|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Admiral Beez
Superstar
Does electrification have to be with overhead wires?
robmausser
Senior Member
Yes.
Reliable long distance Hydrogen and battery tech is decades away.
3rd rail tech maxes out at 100km/h and is a problem with snow, rural areas and at-grade crossings. Vias dedicated tracks has to deal with harsh climate, areas with 200km/h service and many at grade crossings.
steveintoronto
Superstar
Case in point:
Although not the only reason, this model series (Class 373)( British Rail Class 373 - Wikipedia )
were and are being scrapped due to the now redundant third rail capability. It compromised a lot of what was standard for the new HS1 line to the Chunnel (all catenary and built to UIC loading gauge)(UIC GB+) and EU standards. Third rail running was a stop-gap to run Eurostars out of Waterloo Station before settling on St Pancras as the new terminal, and all 25kV catenary. Some are being saved and refurbished, most are being scrapped. They're also 22 years old.
The question really is upgrading older catenary systems to 25kV AC, the de-facto international standard, albeit there's a schism between 50 and 60 Hz as being the standard line freq, truth being that with modern AC-DC-AC systems, traction power is reconstituted anyway, and effectively the only consequence is the core size/weight for traction transformer, but even there, solid state xfrmrs render that virtually moot.
Third rail running is incredibly yesterday as per many aspects of engineering, not least electrical.
See:
Has third rail had its day?
10th April 2013
https://www.railengineer.uk/2013/04/10/has-third-rail-had-its-day/
Of course, there are battery, hydrogen, induced current exchange, and other ways to power a high performance train. But not in any way possible at this time for heavy passenger higher speed that's practical.
Last edited:
micheal_can
Senior Member
If VIA goes ahead with the HFR, even if they just drop down new ballast, ties and rails, it will be a good thing. Hear me out...
Having a dedicated line means they are now in control of it. They could straighten out the curves that slow them down. They could remove crossings by closing them, or by making overpasses. They could electrify it as needed. They could double track it.
In short, the HFR gives VIA the power to do what they want to make it better.
Having a dedicated line means they are now in control of it. They could straighten out the curves that slow them down. They could remove crossings by closing them, or by making overpasses. They could electrify it as needed. They could double track it.
In short, the HFR gives VIA the power to do what they want to make it better.
crs1026
Senior Member
Having their own line is the best way forward, agreed. The biggest concern I have is whether the envelope will allow the line to be upgraded enough to really achieve the most marketable end state. I don’t see much room for forgiveness if costs escalate. The likely consequence would be a downgrade in whatever remaining work needs to be done. The most logical cuts would be curve reductions and overall track speed. We could see overruns resulting in a 176 km/hr line being downgraded to 150km/hr..... or more permanent slow orders, both resulting in longer trip times, resulting in a less competitive service. (I worry less about electrification, because it has a standalone business case based on hydro cost versus diesel cost plus some allowance for carbon reduction... with any trip time delta being gravy).
Like @kEiThZ I would like to see a focussed effort on Montreal-Ottawa, partly to demonstrate what the end concept looks like, and partly to generate validated data (and hopefully showing positives) on costs and execution.
I’m also concerned about the risk of doing to Kingston what VIA has done to London since 1985, and about the silly roundabout entry into Montreal from Quebec City idea, but won’t grind those axes again. The big uncertainty is - can VIA build what they say they can build, from such a seemingly modest envelope.
- Paul
TransitBart
Senior Member
If you think about it, it isn’t that practical where people can get close to rails. I used to bike on the CP line in Etobicoke and I have been on the bridge crossing the Humber more than once. A 600V third rail would have made both experiences more interesting. But then again, Montgomery Road was a level crossing when I was little.
nfitz
Superstar
At an absolute minimum - it's going to need a bit more than that. It's about 50 years since now since much of the track between Peterborough and Ottawa started being abandoned.
At a bare minimum, signals would be necessary!
Even if VIA purchases and rebuilds this track - what do they have? A single-track line from Ottawa that ends in Havelock in the west, and fails to get into Central Station in Montreal on the east, with the new REM.
From Havelock into Toronto - particularly from just west of Leaside station to the CP Toronto Yard past Agincourt, is going to be very expensive. And I don't know what you do in Montreal now the Mount Royal tunnel is being converted for LRT running every few minutes!
Northern Light
Superstar
This is why I favour investments in the existing corridor.
As an example, there is ample space for 90% of the corridor between GO Pickering and GO Whitby to put a new VIA subdivision down the middle of the two.
There are some minor constraints at the Brock (Pickering) underpass and in one other spot, but both overcomeable it just means moving up to 2 existing tracks over a few feet (I'm over simplifying, but its very manageable. )
That investment alone, for a fairly modest dollar sum, would give them more than 10km of new exclusive track.
There's another area just east of Oshawa where a similar stretch exists.
Three or Four investments like this, clean-up Coteax, and a few strategic grade separations/closures that allow higher track speeds (up to 200km/ph) for even 4 chunks of the route, would drive down run time a lot and improve reliability substantially.
By contrast the route via Ptbo is a much more expensive and involved proposition with a longer somewhat longer distance to boot.
I have no objection to reopening the Ptbo, per se. But it certainly seems a less ideal answer that phasing-in an exclusive corridor roughly parallel to the existing one.
Last edited:
crs1026
Senior Member
^Two other possible items: A new bridge over the creek at Pickering Jct, to extend the CN York Sub further east. Similarly, a new bridge over the Moira at Belleville, plus extension of triple track westwards towards Trenton. Both of these would remove cuurent freight conflicts.
I like the idea of totally separating CN and VIA from Liverpool to east of Oshawa. Add another 20-30 kms of triple track between Oshawa and Kingston. And, do some further grade separations.
I’m still cheering for a new line from Pittsburg up to the old CNOR and eastwards on it to Smiths Falls. Far fewer new miles of track to lay than the Havelock route, retains Kingston and Belleville as stops. The Havelock line may mean easier land acquisition than a new route.... but the ROW has gone back to nature. Engineering and construction costs will effectively match new construction on virgin land. Especially with Don Viaduct, Tapscott- Leaside, Peterboro, and a couple larger bridges east of Peterboro in the civil works.
If VIA does proceed, they will need an EA. I hope it would consider this alternative. Only down side I can see is the issue of CN not buying electrification. With diesel power available that is able to achieve 200 km/hr, I wonder if electrification is a hill to die on. Those Charger locos are still a lot greener than a new B-737, or 200 automobiles.
- Paul
I like the idea of totally separating CN and VIA from Liverpool to east of Oshawa. Add another 20-30 kms of triple track between Oshawa and Kingston. And, do some further grade separations.
I’m still cheering for a new line from Pittsburg up to the old CNOR and eastwards on it to Smiths Falls. Far fewer new miles of track to lay than the Havelock route, retains Kingston and Belleville as stops. The Havelock line may mean easier land acquisition than a new route.... but the ROW has gone back to nature. Engineering and construction costs will effectively match new construction on virgin land. Especially with Don Viaduct, Tapscott- Leaside, Peterboro, and a couple larger bridges east of Peterboro in the civil works.
If VIA does proceed, they will need an EA. I hope it would consider this alternative. Only down side I can see is the issue of CN not buying electrification. With diesel power available that is able to achieve 200 km/hr, I wonder if electrification is a hill to die on. Those Charger locos are still a lot greener than a new B-737, or 200 automobiles.
- Paul
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Your enthusiasm in all honours, but how do you want to prevent what happened last time the federal government gave CN money through VIA to upgrade the Kingston Subdivision?
Source: OAG report (2016, p.18)
And considering the Gananoque cut-off just mentioned: Having to conduct a full-scale EA is certainly not going to help to provide intercity travellers tangible benefits within a reasonably short timeframe...
Northern Light
Superstar
Reopening an old rail corridor that's in disuse will surely trigger an EA as well.
In respect of what happened last time, my suggestion here is that this be a completely new sub, as GO's is, owned by them, not CN.
I would then expect construction work to be open tendered, not sole sourced to CN.
There are no guarantees of course, there never are.
But I think this course of action is more likely to provide a greater benefit, at a lower cost, in a more tight timeframe.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
Name me any reason why building a new ROW across the Canadian shield (such as the Gananoque bypass) would be cheaper and take less time than restoring a still existant alignment (it's a cycling path now) on a formerly existant ROW.
Also, how do you plan on motivating CN to tolerate building tracks on their property without assuming ownership and dispatching powers afterwards? A hardcore-leftist government might be willing to coerce CN into cooperation (at whatever cost that entails), but any railroad (even a Crown Corporation) has to plan within what is either within their powers or within what its stakeholders can be realistically compelled to approve/tolerate...
steveintoronto
Superstar
I've just erased a number of prior quotes as to using the Lakeshore route revisited. Urban Sky has addressed them, as has this forum prior. There's massive challenges *financially* as well as the land even being available, let alone the bridges of size needed to cross various rivers.
D-S articulates this in detail, as do the Acts pertinent, even some publications of the Acts providing an application form to be filled out to the (regulator).
There's a damn good reason the P'bro route was chosen, not least because it's overall the best all things considered. VIA Has made clear that Kingston *isn't* to be 'sidelined' and the Mayor of Kingston and the surrounding counties are all on-side with this.
It's actually easier at this point to Google what's already been posted in this string than the Acts in full on-line. I'll link and reference later.
And btw: The working figure for electrifying a railway line in the US is '$100M per mile'. I read extensively on that last night, didn't bother keeping references, it's such an accepted working figure. It's what's being used now for both east and west coast electrification projects, and CalTrains, the complication with the latter that costs are radically slashed due to combing it with the Cal High Speed project *( see note at end) and Fed subsidies for doing it. For multitrack, the cost per distance is a fraction for the added tracks beyond for just one. Anyone doubling the 'working cost' for a single track where doubled is obviously not availed of the facts. In fact, there's a clever way of using the '25kV X 2' (50kV centre-tapped via autotransformer method) that saves a massive amount when doing doubled track, and increases regenerative yield efficiency doing it . I'm a tech at one time specializing in transformer development. Anyone care to challenge me on it?
If someone wants to take that to issue, then I digress. State your reference.
* Note: High Speed requires a much more robust catenary, in all respects, including current capacity as well as physical strength, and the cost per distance to calculate overall distance is considerably higher than what HFR (or CalTrains) requires. In this respect, CalTrains gets deluxe corridor access catenary for a fraction of what it would normally cost. Politics has complicated this in the present manifestation of Cal High Speed though.
For those not familiar with D-S' stated views on HFR (including reusing old trackbeds and underutilized freight lines) here it is in testimony to Parliament:
The Transportation Act and others say otherwise. Been quoted many times here, I'll find it again and link, but basically, IIRC (gist) "Up to 100 metres either side of the centre of the present RoW does not require EA or approval, merely the application to the (Minister and/or Regulator)"
D-S articulates this in detail, as do the Acts pertinent, even some publications of the Acts providing an application form to be filled out to the (regulator).
There's a damn good reason the P'bro route was chosen, not least because it's overall the best all things considered. VIA Has made clear that Kingston *isn't* to be 'sidelined' and the Mayor of Kingston and the surrounding counties are all on-side with this.
There's more as per 'reactivating an abandoned RoW' not needing approval (certain conditions pertain, voluntary, to consider the local planning protocols where possible) also quoted directly from the Act (Transpo or Crossings and Relocations Act, both difficult to research now they've made them 'new an improved')
It's actually easier at this point to Google what's already been posted in this string than the Acts in full on-line. I'll link and reference later.
And btw: The working figure for electrifying a railway line in the US is '$100M per mile'. I read extensively on that last night, didn't bother keeping references, it's such an accepted working figure. It's what's being used now for both east and west coast electrification projects, and CalTrains, the complication with the latter that costs are radically slashed due to combing it with the Cal High Speed project *( see note at end) and Fed subsidies for doing it. For multitrack, the cost per distance is a fraction for the added tracks beyond for just one. Anyone doubling the 'working cost' for a single track where doubled is obviously not availed of the facts. In fact, there's a clever way of using the '25kV X 2' (50kV centre-tapped via autotransformer method) that saves a massive amount when doing doubled track, and increases regenerative yield efficiency doing it . I'm a tech at one time specializing in transformer development. Anyone care to challenge me on it?
If someone wants to take that to issue, then I digress. State your reference.
* Note: High Speed requires a much more robust catenary, in all respects, including current capacity as well as physical strength, and the cost per distance to calculate overall distance is considerably higher than what HFR (or CalTrains) requires. In this respect, CalTrains gets deluxe corridor access catenary for a fraction of what it would normally cost. Politics has complicated this in the present manifestation of Cal High Speed though.
For those not familiar with D-S' stated views on HFR (including reusing old trackbeds and underutilized freight lines) here it is in testimony to Parliament:
http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/PACP/meeting-21/evidence
Last edited:
Northern Light
Superstar
I've always been a respectful poster.
I've liked and appreciated a great many of your posts and have never insulted you.
Please don't insult me by attributing to me that which i did not say.
At no point did I ever advocate a new route across the Canadian Shield. Not once. Not ever.
You are conflating my posts with those of a different forumer.
I advocated building new tracks on a portion of the Lakeshore route, where land is already available.
I can also further add that the bulk of said land is NOT owned by CN, but is in fact owned by the MTO, though in some cases, landswaps with CN would be desirable and lower the cost.
I have no idea what has possessed you to be hostile, rather than constructive, its most unlike you.
Please revert to your normal self.