VIA Rail

[crs1026]

I'm not sure I follow. Why would we want an underpass? The CP line goes over the GO line, so I figure the westbound VIA track would be just high enough to clear the GO tracks (similar to the plans for Scarborough junction, except with an overpass ruther than an underpass). The remainder of the height difference to the CP tracks could be made up in the 400 metres between the GO line and Midland Ave.

If they can bend a line over the GO line and down, I'm all for it. I'm just a little cautious about what that location will permit. The tighter the curvature, the slower the speed. The GO line will have catenary, the VIA line may also, and the greater potential for squeal (at elevation, noise is deadly!). Can't say it's impossible, but the Pearson elevated line is a cautionary tale. We don't do elevated well around here.

So long as there's an underpass under CP, I wouldn't feel that a very short stretch of single track is fatal. A bit of double track on the VIA line immediately east of the connection would give a pocket track to hold a westbound VIA and allow an eastbound VIA to proceed unhindered, in the worst case where two opposing VIA's arrive at the same time.

Yeah, I have a nasty feeling that in order to cut costs for the inital HFR rollout, they would build a flat junction at Agincourt next to the current GO alignment, and lock that alignment in place with the ramp up to the CP line. And then there wouldn't be anywhere to build a grade separation in the future. As opposed to my drawing where the interim flat junction is realigned so as to leave space for a future westbound flyover. This is the fear I have about much of the HFR project: that they will omit all the future-proofing to cut costs for the initial rollout, thereby making it difficult to subsequently upgrade the route.

I share that same fear. It's no different than buying the cheapest computer that has the least amount of RAM or HD space....the cheapest of anything is seldom the most cost effective solution in the long term.

- Paul

 

[reaperexpress]

So long as there's an underpass under CP, I wouldn't feel that a very short stretch of single track is fatal. A bit of double track on the VIA line immediately east of the connection would give a pocket track to hold a westbound VIA and allow an eastbound VIA to proceed unhindered, in the worst case where two opposing VIA's arrive at the same time.

Yeah with only 1-2 VIA trains per hour, I'm not too worried about the short segment of single track. I'm more worried about the conflict between the westbound VIA trains and northbound GO trains.

 

[kEiThZ]

This is Canada. Given the choice, we will always pick the dumbest option.

It'll turn out single track electrified with no grade separation. Takes 3.5 hrs to Ottawa. And 5.25 hrs to Montreal. And will cost $7B. This way the Liberals can argue they built electrified intercity rail.

 

[roger1818]

Yeah, I have a nasty feeling that in order to cut costs for the inital HFR rollout, they would build a flat junction at Agincourt next to the current GO alignment, and lock that alignment in place with the ramp up to the CP line. And then there wouldn't be anywhere to build a grade separation in the future. As opposed to my drawing where the interim flat junction is realigned so as to leave space for a future westbound flyover. This is the fear I have about much of the HFR project: that they will omit all the future-proofing to cut costs for the initial rollout, thereby making it difficult to subsequently upgrade the route.

It comes down to what the long term plan is. If VIA plans to use the Stouffville Line permanently, not leaving room for a flyover could be an issue. However, if they plan is to only use it temporarily, with the idea that when the Stouffville Line gets too busy, they will build out the Don Branch, then there isn't as much need to leave room for a future flyover. We are all just speculating on here.

 

[crs1026]

This is Canada. Given the choice, we will always pick the dumbest option.

It'll turn out single track electrified with no grade separation. Takes 3.5 hrs to Ottawa. And 5.25 hrs to Montreal. And will cost $7B. This way the Liberals can argue they built electrified intercity rail.

I do fear the current government will place a high priority on green, and rush to electrify, where the same money spent elsewhere eg extend HFR westwards might actually be a better business deal, and greener also.

Riders removed from cars may cut more carbon than diesel trains made electric.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

$2B for electrification is a waste at 1-2 trains in each direction per hour.

I would much rather they put that towards making the corridor better and future proofing. But unfortunately the Liberals have a penchant for virtue signalling on green. I'm really hoping that the CIB can stop them on this by releasing all their business case analysis. Hoping they have some analysis in there showing the return for electrification vs. better track infrastructure.

 

[reaperexpress]

Yeah and if we spent those $2B on curve straightening instead it would accomplish the same goals anyway. Sure, electric trains accelerate more energy-efficiently than diesel trains, but that's not as energy-efficient as not needing to re-accelerate in the first place.

 

[Allandale25]

$2B for electrification is a waste at 1-2 trains in each direction per hour.

I would much rather they put that towards making the corridor better and future proofing. But unfortunately the Liberals have a penchant for virtue signalling on green. I'm really hoping that the CIB can stop them on this by releasing all their business case analysis. Hoping they have some analysis in there showing the return for electrification vs. better track infrastructure.

^ Re "making the corridor better" and "vs. better track infrastructure" you mean for the proposed HFR corridor, correct?

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Re "making the corridor better" and "vs. better track infrastructure" you mean for the proposed HFR corridor, correct?

Yes.

 

[kEiThZ]

Yeah and if we spent those $2B on curve straightening instead it would accomplish the same goals anyway. Sure, electric trains accelerate more energy-efficiently than diesel trains, but that's not as energy-efficient as not needing to re-accelerate in the first place.

We're about to find out if the CIB is actually as apolitical as they claim it to be. Real analysis and decision-making would focus on maximizing ridership and economic benefits.

 

[roger1818]

Yeah and if we spent those $2B on curve straightening instead it would accomplish the same goals anyway.

The problem with too much straightening is it has the potential of creating enemies. It will add ammunition to the HSR or nothing zealots as the cost will be getting closer to the cost of HSR. On the other side, the airlines (and air fans) will feel threatened by the shorter travel times, and will lobby against the project. HFR needs to find the balance where it is competitive with driving but not too competitive with flying if it has any hope of funding. Once built and there is strong public support, upgrades will be easier.

Sure, electric trains accelerate more energy-efficiently than diesel trains, but that's not as energy-efficient as not needing to re-accelerate in the first place.

I don't think you fully understand why electric trains are more energy-efficiently than diesel trains. It is true that regenerative braking (that can be fed back up into the catenary) gives electric trains an advantage, but it is only one small factor. Not needing a diesel generator (with about a 30-35% efficiency) is a much more significant factor. Trains don't just use their motors to accelerate and then coast at their target speed, they use them to overcome friction and keep their speed, which becomes even more pronounced at higher speeds.

We're about to find out if the CIB is actually as apolitical as they claim it to be. Real analysis and decision-making would focus on maximizing ridership and economic benefits.

While I agree, I also feel that many on this forum have their mind made up on what HFR should look like based on assumptions and guesses and if the plan isn't what they want, the assumption will be that there was political interference. I don't know if the cost of electrifying HFR can be justified, but I would trust a study based on projected fuel and electricity prices over the opinion of some person on a forum. Don't forget that much of the costs of electrifying would be spent in Canada, so as as an act of economic stimulus, it isn't a bad option.

 

[reaperexpress]

The problem with too much straightening is it has the potential of creating enemies. It will add ammunition to the HSR or nothing zealots as the cost will be getting closer to the cost of HSR. On the other side, the airlines (and air fans) will feel threatened by the shorter travel times, and will lobby against the project. HFR needs to find the balance where it is competitive with driving but not too competitive with flying if it has any hope of funding. Once built and there is strong public support, upgrades will be easier.

Yes, obviously if we just randomly spam curve realignments along the line, those could become lost investments with HSR. But as I described earlier, the line is divided into two fairly distinct segments: the relatively straight track through flat land (mostly west of Havelock) and the super curvy track through rocky terrain (mostly east of Havelock). The super-curvy track physically cannot be straightened without abandoning the entire ROW, so that part will obviously stay as is, and would be a prime candidate to be bypassed by a future HSR line. The segments through flat land can mostly be upgraded to 110 mph, and some segments could be aligned for 125+ mph to allow speeds to increase above 110 mph by building grade separations in a later stage. So there is still plenty of opportunity for HSR even with a heavily-upgraded (western half of the) corridor.

As for the threat of airlines, I don't buy the rationale of deliberately limiting the speed of the project to avoid upsetting the competitors. First of all, I'm an air fan myself, and I don't see how reducing the number of flights from Toronto to Ottawa would be in any way negative from that perspective. The GTAA has been saying for years that they're short on capacity, so the slots freed up by cancelling those flights would likely allow for more long-distance flights. And those types of flights are much more interesting to an air fan than an endless stream of Air Canada Airbus A320s.

If the project is built such that it does not impress the public (e.g. travel times similar to today), intercity rail will continue to be irrelevant in the public eye and there will never be any future upgrades.

I don't think you fully understand why electric trains are more energy-efficiently than diesel trains. It is true that regenerative braking (that can be fed back up into the catenary) gives electric trains an advantage, but it is only one small factor. Not needing a diesel generator (with about a 30-35% efficiency) is a much more significant factor. Trains don't just use their motors to accelerate and then coast at their target speed, they use them to overcome friction and keep their speed, which becomes even more pronounced at higher speeds.

Do you (or anyone) have any figures on the balance of energy consumption between acceleration and cruising? Because from my experience riding EMUs in the Netherlands, trains maintain speed for an extremely long time while coasting (at 140 km/h), which suggests that it takes relatively little energy to keep the train moving, compared to the energy that was invested to build up that inertia.

While I agree, I also feel that many on this forum have their mind made up on what HFR should look like based on assumptions and guesses and if the plan isn't what they want, the assumption will be that there was political interference. I don't know if the cost of electrifying HFR can be justified, but I would trust a study based on projected fuel and electricity prices over the opinion of some person on a forum. Don't forget that much of the costs of electrifying would be spent in Canada, so as as an act of economic stimulus, it isn't a bad option.

I don't buy the "economic stimulus" argument because that can be applied to virtually any construction project. Canada is so far behind in infrastructure that there's no need to include "economic stimulus" as a justification to build a project. If a certain version of a project doesn't have a strong business case, it's fine to reject it because there will be plenty of other versions/projects which do.

 

[roger1818]

Yes, obviously if we just randomly spam curve realignments along the line, those could become lost investments with HSR. But as I described earlier, the line is divided into two fairly distinct segments: the relatively straight track through flat land (mostly west of Havelock) and the super curvy track through rocky terrain (mostly east of Havelock). The super-curvy track physically cannot be straightened without abandoning the entire ROW, so that part will obviously stay as is, and would be a prime candidate to be bypassed by a future HSR line. The segments through flat land can mostly be upgraded to 110 mph, and some segments could be aligned for 125+ mph to allow speeds to increase above 110 mph by building grade separations in a later stage. So there is still plenty of opportunity for HSR even with a heavily-upgraded (western half of the) corridor.

Can 125+ speed trains run on single track, or does double track become a requirement at that speed?

As for the threat of airlines, I don't buy the rationale of deliberately limiting the speed of the project to avoid upsetting the competitors. First of all, I'm an air fan myself, and I don't see how reducing the number of flights from Toronto to Ottawa would be in any way negative from that perspective. The GTAA has been saying for years that they're short on capacity, so the slots freed up by cancelling those flights would likely allow for more long-distance flights. And those types of flights are much more interesting to an air fan than an endless stream of Air Canada Airbus A320s.

Maybe you are right about air fans, but the airlines would not just roll over and accept the loss of revenue (There is a big difference between what the GTAA wants and what the airlines want). Don't forget that in 1991, Air Canada (along with CP Rail) did a study on HSR that, as The High-Speed Rail Story stated, "The results of this study created considerable concern among the airlines, given the huge public investment required to implement high-speed rail. It is believed that the ensuing lobby was a major factor in the lack of support for follow-up action on HRS proposals." So I stand by my argument that to get HSR, we first need strong public support.

If the project is built such that it does not impress the public (e.g. travel times similar to today), intercity rail will continue to be irrelevant in the public eye and there will never be any future upgrades.

IMHO, 3 hours and 15 minutes between Ottawa and Toronto (VIA's busiest route) along with significant improvement in reliability is a significant improvement and will generate significant interest in further rail upgrades.

Do you (or anyone) have any figures on the balance of energy consumption between acceleration and cruising? Because from my experience riding EMUs in the Netherlands, trains maintain speed for an extremely long time while coasting (at 140 km/h), which suggests that it takes relatively little energy to keep the train moving, compared to the energy that was invested to build up that inertia.

I don't have information figures on the balance of energy consumption between acceleration and cruising but I will say that since fluid friction increases with the square of the velocity, the energy required to overcome that increases significantly with speed, such that compared to cruising at 140 km/h:

cruising at 177 km/h (110 mph) requires 1.6 times the energy​

cruising at 201 km/h (125 mph) requires 2.1 times the energy​

cruising at 250 km/h (155 mph) requires 3.2 times the energy​

cruising at 300 km/h (186 mph) requires 4.6 times the energy​

I don't buy the "economic stimulus" argument because that can be applied to virtually any construction project. Canada is so far behind in infrastructure that there's no need to include "economic stimulus" as a justification to build a project. If a certain version of a project doesn't have a strong business case, it's fine to reject it because there will be plenty of other versions/projects which do.

It is true that it can be applied to any construction project, but I suspect the government will want to spend more stimulus money than there are shovel ready projects that have a strong business case.

 

[nfitz]

Can 125+ speed trains run on single track, or does double track become a requirement at that speed?

Via's 1980s studies were for 300 km/hr using single track. Though you certainly need a lot of long sidings at such speeds.

 

[reaperexpress]

Can 125+ speed trains run on single track, or does double track become a requirement at that speed?

There's no technical limitation to the speed of single track lines. High-Speed Line signaling systems (ETCS etc) are perfectly capable of ensuring safe train separation regardless of speed or direction.

The Bothnia Line in Sweden is a single-tracked railway designed for 250 km/h, though it currently only permits 200 km/h
The Lötschberg Base Tunnel permits 250 km/h and has been single track since its opening in 2007, though work is currently underway to double-track it.

That said, the higher your design speed, the more (net) time you lose slowing down to switch tracks when encountering a train in the opposite direction. To limit this impact it would be really helpful if VIA were to include high-speed switches (i.e. >100 km/h diverging), regardless of HFR or HSR. The wikipedia article for "Flying Junction" describes some switches which permit 220 km/h for diverging trains and 300 km/h for the straight-through route, but unfortunately I can't find any source for that.

Maybe you are right about air fans, but the airlines would not just roll over and accept the loss of revenue (There is a big difference between what the GTAA wants and what the airlines want). Don't forget that in 1991, Air Canada (along with CP Rail) did a study on HSR that, as The High-Speed Rail Story stated, "The results of this study created considerable concern among the airlines, given the huge public investment required to implement high-speed rail. It is believed that the ensuing lobby was a major factor in the lack of support for follow-up action on HRS proposals." So I stand by my argument that to get HSR, we first need strong public support.

Oh yeah, for sure public support is a huge issue, and so is airline lobbying. I'm just saying that we need to make sure that the initial implementation of HFR isn't a flop.

IMHO, 3 hours and 15 minutes between Ottawa and Toronto (VIA's busiest route) along with significant improvement in reliability is a significant improvement and will generate significant interest in further rail upgrades.

I absolutely agree that's a totally respectable achievement. My thinking is not that we need to aim higher than that, it's that we need to make sure we actually achieve those objectives, even if it means increasing the (rather optimistic) project budget. I have a bad feeling that we'll end up with a line which could theoretically be traversed in 3h15 if there were no other trains on the line, but in practice takes closer to 4 hours given schedule padding required to account for meets. To routinely schedule 3h15 travel times on a single-tracked line, the best case scenario needs to be under 3 hours.

I don't have information figures on the balance of energy consumption between acceleration and cruising but I will say that since fluid friction increases with the square of the velocity, the energy required to overcome that increases significantly with speed, such that compared to cruising at 140 km/h:

cruising at 177 km/h (110 mph) requires 1.6 times the energy​

cruising at 201 km/h (125 mph) requires 2.1 times the energy​

cruising at 250 km/h (155 mph) requires 3.2 times the energy​

cruising at 300 km/h (186 mph) requires 4.6 times the energy​

Yes obviously fluid dynamics applies to trains as it does all objects, but the real question is the energy was at 140 km/h in the first place. It should be possible to estimate that by measuring the frontal area of a train and assuming a drag coefficient. Maybe I'll consider doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation this evening.

In any case, your ratios underline the point that we're typically better off eliminating speed restrictions before worrying about increasing the maximum speed.