News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.1K     5 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 837     2 
News   Dec 20, 2024
 1.7K     0 

VIA Rail

As someones whos out of the loop on this. I remember hearing that CN/CP wont let them run ventures on their tracks, but how true is this?
CN has issues detecting Venture/Charger trainsets when they approach certain level crossings due to their low axle count, light weight and different wheel-rail dynamics. The workaround imposed by CN is to reduce speeds to 45 mph until the correct operation of any automatic warning devices can be confirmed. This seems to cause additional delays of 30-60 minutes for Siemens trainsets operating over CN infrastructure…
 
I can’t find my calculations (though it shouldn’t be difficult to recreate), but once you strip virtually unpopulated Nord-du-Quebec and the Kenora District, you obtain a population denisty for Ontario and Quebec which falls in line with the population density of Norway and Finland, both of which have modest Higher-Speed infrastructure (200 km/h) and very little High-Speed infrastructure (220-250 km/h) with currently not owning a single train capable of using the latter speeds…
The population density of the Windsor-Quebec Corridor is on par with countries like France and Spain. Obviously the overall population is lower so we'll never have an HSR system as extensive as those countries.

There's a lot of talk of full high speed and future governments downsizing a bloated plan. But we still don't know what the plan is. It could be something more modest like the Alstom proposal where only certain sections are high speed and the rest is slower. With previous high speed proposals having travel times to Montreal of ~2.5 hours, the 3 hours being talked about now makes sense in the context of a more modest plan.
 
CN has issues detecting Venture/Charger trainsets when they approach certain level crossings due to their low axle count, light weight and different wheel-rail dynamics. The workaround imposed by CN is to reduce speeds to 45 mph until the correct operation of any automatic warning devices can be confirmed. This seems to cause additional delays of 30-60 minutes for Siemens trainsets operating over CN infrastructure…
Was this forseen at all, or was it actually a suprise?
 
There's a lot of talk of full high speed and future governments downsizing a bloated plan. But we still don't know what the plan is. It could be something more modest like the Alstom proposal where only certain sections are high speed and the rest is slower. With previous high speed proposals having travel times to Montreal of ~2.5 hours, the 3 hours being talked about now makes sense in the context of a more modest plan.

I just assumed the 3 hours vs 2.5 hours is because there is no direct Montreal-Toronto route, but it is routed through Ottawa? Rather than having a straightish line from Montreal to Toronto with a branch up to Ottawa, which would obviously be faster?
 
There was an article in Lapresse about the project's potential costs where experts provided cost projections basically just using CAHSR costs multiplied by the distance covered here, which makes them extremely high (120 Billion+) and extremely suspect (geography and political economy seems a lot easier in Ontario and Quebec than California).

Based on the data from the Transit costs project database of HSR costs, do any of our resident experts (Urbansky, smallspy etc) have more reasonable forecasts?
 
Is this a helpful response? No links, no key words to search, just... go back through the thread an unknown amount of posts until we find the answer?
Use the search function and you can search by user for posts within this thread. Urbansky and smallspy are usually the most technically knowledgeable people, generally.

This post in particular sums it up.

Paul, I love you, but you are very, very wrong here.

This is CN's fault. It is a CN-specific problem, and so would I argue that it should be up to CN to at least in part figure a solution.

CN's signal design uses a very low shunt voltage - considerably lower than any other railway in North America, to the best of my knowledge - and so there is constantly a battle to try and prevent shorter consists from losing shunt.

A bit of background - I'll be getting into the weeds here, so I apologize in advance.

Shunt is the process by which a train is able to get detected by the signal system and thus trigger things like level crossings, signal occupancy, etc. This is done by ensuring that there is electrical continuity across both rails, first by insulating them from each other and then by ensuring that the wheel and axle unit are electrically continuous. There are other ways of doing this - axle counters are the new trend, and found on a lot of subway systems - but shunting has been around for over 100 year and generally works.

There are a couple of problems at play here:
- The new Siemens trains do not have any brake shoes on their wheel treads. This means that there is no active cleaning of the wheel tread.
- CN's abnormally low shunt voltage means that it more susceptible to continuity problems with dirty track or dirty wheels. This is why there are all sorts of rules in their rulebook about requiring more than 12 axles in order to allow a train to proceed at track speed (fewer axles are limited in speed in order to ensure that they to shut all of the track circuits).

The first issue is a known problem in the sense that the railways have all been here before - although never with a trainset as long as the Ventures + Chargers - and has a known solution. Amtrak out of Chicago has been dealing with CN on this issue for a couple of years now, and their way around it was to tow additional cars in each consist in order to get enough wheels to ensure continuity. Historical, CN resolved this problem with their RDCs - which also don't have any tread brakes - by installing "scrubbers", a small brake shoe that sat on the top of each wheel by gravity with the sole purpose of wiping down each wheel face and making sure it was clean. But even with scrubbers installed, CN still required a minimum of 3 RDCs in order to operate at track speed in any territory that had signalling.

The second issue is far, far harder to fix - in fact, considering the size of CN"s network it may well be impossible. While increasing the shunt voltage would resolve a lot of continuity issues, it may well require the replacement of hundreds of thousands (or even millions) of additional signalling components. I'm not sure that replacing small portions of CN's signalling network is feasible either, as that may require other interventions where the portions of the signalling system with meet and connect. I'm sure that there are some ways of dealing with it, as CN has signallized level crossings with other railroads, but I don't know how feasible they are for this kind of interchange or hand off.

As I wrote above, Amtrak has been running additional cars of many varying types tacked on to their trains that are running out of Chicago, but only the ones that run on CN lines. CN has also decreed that this rule can be bypassed through the use of a "shunt enhancer" - a device or which Amtrak has been investigating for about a year now, and does not yet have FRA approval for its use.

So, what to do? In the short term, I can't help but think that sourcing and installing scrubbers on the Ventures + Chargers will help resolve the situation. (Want to be really nasty about it? Make CN pay for their development, design, production and installation.) Testing will be required of course, but should this be the solution than a fix should be able to be made within a matter of months. But I feel that the FRA and TC should also weigh in here, and look into CN's own systems and see if they aren't more problematic than other railroads because of this low shunt voltage.

It should be noted that the Chargers and Ventures are running in lots of other places in the US, and on multiple different railways - sometimes in shorter consists. CN's network is the only one where they have these issues. As well, I have not yet heard of one instance on the Kingston Sub where a Charger has failed to activate a signal or level crossing, so this may be a situation of "an abundance of caution" versus a singular or small multiple of actual instances.

Dan
 
There was an article in Lapresse about the project's potential costs where experts provided cost projections basically just using CAHSR costs multiplied by the distance covered here, which makes them extremely high (120 Billion+) and extremely suspect (geography and political economy seems a lot easier in Ontario and Quebec than California).

Based on the data from the Transit costs project database of HSR costs, do any of our resident experts (Urbansky, smallspy etc) have more reasonable forecasts?
I read that as an insider saying 100 billion was what the proponents are saying? Is there a different read of that article?
 
No doubt the Liberals are trying to move HSR forward now because they're dropping in the polls and need a boost in the upcoming election. Which makes this recent announcement seem disingenuous.
If the Conservatives win the next election, they'll probably scale this project back down to HfR. Which I wouldn't be against. Smaller budget and completed in a shorter amount of time.

CBC just did a piece on this recent HSR development and kept bringing up the fact that Canada is the only G7 country without HSR. But some things to consider, Canada is the largest G7 country by land and smallest by population. Even between Toronto and Montreal, Canada doesn't have the population density to match that of Europe, Japan or the NE corridor in the U.S.
Having VIA trains on their own dedicated tracks with the Siemens Chargers hitting close to 200km/h would be more than adequate. Something akin to Brightline, or the EMR Meridian in the U.K.

Plus if HfR proves successful in the Quebec-Windsor corridor, it would be east to replicate this in Alberta between Calgary - Edmonton.


I was of the opinion of this back in 2015 when HFR was announced for $1 Billion and it was just diesel trains on dedicated tracks. Basically, just buy the corridors and do literally nothing but put down fresh tracks, perhaps even Class 8 track in straight portions, if what I say after this makes sense. Don't even build stations yet on it, just non stop express to Ottawa, Montreal, QC.

Then, tack on an order of Ventures on the existing order. And run a bunch of Ventures on the dedicated tracks. Could be done and completed in 3 years. Futureproof everything by planning to do HSR in the future. Speed = 177kmh top speed, average speed of 120kmh. No delays from freight.

Then, after that, continually upgrade and improve the line. First, build some stations at Peterborough etc.

Then, straighten out all the very curvy areas by blasting through rock, building elevated structures so that 300km/h ish travel is possible in the future. (Thats why I mentioned Class 8 track in the existing straights, so you don't have to re-track. You could use class 5 in the curvy bits since we'd eventually be removing those and they wont be high speed compatible anyways) Speed = 177kmh top speed, but now average speed in 150kmh because we removed the big curves.

Then, remove all grade crossings, either with tunnels and bridges and or just dead ending small streets/dirt roads. Speed = 200 kmh because we removed at grade crossings.

Finally, add electrification catenary and buy some Alstom tilt HSR trains like they have on the NEC. Top speed = 300kmh.

If we started this in 2015 when HFR was announced, we would at LEAST have something by now. Maybe even the curves would already be eliminated by this point and removal of grade separations would have started.

This of course takes longer overall and does sometimes require the removal of existing work and redoing things, working around active rail lines (overall increased cost) but by doing piecemeal you both have something ready for use sooner, and it is much easier to fund through the government, which funds projects like this much better (releasing funds in yearly packages versus one lump sum cost) You kind of obfuscate the overall costs and its harder to cancel the whole project.
 
I was of the opinion of this back in 2015 when HFR was announced for $1 Billion and it was just diesel trains on dedicated tracks. Basically, just buy the corridors and do literally nothing but put down fresh tracks, perhaps even Class 8 track in straight portions, if what I say after this makes sense. Don't even build stations yet on it, just non stop express to Ottawa, Montreal, QC.

Then, tack on an order of Ventures on the existing order. And run a bunch of Ventures on the dedicated tracks. Could be done and completed in 3 years. Futureproof everything by planning to do HSR in the future. Speed = 177kmh top speed, average speed of 120kmh. No delays from freight.

Then, after that, continually upgrade and improve the line. First, build some stations at Peterborough etc.

Then, straighten out all the very curvy areas by blasting through rock, building elevated structures so that 300km/h ish travel is possible in the future. (Thats why I mentioned Class 8 track in the existing straights, so you don't have to re-track. You could use class 5 in the curvy bits since we'd eventually be removing those and they wont be high speed compatible anyways) Speed = 177kmh top speed, but now average speed in 150kmh because we removed the big curves.

Then, remove all grade crossings, either with tunnels and bridges and or just dead ending small streets/dirt roads. Speed = 200 kmh because we removed at grade crossings.

Finally, add electrification catenary and buy some Alstom tilt HSR trains like they have on the NEC. Top speed = 300kmh.

If we started this in 2015 when HFR was announced, we would at LEAST have something by now. Maybe even the curves would already be eliminated by this point and removal of grade separations would have started.

This of course takes longer overall and does sometimes require the removal of existing work and redoing things, working around active rail lines (overall increased cost) but by doing piecemeal you both have something ready for use sooner, and it is much easier to fund through the government, which funds projects like this much better (releasing funds in yearly packages versus one lump sum cost) You kind of obfuscate the overall costs and its harder to cancel the whole project.
You do realise that the exisisting VIA fleet already hits an average speed of 150km/h?

But yes, I agree with a lot of what you're suggesting.
 
The population density of the Windsor-Quebec Corridor is on par with countries like France and Spain.
But now we are really comparing apples and bananas, as we could also remove the regions without HSR in France and Spain and then the population denisty of these countries rises significantly…
Obviously the overall population is lower so we'll never have an HSR system as extensive as those countries.
Adjusted for population, it would get us quite close to France, though (I really need to update this graph, I know!):
IMG_7034.jpeg

There's a lot of talk of full high speed and future governments downsizing a bloated plan. But we still don't know what the plan is. It could be something more modest like the Alstom proposal where only certain sections are high speed and the rest is slower. With previous high speed proposals having travel times to Montreal of ~2.5 hours, the 3 hours being talked about now makes sense in the context of a more modest plan.
The Ecotrain study had 2:47 for Montreal-Toronto and I wouldn’t take anyone suggesting a faster travel time serious. So, no, 3 hours is by no means a “modest” target time and keep in mind that Berlin-Munich (same straight-line distance: 504 km) is still barely below 4 hours, even after upgrading 73% of the distance to HSR standards:
IMG_5897.jpeg


I just assumed the 3 hours vs 2.5 hours is because there is no direct Montreal-Toronto route, but it is routed through Ottawa? Rather than having a straightish line from Montreal to Toronto with a branch up to Ottawa, which would obviously be faster?
There. Will. Not. Be. A. Ottawa. Bypass. Within. Our. Lifetimes.

Here is why:
CPKC’s Winchester Subdivision measures 90 miles from De Beaujeu (MP 35) to Smiths Falls (MP 125). This means that such an Ottawa Bypass would add 145 km (or 25%) to the 580 km of rail infrastructure which needs to be built or upgraded between Toronto and Montreal. This is a considerable cost escalation.

At the same time every Toronto-Montreal train which bypasses Ottawa loses more TO and OM passengers than it gains TM passengers from cutting travel times by maybe 15 minutes, as I’ve shown here:
View attachment 597293

The Ottawa Bypass thus entails high incremental capital costs (when building it) and negative incremental revenues (when using it). It’s an absolute no-brainer to discard this idea as unviable.
 
Last edited:
At the same time, my recollection is that around the 3-hour mark, demand is very sensitive to changes in travel time.

And using the average cost per km to calculate the extra cost isn't really fully appropriate, as the new track for a bypass parallels existing CPKC rural track, and a lot of the $ in this proposal will be east of Peterborough, and alignment improvements and the entries into Montreal and Toronto. Not to mention various fixed costs.

They presumably have a transport demand model, and it should be straight forward to test the saved travel time versus the reduced frequency, to see how the operating revenue changes.
 
At the same time, my recollection is that around the 3-hour mark, demand is very sensitive to changes in travel time.
Agreed, but any Dollar wasted on building an Ottawa Bypass would unlock so much more revenues if used to speeding up Montreal-Ottawa and Ottawa-Toronto, thus benefitting all trains and not just (at most) 3-4 express trains per day. The TGV can cover the 538 km from Paris to Bordeaux (thus one km shorter than Montreal-Toronto bia the Kingston Sub) in just over 2 hours, so 3 hours is still highly feasible for the 580 km via Ottawa. It’s just a matter of who is willing to pay for such aggressive speeds, but it’s still much easier to find investors for such a fast Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal corridor than for commercial nonstarters like an Ottawa Bypass…
 

Back
Top