VIA Rail

[robmausser]

The only tilting 300km/h train in service today is the Japanese Shinkansen N700 - and it only tilts 1 degree, not enough to be noticeable.

No 300km/h-capable train in the world today tilts in the same manner as is being talked about in this thread. It is an unnecessary waste. A properly-engineered high-speed line doesn't need it.

What does exist is higher-speed trains (200 to 250km/h) which tilt - but those are done much like as is being talked about here, a way to increase speeds on existing lines without spending the money on a brand new, purpose-engineered corridor. They are also sometimes used on the high-speed lines, but as their top speed isn't the same as the true high-speed trains care must be taken when scheduling the runs.




The Turbo absolutely tilted as laid out in reaperexpress's attachment. In fact, on entering the approaches to both Montréal's Gare Central and Toronto's Union Station, announcements were broadcast over the PA telling passengers to remain in their seats as the trains would sway over the tight trackwork when entering the stations. Many younger passengers would ignore these pleas and would enjoy themselves in the gangways between cars, where the effects were particularly exaggerated.

One of the downsides of the system, however, was that it couldn't easily be locked out as the tilting system also formed a major part of the suspension of the train. VIA tried towards the end of its life but couldn't do it. Because of the design, even if stopped on a curve the train would continue to tilt - it couldn't come back up to straight.

Dan

Tilting in the 70s and 80s was a very new practice and thus there were always issues.

Tilting in 2020 is not an issue, tons of trains have active tilt systems that are extremely reliable.

 

[robmausser]

Except that it's not just buying a different and more expensive fleet. It's the cost to support a whole other fleet. And the scheduling that would probably see the project delayed years. If they were buying another fleet, they would have to be generating draft RFPs as we speak.



You assume an upgrade to HSR is coming. I'm not at all optimistic this will come for decades, given government debt levels. I am going to bet that once HFR is built, we will see no substantial improvements for at least two decades, as every other project takes priority, including rail investments elsewhere in the country. It's not going to be politically feasible to move on an HSR upgrade before Corridor West gets the HFR treatment, and Calgary-Edmonton gets service. How much do you think will be left in the kitty after? So I'd rather they build something that will serve us well for at least 2-3 decades.

VIA already has plans to electrify the line at a later date, so while this might not happen as you put, the plan VIA has is to build this in phases, including diesel first and electrification second (as well as building parts of the line first and expanding later) Whether or not this happens of course is subject to many things, but that is the plan.

Electrifying would require a new, and different trainset than the rest of the fleet.

We could simply use the Siemens originally on the line to meet deadlines, then order an electric tilting train fleet and move the Siemens to other parts of the network, as an incremental improvement.

VIA already uses a mixed fleet of trains. I dont see why its an issue now, and with plans to electrify the line its a perfect opportunity to improve the trains, especially because they have to in order to electrify the line.

Electrification would also offer better acceleration, which would improve times slightly (if you have to slow down for curves, a better acceleration profile improves "make up time" in the straightaways)

 

[crs1026]

Tilting is great, but I bristle about it in the context of VIA HfR because - we should not gloss over the limitations imposed by choosing a very constraining ringht of way in the interest of low initial cost.

The worst possible outcome would be if, after commissioning HFR and gaining a couple years’ experience, somebody decides that the curves are too rough for passengers, or the stresses on track are too hard to maintain, or the tilting is not working right..... or the equipment mix puts some lower performing equipment in the mix...... and then someone says “well, adding ten minutes to the schedule won’t make it *that* much less marketable”.......#Turbo #LRC #Canadian #HEP2.......yet another tradeoff that drives VIA towards mediocrity.

We need to know that tilting will indeed deliver on its role in the performance envelope, in this specific application. We can’t assume that off the pages of Railway Age. I eagerly await the ”studies” to tell us more.

I understand that HFR does not need to be “High Speed” to be viable and we admirers have to dampen some of our expectations....but HFR definitely needs to be “good enough”. If it isn’t a quantum better than what we have, it will not turn any heads or change attitudes to rail passenger service in this country. We can’t assume tilting will be a silver bullet.

- Paul

 

[nfitz]

The Turbo absolutely tilted as laid out in reaperexpress's attachment. In fact, on entering the approaches to both Montréal's Gare Central and Toronto's Union Station, announcements were broadcast over the PA telling passengers to remain in their seats as the trains would sway over the tight trackwork when entering the stations.

Not sure I've ever ridden it into Union. Mostly used to get off at Dorval or Kingston. Though I recall hearing announcements near Central ...I don't think they ever said why. I also got the impression I've heard it on non-tilting equipment as well ... never paid much attention, I assumed it was more about trying to keep things orderly and the power change-over at Central when the train goes dark (though I don't remember that starting until after the Turbo was ended).

 

[crs1026]

If I get time I'm tempted to draw out what this Sharbot Lake bypass could look like.

Sure, drag me down a rabbit hole on a Saturday afternoon ;-)

Here's a rough attempt. I figure the diversion as being about 34.2 km long. Using the worst-case price scenario of $10M per km that's $342M to build. However - it replaces 33.8 km of the old right of way, which will probably cost VIA $5M per km to refurbish anyways. So the incremental cost, is closer to $175M, on a very rough guesstimate basis, assuming no major bridges or tunnels etc on either route.

For that amount, VIA avoids roughly 10 km of curved track that (by my inexpert gaze at the map) would probably require 80 km/hr restrictions. These zones are spaced such that trains would not be able to accelerate very much between zones before having to slow down again. I would predict a regulatory speed restriction of 50 km/hr through Sharbot Lake, given the line goes right through town. So speed throughout that zone would be restricted.

The route alongside Highway 7 is remarkably even terrain - at least on the map, Highway 7 has found an easier route through much of that territory, following the contours of the land and avoiding more swampland. And there could be far less curvature - it would be reasonable to assume higher speeds end to end, with much less need to accelerate and slow down for each curve.

On the back of an envelope, from pure speculation, one can predict a time savings of five minutes or more for that $175M. I wonder how that would fit in HFR's budget relative to other possible speed improvements.

- Paul

PS - Don't overlook the cost of moving the whole town. Sound farfetched? That's how the St Lawrence Seaway got build. See here. It was doubtless heartbreaking for the residents along the old river, but 70+ years later I think most would agree it was the right thing to do, given the huge benefit that the Seaway has delivered. My guess is that Sharbot Lake could be relocated in total for half that amount. I wonder if the assessed value of every property in town exceeds $100M. I'm not arguing for that, I'm just pointing out - expropriation happens.

 

[Kitsune]

... looking on google earth Shabot Lake (the town) looks to have "built" up alongside the former trackbed (ie a marina, a couple new buildings), and with the trackbed so close to the lake I dunno if they could run trains through there without tearing up everything that has already been built.

 

[micheal_can]

There is no reason that Via could not run non tilting trains on the existing ROW to get the service going and then in 10-20 years reroute sections that are problematic.

 

[lenaitch]

Sure, drag me down a rabbit hole on a Saturday afternoon ;-)

Here's a rough attempt. I figure the diversion as being about 34.2 km long. Using the worst-case price scenario of $10M per km that's $342M to build. However - it replaces 33.8 km of the old right of way, which will probably cost VIA $5M per km to refurbish anyways. So the incremental cost, is closer to $175M, on a very rough guesstimate basis, assuming no major bridges or tunnels etc on either route.

For that amount, VIA avoids roughly 10 km of curved track that (by my inexpert gaze at the map) would probably require 80 km/hr restrictions. These zones are spaced such that trains would not be able to accelerate very much between zones before having to slow down again. I would predict a regulatory speed restriction of 50 km/hr through Sharbot Lake, given the line goes right through town. So speed throughout that zone would be restricted.

The route alongside Highway 7 is remarkably even terrain - at least on the map, Highway 7 has found an easier route through much of that territory, following the contours of the land and avoiding more swampland. And there could be far less curvature - it would be reasonable to assume higher speeds end to end, with much less need to accelerate and slow down for each curve.

On the back of an envelope, from pure speculation, one can predict a time savings of five minutes or more for that $175M. I wonder how that would fit in HFR's budget relative to other possible speed improvements.

- Paul

PS - Don't overlook the cost of moving the whole town. Sound farfetched? That's how the St Lawrence Seaway got build. See here. It was doubtless heartbreaking for the residents along the old river, but 70+ years later I think most would agree it was the right thing to do, given the huge benefit that the Seaway has delivered. My guess is that Sharbot Lake could be relocated in total for half that amount. I wonder if the assessed value of every property in town exceeds $100M. I'm not arguing for that, I'm just pointing out - expropriation happens.

View attachment 265037View attachment 265038

I'm not sure the sensibilities of the 1950s would translate to today.

One other thing to consider, both around Sharbot Lake and elsewhere, are the number of private/public roads and driveways that have crossed the ROW, many most likely since abandonment. Depending on the speeds envisioned, level crossings would either need to be eliminated or signalized, which would seem unusual for a cottage laneway. Building alternative roads or even expropriation might have to be built into the costs.

 

[lenaitch]

... looking on google earth Shabot Lake (the town) looks to have "built" up alongside the former trackbed (ie a marina, a couple new buildings), and with the trackbed so close to the lake I dunno if they could run trains through there without tearing up everything that has already been built.

The village has always been centred on the junction of the former Kingston & Pembroke and Ontario & Quebec (CP) railways, which met at the causeway at the narrows.

 

[smallspy]

Tilting in the 70s and 80s was a very new practice and thus there were always issues.

Tilting in 2020 is not an issue, tons of trains have active tilt systems that are extremely reliable.

I disagree. Tilting first came about in the railroad sense in the late 1930s, for all of the same reasons as today.

It became popular in the 1970s, and in a lot of places it's still being used. But don't kid yourself, there are a number of places where, like Canada, it was felt to be an unnecessary drain on resources. Check out what Cross Country did with their Class 221s, for instance.

Dan

 

[kEiThZ]

VIA already has plans to electrify the line at a later date....

VIA may have plenty of plans. But without somebody willing to fund them the plans are useless. As it stands, there's a $350 billion deficit and a Finance Minister who just quit over a disagreement on future spending plans. We'll be lucky if HFR survives. And especially if it survives as anything but the absolute basic plan. Nobody is even imagining a change in government which sees both HFR and the CIB scrapped.

And once HFR gets built, again, VIA doesn't get to decide what it spends money, its sole shareholder does. And you can bet $2B on expanding service (particularly Corridor West) is going to take precedence over electrification.

 

[crs1026]

I'm not sure the sensibilities of the 1950s would translate to today.

I'm sure they wouldn't. All the same....zooming in on the top map, I count only 21 properties in Sharbot Lake that adjoin the railroad row. At, say, $2M a property, it would be a lot cheaper to buy out these residents than to move the line elsewhere.

One other thing to consider, both around Sharbot Lake and elsewhere, are the number of private/public roads and driveways that have crossed the ROW, many most likely since abandonment. Depending on the speeds envisioned, level crossings would either need to be eliminated or signalized, which would seem unusual for a cottage laneway. Building alternative roads or even expropriation might have to be built into the costs.

No question, there will be a lot of this along the entire line. If one looks at Streetview, there are many tire tracks visible, and even some vehicles, on the ROW. It's hard to tell how much is "necessary" access versus pleasure driving. But again, a glance at the top map suggests the number of "stranded" properties may be fairly small, actually.... the one benefit of having built thru so much swampland all those years ago, perhaps.

When one considers what the land acquisition/expropriation budget will be for the Highway 7 expansion.... dollars and number of properties impacted....the HFR project doesn't look that intrusive in total. That's a hard sell for Sharbot Lake, of course, and maybe that argues for putting the rail line next to the highway so there is only one group of properties impacted instead of two, and two modes benefitting from a single land acquisition investment.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

I'm sure they wouldn't. All the same....zooming in on the top map, I count only 21 properties in Sharbot Lake that adjoin the railroad row. At, say, $2M a property, it would be a lot cheaper to buy out these residents than to move the line elsewhere.



No question, there will be a lot of this along the entire line. If one looks at Streetview, there are many tire tracks visible, and even some vehicles, on the ROW. It's hard to tell how much is "necessary" access versus pleasure driving. But again, a glance at the top map suggests the number of "stranded" properties may be fairly small, actually.... the one benefit of having built thru so much swampland all those years ago, perhaps.

When one considers what the land acquisition/expropriation budget will be for the Highway 7 expansion.... dollars and number of properties impacted....the HFR project doesn't look that intrusive in total. That's a hard sell for Sharbot Lake, of course, and maybe that argues for putting the rail line next to the highway so there is only one group of properties impacted instead of two, and two modes benefitting from a single land acquisition investment.

- Paul

It's not so much just the properties abutting the ROW as it is once you start cutting the centre out of the village centre (such as it is - pop ~ 1400) and effectively cutting it in two, it becomes highly disruptive to what remains. I wasn't aware there were long term MTO plans to re-align Hwy 7 that far west. If there is, you are right that this would be an ideal opportunity to solve both issues. I assume the highway plans are long into the future.

 

[Allandale25]

Sure, drag me down a rabbit hole on a Saturday afternoon ;-)

Here's a rough attempt. I figure the diversion as being about 34.2 km long. Using the worst-case price scenario of $10M per km that's $342M to build. However - it replaces 33.8 km of the old right of way, which will probably cost VIA $5M per km to refurbish anyways. So the incremental cost, is closer to $175M, on a very rough guesstimate basis, assuming no major bridges or tunnels etc on either route.

For that amount, VIA avoids roughly 10 km of curved track that (by my inexpert gaze at the map) would probably require 80 km/hr restrictions. These zones are spaced such that trains would not be able to accelerate very much between zones before having to slow down again. I would predict a regulatory speed restriction of 50 km/hr through Sharbot Lake, given the line goes right through town. So speed throughout that zone would be restricted.

The route alongside Highway 7 is remarkably even terrain - at least on the map, Highway 7 has found an easier route through much of that territory, following the contours of the land and avoiding more swampland. And there could be far less curvature - it would be reasonable to assume higher speeds end to end, with much less need to accelerate and slow down for each curve.

On the back of an envelope, from pure speculation, one can predict a time savings of five minutes or more for that $175M. I wonder how that would fit in HFR's budget relative to other possible speed improvements.

- Paul

PS - Don't overlook the cost of moving the whole town. Sound farfetched? That's how the St Lawrence Seaway got build. See here. It was doubtless heartbreaking for the residents along the old river, but 70+ years later I think most would agree it was the right thing to do, given the huge benefit that the Seaway has delivered. My guess is that Sharbot Lake could be relocated in total for half that amount. I wonder if the assessed value of every property in town exceeds $100M. I'm not arguing for that, I'm just pointing out - expropriation happens.

View attachment 265037View attachment 265038

Great to see this visualized. What base map did you use? Just as some additional options, for the west, if they need to reduce the property acquisitions along Highway 7, they could could do this:

For the east, I assume that local residents also wouldn't like this, but there's a string of islands that could be used to the south of the town. But maybe they wouldn't provide very good foundations and it wouldn't be worth it. I'm certainly not a civil engineer. What are those light green areas on the map? Wetlands?

 

[crs1026]

What base map did you use?

Ontario has a cool web site for top maps

https://www.ontario.ca/page/topographic-maps

Just as some additional options, for the west, if they need to reduce the property acquisitions along Highway 7, they could could do this:

That would work. I was trying to capitalise on how close the rail line is to Highway 7, and to bypass as many tight curves aspossible.

For the east, I assume that local residents also wouldn't like this, but there's a string of islands that could be used to the south of the town. But maybe they wouldn't provide very good foundations and it wouldn't be worth it. I'm certainly not a civil engineer. What are those light green areas on the map? Wetlands?

I saw that too....interesting idea. I measured the gaps between islands, and figured the spans would be just long enough to cost a lot. And the boaters would expect high clearances, so the whole thing would have to be elevated.. And ugly, no matter how artfully it was designed.

The green was just to make the wetlands stand out, yes. Probably need to stay out of those.

- Paul