VIA Rail

[MisterF]

Why would VIA build dedicated tracks between T, O and M and then continue to use the CN/CP tracks. Surely their report means that they will also look at their other corridors where they are still 'forced' to share tracks and try to improve service on them too.

It depends on where the new line will go. If they build it on the same general lakeshore route as the CN line they currently use, then I have the same question. It would make no sense to keep using CN tracks when you have your own right beside it. But if Transport Action Canada is correct that Via is planning to use the Peterborough alignment, then there will still need to be service along the Lakeshore/St. Lawrence. Either way, read the paragraph from Via's report carefully. It doesn't say that they will keep using the mixed traffic CN line as an interim measure. It says that the dedicated tracks project is what would enable them to redesign the existing service on the CN line. Big difference.

 

[steveintoronto]

Would anyone care to put a price estimate on what it will take to install a passenger-speed ROW through this part of Peterborough? And deal wih all the level crossings?

Failing that, would anyone care to suggest a route for a bypass around the south end of town? And how much would that cost?

And presumably your suggestions would be consistent with how you'd manage things in Guelph?

First, as I initially stated, other than the drumlin to the north, Peterborough is flat, it sits on an old lake bed. There's no reason at all to think the present alignment can't work, and a fixed bridge to replace the swing bridge can be put in place.

But if a by-pass was built, I'd say this is a pretty good idea of "how much it would cost":

A preliminary feasibility study by the town of Lac-Mégantic, Que., is calling for the construction of 11.6 kilometres of new track to skirt the town's centre, devastated by a deadly derailment and fire nearly three years ago.

The new track would cost $115 million, according to the study, which was funded by the federal and provincial governments.[...]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/lac-megantic-rail-bypass-study-results-1.3574148

A by-pass would be completely consistent with "how I'd manage things in Guelp"....but so would replacing the bridge. A new *fixed* bridge would be completely doable if the deck is elevated another fifteen feet from this without an EA, and the overall height would be far less. But the more I consider the expected frequency of trains (approx two every hour for both directions) then a swing bridge to replace this one might be perfectly apt.

 

[steveintoronto]

 

[steveintoronto]

Here's the approach, note the latitude of RoW available to berm if a fixed bridge is used. Or the drawbridge like this which is one city block away. The drawbridge is probably the cheapest and easiest option. Compare that to the present now redundant structure in size and needed space to operate.

 

[crs1026]

Twenty-two feet of river clearance minimum, plus say six feet of structure to reach track level. At what percent grade? Have you figured out how long the grade would be on either side if a fixed bridge were installed?

And, are you suggesting that the current mineral shipments which originate east of the bridge no longer be shipped by rail on this route? (That will affect the possible gradient). What about the impact on the freight business - there will be an embargo for the length of time it would take to demolish the current bridge, build footings, and install the new one.

And, have you considered how far in advance of each train a swing or lift bridge would have to be lined and locked in order to provide permissive signals to the approaching passenger train? You can't have a just in time arrival, there has to be a margin of safety in the braking distance - so the approach blocks will be long enough that trains have warning to slow down well in advance of nearing the bridge unless it is assured to be in the closed position. That means the bridge will be closed for say 5-10 minutes in advance of each train, plus time to close and open, plus warning time to boat traffic that the bridge is about to close. Easily 15-20 minutes per hour. Will that be acceptable for recreational boating? Will there need to be mooring points for boats holding while the bridge is closed?

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

At what percent grade? Have you figured out how long the grade would be on either side if a fixed bridge were installed?

The grade can be even more and the length shorter than the fly-under at Bathurst St yards if this is to be for EMUs. And yes, I have thought through advance timing. The road bridge to the south that I posted a picture of has no problem. There are at least three lift bridges on the North East Corridor, and they not only host Acela, they host Regional Express and freight too.

There's one less canal to cross on the O&Q alignment no matter how it's done. The Lakeshore alignment would mean crossing both the Trent and Rideau Canals, and bridges having to be built, let alone other navigable rivers adjoining Lake Ontario. Not to mention viaducts to be built crossing Port Hope and Belleville river estuaries just to name a few.

Twenty-two feet of river clearance minimum, plus say six feet of structure to reach track level.

Paul: Have you looked at any rail bridges over roads that wide? "Six feet?" Really? No. And there's already six feet of clearance under the present structure to water level. That's why I posted the pics, so you could gauge such matters.

That doesn't make them good design.

I never said it did. The challenge is to *re-use existing underutilized and abandoned RoW* as quoted many times in this string as stated by VIA. The terms for avoiding EAs were discussed at length after Urban posted them...*direct quotes from the Transportation Act*.

One side of the bridge, there are no houses, the west side, there are, but at a far enough distance as to not have a legitimate legal case to block raising the track-bed suffice to clear 22' to water level. There's always the option of a tunnel, but due to the Waterways Act (ironically severely weakened under the Harper regime) that might require new approvals.

Davenport Bridge this isn't. Not even close. There are some very do-able options, but alas, some look for other much more complicated ones, like the Lakeshore route.

Edit to Add:

Sounds and images: Raising a Northeast Corridor drawbridge
Watch and listen to Amtrak’s new Niantic River drawbridge in action
By Matt Van Hattem | December 27, 2013
Click here to hear author Bob Johnston talk with Amtrak bridge operator Merrill Perkins, as he opens the Niantic span to let a fishing boat through and explains how the new bridge improves operations for marine and rail traffic.

Pick up the February 2014 issue of Trains magazine, and you’ll get the inside story on how Amtrak replaced a 1907 drawbridge across the Niantic River in East Lyme, Conn. The $155 million project took three years to complete, giving Northeast Corridor trains a faster, more reliable passage across a busy waterway.

You’ll also learn the history of each movable bridge on the Northeast Corridor, many of which are more than 100 years old, and the replacement plans and funding requirements for each structure.

Learn what’s ahead for the Northeast Corridor’s 15 other movable bridges in the February 2014 issue of Trains magazine.

http://trn.trains.com/railroads/2013/12/sounds-and-images-raising-a-northeast-corridor-drawbridge

 

[crs1026]

The grade can be even more and the length shorter than the fly-under at Bathurst St yards if this is to be for EMUs. And yes, I have thought through advance timing. The road bridge to the south that I posted a picture of has no problem. There are at least three lift bridges on the North East Corridor, and they not only host Acela, they host Regional Express and freight too.

So, you are assuming the line is electrified from day one? I had understood that to be a later addition. EMU's are not a given. Will the freight be electrified, it can't make the same grades as EMU, especially given we are talking about a fairly heavy commodity. Those hoppers are fairly short, axle weights may be the usual but the overall train weight is pretty high over a short distance. So a sturdy freight-capable bridge is required, much more than what's needed for EMU's.

Be careful citing the NEC bridges as precedent. They have limitations on when and how often they can be opened, and how much notice is required. They are also viewed as an Achilles heel and not an acceptable feature of the Corridor. Unfortunately, being very large and very old, there is no money to replace them. That doesn't make them good design.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

So, you are assuming the line is electrified from day one? I had understood that to be a later addition.

It's a very safe assumption, as discussed at length here and elsewhere, that it will be electric. In fact, yes I do assume it. So do many others. If the infrastructure and RoW is private investment, as is the plan understood so far, they'd be very unwise to not go electric.

So a sturdy freight-capable bridge is required, much more than what's needed for EMU's.

If freight is to be handled, which is an option, not a prerequisite, then a fixed bridge *might* be a better option, or what freight is picked up along the now abandoned stretch, it can be serviced from the eastern end. Most of the freight on the line is from the western side of the canal, and from other ex CN branches now run as CP spurs that connect to the west of the canal and river.

So Canada can't handle re-establishing a bridge over a canal on an existing RoW? Fascinating...what can this nation do now? It's an odd thing, that swing bridge at one time carried one of the busiest rail lines in Canada. And now you feel it just can't handle it? Because pleasure vessels might be inconvenienced by having to wait?

Tell me, who has precedence with the road lift bridge immediately south that I post the pic for? Boaters? That lift span can be up and down in minutes, and like rail lift bridges, they also have to be interlocked before traffic can go over.

To be correct, I've been misusing the term "lift bridge" as North Ams equate that to "vertical lift bridge". North Ams use "Drawbridge" for "Bascule" which is what the road bridge adjacent to the Peterborough swing-bridge is.

Edit to Add:

[...]
It carries almost 10,000 daily NJ TRANSIT customers and moves two million tons of freight annually via Conrail.

Taking advantage of structural design approaches and materials that are able to withstand ocean surge forces and saltwater immersion, the new Drawbridge will be significantly less vulnerable to severe weather events. Proposed components to achieve infrastructure resilience include new reinforced concrete piers on piles; new steel superstructure; new drive motor and electrical controls; tie-ins to existing track; vertical adjustment of existing track; and electrical catenary relocation.

Replacing River Draw will allow NJ TRANSIT to continue to move commuters and recreational rail customers to critical job centers and Shore communities for years to come—without prolonged interruptions related to severe weather events.The Raritan River Drawbridge Replacement Project will advance as a result of a grant awarded by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), through FTA’s Emergency Relief Program for resiliency projects in response to Superstorm Sandy. [...]

http://njtransitresilienceprogram.com/raritanriveroverview/

While it’s referred to as the Raritan River “draw,” the current bridge is actually a “swing bridge.” When boats need to get through, the center section of the bridge disconnects and swivels 90 degrees, perpendicular to the track, to allow the boats passage.

While that’s one option for the new bridge, a “lift bridge” is also on the table. As its name suggests, the center section of a lift bridge is hoisted far above the water to make room for passing boats, NJ Transit assistant chief engineer Lisa Fanning said.

http://www.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2016/01/14/nj-transit-raritan-bridge-sandy/78790996/

And indeed, a vertical lift bridge might also work, at a fraction of the cost of the Raritan, and much quicker.

 

[steveintoronto]

Post Media (National Post) story up today from the Ottawa Citizen's Jason Fekete:

OTTAWA — Via Rail is warning it faces longer trip times, eroding on-time performance and service cuts if it doesn’t get its own set of dedicated tracks and fleet upgrade in the busy Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor, the Crown corporation says in its newly released corporate plan.

Simply put, the play says the rail carrier’s “survival” is at risk if it has to continue operating on freight rail lines primarily owned by Canadian National Railway Co.

Via Rail is looking for federal government approval to have large pension funds invest in a $2-billion dedicated-track corridor as part of the Crown corporation’s plans for “high-frequency rail.” Via is also seeking upwards of $1.3 billion in federal funding for new electric rail cars to renew a fleet that has long surpassed its normal life expectancy.
[...]
Via Rail is targeting large public sector pension funds for the approximately $2 billion it would cost to build the track and signalling infrastructure for a dedicated passenger rail network in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor.

A renewed stock of diesel cars, like those currently in use, would cost just over $1 billion, while preferred electric cars would cost approximately $1.3 billion and require another $850 million for an electrical infrastructure grid. Going with the electrical option would bring the total project cost to around $4 billion (including investment from pension funds and government).
[...]
Currently, Via’s average speed in the shared Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor is 103 kilometres per hour, but a dedicated track for passenger rail would see the average speed increase to between 145 km/h and 153 km/h, with a top speed of 177 km/h.

Via Rail says a funding commitment now would mean it can reach out to the pension funds to finance the dedicated track, and that construction on the new rail line could start in 2017 and be operational by fall 2019.

The carrier had hoped a funding commitment for a renewed rail fleet might come in the March federal budget, but the government promised $3.3 million over three years to study Via’s high-frequency rail proposal.

Garneau, the federal transport minister, has indicated that studying the proposal doesn’t necessarily mean Via won’t get the funding it has requested for new rail cars within that time period.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...t-get-access-to-dedicated-track-fleet-upgrade

The conversation continues, as it must...

Edit to Add: National Post also has this up today, one of a number of articles in Post Media that promotes the Mont-Tor-Ott triangle concept, but detached from the rest of the system:

[...] A far better alternative would be to privatize Via Rail. There is a precedent for this. In the late ’80s, the federal government started the Rocky Mountaineer, providing service between Calgary and Vancouver. It was privatized in 1990 and has been successfully operating ever since (it is now the busiest privately owned rail service in North America). A private company likely could operate a profitable service on some lines, such as in the Toronto-Montreal corridor, and would probably shut down unprofitable routes, such as the Winnipeg-Churchill line. And this is the way it should be: if hardly anyone is using this Industrial Revolution-era mode of transportation, why should the rest of the country be forced to pay for it?

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jesse-kline-the-case-for-privatizing-via-rail

 

[ShonTron]

That last "article" was an op-ed comment about privatizing VIA Rail, as the National Post does from time to time. The Canadian and Ocean were far more useful as regular transportation (with the Silver and Blue sleeping car passengers subsidizing the operation). But Mulroney and Harper cut those services from daily to 2-3/week. So they became land cruises apart from the remote service they provide in Northern Ontario.

Restarting 6 or 7/day week service on the Ocean would instantly make that train much more relevant; too a lesser extent, the same with the Canadian.

 

[steveintoronto]

That last "article" was an op-ed comment about privatizing VIA Rail, as the National Post does from time to time.

Absolutely agreed, but what's ironic is the NatPost (Post Media) taking a new tack espoused by, of all people, Barbara Kay http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/barbara-kay-the-case-for-subsidizing-trains

Today's Fekete piece and the opinion piece to which you refer are an ongoing attempt to keep the topic alive, albeit that's as much selling papers as it is altruism, but Desjardins-Siciliano's proposals are *bolstered* by this campaign. Even Conservatives (large and small 'c') are realizing the value of investment and a profit model to make *viable segments* of VIA more of a success. I've long ago realized (as does D-S' subtext) that the TorMonOtt triangle, if not the entire Wind-Que Corridor must be operated in an entirely different way than the rest of the nation, with perhaps Calgary-Edmonton as an exception, albeit addressed separately. (A case can be made that the onus is provincial).

The NatPost's keeping the topic alive bodes well for the P3 aspects of this project.

 

[steveintoronto]

NatPost remains on the topic! Obviously there's a positive agenda behind this. Same author, same managing editor pushing him. Jason Fekete:

OTTAWA –[...]
Garneau said the Liberal government is looking seriously at Via’s proposal for “high-frequency rail” on a dedicated set of tracks in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor.

This is the homework in front of us during the coming months and we’re going to do it very seriously.
[...]
“It is a plan that proposes a dedicated line, which addresses some of the issues related to the fact that Via Rail’s on-time record has fallen. It is also something that would allow them a greater degree of control, and the possibility of increasing the frequency of trains, hopefully from their point of view to cause more people to leave their cars behind and take the trains,” Garneau said.

“It’s an interesting proposal. We put money into the budget (to study Via’s plan) because we feel it’s worth looking at very, very seriously.”

Via is proposing a $4-billion plan that would see it tap large pension funds for $2 billion to build its own tracks in the Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto corridor. It’s hoping construction on the track could begin in 2017 and be operational by fall 2019.
[...]
The Crown corporation also wants new electric cars to replace its decades-old diesel fleet.

The average age of Via’s fleet is more than 40 years (23 years for locomotives and 43 years for cars), far beyond the life expectancy of 25 to 30 years.

The 2016 federal budget promised $3.3 million over three years to study Via’s high-frequency rail proposal. However, Garneau said a government decision on the dedicated track and fleet upgrade could come sooner.

“If it can all get done sooner than that, it will be done sooner than that. We’re also mindful of the fact that Via Rail has rolling stock as well,” he said. “Those are all things that this government takes into account. And as you know, we also currently subsidize Via Rail as well.”
[...]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...-get-on-track-with-via-rails-upgrade-proposal
And note, folks: "It’s hoping construction on the track could begin in 2017 and be operational by fall 2019."

Many of the quotes that became contentious a week ago in this forum were *not* direct quotes and had provisos missing, like "with any luck". They were not definitive statements of timetable.

There's not a whole lot new here, save for Garneau's quotes, so it's not just rehash or a journalist 'cooking' a story, but the sub-text is: "this has inertia." In lieu of no forthcoming explicit details, this keeps the story alive and the public informed as to intentions and process.

I'm confident that this is on track.

Edit to Add: Haven't figure out how to attach pdf documents here yet, but here's Amtrak's report on the Niantic River Bascule bridge, finished just under three years ago:

[...][“The replacement of the Niantic Bridge is a positive step in modernizing and enhancing critical rail infrastructure along the Northeast Corridor that supports the regional economy,” said Amtrak President and CEO Joe Boardman. The work involved the construction of a new two-track electrified movable bascule bridge across the Niantic River, 58 feet south of its previous location between East Lyme and Waterford, Conn., realignment of the track along west and east approaches to the bridge, track embankment construction, scour protection, new retaining walls and the creation of new electrification and signaling systems.][...]

News Release and Feature in full, complete with colour pics and details:
https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/469/848/Amtrak-Niantic-River-Bridge-Project-Completed-ATK-13-064.pdf

 

[MisterF]

If freight is to be handled, which is an option, not a prerequisite, then a fixed bridge *might* be a better option, or what freight is picked up along the now abandoned stretch, it can be serviced from the eastern end. Most of the freight on the line is from the western side of the canal, and from other ex CN branches now run as CP spurs that connect to the west of the canal and river.

Just to be clear, the line isn't abandoned. Freight trains use it, and they do go east of the canal. It's used by the mines at Blue Mountain as well as industrial customers in Peterborough.

Tell me, who has precedence with the road lift bridge immediately south that I post the pic for? Boaters? That lift span can be up and down in minutes, and like rail lift bridges, they also have to be interlocked before traffic can go over.

Basically what happens is when boats arrive the traffic signals turn red, arms come down, and the bridge opens. Boats go through and it closes again. The whole process takes a few minutes. The canal is quite busy in the summer and the swing bridges are constantly opening and closing. The rail bridge takes much longer.

In any case, it strikes me as problematic to have trains crossing a movable bridge every half an hour on average. How frequent are the trains on the Amtrak lines you're talking about? How busy are the waterways they cross? I suppose it might be possible with a new bridge.

For a higher level fixed bridge, the western approach would go through an established neighbourhood with a traditional street grid. It could be done if a couple of the side streets are closed. You'd have a bit of a Davenport Diamond situation with the residents but that isn't stopping Metrolinx so I don't see why it would stop Via Rail.

 

[steveintoronto]

Just to be clear, the line isn't abandoned. Freight trains use it, and they do go east of the canal. It's used by the mines at Blue Mountain as well as industrial customers in Peterborough.

Indeed, you are correct, the frozen swing bridge is on the southern CN spur, part of the old Port Hope, Peterborough and Lindsay. Here's Youtube of the CP bridge being swung and mineral train crossing.

Meantime:
Posted 25 Sep 2012 · Report post

according to today's Peterborough Examiner. CP intends to abandon two industrial spurs citing traffic doesn't justify the $800,000 in maintenance expense the two sets of tracks require. One of the lines is active and sees an occasional covered hopper delivered to United Cdn Malt on Lansdowne St.-just west of the Fairgrounds. The other line is the the trackage that extends to the Industrial Park in the SE part of town. CP cites that it has no customers there and that it will cost $400,000 alone to fix the swing bridge over the Otonabee River, just north of Lansdowne St, which is stuck in the open position and has been so for a number of years. This is the line that crosses George St at Romaine and I believe was originally part of the CNR line which ran from Belleville up to Anson Jct and then over to Peterborough via Keene. It extends under Hwy 115 for about a mile on the original right of way. When CN abandoned the area, CP took over some of the remaining industrial spurs.

I've read articles in the Examiner discussing what to do with the bridge. City of Peterborough is interested in buying it.

How frequent are the trains on the Amtrak lines you're talking about? How busy are the waterways they cross? I suppose it might be possible with a new bridge.

Well...let's put it this way, "It carries almost 10,000 daily NJ TRANSIT customers" . Plus heavy freight. That's "frequent" by my read. The waterway is a busy commercial one, plus pleasure like the Trent.

In the case of the Otonabee bridge, it is single track, half the span, and needs to carry a small fraction of the weight.

Edit to Add:

"§ 117.747 Raritan River". US Code of Regulations. July 1, 2011. Retrieved 2012-08-15. § 117.747Raritan River. (a) The draw of New Jersey Transit Rail Operations Railroad Bridge at mile 0.5 shall open on signal; except that, from 6 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays, the bridge need not open. (b) The bridge owner shall provide and keep in good legible condition two clearance gauges with figures not less than 12 inches high designed, installed and maintained according to the provisions of § 118.160 of this chapter. (c) Trains and locomotives shall be controlled so that any delay in opening the draw span shall not exceed ten minutes. However, if a train moving toward the bridge has crossed the home signal for the bridge before the signal requesting opening of the bridge is given, the train may continue across the bridge and must clear the bridge interlocks before the bridge may be opened.

For a higher level fixed bridge, the western approach would go through an established neighbourhood with a traditional street grid. It could be done if a couple of the side streets are closed.

Not necessary at all. There's lots of room on the RoW for a twenty foot high berm that will be descending towards the bridge over the Otonabee. If the berm wall angle is 45 degrees at 20 feet, you could even double track it and still have room to spare. If in they event you didn't, you'd do what's always done: Concrete retention walls. That would be needed anyway if a fixed bridge were installed, at least at the abutments.

Whatever, I'm still astounded as to how a bridge over a twenty foot span can be such a point of distress to a project of this magnitude. There are lots of perfectly sensible, affordable and doable answers. Some will find any reason to say it can't be done.

 

[crs1026]

Whatever, I'm still astounded as to how a bridge over a twenty foot span can be such a point of distress to a project of this magnitude. There are lots of perfectly sensible, affordable and doable answers. Some will find any reason to say it can't be done.

No one said it couldn't be done. What was said was that it would be a significant sub project which would require substantial expenditure and take time to analyse, sell to the community, design, and construct. This conflicts with the premise that the line will be achievable in a 2017-2019 time frame, and it conflicts with the premise that the construction cost will be kept low because it's just a reinstatement of a very conventional railway track.

There isn't the same "greater good" imperative that Metrolinx is claiming for Davenport (the quotes intended to convey that this idea is not universally accepted even there). In any event, ML's handling of Davenport isn't an appropriate standard for other projects.

While Amtrak/NJT may make opening bridges look easy, they aren't, and they are recognized as an undesirable feature that will have to be fixed some day. Some of the bridges on the NEC haven't been used in years, are subject to advance notification rules, and one is bolted shut between openings, with the infrequent openings scheduled and announced in advance. Openable bridges have operating costs, too. This encumbrance all flies in the face of how the VIA project is being characterised.

There is a difference between finding a clever and creative design that keeps costs low (and thus enables VIA to get this thing going) versus settling for a lowest common denominator design that cements in a bunch of long-term constraints. That's how we got the Rennaissance fleet, and the HEP II fleet, and a Kitchener line with no passing tracks. So if you want to maintain that a new Trent crossing is possible, fine - but the fixed bridge has to be the better option. And it won't be without its problems.

We seem to have fallen into a rabbit hole with this whole Peterboro debate. It's only one example where the Havelock line may look attractive at a high level but be a bad deal taking the details into account. And that whole discussion is only one clue in our speculating from the bleachers as to what line VIA may be considering. I am equally astounded how some people can naysay the con's of this routing and cling to the premise that it's the best option.

- Paul