speed limit required to achieve VIA's 160km/h average speed claim. First I drew 1300m and 1800m curves on the ground, which are the minimum radii at 200km/h for tilting, and non-tilting trains respectively, according to that chart on Wikipedia. Then I tried to free-hand an alignment that keeps the curve radii above 1300m (tilting trains @ 200km/h).

In the image below, the current ROW is in blue, and my free-hand realignment is in yellow. This segment of the line is so curvy that when the minimum curve radius is increased, almost none of the original ROW can be reused. The current ROW has one beautifully wide curve on the right side of the image that can be reused, but then to the east the line gets very squiggly and would need to be bypassed again.
View attachment 114284
Location:
44°41'40.28"N
76°57'55.35"W




I roughly measured the radius on Google Earth similarly to how I drew the radii in the image above, by trying to find the point equidistant to all points along the curve.

When they say the West Coast Mainline is curvy, it's relative. The East Coast Mainline and Great Western Mainline have enormous curve radii, on par with some modern high-speed-rail lines. The curve below on the Great Western Mainline just outside Didcot (randomly selected, they all seem similar in that segment) appears to have a radius of about 5000 metres.
View attachment 114289

This is what I've been trying to point out here for a year - but have been too lazy to map it myself. The alignment is completely unsuitable.

Now you've come up with something that might work. But remember the reason it was so curvy in the first place was elevation issue. So you'd both have to pretty much build a new alignment near the old one, and do a lot of blasting, cuts, and huge fills. And that's not happening for the $ amounts we've seen proposed.

I don't know which engineer (if any) has signed off on this, but if they have, I really have to question their competence. What's odd, is I don't see any studies in the list of 5, that would address this properly. So presumably there is an earlier study? The 5 reports seem to be related to Budget 2016. However, we were hearing about this alignment when Budget 2016 was announced, or shortly afterwards. So the feasibility study on this alignment must have been earlier.

Who did it? Are they qualified? Research and Traffic Group isn't qualified. CPCS Transcom as far as I recall is the old telecommunications division of CPCS Limited when they imploded in 1990, and had management, economic, and telecommunications specialties, but not the hard core rail and high speed expertise. Which is probably fine for these contracts.

So someone else must have done the hard-core engineering. But who? Because I don't think it passes the sniff test. I'd honestly be surprised if they could achieve much better than 4 hours from Toronto Union station to Ottawa Station station. 3.5 maybe. 2.5 - not happening.

Someone should FOI that report!

I think it's pretty farfetched to suggest that no engineers have worked on the Via dedicated tracks proposal or, worse, to question their competence based on a hunch or some Google Maps measurements. Even if the work that's been done so far has been in house or not made public, I think that Via has some knowledge of how fast a train can go around a curve. And it's safe to say that the people working on the proposal know a lot more about that than us lay people on the internet. If Via is publicizing a proposal that isn't technically possible that would come out eventually. And if they're using an impossible proposal as a bluff to get more out of CN, they'd see right through it. Because CN also knows how fast a train can go around a curve.

None of us know the technical details of the proposal. Maybe speed is an issue in that curvy section around Sharbot Lake and maybe trains would have to slow down to, say, 135 there instead of 177. Maybe they're proposing to straighten out some curves in areas where it's not so expensive to do it. Maybe those travel times are only for trains that don't make any intermediate stops. I just don't see it as impossible as you guys make it seem.

I roughly measured the radius on Google Earth similarly to how I drew the radii in the image above, by trying to find the point equidistant to all points along the curve.

When they say the West Coast Mainline is curvy, it's relative. The East Coast Mainline and Great Western Mainline have enormous curve radii, on par with some modern high-speed-rail lines. The curve below on the Great Western Mainline just outside Didcot (randomly selected, they all seem similar in that segment) appears to have a radius of about 5000 metres.

Yeah I'm aware that the other two mainlines have gentler curves, but I was interested in the West Coast Mainline specifically. With trains going 200 km/h, it no doubt isn't as curvy as the Havelock sub, but it would be interesting to see the comparison.