News   Nov 22, 2024
 680     1 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 1.2K     5 
News   Nov 22, 2024
 3.2K     8 

VIA Rail

The more I watch the current timetable playing out on the Kingston Sub, the more I wonder if that direct investor might include CN. VIA's timekeeping isn't great, and one sees the freight interference.....but....something must be motivating CN to let all those trains onto its tracks.

The 'study' might well be a simulation of what investment in the Kingston Sub could accomplish. Say CN is credited in contributing $1B in the form of its existing infrastructure. CN raises another $2B, Ottawa adds $1B (plus the equipment order, which stays outside the HFR deal). That's roughly the ratio of investment and scope of HFR spending using the Peterboro/Trois Rivieres routing. And it gives REM the Montreal Nord tunnel. CN leverages its existing investment (some of which Ottawa paid for, ie the existing triple track and numerous grade separations over the years) and has to raise only $2B where the Peterboro investors will kick in $3B.

Just wait until Kingston discovers that being a "hub" doesn't include 13 eastbound and 17 westbound departures per day. They will give that up to get one early morning eastbound to Ottawa and one late day westbound (which could be implemented today, as a train that lays over at Kingston overnight instead of in Ottawa). Remember, the promise of HFR is "no more subsidy". Local service on the old route will be minimal.

I'm just a guy in the bleachers, speculating on what management might be thinking. Can't help my self.

- Paul
 
I'm just a guy in the bleachers, speculating on what management might be thinking. Can't help my self.

- Paul
Any projection is valuable. The sticking point really won't be allowing at least *some* priority passenger runs for CN, it will be the catenary. Kingston will still be well served, the present slots aren't going to disappear...or aren't projected to, but by stating what you have, you can bet your Cardan Shaft the folks at CN HQ are also wondering same.

The real lever is going to be a private concern doing the Peterborough route on their own Yuan, and CN seeing their easy cash-cow being milked by someone else. Not "easy money" for CN? Then all they have to do is release the actual cost VIA is paying them.

Not to agree fully, but to buttress your case on CN...I would not be surprised, as you allude, for CN to have an epiphany that they could be *partners* on passenger rail rather than 'reluctant hosts' who have to be bribed to accommodate.

Hopefully the latest announcements and discussion on this will engender more ideas and introspection. There's irony in that the Metrolinx (Del Duca anyway) consideration of catenary-less electric propulsion (Hydrail), as infantile as it is at this time (if ever) might be much on the minds of some at VIA and CN.
 
Any projection is valuable. The sticking point really won't be allowing at least *some* priority passenger runs for CN, it will be the catenary. Kingston will still be well served, the present slots aren't going to disappear...or aren't projected to, but by stating what you have, you can bet your Cardan Shaft the folks at CN HQ are also wondering same.

The real lever is going to be a private concern doing the Peterborough route on their own Yuan, and CN seeing their easy cash-cow being milked by someone else. Not "easy money" for CN? Then all they have to do is release the actual cost VIA is paying them.

Not to agree fully, but to buttress your case on CN...I would not be surprised, as you allude, for CN to have an epiphany that they could be *partners* on passenger rail rather than 'reluctant hosts' who have to be bribed to accommodate.

Hopefully the latest announcements and discussion on this will engender more ideas and introspection. There's irony in that the Metrolinx (Del Duca anyway) consideration of catenary-less electric propulsion (Hydrail), as infantile as it is at this time (if ever) might be much on the minds of some at VIA and CN.

why is CN so afraid of catenary anyways? is it because it will be too low for some of their taller rolling stock? maintenance issues?
 
why is CN so afraid of catenary anyways? is it because it will be too low for some of their taller rolling stock? maintenance issues?
Rather than offer a quick answer on that now, I think you'll be finding some quarters asking exactly the same, and why catenary can't be strung adjacent and with underpasses/overpasses where necessary to keep mainline freight clear.

There's nothing like the threat of "I'm leaving you John" to see John suddenly pledging and doing everything possible to keep the relationship going. Or John could say "Good Riddance" in which case we all know better as to how things stand.

Something that might be more of a threat to 'John' is high-speed non-stacked freight, 'premium express' running along the electrified line from Toronto to Ottawa and then Montreal. That's the cream of the business being taken from the Class 1s. And that's the side of a 'higher speed rail' operation that would *altogether with passenger* make it a profitable proposition for an outside investor, using their own rolling stock of course assembled here in Canada.
 
why is CN so afraid of catenary anyways? is it because it will be too low for some of their taller rolling stock? maintenance issues?
On the Northeast Corridor the main issue appears to be any corridor where autoracks are used because they are tall (about 20ft 2in - plate K vs double stack plate H?). Presumably the same would be true here.
 
One could ask that question both ways - why is electric power so critical in this application?
Unlike a commuter operation with its frequent stop-start profile, super fast acceleration and regen opportunity isn’t so helpful. Nor is top speed, given VIA’s proposed build.
I do expect VIA has a spreadsheet on this topic, and it must show favourable ROI or they wouldn’t suggest it. Perhaps that ties to single track and the need to stop for and recover from meets. And the current government does see itself as green.
My alternative theory about the Kingston Sub is that CN may be making amends here for the treatment that VIA gets on the Canadian. It makes it harder for VIA to bite the hand that helps it on the Corridor. But that just confirms that CN has excess capacity on the Kingston, and leveraging its current investment must have some economic advantage as opposed to going to investors for new capital for Peterboro.

At this point, the only thing we know for certain is that we really don't know.
- Paul
 
why is CN so afraid of catenary anyways? is it because it will be too low for some of their taller rolling stock? maintenance issues?

Any catenary installation will require improving clearances along the route to be able to maintain Plate K clearances - or better - along the line. That means that a lot of signals, overpasses and bridge structures may need to be replaced or moved, or track undercut to lower it around the obstruction. And considering that CN has been running a lot of equipment that exceeds those clearances, that would be a potential loss of business for them.

Then there's the issue of the additional maintenance in terms of removing vegetation around the tracks that would be required. CN's pretty bad at this now, having had their proverbial pee-pee smacked several times over the past couple of years by Transport Canada for just this issue.

Then there's the issue of derailment cleanup, or frankly any major work around the tracks. Overhead wires complicate it greatly.

The long and short of it is that they won't derive any benefit from the wires, and it would complicate their operations. Therefore - why should they be interested in it?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.
 
Any catenary installation will require improving clearances along the route to be able to maintain Plate K clearances - or better - along the line. That means that a lot of signals, overpasses and bridge structures may need to be replaced or moved, or track undercut to lower it around the obstruction. And considering that CN has been running a lot of equipment that exceeds those clearances, that would be a potential loss of business for them.

Then there's the issue of the additional maintenance in terms of removing vegetation around the tracks that would be required. CN's pretty bad at this now, having had their proverbial pee-pee smacked several times over the past couple of years by Transport Canada for just this issue.

Then there's the issue of derailment cleanup, or frankly any major work around the tracks. Overhead wires complicate it greatly.

The long and short of it is that they won't derive any benefit from the wires, and it would complicate their operations. Therefore - why should they be interested in it?

Dan
Toronto, Ont.


makes sense. I guess now the question should via invest on a parallel track or dual mode trains to run through part of the non electric sections. Or maybe they can uptake the responsibility of installation and maintenance...
Not sure for the long term which poison is better to take
 
Fingers crossed, and note the delineation of HFR funding apart from conventional fleet renewal. That portends a reasonable separation of the two issues, and the possibility/probability of another player entering the frame for HFR, and perhaps bringing their own stock to run the line:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...llion-request-for-new-trains/article37714915/

Note that this is the first time Garneau has appeared as the figurehead of this scheme, even though it's his ministry. That bodes well...

And Bill Curry has a second earlier article by an hour up, explaining a different aspect, and revealing more subtle points:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...llion-request-for-new-trains/article37714915/

Couple thoughts:

However, the government is treating Via's pitch as two separate decisions.

This is dangerous in government. The worry is that rolling stock will be purchased that is inferior or incompatible or even simply not as good as could have been bought for HFR. For example buying Dual Mode Locos and coaches instead of EMU's.

However, provincial government decisions in Ontario and Quebec have complicated matters. Ontario announced in October that it is planning a high-speed rail line from Toronto to London, and perhaps as far as Windsor. The plan has not received full funding from the province.

Quebec Premier Philippe Couillard also surprised many in November when he raised the possibility of a high-speed monorail between Montreal and Quebec City. He later backtracked, assuring the mayor of Trois-Rivières that he would support Via's plan if it receives federal funding.

I really think Ontario should do the same as Quebec. Change from HSR to investing that money into extending Via HFR to windsor.

If we get all levels of government in support there is a greater chance of success. 177 km/h on dedicated tracks is still a huge improvement over current systems.
 
This is dangerous in government. The worry is that rolling stock will be purchased that is inferior or incompatible or even simply not as good as could have been bought for HFR. For example buying Dual Mode Locos and coaches instead of EMU's.
What's even more dangerous is holding up a rescue ship to get the present inhabitants off the island for the sake of one who may or may not be coming before the tsunami. The tsunami is already hitting the present fleet, not to mention that HFR as proposed per fleet requirements was only supposition, and evidently and in retrospect, in no way a binding spec. Fleet Renewal is needed now, and what's needed for the fleet is distinctly different than what will be needed for HFR, save to use diesel as a back-up option for running routes off of an HFR main. The mention of a 'bi-mode' fleet will look ever more baseless as events progress. Trying to do both considerably weakens doing one well distinct from the other. Bi-modal locos are not only very rough riding in most cases, they're also twice the price, twice the weight, and impose a performance penalty by carrying dead weight. Did I mention they spend twice the time in the shop for servicing?

I really think Ontario should do the same as Quebec. Change from HSR to investing that money into extending Via HFR to windsor.
I think this will happen, but as time goes by, it will be driven from *outside the governments*, not within them. A corporation with deep pockets and their own rolling stock production would be fools to not make an offer from London to Que City. Windsor could be an extension, but not required for the backbone of a system that could/would/should stand alone from VIA, Metrolinx, and RTM. It's unlikely that presented with a gift horse in their mouths, the three of those orgs could ever co-ordinate sufficiently to pull off such an integrated system within themselves. It will take a stand alone, almost inevitably corporate org to allow said agencies to lease time on the HFR network, to run some services of their own, and leasing arrangements to the gov agencies made such that it would be cheaper and better for the agencies to not build the HxR spine themselves.

It remains a distinct possibility that the Three Amigos could form an 'HFR Operating Entity' and the corporate ownership of the HFR RoW leases time to them, as well as to freight operations. Conflict there? Absolutely not with state of the art signal/control systems. It's done all the time with the Chunnel and many European and elsewhere higher speed systems.

This is *so* ripe for a massive outside (Chi...cough..nese) company, apparently at arm's length from Beijing, but still with an appendage firmly ensconced up the Peking Duck's rump to make an offer all three levels of government couldn't quibble with, not least the inward investment to assemble the trains here. I do think Alstom could also be in the running for making an offer, but at this point in time, no-one can match the almost bottomless pockets of the Beijing Boys.

If we get all levels of government in support there is a greater chance of success. 177 km/h on dedicated tracks is still a huge improvement over current systems.
Absolutely. It would insane not to, no matter who spearheads it. That being said, it would inevitably be built with upgrading at least sections to full HSR later. Some segments could profitably host true HSR with full grade separation.
 
Last edited:
Under VIA's plan, Quebec-to-Windor travel would involve the REM

Passengers travelling from Quebec City to Toronto may have to take three trains to get to the final destination according to VIA Rail’s current plan to build a dedicated rail in the Windsor corridor.

The proposed $4-billion project to have dedicated tracks along the Quebec-Windsor route would allow the crown corporation to boost the number of trips in the corridor. However, VIA’s heavy rail passenger trains will likely be incompatible with the planned transformation of the Mount Royal tunnel as part of the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec’s $6 billion Réseau électrique métropolitain.

Under that project, which has received funding from both the federal and provincial governments, the Caisse would take possession of the Mount Royal tunnel from the Réseau de transport métropolitain (RTM), which is now part of the Deux Montagnes train line. Under the terms of the deal, the pension fund is likely to be granted sole possession of the tunnel. The Caisse project calls for driverless electric trains running every six to 12 minutes on the line, 20 hours per day, and would require converting the track for light-rail trains, thus making it incompatible with the heavy rail cars that VIA would use.

Jean-Vincent Lacroix, a spokesperson for the Caisse, confirmed to the Montreal Gazette the Caisse’s plans would preclude VIA Rail’s trains running on the track, at least in the near term. However, Lacroix said it is expected that in the future new technology will allow VIA to adapt its cars.

“But until the adoption of this technology, we have proposed a transitory solution,” Lacroix said. “The HFR can connect to the REM through a new intermodal station planned for the northeast of Montreal, near Highway 40.”



For VIA Rail passengers travelling from Quebec City to Toronto, that would mean taking three trains to get to their final destination: one from Quebec City to the north end of Montreal, transferring onto the REM to get to Central Station, and then getting on a different VIA Rail train at Central Station to get to Toronto.

Lacroix said having VIA Rail passengers disembark on the north side of the city could have its advantages, since the REM would connect to Trudeau airport, the métro’s Blue Line at the Édouard Montpetit station and the Green Line’s McGill station.

That same station north of Highway 40 in Ahuntsic—Cartierville will also be the new end of the line of the RTM’s Mascouche Line. Built in 2014 at a cost of roughly $700 million, the newest commuter rail also won’t be compatible with the converted tracks, so its users will also have to get off and transfer to the future REM to access Central Station.

The federal government confirmed last spring it would contribute to build the REM, matching the province’s $1.283 billion.

VIA has also requested federal government funding for its high-frequency rail project. The project calls for the government-owned rail company to replace its aging fleet of 160 cars and 40 locomotives. A proposal was submitted to Transport Canada in December 2016, and a detailed analysis is underway. However, Federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau has said he’d like the project to be compatible with the REM to minimize inconveniences for passengers.

“We want to make sure we keep all options open,” Garneau recently told the Montreal Gazette. “That includes compatibility through the tunnel; it includes a station north of the tunnel. Compatibility of the use of the tunnel is the biggest issue that both parties are working on to make sure both can use the tunnel.”

Garneau said he’ll let the experts complete the analysis, but he expects a decision to be made on VIA’s project in the next few months.

The High-Frequency Rail project is said to be key to securing VIA’s long-term future, and to positioning train travel as a viable alternative to driving or flying. Currently, roughly one out of every four VIA Rail trains arrives late because passenger trains have to give way to the increasing flow of freight trains that own the lines on which VIA runs. Having a dedicated track would also allow passenger trains to increase their top speed to 160 kilometres per hour from the current maximum limit of 100 km/h, VIA CEO Yves Desjardins Siciliano has said, cutting the commuting time significantly.

Via’s HFR proposal would see 18 trains per day between Montreal and Quebec City. Of those trips, 10 would be on the north shore of the St. Lawrence River, going through Trois Rivières, which is about 50 minutes faster than the southern route that goes through Drummondville, making the trip time between the two cities a little more than two hours. However, that northern route is the one that would require VIA trains to use the Mount Royal Tunnel.

Lacroix said there is technology available to allow heavy rail cars to be adapted to a light-rail track. However, he did not say how much this new technology would cost. Because VIA’s proposal is not yet public, it isn’t known if it includes adapting heavy rail trains to run on the Deux-Montagnes Line.

The other issue for VIA is that even if its trains are adapted to run through the tunnel, the company will once again have to contend with using a track it doesn’t own. As such, its trains will have to work around the schedule of the REM, which will be transporting thousands of people every six to 12 minutes through the tunnel.

In other words, even if VIA’s $4-billion proposal is approved, VIA will never be able to have a truly dedicated rail between Montreal and Quebec City.

http://montrealgazette.com/news/loc...quebec-to-windor-travel-would-involve-the-rem
 
What about this: yes, have your REM interchange station to get to Central, but continue the services through to Dorval.

Yes, this would be tricky to get through the St-Luc yards, but if it were doable then you could either terminate at Dorval or keeping going to Ottawa or southern Ontario.

upload_2018-1-25_13-7-19.png
 

Attachments

  • upload_2018-1-25_13-7-19.png
    upload_2018-1-25_13-7-19.png
    907.9 KB · Views: 414

Back
Top