VIA Rail

[crs1026]

Before I continue with determining the speed limits, I'll give you my .kmz file and some time to explore the curves I've identified and to find any curves I might have missed. Also, please let me know if you have any questions so far or struggle to see where I derived my assumptions from! As I said at the beginning, full transparency and exclusive dependence on publicly accessible sources is the only way for me to help you with modelling the HFR route...

Thanks. This is extremely helpful. Needless to say, it will take me more than a few hours to cross check your circles against to the data I have - I tried it with just the Peterboro-Havelock section, and I could replicate most of it fairly well. I have access to an old CP track chart that shows in imprecise terms where the curves are west of Havelock, and I have good archival data for the section east of there.

Even as just a primitive attempt, it's an interesting exercise to try to model the track times, just as a reality check to get one's head around what this line might produce. We may wish for our personal favourite fantasy equipment, but the obvious no-brainer to model is the Siemens equipment. Similarly, looking at what speeds the curvature might actually produce, with a credible guesstimate of the track superelevation, is revealing.

(And here I thought cashews were the most addictive thing on the planet!)

- Paul

 

[ShonTron]

In the meanwhile, I will provide you with a quick update for the latest round of timetable changes in the Corridor, which will take effect September 29:

Whereas additional frequencies have been added on September 1 (second round-trip TRTO-WDON and third round trips on QBEC-MTRL-OTTW, MTRL-TRTO and TRTO-OTTW) and September 11 (fourth round-trip operating Mondays, Fridays and Sundays only on MTRL-TRTO and OTTW-TRTO), this timetable change only concerns which trains operate when:

• Train 39 will be replaced by train 37
• Train 66 will now operate only Mondays, Fridays and Sunday (was: daily)
• Train 68 will now operate daily (was: Mondays, Fridays and Sundays only)
• Train 71 will operate almost 2 hours later
• Train 669 will be replaced by a retimed train 69
• Various trains have been revised by just a few minutes

I will provide the departure times like I did in my last post (with all changes in red):

• Quebec-Montreal (and v.v.)
  • leaving QBEC at 08:00 (#35), 13:00 (#37) and 17:45 (#29)
  • leaving MTRL at 08:56 (#22), 12:45 (#24) and 18:25 (#28)
• Montreal-Ottawa (and v.v.)
  • leaving MTRL at 09:00 (#633), 12:04 (#35) and 16:50 (#37)
  • leaving OTTW at 06:30 (#22), 10:15 (#24) and 16:10 (#28)
• Montreal-Toronto (and v.v.)
  • leaving MTRL at 08:55 (#63), 11:05* (#65), 13:28 (#67) and 17:10 (#69)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:32 (#62), 11:32 (#64), 15:17* (#66) and 17:02 (#68)
• Ottawa-Toronto (and v.v.)
  • leaving OTTW at 08:40 (#643), 11:50 (#53), 15:23* (#55) and 18:25 (#59)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:32 (#52), 12:17 (#42), 15:32* (#46) and 18:47 (#48)
• Toronto-Windsor (and v.v.)
  • leaving TRTO at 08:40 (#71) and 17:30 (#75)
  • leaving WDON at 09:00 (#72) and 17:45 (#78)
• Toronto-Sarnia (and v.v.)
  • leaving TRTO at 17:40 (#84)
  • leaving SARN at 06:10 (#87)

Note: all trains will operate daily, except trains marked with an asterisk (*), which will operate on Mondays, Fridays and Sundays only.

PDF timetable available here: https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/schedules/September29.pdf

Concerning the non-Corridor routes, MTRL-JONQ, MTRL-SENN, SUDB-WHTR and JASP-PRUP continue to operate only once per week and the Canadian and Ocean have been suspended since mid-March, which makes the WNPG-CHUR train the only train operating under its regular schedule (though without sleeper accommodations).

As I said last time, I'm happy to finally be able to present you a somewhat usable schedule. Let's hope the best... #secondwave

Interesting to see Train 71 leave Union almost 2 hours later. It's a more comfortable hour, that's for sure.

 

[Mcurtis]

Yikes. Contract to upgrade 17 long distance VIA coaches for improved accessibility cancelled mutually by VIA and Bombardier.

Bombardier La Pocatière perd un contrat de 54 millions

I wonder if this has anything to do with the sale to Alstom and any potential concerns/issues etc that Via Rail has as a result. I know it made mention of the age of the cars (1950's ouch) but I feel like thats something that would have been well known when bidding on the contract itself unless the cars were in worse condition then Via let on?

 

[Mcurtis]

@Urban Sky thanks for all the information. I'm reading your master's thesis right now actually. It's very informative much like your posts.

 

[nfitz]

I'm surprised the RER is 3 times that of Inter-City. I'd have guessed that VIA's new trainsets had more acceleration than the current 12-car GO trainsets.

How do the current, future, and current 10- and 12-car trains compare?

 

[KevinT]

I'm surprised the RER is 3 times that of Inter-City. I'd have guessed that VIA's new trainsets had more acceleration than the current 12-car GO trainsets.

A lower top speed allows a higher gear ratio with more torque, and RER trains likely have a higher proportion of driven axles than an intercity, which likely has just one power car at each end.

 

[kEiThZ]

To those of you that have worked on large projects like this. I've always wondered if planning and engineering can't be sped up with money? This still seems to be running so slow to me.

 

[afransen]

China manages to build bridges that don't fall down, etc. at much greater speed than we do. I take that as evidence that our processes are slower than they could be. Might be that China doesn't worry about EAs, etc. as much.

 

[smallspy]

I wonder if this has anything to do with the sale to Alstom and any potential concerns/issues etc that Via Rail has as a result. I know it made mention of the age of the cars (1950's ouch) but I feel like thats something that would have been well known when bidding on the contract itself unless the cars were in worse condition then Via let on?

It's doubtful that the sale had much to do with this contract cancellation - there have been mutterings for over a year about how much more complicated this project was than it had originally let on to be.

I suspect that both parties finally realized that the value for money simply wasn't there anymore, and thus both parties walked away from it.

Dan

 

[SFO-YYZ]

China manages to build bridges that don't fall down, etc. at much greater speed than we do. I take that as evidence that our processes are slower than they could be. Might be that China doesn't worry about EAs, etc. as much.

You mean this right? A brand new 9-lane bridge in northeastern China that collapses after 9 months of opening There is a running joke within China - the life expectancy of any new infrastructure in China can be measured by its construction duration (roughly) e.x. if a bridge is built in 8 months, it'll likely not last beyond a year of use; if it's built in 6 months, it'll last maybe half a year; if it's built in 2 months, well you may want to stay as far from it as you can...

 

[rbt]

Might be that China doesn't worry about EAs, etc. as much.

Environmental Impact Assessments in China are indeed something of a non-issue. Prior to 2016 they were optional; the developer decided whether one was required or not and simply went ahead with work if they decided it wasn't required. The penalty for being caught after the fact (destroying something of significance) was being required to do an EIA after-the-fact and a fine of $30k USD. Even then, corruption at the provincial level meant it was cheaper just to bribe officials rather than pay even that paltry fine.

2016 changed the laws a bit in that area, some Chinese environmental groups claim they've been weakened been weakened. Fines for not doing an EIA are now 1% of project cost BUT approval is not required to begin construction; they're done in parallel with construction. You're basically expected to document what you destroy.

While they don't worry about EAs at all prior to starting construction, land ownership regulations are quite strict.

Protected areas are government owned (directly or via a government corporation) and have much stronger processes internally. Private contractors who destroy government land may find themselves jailed or even with a death sentence.

 

[SFO-YYZ]

Environmental Impact Assessments in China are indeed something of a non-issue. Prior to 2016 they were optional; the developer decided whether one was required or not and simply went ahead with work if they decided it wasn't required. The penalty for being caught after the fact (destroying something of significance) was being required to do an EIA after-the-fact, and a fine of $30k USD. Even then, corruption at the provincial level meant it was cheaper just to bribe officials rather than pay even that paltry fine.

2016 changed the laws a bit in that area, some Chinese environmental groups claim they've been weakened been weakened. Fines for not doing an EIA are now 1% of project cost BUT approval is not required to begin construction; they're done in parallel with construction. You're basically expected to document what you destroy.

While they don't worry about EAs at all prior to starting construction, land ownership regulations are quite strict.

Protected areas are government owned (directly or via a government corporation) and have much stronger processes internally. Private contractors who destroy government land may find themselves jailed or even with a death sentence.

Also important to note that in China, all private land "ownership" are capped at 70 years maximum. Whatever you buy as a private corporation or individual - a house, an office, etc. - you essentially lease the land from the government for usage for a maximum duration of 70 years. Hence, the concept of property "ownership" is quite a bit weaker than in most other countries, because the government operates under the premise that all properties are public (government owned) because that is what socialism is according to their definition. Hence, forcibly removing residents from their homes because you need to build a highway or highspeed rail line becomes almost a non-issue, because they don't technically own the land they live on.

And of course, on top of that, bribery is rampant at a local level when it comes to real estate development and large scale infrastructure e.x. developers bribing officials to "sell" government-owned land at a steep discount; contractors bribing officials to raise the final billable cost of work while cutting corners on quality of materials used. It's all glamour and facade when you look at it from afar, but the system has very little accountability.

 

[crs1026]

To those of you that have worked on large projects like this. I've always wondered if planning and engineering can't be sped up with money? This still seems to be running so slow to me.

I'm pretty confident that the designwork is getting done expeditiously behind the scenes, at least to the extent that money is being made available. It's the lack of desire to make a decision that is messing this one up.

In my experience, force-feeding money to the planning and engineering functions seemed to result in more conceptual studies and what-if discussions, which in turn drove changes to specs, which in turn drove rework and loss of focus on the goal.

The key seemed to be doing the spec well, but then locking it down and refusing to allow revisiting of design or changes to the spec.

The engineers seldom have trouble grinding out the needed plans once they understand the spec clearly and there is a commitment to get on with it.

This project seems to have a toe-in-the-water mentality. Let's ask some more questions before we say it's decision time....

- Paul

 

[Allandale25]

Details below:


A lot of classic consulting language where you spend millions to hire a team of consultants to produce a series of Powerpoint deliverables that support your initial hypothesis. Oh and it's a year long and likely doesn't include travel and other contingency expenses (billed separately to the government).

Nonetheless, this is a good sign, and shows that we are slowly, gradually putting more and more $$ into HFR, and walking the talk.

So the bids are due by October 5th. The says that the contract lasts one year. I wonder when we'll publicly see stuff related to the consultation (website/social media/meetings). I assume because of covid-19, all public meetings will be virtual?

 

[MisterF]

Constantly comparing ourselves to China is pointless since any comparison can simply be dismissed because of vastly different government systems. Comparing ourselves to other wealthy democracies is a lot more useful. And there's no shortage of democracies that are better at building infrastructure than us.