VIA Rail

[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

 

[reaperexpress]

While we're looking at impacts on towns, it's worth noting that the impacts on Tweed would be just as severe as those in Sharbot Lake. Plus the ROW isn't even preserved, it has all been divied up among neighbouring properties:

Personally I think the impacts on those towns is irrelevant since both are located on segments with exceedingly tight curves which cannot be widened. Both towns should already be bypassed on that basis alone.

Why would we spend time and money forcing a railway through these towns, just to end up with a line that's barely half the speed of the one VIA currently uses? We'd be looking at 50-55mph on these segments of the Havelock sub if we use the existing alignment. Even the very slowest segment of the Kingston Sub (through Kingston itself) is 65 mph, and the rest is largely 95-100 mph with curves generally at or above 85mph.

 

[kEiThZ]

The wait for news is agonizing. They were supposed to have a routing study done earlier this year and moving to pre-procurement activity. Nothing has been released. We can only hope they are on track. I appreciate why VIA might have to do this. But not putting out any info could bite them if there's a change of government. Makes it far easier to cancel. I'm not sure this this is safe till half the corridor is built and trainsets are being delivered.

I get the sense that some portions are more challenging than others. I wish they'd push the parts that are easier to build out the door. No reason they can't get Toronto-Peterborough and Ottawa-Montreal under construction sooner.

 

[Northern Light]

While we're looking at impacts on towns, it's worth noting that the impacts on Tweed would be just as severe as those in Sharbot Lake. Plus the ROW isn't even preserved, it has all been divied up among neighbourhing properties:
View attachment 265450

Personally I think the impacts on those towns is irrelevant since both are located on segments with exceedingly tight curves which cannot be widened. Both towns should already be bypassed on that basis alone.
View attachment 265454

Why would we spend time and money forcing a railway through these towns, just to end up with a line that's barely half the speed of the one VIA currently uses? We'd be looking at 50-55mph on these segments of the Havelock sub if we use the existing alignment. Even the very slowest segment of the Kingston Sub (through Kingston itself) is 65 mph, and the rest is largely 95-100 mph with curves generally at or above 85mph.

Ok, you two just made me look at Tweed on Google Street View..........haven't passed through there in at least a decade...........now I remember why its been so long..........

At any rate, a tour of the former ROW follows:

Excuse the sloppy line drawing. I highlighted the segments not identified as TransCanada Trail and presumably either sold off or leased to the adjacent properties.

This is the ROW as it enters town from the south-west at River Street, as the Trans Canada Trail.

This is the continuing segment if you face N-E from this same spot:

From there we cross Metcalf Street: (facing back west)

Next we're looking back west at Victoria..............what gives away the former purpose of this path???

But turn to face east at Victoria, and you see this:

Now we're looking east at Colborne:

Finally, looking east across Louisa, the trail formally resumes: