VIA Rail

[crs1026]

There seems to be way too much track to double-track in any reasonable budget too. Wasn't this the problem with the ... was it 1983/4 VIA proposal?

I seem to recall one of the 80s pitches being a single track HSR line, for the very reason of cost, yes.

VIA's proposal from all accounts is to retain single track. That's not fatal by itself - VIA's current operation Brockville- Ottawa demonstrates that much can be done with only one fast track, but at a penalty in terms of velocity.

The GO study (west of Peterboro) found IIRC four places where the line needed new construction to ease the curves sufficiently to meet an 80 mph standard. The curves east of Havelock are even more daunting and simply may not be adjustable within VIA's budget. No amount of tilt is going to change that.

The inherent contradiction of (modest spend + keep existing curves + single track) + (improve trip times) still isn't working for me. The first term and the second term of the equation are opposed to each other.

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

Tilting rolling stock doesn't change the minimum curve radius for a particular stretch of track. If a piece of track is only rated for 40mph because of a lack of spiral easement or paired reverse curves or due to a vertical curve, the fact that the rolling stock tilts is never going to change that.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

WRONG

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...to_be_better_than_the_acela_in_every_way.html

The Avelia has other cool features, though, that will benefit Amtrak right away: It can tilt up to seven degrees on curves, compared with four degrees for the current Acelas. According to Alstom, this permits the train to take curves 30 percent faster, and Amtrak says that will shorten trip times as soon as the trains hit revenue service in five years.

 

[crs1026]

All well and good, that a tilting train will let you go 156 mph on a curve otherwise good for 120.

What's the return on that investment when the curve is only good for 50, and you get to go 65?

Not gonna shave many minutes off the trip time.

And, it requires electrification... we are still waiting for VIA's spreadsheet on that whole idea.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

Here is Alstom's claim (The tech in this iteration was developed by FIAT, and bought by Alstom)

An alternative concept in high-speed
Thanks to the Tiltronix anticipatory tilting technology, Pendolino can travel more rapidly through curves on conventional lines (35% faster than a classic train) and up to 250 km/h on high-speed lines, while guaranteeing an excellent level of passenger comfort inside the train, even on very winding stretches.

The most competitive solution on the high-speed market, Pendolino thus allows any country, whatever its topography, to have access to high-speed rail without investing in dedicated new infrastructure.
[...]

http://www.alstom.com/products-services/product-catalogue/rail-systems/trains/products/pendolino/

Here is a technical analysis of curve radii and maximum permissible speeds
http://openrails.org/files/superelevation_v1.pdf

With the proviso, last sentence of document:
"By default OR cannot identify tilt trains so these types of trains will require the addition of the relevant unbalanced superelevation information into the relevant rolling stock files."

In the event, a number of European rail regulators permit higher speeds for the Pendolino and like trains. Here's the UK example:

Operated with a fleet of British Rail Class 395 trains, the service reaches a top speed of 140 mph (225 km/h). Southeastern High-Speed is currently the only Britishdomestic high-speed service allowed to run above 125 mph (201 km/h).
High-speed rail in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom

And it does so on one of the most curvaceous stretches of rail in the UK, certainly the most of the mainlines. The Pendolinos have cut travel time considerably on the WCML.

Here's some Diesel tilt trains:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Tilt_Train

The LRC was of course originally a tilting trainset, the mechanics worked well, what had failed was the *sensing* implementation. It lacked human factor intuitive tilt aspects. It worked more like a carnival ride than a ride improvement, and induced vertigo. Modern implementation utilizes track transponders to alert the on-board microprocessors to impending action necessary. This is, of course, bundled as part of PTC. Good luck implementing that in this nation on existing track.

Description here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRC_(train)#Active_tilt

Will look for more definitive mention of the higher speed limits allowed for Pendolinos on the WCML later, I have a new OS on this computer without a PDF reader that hampers document searching, but for now:

7. The specification of the classic compatible trains �
[...]
7.1.2 � The assumption we developed for consultation was for 200m long classic compatible train sets, specified for use on the classic network and HS2 without a tilting mechanism. This would make them shorter than the planned lengthened 11-car Pendolino trains which are 265m long, resulting in a loss of seating capacity on each train. They are also slower than Pendolino trains on some sections of the WCML where tilt enables trains to negotiate certain curves at higher speeds than conventional trains.
[...]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...083/hs2-review-of_technical-specification.pdf

[...]The project encompassed a 125mph line between London, Birmingham and Manchester, with incremental improvements elsewhere. In September 2006, a new speed record was set on the WCML – a Pendolino train completed the 401-mile Glasgow Central–London Euston run in a record 3 hours 55 minutes, beating the existing record by 20 minutes.
[...]
Train protection and warning system
Initially planned was European Train Control System (ETCS), a new Europe-wide standard signalling system for lines running at more than 125mph, for the 140mph phase of the project.

This has now been dropped until the new system has been proven. Alstom is working on ETCS for the UK at its Asfordby test centre near Nottingham.

Speed increase and new Pendolino trains on the West Coast main line
Virgin Trains plans to increase the speed on sections of the Trent Valley Line from 125 to 135mph. The high speed was planned to be achieved by using the existing signalling systems rather than installing a new cab signalling system. The plan, however, did not materialise as the required upgrades to allow the higher speed were not made.

As per the contractual agreement between the UK’s Department for Transport and Alstom, 31 carriages in service were lengthened by two cars each, as well as four new trains with 11 cars were added to the existing fleet. The lengthened trains were delivered by October 2012, two months ahead of the original schedule. Virgin further awarded a €12m contract to modernise the entire fleet of 56 Pendolino trains to enhance the passenger comfort. The contractual scope includes refurbishment of the train interiors, bar, kitchen and toilets.
[...]

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/virgin/

 

[smallspy]

WRONG

http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox...to_be_better_than_the_acela_in_every_way.html

You might want to talk to physics about that.

A tilting train doesn't change how it reacts with the track, just how the passengers onboard feel the forces acting upon them in a curve. There's a reason why there are restrictions on the different types of passenger cars and locomotives, and different speed limits. Those LRC signs exist for a reason, and it's not because of the tilting system of the LRC cars anymore - it's been deactivated for 10 years.

And really, a Slate article? Come on, at least give the attempt of posting a link to something reputable.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

A tilting train doesn't change how it reacts with the track, just how the passengers onboard feel the forces acting upon them in a curve.

lol...well you may want to set research engineers straight on that. A lot depends on 'cant' as discussed roughly a year back in this string, and also the axle parameters and wheel flange profile, not to mention individual axle steerability. But allow me to quote:

[...]
5.2.2 Analysis The wheel and rail wear in curves has a relation to the vehicle’s ability of radial steering. This could be achieved by reducing the primary suspension stiffness in longitudinal direction, a technique applied for example in Sweden since the 1980s. Reduced primary suspension stiffness in longitudinal direction may and has been applied on tilting vehicles. Negotiating curves at high cant deficiencies may influence wheel wear due to the increased lateral force that must be taken up by the wheels. However, the increased lateral force is normally accomplished by a decreased angle of attack for the leading wheelset, thus producing a tendency towards reduced wear. The total effect of higher cant deficiency on wheel and rail wear is therefore small regarding wear. Some reports on wheel wear problems on tilting trains are found in the literature, Nationalcorridors [2006] has reported excessive wheel (flange) wear on ICE-T and Trainweb [2006] has reported the same for Acela. None of these vehicles is believed to have any substantial radial steering ability. From a vehicle point of view, the wheel profile development must also be considered. Flange wear leads to decreased flange thickness and need for reprofiling due to thin flange. Tread wear may lead to high equivalent conicity and a need for reprofiling due to poor running behaviour. The longest wheel turning interval is received when flange wear and tread wear is in balance with each other. However, these phenomenon are not specific for tilting trains only. RCF has, for all models described by Ekberg et al [2002], a dependence on vertical force magnitudes. The increased cant deficiency will result in increased vertical load on the curve outer wheel, which will increase the risk for RCF. The increased vertical load on the curve outer wheel can be counteracted by modest axle load and low centre of gravity. The risk of RCF may also be counteracted by careful optimization of the utilized friction coefficient. Important ingredients are brake blending and longitudinal primary suspension stiffness.
[...]

https://www.ave.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.178975!/Menu/general/column-content/attachment/Tiliting trains.pdf

There's a surprising amount of discussion and research available on-line re this matter. But I forget sometimes this is Canada. And we can't do what other leading nations do.

Addendum: What's curious about the evident lack of understanding of 'steerable axles' is that it came up as a very large issue when the TTC tendered for the new streetcars. With the very tight radii the TTC uses with a broader gauge of track, one of the ways to keep bogies on the track (as opposed to riding up the inside of the railhead in tight turns) was to use steerable axles. It dramatically reduces track wear with tram wheel profiles in cases like Toronto's.

[...]Service on the Cascades route is provided using seven articulated trainsets manufactured by Talgo, a Spanish company. These cars are designed to passively tilt into curves, allowing the train to pass through them at higher speeds than a conventional train. The tilting technology reduces travel time between Seattle and Portland by 25 minutes.[27] Current track and safety requirements limit the train's speed to 79 miles per hour (127 km/h), although the trainsets are designed for a maximum design speed of 124 miles per hour (200 km/h).[27]
[...]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Cascades#Rolling_stock

Claims by some other posters as to their role in the Washington State accident defies belief. If anything, the drawbars required by the use of such shared axles reduced the toll of the accident. Once the loco (not tilt capable, it wasn't a Talgo) had derailed by going twice the curve limit, no technology would have kept the coaches on the tracks. It's just highly fortunate that they weren't standard FRA knuckle type couplers, or the coaches would most likely have been thrown further out of kilter and the death toll even higher.

 

[robmausser]

lol...well you may want to set research engineers straight on that. A lot depends on 'cant' as discussed roughly a year back in this string, and also the axle parameters and wheel flange profile, not to mention individual axle steerability. But allow me to quote:

https://www.ave.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.178975!/Menu/general/column-content/attachment/Tiliting trains.pdf

There's a surprising amount of discussion and research available on-line re this matter. But I forget sometimes this is Canada. And we can't do what other leading nations do.

Addendum: What's curious about the evident lack of understanding of 'steerable axles' is that it came up as a very large issue when the TTC tendered for the new streetcars. With the very tight radii the TTC uses with a broader gauge of track, one of the ways to keep bogies on the track (as opposed to riding up the inside of the railhead in tight turns) was to use steerable axles. It dramatically reduces track wear with tram wheel profiles in cases like Toronto's.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak_Cascades#Rolling_stock

Claims by some other posters as to their role in the Washington State accident defies belief. If anything, the drawbars required by the use of such shared axles reduced the toll of the accident. Once the loco (not tilt capable, it wasn't a Talgo) had derailed by going twice the curve limit, no technology would have kept the coaches on the tracks. It's just highly fortunate that they weren't standard FRA knuckle type couplers, or the coaches would most likely have been thrown further out of kilter and the death toll even higher.

Its really amazing the ignorance on this forum sometimes.

Thanks for clearing that up Steve.

 

[crs1026]

There's a surprising amount of discussion and research available on-line re this matter. But I forget sometimes this is Canada. And we can't do what other leading nations do.

Leading nations don't rely on tilt or other magic things as a workaround to a proper design.

Leading nations lay out a proper right of way with appropriate curvature. They may then use tilt or other technologies to enhance that design and extract additional speed.

The question is whether the line VIA proposes meets that minimum threshold of functionality. And what will it cost to transform the proposed route to reach that. Only then can we ask if tilt would help, and will the cost fit the envelope.

Tilt works. But it is not a silver bullet. Lets not wax poetic.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

It sounds to me like the Havelock Sub is exactly what Via needs.

It is devoid of freight traffic.

Some may say that there are too many level crossings and tight curves for higher speeds.
I say that the fact that they own the track and no freight will run on it is a great start. Over time, money can be spent replacing level crossings and with blasting rock to make a straighter line.

 

[steveintoronto]

Leading nations don't rely on tilt or other magic things as a workaround to a proper design.

Well what was the LRC all about then?

In the event "Leading Nations" actually fund and build passenger rail networks, wholly owned by the governments and with passenger runs that have absolute priority on shared lines.

Besides that:

[...]
Switzerland and Great Britain are the latest European countries to introduce new trains using tilt technology to increase speeds and reduce journey times without building dedicated high-speed lines.

TILT REVOLUTION
Although the two countries are just joining the tilt revolution, many other countries have already seen the benefits that tilting trains can bring to ‘classic’ lines where the construction of new high-speed railways is not viable.

Italy was an early advocate of tilting technology in the 1960s and developed it throughout the 1970s before introducing its first production trains.

British Rail was also a pioneer of tilt with its Advanced Passenger Train (APT), infamously scrapped in the mid-1980s after many years of costly development.
[...]
Meanwhile the first diesel-electric 221 units built by Bombardier was on test in Belgium and France and the first train was handed over to Virgin in December 2001. A total of 40 five-car and four four-car 221s are gradually entering service during late 2002/03. They are equipped with 750hp (560kW) engines, powering Alstom three-phase traction motors on the inner bogie. The units have hydraulically-driven swing plug doors, but the lack of gangways between the nose ends means that two separate catering facilities must be maintained.

https://www.railway-technology.com/projects/tilting/

Of course, the Belgian Alps dictated using tilt to get around the curves in the valleys and fjords...awful I tell you. Some mountains are ten metres high or more.

...and India, and Sweden, and Czech Republic, and Norway, etc, etc...

Eleven nations in Europe alone use the Pendolino. And every one of those nations has a more efficient, modern passenger rail system than Canada.

 

[smallspy]

lol...well you may want to set research engineers straight on that. A lot depends on 'cant' as discussed roughly a year back in this string, and also the axle parameters and wheel flange profile, not to mention individual axle steerability. But allow me to quote:

https://www.ave.kth.se/polopoly_fs/1.178975!/Menu/general/column-content/attachment/Tiliting trains.pdf

In that passage, they referred to the softened primary suspension in the longitudinal direction of many tilting trains as potentially causing issues. It's not the fact that the train tilts that's the cause of the problems, but that the suspension is sometimes configured differently as part of its installation and usage to the detriment of the rail-wheel interface.

If you soften up the primary suspension of a non-tilting train, you will find the same scenario with wheel and rail wear. Conversely with overly-stiff suspension similar issues will arise as well, as AMT found with their ALP45s (in that case coupled with an unusual wheel profile when compared to North American practices).

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

In that passage, they referred to the softened primary suspension in the longitudinal direction of many tilting trains as potentially causing issues. It's not the fact that the train tilts that's the cause of the problems, but that the suspension is sometimes configured differently as part of its installation and usage to the detriment of the rail-wheel interface.

If you soften up the primary suspension of a non-tilting train, you will find the same scenario with wheel and rail wear. Conversely with overly-stiff suspension similar issues will arise as well, as AMT found with their ALP45s (in that case coupled with an unusual wheel profile when compared to North American practices).

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=ryaoDQAAQBAJ&pg=SA18-PA39&lpg=SA18-PA39&dq=tilting+trains+easier+on+track&source=bl&ots=XAOyj7VzOy&sig=3tKKeC5Wo1ERnGMajhfKrCatf9o&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKiOiSsYPZAhUm5IMKHfe2A64Q6AEIWTAG#v=onepage&q=tilting trains easier on track&f=false

https://books.google.ca/books?id=Hv...=onepage&q=tilt train easier on track&f=false

 

[lenaitch]

Apologies if this has been discussed in earlier pages, but what does the proposal intend to do when the re-claimed ROW meets the CP main at Perth (Glen Tay), and accommodation for the (admittedly low) freight traffic west of Havelock?

 

[nfitz]

Well what was the LRC all about then?

Have they got the tilting system to work properly?

It often felt like it was tilting too far the wrong way, on a curve. The turbo trains felt like they curved better ... and they didn't have tilting.

 

[crs1026]

Have they got the tilting system to work properly?

It often felt like it was tilting too far the wrong way, on a curve. The turbo trains felt like they curved better ... and they didn't have tilting.

They cured the bugs, yes. Then they killed it altogether. Expensive to maintain and wasnt getting them anything given other limiting factors.

One of those limiting factors is locomotives. Coaches tilt but locomotives generally don't. (It has always been thus, from Turbo days). There is a limit to how low you can get the center of gravity and unsprung weight on a power unit. Some operators avoid tiltable electric power units because the arc of the pantograph becomes too wide to maintain contact with the overhead. Heavy loco at high speed on curve = hard on the track, even with superelevation.

There are no silver bullets.

- Paul