VIA Rail

[smallspy]

Most often it is geometry, not condition of track that slows a train down.

This is absolutely, positively not remotely true.

Track condition is frequently cited as a means of slowing trains down. The York Sub, for instance, is capable of being run at the same 65mph freight speed as the Kingston and Dundas Subs, but is only maintained to a 50mph standard because that's all CN wants to pay for. There are lots of other lines that were once capable of running at higher speeds than they are today, and only due to the track conditions.

Dan

 

[crs1026]

Especially true when freight is being dispatched at lower hp/ton levels and with throttle restrictions to minimise fuel consumption. No point in having fast track when the trains will be run slower.
Sure, if VIA asked for more speed, they could get it.... if they paid the premium.
Another consideration is track materials. If one is building new, or willing to invest in intensive grade separation, the capital cost of installing all new track materials siutable for Class 6 may seem affordable. But restoring 80 or 90 mph speeds may be possible without abandoning everything that is in place today. A much better business proposition than squeezing out every possible bit of speed.

- Paul

 

[Urban Sky]

One thing I learnt at my day job is that track geometry may restrict maximum speed in indirect ways: Signals have a signal sighting distance (that is: the distance travelled over which the signal is visible to the LEs) and this needs to be at no less than the distance a train can travel at maximum permittable speed for a pre-defined time period (the signal-sighting time). If a signal is too close after a curve or a different obstruction of the LE‘s view fields (e.g., bridges or other overhead structures), then an increase in maximum speed might necessitate moving the signal location, which in turn triggers the recalculation of all potentially affected signal control lines (which determine that if signal A is „Stop“, what the most permissive signal aspects at the subsequent signals B, C, … , might be).

Therefore, there can be a significant cost to choosing a higher speed limit, even though the track geometry would easily allow for it…

 

[micheal_can]

This is absolutely, positively not remotely true.

Track condition is frequently cited as a means of slowing trains down. The York Sub, for instance, is capable of being run at the same 65mph freight speed as the Kingston and Dundas Subs, but is only maintained to a 50mph standard because that's all CN wants to pay for. There are lots of other lines that were once capable of running at higher speeds than they are today, and only due to the track conditions.

Dan

For the Bala and Ruel Subdivisions, it is the case.

 

[milkycontent]

CEO of massive rail project says hurdles abound – and express trains may be solution

Martin Imbleau says there could also be express trains that whizz through Ottawa, Peterborough, Ont., and Trois Rivieres, Que., without halting

www.theglobeandmail.com

Something that jumped out to me from this article:

As for the speed of the trip itself, Pierre Barrieau, who teaches transportation and urban planning at the Universite de Montreal, said steering clear of downtown Toronto and Montreal makes sense. Instead, a promising option is to drop riders at a suburban or midtown station that links up with a local or regional line.

Has this idea been discussed in this thread? If not, any thoughts on where a potential suburban/midtown station might go in Toronto for HSR/HFR?

 

[Urban Sky]

Something that jumped out to me from this article:


Has this idea been discussed in this thread? If not, any thoughts on where a potential suburban/midtown station might go in Toronto for HSR/HFR?

To quote myself from groups.io:

This might be true for near-downtown stations which are nevertheless transit and local rail hubs. Shin-Osaka, Lyon Part-Dieu and Kassel-Wilhelmshöhe are such hubs and reasonably close to the respective downtowns. Dorval and Kennedy are neither and I struggle to identify any other locations which could possibly serve as such near-downtown termini…

In a previous post on groups.io, I also wrote:

[…] At the same time, serving downtown stations is one of the biggest competitive advantages of intercity rail over the plane.

Personally, I live along the green Metro line, approximately a 30 minute journey (door-to-door) away from Gare Centrale and my office in Toronto is literally across the street from Union Station. I therefore leave home 45 minutes before the train departs and can continuously work for the full five-or-so hours I'm sitting on board the train until I'm only a five-minute walk away from my office. If you reduce the travel time of the train from 5 to 3 hours, but add a 30 minute transfer on both sides of my trip (because my train no longer goes from downtown Montreal to downtown Toronto, but from, say, Dorval to Pickering), then you've cut 2 hours from my productive time, but only a single hour from my actual travel time. And even worse: research suggests that forced transfers add a penalty of 15 minutes to perceived travel time, at which point my perceived time saving is only half an hour.

You can therefore believe me that there are very good reasons why cities all over the world have been investing countless billions over the last decades to move their intercity rail terminals closer towards the city centre rather than further away, as even though having suburban stations (like Dorval, Oshawa or Oakville) is a very useful feature, not having a downtown station is a fatal flaw. […]

 

[micheal_can]

Something that jumped out to me from this article:


Has this idea been discussed in this thread? If not, any thoughts on where a potential suburban/midtown station might go in Toronto for HSR/HFR?

If they ever build the midtown Corridor, the Toronto North station would likely fit the bill.

 

[smallspy]

For the Bala and Ruel Subdivisions, it is the case.

Cool. Two examples.

Still doesn't make it true anywhere else, however.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

Cool. Two examples.

Still doesn't make it true anywhere else, however.

Dan

Outside of Corridor service, it tends to be true more often then not.

 

[crs1026]

You can therefore believe me that there are very good reasons why cities all over the world have been investing countless billions over the last decades to move their intercity rail terminals closer towards the city centre rather than further away, as even though having suburban stations (like Dorval, Oshawa or Oakville) is a very useful feature, not having a downtown station is a fatal flaw. […]

The suggestion to move outwards is really only an exception driven by the loss of the Montreal Tunnel for Montreal - Quebec City.

It's a bit moot for Montreal, Toronto, Kitchener, London, Quebec City.... I can't imagine that any of these would try to move their rail station and related transit hub away from their current central location. Especially if one is trying to create a hub. Or improve on the value proposition of air travel.

Ottawa, Kingston, Belleville, Cobourg, Brantford, Chatham, and Windsor have station locations that are less than central with little room for improvement but no real reason to alter the status quo.

The interesting thing in foreign cities with central rail stations is just how close to the platform the really high speed running begins. In other words, move the tracks around and create capacity for high speed right to the threshold. We can do a lot better here.

And then there's the other London - where a great deal of money was spent on Crosslink, in part because none of the "peripherally aligned" stations are close to each other. Does anyone recall Robert Young's complaint about Chicago?

- Paul

 

[just east of the creek]

If they ever build the midtown Corridor, the Toronto North station would likely fit the bill.

Lacks the space to add connections to be a true transit node. Union is the destination that works. Selling higher speed rail from Scarborough or Pickering to Dorval is a joke. Add in the goal of extending this connection to London and Windsor (in Ontario) and you ask why?

 

[nfitz]

Lacks the space to add connections to be a true transit node. Union is the destination that works. Selling higher speed rail from Scarborough or Pickering to Dorval is a joke.

There's better options on the subway network. As someone mentioned above, the old CP station (Toronto North) at Summerhill station on Line 1 would be perfect. It's where CP's Peterborough-Ottawa service ran to, many years ago.

 

[Urban Sky]

There's better options on the subway network. As someone mentioned above, the old CP station (Toronto North) at Summerhill station on Line 1 would be perfect. It's where CP's Peterborough-Ottawa service ran to, many years ago.

LOL, 107-96 years ago and until what exactly opened?

 

[just east of the creek]

There's better options on the subway network. As someone mentioned above, the old CP station (Toronto North) at Summerhill station on Line 1 would be perfect. It's where CP's Peterborough-Ottawa service ran to, many years ago.

I love the building and could see it repurposed for some transit use. But not this. You are speaking of a major terminus if used for HFR. I cannot see myself jumping on a VIa service from London, taking the subway to Summerhill to catch a train to Dorval…..And where, besides TTC subway and local TTC horse and buggy service, do other transit players connect.

There are major, major transportation cities ( London and Paris come to mind immediately) that have major rail (and associated road transit) terminals separated by distance. But they are all in the general core area and the scale of use is so very, very different.

For now Union is the destination.

 

[Dan416]

A lot of people taking VIA connect with GO to continue to their final destinations. Last I checked, GO doesn’t serve Summerhill.

Let’s not accept a subpar solution. It has to be Union otherwise it’s DOA.