Bureaucromancer
Active Member
I'd suggest Inkscape if you want something closer in capability to Adobe.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
I'd suggest Inkscape if you want something closer in capability to Adobe.
kEiThZ
Superstar
Not like this isn't known. Nobody cares. There's no willingness to fund better service outside the Corridor.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
My apologies for the late reply, but I hope you will accept the following as a valid excuse:
The PDF schedules have been uploaded in the meanwhile [permalink] and as of September 1, the following service will be offered across the Corridor (all new departures are highlighted in bold):
- Quebec-Montreal (and v.v.)
- leaving QBEC at 08:00 (#35), 15:00 (#39) and 17:45 (#29)
- leaving MTRL at 08:56 (#22), 12:45 (#24) and 18:25 (#28)
- Montreal-Ottawa (and v.v.)
- leaving MTRL at 09:00 (#633), 12:04 (#35) and 18:50 (#39)
- leaving OTTW at 06:30 (#22), 10:15 (#24) and 16:15 (#28)
- Montreal-Toronto (and v.v.)
- leaving MTRL at 08:55 (#63), 11:05* (#65), 13:28 (#67) and 18:30 (#669)
- leaving TRTO at 08:35 (#62), 11:32 (#64), 15:15 (#66) and 17:02* (#68)
- Ottawa-Toronto (and v.v.)
- leaving OTTW at 08:40 (#643), 11:40 (#53), 15:23* (#55) and 18:26 (#59)
- leaving TRTO at 08:35 (#52), 12:17 (#42), 15:32* (#46) and 18:40 (#48)
- Toronto-Windsor (and v.v.)
- leaving TRTO at 06:45 (#71) and 17:30 (#75)
- leaving WDON at 09:05 (#72) and 17:45 (#78)
- Toronto-Sarnia (and v.v.)
- leaving TRTO at 17:40 (#84)
- leaving SARN at 06:10 (#87)
The last few weeks have been insanely busy, but I believe that the relentless efforts in making the case for increased service and finalizing and implementing above schedule is finally providing the corridor again with a schedule which is somewhat usable - for the first time since mid-March...
***
Before I am able to respond to the analysis made by @reaperexpress, would it be possible to share your *.kmz file?
As for calculating more realistic travel times, you will find many assumptions and parameters in my Master Thesis (esp. Chapters 5 and 6).
I will more than gladly model travel times for your alignments, but I can unfortunately only use assumptions and data other people provide to me, as I have to minimize the risk that my assumptions are misinterpreted as me sharing any internal HFR plans...
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
There's an old saying..... "Be careful what you ask for" ;-)
As it happens, this past week I've had to put my feet up for a few days, which left me at the keyboard looking for something to fill the time.
Using milepost data from an old CP employee timetable, and using Google Earth to measure distances, I compiled a granular view of the Glen Tay - Kaladar section of the line, broken into tangent and curve segments. That gave me a database to model different timings.
On the basis of raw eyeball measurement, I arbitrarily assigned notional baseline speeds to each segment, with the tightest curves good for 50 mph and the tangent stretches good for up to 95mph. (Sorry - I used Imperial not metric simply to keep things aligned to the historical milepost and speed restriction data). I kept my baseline assumptions about tangent speeds conservative, to try to inject some reality... a train coming out of a 50 mph curve is not going to accelerate to 95 mph in the length of a short tangent section.
This gave me a baseline end-to-end timing for the 46.3 miles of line from Glen Tay to Kaladar of 43.1 minutes.
(For comparison, the best-ever timing of a CP passenger train, using Budd RDC's, was 62 minutes Kaladar to Perth, with one scheduled stop and one flag stop. Winter 1965-66. But CP did not maintain track to 95 mph on tangent, which I assumed....so my speedier baseline is likely good enough for discussion purposes )
Then I went back and made arbitrary assumptions about a hypothetical speed improvement (which could be achieved by track changes, or by tilting, or any other means) which would bring minimum speed on the tightest curves to 75 mph. I retained 95 mph as the top tangent speed, but upgraded speed on short tangent sections recognizing that trains need not slow down as much for curves. This got my timing down to 35.5 minutes.
My spreadsheet with all the data can be accessed at
HFR Kaladar to Glen Tay Model.xlsx
drive.google.com
I would stress that everything other than the timetable mileages is just my subjective guesswork, and is totally imprecise. I was able to keep the cumulative measurement in the distances to about .14 miles over 46.3 mi, which is as good as one can get using Google.
Pasted below is the very high level result of my model.
The points I would make are
a) the difference between my "Baseline" scenario and my "significantly improved" scenario is probably at least $250M in cost for only 7.6 minutes of time saved. There will have to be a very substantial speed premium gained for each and every possible improvement, or investors may not see enough incentive to bother about trip time. This remains my core reservation about HFR.
b) Bringing the line to a consistent 95mph throughout would reduce timings by another 6.3 minutes - note that geography makes this a totally unlikely end point that would probably cost an oodle in construction and land acquisition.
c) It's clear that without achieving some substantial sections of 95+ running, this line will remain slow (ish...46 in 43 ain't VIA's worst track).
@UrbanSky, I'd love your input - but if this treads a little too closely to things for comfort, I'm sure that others can play with the spreadsheet. Just insert whatever speeds you want to examine.
- Paul
Last edited:
reaperexpress
Senior Member
The .kmz should be accessible from the link below, if not let me know.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/19KNDK59-QULqec_ygJk8Qqlns9dOVurL/view?usp=sharing
Since your model actually accounts for acceleration and deceleration, I've gone back and added in speed limits at a higher resolution than before (though nowhere near as detailed as those from @crs1026 above). The radius measurements which the speed limits were based on are also included in red, for reference. The speed limits are included in the description of each segment.
There are two scenarios: "OptionA" and "OptionB". "OptionA" includes major changes to the ROW, while "OptionB" largely follows the existing ROW.
Sample of .kmz:
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
I've never been quite clear on the title status of abandoned rail corridors, particular those that have been gone for many years like the former Havelock sub. . It is apparent that there are some encroachment in settlement areas, but do we know if the corridor is otherwise available without significant acquisition? I recall some or all of it might be an communications easement which would hinder development. It appears from Google that the corridor appears relatively unencumbered.
*****
I realize that VIA has its eggs in the Havelock basket, but it seem too bad that they didn't look at the CP corridor from Belleville to Perth (Glen Tay), maybe they did. From Google, it appears to be a much 'smoother' alignment for better speeds and traverses no settlement areas. Admittedly, that would still entail using the lakeshore corridor to Belleville, and necessitate getting CP on board..
*****
I realize that VIA has its eggs in the Havelock basket, but it seem too bad that they didn't look at the CP corridor from Belleville to Perth (Glen Tay), maybe they did. From Google, it appears to be a much 'smoother' alignment for better speeds and traverses no settlement areas. Admittedly, that would still entail using the lakeshore corridor to Belleville, and necessitate getting CP on board..
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ that's a good question. Have any media articles/VIA HFR documents stated who owns the Havelock to Glen Tay corridor? When CP Rail abandoned it, who did it revert to? Local municipalities? I assume it's still shown as a transportation corridor in the county/town Official Plans? I believe there are some Bell or other utilities that follow the corridor.
Allandale25
Senior Member
I hadn't realized this but apparently VIA trains are using the GO platforms/through track at Georgetown. Also the station has a "for lease" sign.
Tuesday Train #210
Retro in Georgetown. I lived in Georgetown for a bit between 2000 and 2005 during work terms and after graduating university as my parents had moved there. I spent a fair bit of time at the station…
sjgardiner.wordpress.com
smallspy
Senior Member
I hadn't realized this but apparently VIA trains are using the GO platforms/through track at Georgetown. Also the station has a "for lease" sign.
Tuesday Train #210
Retro in Georgetown. I lived in Georgetown for a bit between 2000 and 2005 during work terms and after graduating university as my parents had moved there. I spent a fair bit of time at the station…sjgardiner.wordpress.com
Contrary to Stephen's blog post, they're not - at least not on a regular basis.
CN dispatchers have instructions on which stations have platforms where, and which platform should have the priority for VIA services. For instance, the south platform at Georgetown is the primary, and the north platform is the one that should be used at Brampton. At Oakville, VIA trains are to use platform 1 whenever possible.
At Georgetown however, this means that a train arriving from the west must proceed through two sets of crossovers from the north side of the corridor to the south, and then back to the north side of the corridor for Brampton. And with all of the freight traffic on that line, sometimes dispatchers will forgo the normal operating procedures and use the "GO" track on the north side of the corridor to keep the VIAs out of the way.
Dan
Allandale25
Senior Member
^ Thanks for the clarification!
Mcurtis
New Member
With regards to the HFR program they're developing a business plan for. Do you guys believe that there is the political will to push it through if the business plan is a little less then superb. Given Trudeau's desire to push for additional funding towards 'green' and 'innovative' projects and now with a finance minister that likely will follow that lead. Does Via Rail and HFR fit into that idea in your opinions?
On a side note, watching Thenovabusfan and his tours of Montreal's REM program it seemed that the trains out of Montreals downtown terminal were severely restricted in terms of their speed. Is that a regular issue or a on off as per the video? If it is a regular cause of delays is there opportunities to reduce that issue or is it caught up in legal quagmire like the Toronto area of multiple ownerships (GO-CN-CP etc) which makes development slow and costly.
On a side note, watching Thenovabusfan and his tours of Montreal's REM program it seemed that the trains out of Montreals downtown terminal were severely restricted in terms of their speed. Is that a regular issue or a on off as per the video? If it is a regular cause of delays is there opportunities to reduce that issue or is it caught up in legal quagmire like the Toronto area of multiple ownerships (GO-CN-CP etc) which makes development slow and costly.
smallspy
Senior Member
The simple reason why the low speeds exiting Montreal is geometry. The alignment of the trackage is such that quite a few tight curves were required to enter the station. This isn't fixable without massive expropriations and trackage realignments.
It should also be noted that the speed limits in both directions less than 3 miles away from Gare Centrale - as the crow flies, mind, the on-track distance is greater - is 90mph or greater.
Dan
crs1026
Superstar
From watching VIA Maps lately, it does appear that the REM and other construction has imposed some temporary slow orders that are even more restrictive than the curvature. Possibly some speed restrictions could eventually be bumped up a little, eg turnout speeds might be nudged upwards as is being done at Toronto Union. But as @smallspy notes, at the end of the day, the tight curves are not fixable. The curve just east of Saint-Henri (Courcelle St) will force incoming trains to grind to a crawl, and then it's hit and miss to the depot.
Despite having track rated for 90+, many inbound trains seem to reach no more than 80 km/hr after their Dorval station stop. There is a lot of industrial and freight activity in that zone. Being routed through crossovers even once in that segment will prevent much fast running. A challenge for VIA, HFR or otherwise, is how to schedule opposing trains so that there is only one track occupied by passenger between Dorval and Saint-Henri at any one time. Try to use both tracks, and there may well be a freight train in the way, or additional crossover moves that steal speed.
- Paul
kEiThZ
Superstar
We are all hoping. Best we can do. If this falls through, we'll just have to give up hope of this country ever building decent inter-city rail infrastructure.
micheal_can
Senior Member
Outside of the Corridor, Via is irrelevant. If outside the Corridor, nothing is improved, then we will never have a decent system.
A train that should take 3.5 days should not be late by a 1/2 day!
A train should run at least once a day, every day, at the same time. Otherwise, it is useless for most people.