VIA Rail

[roger1818]

Quick question on level boarding with regards to the new train sets. In Montreal and Quebec City there'd be level boarding just like today, but what about Union and other stations? Are there plans to raise platforms at Union or other corridor stations to accommodate the new fleet? I feel like that alone (raised platform) would be "transformative" in terms of smoothing out the customer experience + a whole train set = PR win.

VIA has been raising the platforms in their Ottawa station. They are doing it in 3 stages with the first stage complete and the platforms for the track closest to the station already raised.

 

[robmausser]

Ideally, the second phase of HFR is a through service at Union, to Pearson-Kitchener-London, the proposed Ontario High Speed Rail route. They would enable travel from Kitchener to Montreal in 6 hrs with no transfers.

I was really hoping VIA would snag the GEXR line from Kitchener to London when it went up for sale, but I think CN got it. Would have made converting it to HFR possible (a large section of Kitchener to Union is Metrolinx owned, which, while not dedicated VIA track, they are much more accommodating to VIA, since other passenger rail traffic is less of an issue than freight, it can co-exist better.

That being said the line from Kitchener to London is in terrible shape, it would need a complete retracking.

 

[reaperexpress]

Quick question on level boarding with regards to the new train sets. In Montreal and Quebec City there'd be level boarding just like today, but what about Union and other stations? Are there plans to raise platforms at Union or other corridor stations to accommodate the new fleet? I feel like that alone (raised platform) would be "transformative" in terms of smoothing out the customer experience + a whole train set = PR win.

At many intermediate stations, the presence of freight creates a challenge, because they require a larger clearance envelope than the platform would allow. But thankfully most of VIA's busiest stations are on tracks not traversed by freight trains, including:
- Québec du Palais (already high-platform)
- Montréal Centrale (already high-platform)
- Ottawa (already partly high-platform)
- Toronto Union
- London
- Windsor

At the rest of the stations, high-platforms would necessitate some way of moving freight trains away from the platform edge, typically a gantlet track or siding. In some cases this would be fairly straightforward, but in others it could be challenging due space constraints and/or to the need to move infrastructure such bridges and staircases (e.g. to/from an existing platform).

In a VIA Q&A a while ago their response to this question was that they'd really like to raise some more platforms like they did recently in Ottawa, but that they currently didn't have any funding to do so.

I was really hoping VIA would snag the GEXR line from Kitchener to London when it went up for sale, but I think CN got it. Would have made converting it to HFR possible (a large section of Kitchener to Union is Metrolinx owned, which, while not dedicated VIA track, they are much more accommodating to VIA, since other passenger rail traffic is less of an issue than freight, it can co-exist better.

That being said the line from Kitchener to London is in terrible shape, it would need a complete retracking.

Yeah I too was disappointed that VIA didn't end up buying it, but in retrospect they made the right decision from their perspective. With the Missing Link now cancelled, it's really uncertain how many trains VIA will be able to run between Kitchener and Toronto, and there's not enough demand to justify standalone London-Kitchener service should CN be disagreeable with their segment through Brampton. It's hard to justify the big expenditure of buying and upgrading a railway without knowing how many trains we'd be allowed to run on it.

Now what I'm hoping for is that once hourly regional GO service is running to Kitchener, we start looking to extend that hourly service westward, purchasing and upgrading the line as we go. In this scenario, CN is less of an issue because they've already agreed to hourly service through their segment. It makes no difference to them whether the train terminates in Kitchener, Stratford or London.

London may sound like a ridiculously far-flung destination for GO service, but with the railways upgraded to typical Ontarian mainline standards (80-100mph / 130-160 km/h), a GO train would be able to do the Toronto-London trip in about 2h20-2h30 with a regional stopping pattern. And anyway the point would not be to serve Toronto-London journeys (obviously VIA would be a faster and more comfortable alternative), but rather the intermediate journeys like London-Kitchener and Stratford-Toronto.

 

[Urban Sky]

Okay, here is finally Part 3 of my "modelling travel times for the Havelock alignment" exercise (refer back to Post #7,315 for Part 2):


4. Model Solving
4.1 Ignoring s-curves

There is actually not that much left to say, apart from that the train movement is modelled in a way where the train stays to the applicable speed limits (and within its dynamic capabilities), which results in a speed profile similar to this one:

Quoted from: my Master Thesis (p. 76)


Just like in my Master Thesis, my modelling will be based on the following parameters:

Design speed (as quoted numerous times by VIA) and acceleration/deceleration capabilities (discussed in Part 1 of this series) are relatively straight forward and the recovery margins are taken straight from UIC recommendations (note that I had to change the distance-based recovery margin from 60 to 90 seconds compared to my Master Thesis, as VIA's future fleet will still be locomotive-hauled, but a "percentage running time supplement" of 5% still applies, as a 5-car trainset should fall into the 301-500 tons weight category):

Quoted from: my Master Thesis (p. 34)


But why would the train length matter? Well, unlike speed limits for cars (or at least how motorists like to interpret them), a more permissive speed limit only takes effect after the whole train has passed the point where the higher speed limit applies. Therefore, the train is only allowed to accelerate once the last axle has left the zone in which the last (more restrictive) speed limit remained valid. I kept the value of 680 feet I used in my Master Thesis, as it represents 3 block lengths, which equals 241 meters (0.15 miles), thus enough to fit a 7-car train hauled by a locomotive (like the "Extra long trainset" representing the longest-possible trainset configuration of VIA's future fleet) in its entirety.



4.2 Respecting s-curves

Even though I never rode a motorcycle, I've been told that taking a right curve followed immediately by a left curve gives you a good chance of finding yourself lying with your motorcycle on the side of the road and it is not much different with trains, as the superelevation applied to the track has the same function of a motorcyclist tilting his bike into a curve and it therefore takes a moment to transition from one curve in one direction into a curve in the opposing direction. The same issue arose to me when playing the game "Rollercoaster Tycoon 2" and where the virtual visitors of my park would refuse to board attractions which would expose them to too extreme lateral forces.

However, first we have to talk about transition curves: as we have seen in previous posts, the equilibrium superelevation is dependent on basically two variables: the radius of the curve and the banking of the track. This necessitates that in order for the outer (i.e. the "superelevated") rail to gently reach the same vertical level as the inner rail, the radius has to increase just as gently so that the track becomes straight again at exactly the point where the outer rail reaches the vertical level of the inner rail. Unfortunately, I'm no railway engineer and I never took any courses talking about the science of track alignments, but I found this highly interesting presentation which provides formulae for the easement (i.e. transition curve) length for both, the actual superelevation applied to the track (E_a) and the underbalance (E_u), of which of course the greater value applies as minimum value for a given curve:

Quoted from: Lautala et Dick (2010, Slide 9)


Additionally, the same source describes the need a tangent (i.e. straight) track, with a minimum length of the greater of the distance covered in 3 seconds at the maximum applicable speed or (for very low speeds) 100 ft:

Quoted from: Lautala et Dick (2010, Slide 11)


I would have liked to present the slides here, but got discouraged by the disclaimer on the final slide of the presentation. Nevertheless, I've linked the source and the presentation is easily accessible and - I repeat myself - highly interesting!


That said, I'm still trying to get my head around the specificities of s-curves (or reverse curves) I outlined above, but it becomes clear that there are painful trade-offs between the amount of superelevation applied to curves and the maximum speed which can be achieved on the tangent between these curves (if the two curves form a reverse curve) and this means that achieving aggressive superelevations (like 8 or 10 inches) might be unrealistic on segments riddled with reverse curves (like this segment between Sharbot Lake and Mountain Grove) - a problem which (as a side note) tilting trains would not solve, as the extra banking needs to be treated the same way in the formulae presented above as the actual elevation applied to the tracks:

I hope you found this 3-part excurse into railway travel time modelling as instructive as I found it (I never thought that I would delve even deeper into this matter than I already did for my Master Thesis - but reverse curves really weren't that much of an issue on the Kitchener Corridor than they are on the Havelock Subdivision) and I will try to get my head around these pesky reverse curves and model travel times for the existing/former Havelock alignment, so that @reaperexpress and @crs1026 can take control of my spreadsheet and see what kinds of realignments may or may not be required to achieve a travel time of 3:15 hours between Toronto and Ottawa...

In the meanwhile, I wish you all a good night and have a great start into the new week!

 

[Fritter]

I was really hoping VIA would snag the GEXR line from Kitchener to London when it went up for sale, but I think CN got it

It was never sold to CN, as they were always the owner. They just leased to line to GXER for years and when the lease came up recently, they just did not renew the lease and opted to assume operations themselves once again. Metrolinx took opportunity to negotiate purchase of the Georgetown-Kitchener portion at the time it was aware CN was going to be assuming operations and ending the lease with GXER.

 

[robmausser]

It was never sold to CN, as they were always the owner. They just leased to line to GXER for years and when the lease came up recently, they just did not renew the lease and opted to assume operations themselves once again. Metrolinx took opportunity to negotiate purchase of the Georgetown-Kitchener portion at the time it was aware CN was going to be assuming operations and ending the lease with GXER.

RIght, thanks for the clarification.

I know you arent intending to be pedantic, but the same still applies; if Metrolinx could negotiate purchase, I was hoping VIA would do the same for the Kitchener-London portion.

 

[reaperexpress]

RIght, thanks for the clarification.

I know you arent intending to be pedantic, but the same still applies; if Metrolinx could negotiate purchase, I was hoping VIA would do the same for the Kitchener-London portion.

But the advantage of this difference is that a hypothetical VIA purchase of the line is not time-sensitive. Metrolinx actually didn't purchase the line when the lease expired, they purchased it in September 2014, a couple years in advance of the lease expiring. This may have been specifically to prevent GEXR from renewing their lease. At the moment there's no lease at all, so VIA could acquire the line whenever they choose (though as I mentioned earlier it would be an exceedingly risky move).

 

[SFO-YYZ]

At many intermediate stations, the presence of freight creates a challenge, because they require a larger clearance envelope than the platform would allow. But thankfully most of VIA's busiest stations are on tracks not traversed by freight trains, including:
- Québec du Palais (already high-platform)
- Montréal Centrale (already high-platform)
- Ottawa (already partly high-platform)
- Toronto Union
- London
- Windsor

At the rest of the stations, high-platforms would necessitate some way of moving freight trains away from the platform edge, typically a gantlet track or siding. In some cases this would be fairly straightforward, but in others it could be challenging due space constraints and/or to the need to move infrastructure such bridges and staircases (e.g. to/from an existing platform).

In a VIA Q&A a while ago their response to this question was that they'd really like to raise some more platforms like they did recently in Ottawa, but that they currently didn't have any funding to do so.

Thank you for this. Really appreciate the high quality information.

For Toronto Union, is it simply because VIA is sharing platforms with GO low-floor bilevels which forces VIA to deal with lower platforms? I know the platform height issue at Union has been debated many times on the Union Revitalization forum, but are there any plans by VIA (or MLX) to raise a few platforms at Union (e.g. dedicated platforms for VIA trains especially with HFR and the increased "frequency" of VIA departures and arrivals at Union)?

 

[reaperexpress]

Thank you for this. Really appreciate the high quality information.

For Toronto Union, is it simply because VIA is sharing platforms with GO low-floor bilevels which forces VIA to deal with lower platforms? I know the platform height issue at Union has been debated many times on the Union Revitalization forum, but are there any plans by VIA (or MLX) to raise a few platforms at Union (e.g. dedicated platforms for VIA trains especially with HFR and the increased "frequency" of VIA departures and arrivals at Union)?

The last time I read documentation on the Union revitalization, the plan was to raise all the platforms to the level of the low-floor height of GO bilevels, with no consideration for high-floor VIA trains. This was probably a couple years ago so maybe (hopefully) VIA has been campaigning in the meantime for Metrolinx to build at least one or two platforms at their floor height. Even now, with relatively low frequencies, VIA has pretty much exclusive use of a couple tracks in the shed (can't remember which ones off-hand), so it would have relatively little impact on GO if those were built to VIA's floor height.

A note about Union: although freight trains do not currently pass through the trainshed, they will need to in the future since the current freight bypass tracks south of the station are being taken over to build more platforms. It's definitely a great idea to build platforms on those tracks given that there are no freight trains at rush hour, but it does mean that at least one of the tracks at Union needs to be designed to allow a freight train past the platform.

 

[roger1818]

The last time I read documentation on the Union revitalization, the plan was to raise all the platforms to the level of the low-floor height of GO bilevels, with no consideration for high-floor VIA trains. This was probably a couple years ago so maybe (hopefully) VIA has been campaigning in the meantime for Metrolinx to build at least one or two platforms at their floor height. Even now, with relatively low frequencies, VIA has pretty much exclusive use of a couple tracks in the shed (can't remember which ones off-hand), so it would have relatively little impact on GO if those were built to VIA's floor height.

To me, this highlights the risk to VIA of staying at Union. If Metrolinx is unwilling to raise any of the platforms, it may be that they at least want to keep the option of increasing service frequency such that VIA can't operate as many trains as they would want. I know there are disadvantages to VIA moving away from Union, but owning their own station would give them the flexibility to have as many trains as they want without having to ask permission from Metrolinx. As VIA said in their Summary of the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan:

The fact that VIA Rail does not control its access to Toronto Union or Montreal Central stations is a major business risk. Downtown to downtown service is key for intercity passenger rail success.

VIA Rail’s performance is highly dependent on these two major hubs. This access is affected by commuter operators in the Toronto and Montreal regions who are expanding rapidly, acquiring their own track from freight railroads, and are in the midst of multi-billion dollar development plans.

I should note that Ottawa no longer has a downtown station but instead has good transit from the station to downtown and a location that is easily accessed from the 417.

 

[rbt]

To me, this highlights the risk to VIA of staying at Union. If Metrolinx is unwilling to raise any of the platforms, it may be that they at least want to keep the option of increasing service frequency such that VIA can't operate as many trains as they would want. I know there are disadvantages to VIA moving away from Union, but owning their own station would give them the flexibility to have as many trains as they want without having to ask permission from Metrolinx. As VIA said in their Summary of the 2017-2021 Corporate Plan:

I sometimes look at the convention centre (south side) and think VIA should be talking to Oxford about including a dedicated VIA platform (from CN Tower to Delta hotel) and station in their future rebuild plans.

 

[JasonParis]

Could someone explain to me how Welland was serviced by VIA prior to the cuts? I rode my bike the entire canal a few weekends back and I'm honestly curious. Did it dead-end in Welland? Was it part of the Niagara service? Did Port Colburne have a station too?

 

[Urban Sky]

Could someone explain to me how Welland was serviced by VIA prior to the cuts? I rode my bike the entire canal a few weekends back and I'm honestly curious. Did it dead-end in Welland? Was it part of the Niagara service? Did Port Colburne have a station too?

Welland was part of the Toronto-Hamilton-Buffalo service VIA inheritated from CP. It was a daily service operated with an RDC, leaving Toronto in the morning and returning from Buffalo in the evening:

Source: official VIA timetable (effective 1980-04-27)

In the late 1940s and early 1950s, there were 4-5 trains serving this route and carrying through coaches and/or sleepers to cities like Boston, New York City, Pittsburgh and Cleveland:

Source: official CP timetable (effective 1950-04-30)

However, these through services were withdrawn in 1961 (Cleveland), 1962 (Pittsburgh), 1964 (Boston) and finally in October 1970 (New York City), when the last remaining train (an overnight train with coaches and sleepers to NYC) was replaced by the same RDC daytime service (Toronto<=>Buffalo) which VIA inherited in 1977 and terminated in September 1980*:

Source: official CP timetable (effective 1970-04-26)

Source: official CP timetable (effective 1970-10-25)

This left VIA with only the RDC service between Toronto and Niagara Falls, which operated three times daily. In April 1981, one of these three RDC runs was replaced by a new joint VIA-Amtrak train, the Maple Leaf, which restored a cross-border link into New York State and New York City after an interruption of half a year* or a full decade, respectively:

Source: official VIA timetable (effective 1981-04-26)

***

As for rail service to Port Colborne, even though that city was routinely listed in CPs and VIAs Toronto-Welland-Buffalo schedules, this only referred to a bus connection.

However, CN operated a mixed train 6 times a week between Fort Erie, Port Colborne, Caledonia, Brantford and Stratford until April 1960:

Source: official CN timetable (effective 1950-04-30)

Additionally, there seemes to have been an hourly "Eletric Car" (presumably: street car) service between Port Colborne, Welland and Thorold until 1954/55:

Source: official CN timetable (effective 1954-04-25)

Feel free to browse through my timetable archive (by clicking on any of the links above) and don't hesitate to ask any other timetable questions...

Edit:
* This seems to be not correct, as the subsequent posts prove that the Toronto-Welland-Buffalo service continued until the launch of the Maple Leaf on April 26, 1981, despite their disappearance in the September 1980 schedule...

 

[crs1026]

Could someone explain to me how Welland was serviced by VIA prior to the cuts? I rode my bike the entire canal a few weekends back and I'm honestly curious. Did it dead-end in Welland? Was it part of the Niagara service? Did Port Colburne have a station too?

The Buffalo service was never really integrated into the VIA network until the Niagara Falls routing took over. VIA had a separate contract with each of the affected railways for this route. It was administratively cumberome - separate fares from Toronto to Welland ($8 return) and Welland to Fort Erie ($7 each way).
In April 1981, a trip from Toronto to Fort Erie required two separate tickets, with three segments - separate accounting for the CP, TH+B, and Conrail portions of the ride. My hand-written 1981 Welland-Fort Erie ticket is too faded to scan properly. By that time, Conrail had downgraded its Welland-Fort Erie line so badly that the train ran at 10 mph over that section.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

The Buffalo service was never really integrated into the VIA network until the Niagara Falls routing took over. VIA had a separate contract with each of the affected railways for this route. It was administratively cumberome - separate fares from Toronto to Welland ($7) and Welland to Fort Erie ($8).
In April 1981, a trip from Toronto to Fort Erie required two separate tickets, with three segments - separate accounting for the CP, TH+B, and Conrail portions of the ride. My hand-written 1981 Welland-Fort Erie ticket is too faded to scan properly. By that time, Conrail had downgraded its Welland-Fort Erie line so badly that the train ran at 10 mph over that section.

- Paul

View attachment 274627

I'm curious about this, because even though your ticket proves that service via Welland continued until April 1981, the route seems to no longer appear already in the September 1980 schedule (I couldn't find it anywhere and "Welland" is not listed in the station index)...