VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

So, The Canadian and The Ocean have been delayed indefinitely it seems. I really hope they don't take advantage of this to axe it for good.

We are in the middle of refurbishing some HEP 1 Coaches & Diners for the Ocean and Canadian and sent a train with fresh equipment out west only a week or so ago, so no, there is no intention to cut transcontinental services on this side of the border. If you want to worry for a reason, I suggest you look South of the (currently closed) border, because that really is scary...

 

[Northern Light]

We are in the middle of refurbishing some HEP 1 Coaches & Diners for the Ocean and Canadian and sent a train with fresh equipment out west only a week or so ago, so no, there is no intention to cut transcontinental services on this side of the border. If you want to worry for a reason, I suggest you look South of the (currently closed) border, because that really is scary...

Interestingly, in that piece you link to, a strong argument is made that reducing Long Distance trains below the threshold of daily service did more harm than good to their financial performance.

That Amtrak in the past reversed many of those cuts as they exasperated poor financial performance.

Has that been VIA's experience? (is the loss per rider higher on a 2-3x per week Ocean than a daily? )

Is there a financial case for more regularly scheduled service? (outside the corridor)

 

[Urban Sky]

Interestingly, in that piece you link to, a strong argument is made that reducing Long Distance trains below the threshold of daily service did more harm than good to their financial performance.

That Amtrak in the past reversed many of those cuts as they exasperated poor financial performance.

Has that been VIA's experience? (is the loss per rider higher on a 2-3x per week Ocean than a daily? )

Is there a financial case for more regularly scheduled service? (outside the corridor)

The nature of VIA's and Amtrak's longhaul networks is very different: Amtrak's long-distance route link many small, medium and even large relatively large cities like St Paul-Minneapolis (metropolitan population: 3.3 million), Salt Lake City (1.2 million), Dellas (2.6 million), San Antonio (2.0 million) or (via a satellite station) Phoenix (4.4 million) with the largest cities of the Nation at a reasonably fast and reliable schedule. Conversely, the Canadian links Sudbury (CMA population in the 2016 Census: 165k, rank: #24 in Canada), Winnipeg (780k, 8th), Saskatoon (295k, #17), Edmonton (1.32 million, #6) and Kamloops (105k, #36) with Toronto (5.9 million, #1) and Vancouver (2.46 million, #3) at speeds and a on-time performance which is grotesquely uncompetitive against driving, taking the plane and even taking the bus. Similarly, the Ocean links Truro (45k, #65), Moncton (145k, #29), Miramichi (28k, #99), Bathurst (31k, #88), Campbellton (16k, #127) and (at 3am in the morning) Rimouski (55k, #59) with Montreal (5.1 million, #2), Quebec City (800k, #7) and Halifax (405k, #13), though with significantly better timekeeping.

The observations from Amtrak are valid, but mostly applicable to intercity travel, for which less-than-daily travel options are not regarded as viable. However, the ridership (and especially revenues) of the Ocean and Canadian have become increasingly reliant on tourism, which happens to be a customer group which is much more forgiving about low frequencies, speeds and on-time performance.

Concerning the financial performance, if you refer back to the table I posted in Post #6,745, an operating ratio (i.e. variable revenues divided by variable expenses) of more than 130% for the Corridor services, 90-100% for the Canadian and 45-50% for the Ocean suggests that VIA's subsidy requirement would be minimized by expanding frequencies on the Corridor, keeping the Canadian where it is and reducing frequencies on the Ocean (referring to the pre-CoVid schedules of course, but leaving the question of how much more can you cut from an already thrice-weekly schedule on the Ocean):

Compiled from: VIA Rail's Summary of the Corporate Plan and Annual Plans 2017 and 2018
Note: figures in bold are provided in above documents, whereas all other figures are derived from these figures.

 

[Urban Sky]

Before I will post Part 2 of our Havelock travel time modelling exercise, I would like to address the following feedback from Paul:

The starting point is the assumption that VIA's Siemens equipment will be the benchmark equipment for this run.

My first key assumption is that its performance envelope will prove to be similar to the "InterCity" equipment cited in @Urban Sky's thesis. The important point is the acceleration/deceleration parameter - 0.37m/sec^2. I am using that statistic for all my calculations of acceleration and deceleration on the line. That number may not be reality, but it's a sensible figure to use, and it aligns to @Urban Sky's work.

Second, I am assuming that deceleration and acceleration rates should be treated as the same.... again, that may not be the case, but it's a conservative assumption for modelling.

We need to be clear as to why we make these calculations: my starting point is that @reaperexpress claimed that is physically impossible to achieve a better travel time than 3:40 (i.e. 25 minutes slower than the HFR target time promise) and that even that travel time could not be achieved under the constraints inherent to real-world operations. Therefore, I'm not trying to prove that 3:15 can be achieved with little or no alterations to the existing alignment, but to show that claims that such a travel time would be achievable are reasonably credible. This means that I'm making relatively aggressive (but not implausible) assumptions and I will hand over the spreadsheet to you two (and anyone else interested) to play with the various parameters until you believe that the results are reasonably dependable to assume that such a travel time might very well be achievable. It's fine if you insist in changing the deceleration value to something smaller as soon as you get your hand onto it, but at this point, I'm refusing to use performance variables which are only half of the lowest values I identified (for the purposes of my Thesis) in the table I posted in response to nfitz earlier today.

Finally, I am assuming that the superelevation that VIA can achieve on curves is, as noted in above posts, 8 inches total - three unbalanced and five balanced. While there is freight traffic west of Havelock, let's assume its volume is not so great to force lower superelevation. Using this FRA chart, the good news is, I can assume that a 3 degree curve can be negotiated at 60 mph. (I am doing all my work in miles rather than kilometers, so as to align to railway mileposts....it just keeps the source data readable). Since 3 degree curves are the most problemmatic limiting curve, 60 mph becomes the "worst case" for speed, other than in a few sections where either curvature is extraordinary or speed may be restricted for other reasons eg in urban areas.

As I showed with the example of Brightline, 8 (i.e. 5+3) inches of superelevation seems to be a realistic assumption...

That's not all bad news, considering that highway speeds are comparable, and the 60 mph prevailing speed is a lot better than I had feared (I had figured most curves would be in the 50 mph range). So end to end times may prove to be fairly competitive to bus or car. (EDIT: This is most true east of Tweed; west of there there are certainly some credible 110 mph capable segments)

I'm glad we agree on this already...!

The practical problem this creates is that, in the absence of a sophisticated autopilot, a train run by human hand will have difficulty handling all the changes in speed to extract the optimum speed-up/slow-down cycles required. Further, the number of full throttle-followed-by-heavy-braking cycles are not condusive to equipment SOGR or fuel efficiency. The likely solution will be to impose "zone" speeds which limit speed over the short tangent stretches to something close to or equal to the slow points of the curves.

Indeed, these frequent changes in speed limits would be impractical with VIA's current fleet, but with a semi-automated train operation system (see table below) like PTC, it should be possible to have the train adjust the speed to stay within any relevant speed limits at any given time (i.e. forcing the train to break before a more restrictive speed limit takes effect).

Quoted in: my Master Thesis (p.56)

In Germany, all conventional lines are equipped with a GOA 1 system called "PZB", where magnets resonating at variable frequencies (500, 1000 or 2000 Hz) communicate basic signal configurations:

Source: Wikipedia

Consequently, a 1000 Hz magnet (located at a pre-signal) is active whenever the following signal is in a restrictive ("slow" or "stop") state and the 500 Hz (located in front of a full signal) and 2000 Hz (located immediately at said full signal) are active when the signal shows a "stop". If you ever want to see that system in action, pay a visit to Ottawa, sit near the cab on the Trillium line and listen to the beeps every time the train runs over a yellow magnet (attached to the right of the tracks) - you will also notice that the system has never been made for systems where you constantly encounter active magnets (given that every signal either protects a passing section or a terminus station).

However, for all trains exceeding speeds of 160 km/h (100 mph), there is a different system (LZB), which continuously communicates with the train and allows for an autopilot, where the system accelerates or decelerates automatically to the maximum safe speed (given current and future speed limits) or the maximum speed which has been set by the driver (whichever is lower). PZB was conceived in the 1930s and LZB in the 1960s, so neither system is revolutionary and they both get currently superseded (just like all other national legacy systems in Europe) by the universal ETCS standard.

Please, critique the above to shreds..... I'm still working on the granular picture, better now before I have to rework stuff.

- Paul

This is already really good work, but no worries, I will share my spreadsheet as soon as I have presented it here, so no need to duplicate the efforts...!

 

[Northern Light]

The above brings to mind a question I've wondered about.

The nature of VIA's and Amtrak's longhaul networks is very different: Amtrak's long-distance route link many small, medium and even large relatively large cities like St Paul-Minneapolis (metropolitan population: 3.3 million), Salt Lake City (1.2 million), Dellas (2.6 million), San Antonio (2.0 million) or (via a satellite station) Phoenix (4.4 million) with the largest cities of the Nation at a reasonably fast and reliable schedule. Conversely, the Canadian links Sudbury (CMA population in the 2016 Census: 165k, rank: #24 in Canada), Winnipeg (780k, 8th), Saskatoon (295k, #17), Edmonton (1.32 million, #6) and Kamloops (105k, #36) with Toronto (5.9 million, #1) and Vancouver (2.46 million, #3) at speeds and a on-time performance which is grotesquely uncompetitive against driving, taking the plane and even taking the bus. Similarly, the Ocean links Truro (45k, #65), Moncton (145k, #29), Miramichi (28k, #99), Bathurst (31k, #88), Campbellton (16k, #127) and (at 3am in the morning) Rimouski (55k, #59) with Montreal (5.1 million, #2), Quebec City (800k, #7) and Halifax (405k, #13), though with significantly better timekeeping.

The observations from Amtrak are valid, but mostly applicable to intercity travel, for which less-than-daily travel options are not regarded as viable. However, the ridership (and especially revenues) of the Ocean and Canadian have become increasingly reliant on tourism, which happens to be a customer group which is much more forgiving about low frequencies, speeds and on-time performance.

Concerning the financial performance, if you refer back to the table I posted in Post #6,745, an operating ratio (i.e. variable revenues divided by variable expenses) of more than 130% for the Corridor services, 90-100% for the Canadian and 45-50% for the Ocean suggests that VIA's subsidy requirement would be minimized by expanding frequencies on the Corridor, keeping the Canadian where it is and reducing frequencies on the Ocean (referring to the pre-CoVid schedules of course, but leaving the question of how much more can you cut from an already thrice-weekly schedule on the Ocean):

Compiled from: VIA Rail's Summary of the Corporate Plan and Annual Plans 2017 and 2018
Note: figures in bold are provided in above documents, whereas all other figures are derived from these figures.

TY for the detailed response.

Though, clearly absolute subsidy would likely have declined w/cuts to service; I'm not clear if the operating ratio of the Ocean got better or worse after the cut back, which is what I was aiming at.

So the first cut from 7-day service that was in 1990, do you know was the operating ratio was then? Service would be six days a weeks up to 2012 (from 1994), again I wonder did the operating ratio improve materially from spring 2012 to (pre-pandemic) 2020?

****

Relatedly, I know VIA had, at one point, look at a more localized Maritime service connecting the major cities of NB to Halifax.

Given the shorter distance, I don't wonder if the performance of such a route might be superior.

Not in lieu of the Ocean; but where that route is more tourism or perhaps visiting family once a year; the shorter route might have more routine utility for students, patients or perhaps, in some cases, commuters.

 

[Urban Sky]

The above brings to mind a question I've wondere


TY for the detailed response.

Though, clearly absolute subsidy would likely have declined w/cuts to service; I'm not clear if the operating ratio of the Ocean got better or worse after the cut back, which is what I was aiming at.

So the first cut from 7-day service that was in 1990, do you know was the operating ratio was then? Service would be six days a weeks up to 2012 (from 1994), again I wonder did the operating ratio improve materially from spring 2012 to (pre-pandemic) 2020?

I of course have access to that data, but I'm afraid you would have to file an "Access to Information Access". Given that this information was released for the years 2017 and 2018, you might have good chances to obtain the same data for previous years...

Relatedly, I know VIA had, at one point, look at a more localized Maritime service connecting the major cities of NB to Halifax.

Given the shorter distance, I don't wonder if the performance of such a route might be superior.

Not in lieu of the Ocean; but where that route is more tourism or perhaps visiting family once a year; the shorter route might have more routine utility for students, patients or perhaps, in some cases, commuters.

I don't want to dismiss that proposal, but what commercial value (and thus: competitive relevance) would such a once-daily connection have if it still takes the same 5:30 hours to cover the distance between Campbellton and Moncton and 8 hours between Campbellton and Halifax which are currently scheduled for the Ocean, while you can drive this distance of 323 and 564 km, respectively, in 3:30 or 5:50 hours (with the bus taking barely more, if I remember correctly)?

 

[Northern Light]

I of course have access to that data, but I'm afraid you would have to file an "Access to Information Access". Given that this information was released for the years 2017 and 2018, you might have good chances to obtain the same data for previous years...

I thought the info might have been public in reports at the time of the cuts and simply not available on the website today.

Ah well.

I don't want to dismiss that proposal, but what commercial value (and thus: competitive relevance) would such a once-daily connection have if it still takes the same 5:30 hours to cover the distance between Campbellton and Moncton and 8 hours between Campbellton and Halifax which are currently scheduled for the Ocean, while you can drive this distance of 323 and 564 km, respectively, in 3:30 or 5:50 hours (with the bus taking barely more, if I remember correctly)?

Entirely valid point.

I just looked it up now, and I see Rail Travel time Moncton - HFX in the 4hrs 15m to 4rs 4hrs 30m range. Drive time is listed at 2hrs 43 by Google.

Which, got me to wondering why such a big difference. I have to assume track conditions play some role. But I also noted a bizarre looking bunch of curves. I'm sure there was a logical reason for these going back in time.

But you look at the route the highway follows, and you'd swear the railways planners were in the sauce. LOL Entirely unfair, I'm sure.

 

[micheal_can]

I thought the info might have been public in reports at the time of the cuts and simply not available on the website today.

Ah well.



Entirely valid point.

I just looked it up now, and I see Rail Travel time Moncton - HFX in the 4hrs 15m to 4rs 4hrs 30m range. Drive time is listed at 2hrs 43 by Google.

Which, got me to wondering why such a big difference. I have to assume track conditions play some role. But I also noted a bizarre looking bunch of curves. I'm sure there was a logical reason for these going back in time.

But you look at the route the highway follows, and you'd swear the railways planners were in the sauce. LOL Entirely unfair, I'm sure.

Drive the route between Moncton and Halifax. You will learn that it is not flat. Those curves you see are the flattest route.

 

[Northern Light]

Drive the route between Moncton and Halifax. You will learn that it is not flat. Those curves you see are the flattest route.

Indeed! I've been to most of Ontario, and parts of AB, SK, MAN and Quebec; but never to either coast here. (my oversight).

But I popped over to street view to look at the Trans Canada just past Moncton area. There are some serious elevation changes going on!

Which made me think of this thread........by an architect/urban planner I follow on Twitter.

In it, he's comparing how certain challenges of geography tend to get addressed in Europe vs North America by transportation engineers.

Interesting read:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308477188677816320

 

[micheal_can]

Indeed! I've been to most of Ontario, and parts of AB, SK, MAN and Quebec; but never to either coast here. (my oversight).

But I popped over to street view to look at the Trans Canada just past Moncton area. There are some serious elevation changes going on!

Which made me think of this thread........by an architect/urban planner I follow on Twitter.

In it, he's comparing how certain challenges of geography tend to get addressed in Europe vs North America by transportation engineers.

Interesting read:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1308477188677816320

One is cheaper. One is better for the environment.

 

[crs1026]

Therefore, I'm not trying to prove that 3:15 can be achieved with little or no alterations to the existing alignment, but to show that claims that such a travel time would be achievable are reasonably credible. This means that I'm making relatively aggressive (but not implausible) assumptions and I will hand over the spreadsheet to you two (and anyone else interested) to play with the various parameters until you believe that the results are reasonably dependable to assume that such a travel time might very well be achievable.

This is a fair point and it emphasizes the differing perspectives we are working from. I will declare a bias, based on past experience stretching all the way back to the unhappy rollout of the Turbo in 1960’s, where initial assumptions around performance of new trains in this country proved unworkable and performance was scaled back over time. I’m also thinking of what the investor’s confidence level may be.

And I am especially worried about what the Ottawa bureaucracy may be trying to achieve by whittling away at the envelope, notwithstanding ROI. My gut says that an $8B HFR would be a winner, but if the bureacracy manages to hold VIA to $5B, will the business case suffer a “death by paper cut”? What can VIA actually do with a skimpy envelope?

The test I am using is undoubtedly more conservative, not because I am trying to naysay, but rather because I am looking for proof closer to “beyond reasonable doubt”.

As I chew through the data curve by curve, it’s very apparent just how much of the value proposition for HFR depends on extracting speed from every short section of this route. It is also apparent that the optimum approach may have to be banking and quick sprints rather than trying to straighten curves, given really rough terrain. So I’m very interested in the sensitivity tests - will HFR really be held to 60 mph on a 3 degree curve (of which there are many)? If that number can be 65, how many minutes are gained? If there is a 60mph curve, how much tangent must there be between it and the next curve to make a “quick sprint” feasible, or will the tangent also acquire a 60 mph limit? Will VIA discover that the “quick sprints” put too much stress on equipment and consume too much brake shoes or fuel, or will crews just find them too onerous and not push to the envelope?

Indeed, these frequent changes in speed limits would be impractical with VIA's current fleet, but with a semi-automated train operation system (see table below) like PTC, it should be possible to have the train adjust the speed to stay within any relevant speed limits at any given time (i.e. forcing the train to break before a more restrictive speed limit takes effect).

Thanks for presenting all that detail! I had a general sense that such systems exist, and what devices they contain, without really understanding how the specifics are applied. Again, the issue for me is what VIA can afford to implement, and will it work as documented without years of tweaking. North American PTC for instance is currently far from credible, although I’m sure it will eventually be made to work acceptably.

This is already really good work, but no worries, I will share my spreadsheet as soon as I have presented it here, so no need to duplicate the efforts...!

Waiting with bated breath! I’m not (just) being bloody-minded in trying to model this myself - although “trust but verify” is the right mentality. It’s actually fun work, in a mind numbing kind of way.... I’m learning a lot about this route, and there are “aha” moments that make it worthwhile.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

As I wrote in my previous post, Brightline in Florida operates with 8 inches of superelevation (5 inches of banking plus 3 inches of cant deficiency) on infrastructure which is still owned and operated by a freight railroad. Also, you should keep in mind that the freight railroad's resistance to increase the cant is less a result of safety concerns as that operating trains over tracks which is banked more than the equilibrium superelevation simply increases the tear and wear on the rails (as the wheels keep grinding at the inside of the lower rail), which suggests that even though freight railroads hate more aggressive superelevations as a RIC (rail infrastructure company), they should be rather indifferent about it on lines where they are merely a ROC (rail operating company) as a tenant...

I was speaking more about VIA acting more as the infrastructure owner in this case. Depending on the number and size of the freight trains, it may be in their best interest to increase the cant deficiency in an effort to reduce the maintenance required to keep the track in good shape.

If the status quo is to remain - an almost daily freight train of 50-ish cars - than absolutely, the amount of superelevation can be increased, and the cant deficiency reduced when compared to what is in effect the current standard on CN. There will be a very small amount of additional maintenance, but nothing that isn't easily managed.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

I was speaking more about VIA acting more as the infrastructure owner in this case. Depending on the number and size of the freight trains, it may be in their best interest to increase the cant deficiency in an effort to reduce the maintenance required to keep the track in good shape.

If the status quo is to remain - an almost daily freight train of 50-ish cars - than absolutely, the amount of superelevation can be increased, and the cant deficiency reduced when compared to what is in effect the current standard on CN. There will be a very small amount of additional maintenance, but nothing that isn't easily managed.

Dan

Reminds me of the grade 7 science fair experiment I did over 30 years ago where I made different angles for the track. There was a point that it would always derail.

Straightening the curves would be better.

 

[Bordercollie]

So they would need to build stations to allow freight trains to pass.

It would allow for freight trains to run at night when VIA is not using the tracks? But a freight derailment would cause serious issues for passengers, so that risk must be taken into consideration.

 

[crs1026]

^Nobody is suggesting a track profile that presents risks of derailment. The issues are operating and maintenance cost, and passenger comfort, traded off against HFR trip times.

This would all be moot if the differences in trip time that we are debating had no impact on marketability - ie, ridership, market share, pricing. Some of us believe trip time matters greatly.

Of course, It’s theoretically quite possible that a slower, cheaper to operate HFR might generate more net income than one with more expensive engineering that costs more to operate. But what about that market share ?

That’s a different issue for another day. At this point, all we’re noodling on is what performance envelope VIA can build with the funding envelope it raises..

- Paul