VIA Rail

[lenaitch]

I would imagine that in 1902 any roads outside of built-up areas were little more than local tracks and a few development roads and likely not captured at the provincial level. Certainly not something worth the trouble of putting on a map

 

[steveintoronto]

This newer site https://ocul.on.ca/topomaps/collection/ has a pretty good stock of older Ontario NTS maps. You can get Kaladar, Tweed, Sharbot L, Renfrew, etc. But between 1930-1950 unfortunately. Still a good reliable compilation nonetheless.

Excellent link! I just downloaded Tweed, took fair amount of time, quality is excellent. Many thanks for that!

 

[smallspy]

Ah, interesting. I don't recall ever feeling it tilt. Of course the whole point was that you weren't supposed to, I suppose. But it was always speed restricted ... was it 90 mph back when VIA took over? I only recall travelling on regular CN stock before that, and didn't start riding frequently (about once a fortnight) until 1980. Given it's design operating speed was so much higher than that, perhaps the tilting wasn't active. Part of the reason you noticed the LRC tilting, as you'd be sitting there, going straight and fast and smooth (at least after they finished welding the Kingston sub), and suddenly for no apparent reason at all, the coach was tilting.

The UA Turbo used a passive tilting system, much like the Talgos of Spain do. Because it's tied into the suspension and trucks, the cars are tilting no matter what speed the train is going at. This is why they made announcements when within the vicinity of both Union and Central stations to remain seated - even going over crossovers would cause the trains to tilt.

There was also a special speed limit for the Turbo. They were allowed to do up to 15mph faster than the regular trains, up to maximum of 95mph. When the LRCs came into existence, those speed limit signs were changed over to say "LRC" instead of "TURBO", and the maximum was changed to 100mph in a lot of places.

The LRC was designed to allow two trains to pass on adjacent tracks in opposite tilt if necessary. The cars were also designed to re-center and stay there if the tilt system failed, but that didn't always happen.

I wonder how much of an option is tilting the track. Though I'd think it would do terrible things to the inside rail.

Track is always banked, even low speed industrial track. It needs to be in order to help prevent the flanges from climbing the rail head.

The issue is finding the ideal bank on track that both passenger trains and freight trains run on.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[Allandale25]

^ Thanks Dan. Helpful context.

 

[micheal_can]

Ah, interesting. I don't recall ever feeling it tilt. Of course the whole point was that you weren't supposed to, I suppose. But it was always speed restricted ... was it 90 mph back when VIA took over? I only recall travelling on regular CN stock before that, and didn't start riding frequently (about once a fortnight) until 1980. Given it's design operating speed was so much higher than that, perhaps the tilting wasn't active. Part of the reason you noticed the LRC tilting, as you'd be sitting there, going straight and fast and smooth (at least after they finished welding the Kingston sub), and suddenly for no apparent reason at all, the coach was tilting.

I like that French picture of the tiling train. Look how far the tracks are apart. If I recall, the reason that VIA "temporarily" locked the LRCs was if two trains passed on a curve, and one tilted the wrong way, that they might hit. Though after all these years, who knows how accurate my memory is.

I wonder how much of an option is tilting the track. Though I'd think it would do terrible things to the inside rail.

The UA Turbo used a passive tilting system, much like the Talgos of Spain do. Because it's tied into the suspension and trucks, the cars are tilting no matter what speed the train is going at. This is why they made announcements when within the vicinity of both Union and Central stations to remain seated - even going over crossovers would cause the trains to tilt.

There was also a special speed limit for the Turbo. They were allowed to do up to 15mph faster than the regular trains, up to maximum of 95mph. When the LRCs came into existence, those speed limit signs were changed over to say "LRC" instead of "TURBO", and the maximum was changed to 100mph in a lot of places.

The LRC was designed to allow two trains to pass on adjacent tracks in opposite tilt if necessary. The cars were also designed to re-center and stay there if the tilt system failed, but that didn't always happen.

Track is always banked, even low speed industrial track. It needs to be in order to help prevent the flanges from climbing the rail head.

The issue is finding the ideal bank on track that both passenger trains and freight trains run on.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

I cannot believe my grade school science fair project finally has merit. I used an HO scale train and tried different speeds and banked tracks(built ramps out of Popsicle sticks.) Turned out, the faster I went, the better a ramp was, but there was an angle that was too much and the train would derail. I based the finding on the time that it took to go around a circle track.

So, yes, banked tracks are done and make up the many elements to the track speed.

 

[aquateam]

Additional technologies that VIA should consider for allowing high speeds on tight turns:

 

[reaperexpress]

Track is always banked, even low speed industrial track. It needs to be in order to help prevent the flanges from climbing the rail head.

The issue is finding the ideal bank on track that both passenger trains and freight trains run on.

This.

Those who are saying VIA "should" bank the track should ride the VIA Alexandria subdivision and watch the horizon. The track is very noticeably superelevated on curves, I guess VIA upped the banking when they rebuilt the line a few years ago to optimize more for passenger trains rather than freight.

But even so, the curve speed limits are still only on the order of 85 mph, still slower than CN's Kingston Subdivision which has less aggressive superelevation. There simply is no substitute for wide curve radii. Tilting trains might be able to increase the curve speeds a bit more, but not enough to necessarily offset their associated costs.

VIA used tilting trains for the first 25 years of its existence, but eventually gave up on tilting trains due to maintenance costs. There was of course the maintenance of the LRC active tilt system itself, but on top of that there is also an increased track maintenance cost. Because while tilting rearranges cornering forces to make them more comfortable for passengers, it doesn't actually do anything to reduce those forces. As with any train, going faster around a corner increases the forces on the track.

Tilting trains are just an excuse to not build infrastructure to a high enough standard. They let proponents of a project, whether it be the TurboTrain, LRC or HFR, make extravagant claims about speed which may well be achieved briefly upon opening (remember Toronto-Montreal in 3h59?), but once the newness fades, the operator (VIA) will look at the numbers and realize that tilting doesn't actually make economic sense and the railway will revert back to its 'native' non-tilting design speed.

 

[kEiThZ]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...ving-projects-by-end-of-year/article37561270/

So I'm guessing no VIA HFR announcement in 2018. And they'll try and dangle some announcement right before the election in 2019.

And at least somebody is starting to catch on to the fact that the bank is just a cover for offloading spending to the private sector:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/infrastructure-bank-1.4512240

 

[nfitz]

So I'm guessing no VIA HFR announcement in 2018. And they'll try and dangle some announcement right before the election in 2019.

Once the bankers utilize some competent neutral engineers to do the math, and realize that it's going to cost more than estimated, and will run slower than promised, and even the current route, I think we all know that HFR will never be announced.

Even it they spend an outlandish sum to implement it, running more trains a bit more reliably, will at best give you little change to modal split, and will only stem losses.

Whichever confidence trickster brought this cockamamie scheme to VIA should be shunned (and no, I don't know who it was - but it's no secret there wasn't enough talent within VIA back then to dream this one up).

 

[Admiral Beez]

Took train from Kaohsiung to Taipei yesterday. Over 300 kph, and best I can tell no turns or banks.

 

[steveintoronto]

Because while tilting rearranges cornering forces to make them more comfortable for passengers, it doesn't actually do anything to reduce those forces. As with any train, going faster around a corner increases the forces on the track.

Actually it can, and in many cases does. It allows truck (bogie design) with a lower centre of gravity, and changes the forces toward a downward moment from lateral, 'downward' being expressed as 'vertically outward' since the track is canted.

Superelevation in itself does this when banking. Tilting, when done with the latest equipment, not only buffers the centrifugal sensation for passengers by intuitive sensing, it reduces lateral forces on the rail considerably.

It's not by accident that so many rail companies are using them and getting faster run times out of curvaceous track.

Here's yet another example:

[...]

https://www.bombardier.com/en/transportation/products-services/bogies/innovation-technology.html

There's huge amounts of research and examples available on-line. It does take an open mind willing to embrace change and what modern engineering is not only offering, but has proven for at least a generation now to realize the improvements offered.

Addendum:

A very high economic value is offered to the customer by the ARS system through reduced energy consumption (rolling resistance), the lower wheel/rail forces with respective lower wheel and rail wear and therefore extended wheel life. Despite higher axle loads and higher curving speed, the track maintenance costs can be leveled even at lower values than today, according to the Swedish track access charge model. [...]
https://www.bombardier.com/content/...rdier-Transportation-FLEXX_Tronic_WAKO-EN.pdf

 

[steveintoronto]

Took train from Kaohsiung to Taipei yesterday. Over 300 kph, and best I can tell no turns or banks.

The Japanese models, N700 and N700A tilt due to the curvaceous track in Japan and tight radii. The Taiwanese run theirs along the coastal plain in a straight and wide radius way. Tilt is not necessary to use, thus the 700T doesn't have to use tilt technology.

N700 series trains have a maximum speed of 300 km/h (186 mph), and tilting of up to one degree allows the trains to maintain 270 km/h (168 mph) even on 2,500 m (8,200 ft) radius curves that previously had a maximum speed of 255 km/h (158 mph). Another feature of the N700 is that it accelerates quicker than other shinkansen trains, with a maximum acceleration rate of 2.6 km/h/s. This enables it to reach 270 km/h (170 mph) in only three minutes. Because of these improvements, trains can travel between Tokyo and Osaka on a Nozomi run in as little as 2 hours and 22 minutes on a fastest service. (8 minutes faster than before).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N700_Series_Shinkansen

 

[MisterF]

This.

Those who are saying VIA "should" bank the track should ride the VIA Alexandria subdivision and watch the horizon. The track is very noticeably superelevated on curves, I guess VIA upped the banking when they rebuilt the line a few years ago to optimize more for passenger trains rather than freight.

But even so, the curve speed limits are still only on the order of 85 mph, still slower than CN's Kingston Subdivision which has less aggressive superelevation. There simply is no substitute for wide curve radii. Tilting trains might be able to increase the curve speeds a bit more, but not enough to necessarily offset their associated costs.

VIA used tilting trains for the first 25 years of its existence, but eventually gave up on tilting trains due to maintenance costs. There was of course the maintenance of the LRC active tilt system itself, but on top of that there is also an increased track maintenance cost. Because while tilting rearranges cornering forces to make them more comfortable for passengers, it doesn't actually do anything to reduce those forces. As with any train, going faster around a corner increases the forces on the track.

Tilting trains are just an excuse to not build infrastructure to a high enough standard. They let proponents of a project, whether it be the TurboTrain, LRC or HFR, make extravagant claims about speed which may well be achieved briefly upon opening (remember Toronto-Montreal in 3h59?), but once the newness fades, the operator (VIA) will look at the numbers and realize that tilting doesn't actually make economic sense and the railway will revert back to its 'native' non-tilting design speed.

If tilting trains are just an excuse to not build to a high enough standard, then why do dozens of countries use them? Even in countries with significantly more advanced rail systems than Canada (which is, let's face it, pretty much all of them), conventional tracks are much more common than high speed tracks. Tilting trains allow operators to get the most out of these lower speed tracks, and can go faster than non-tilting trains. Modern tilting trains are nothing like the ones Via used to have; they're reliable and in use all over the world.

Via has been trying to get our rail infrastructure built to a higher standard since it was founded. Successive governments have completely failed them. I can't blame them for coming up with a plan that's far from perfect but better than the status quo. If we hold out for the perfect solution we'll continue to get no solution at all.

 

[SamStar]

Interesting preliminary article from La Presse preceding a REM update scheduled for this AM.
It seems that the Mont-Royal tunnel will be designed and renovated for the REM for an interoperability of the REM and HFR from Montreal to Quebec City.

https://translate.googleusercontent...Screen&usg=ALkJrhhPiqwkeFMG3hogdwCf0sNuTZUYCA

 

[steveintoronto]

It seems that the Mont-Royal tunnel will be designed and renovated for the REM for an interoperability of the REM and HFR

Excellent 'heads-up'!

...the federal government...specified that the Mount Royal Tunnel will be designed to accommodate both the REM and a possible VIA Rail high-speed train between Quebec and Montreal. A high-frequency train is among the list of priority projects by federal Transport Minister Marc Garneau.

"We will take this into account when designing the project for the Mount Royal Tunnel", it was noted in Ottawa. In Quebec City, we will be making sure that we provide "interoperability" for both modes of transport in the tunnel. But for now, this technology does not exist. "Ideally, it should have been planned at the beginning of the work; if it is implanted once the REM builds, it will obviously cost more, "says one.

Due to that being a translation, it's dubious to hold it to the nuances, but "Ideally, it should have been planned at the beginning of the work" infers pressure was brought to bear. It's not like the point hasn't been crystal clear from the beginning.

Very interesting! Also of note is that even though this is a Caisse project, and it was presumed to be a Bombardier shoo-in for rolling stock, it's open tender. That's the price of taking federal money.