Bojaxs
Senior Member
Lol! The government doesn't bribe CN/CPKC. CN/CPKC bribe the government.
|
|
|
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
Mr Finish Line
Active Member
Sorry this is a super late reply.
I understand and agree with the benefits of the Peterborough/Havelock route. What I was more asking about is the options to get out of Toronto to Peterborough. I thought the main options were
1) Don Branch to Belleville sub to Havelock.
2) Stouffville to Belleville sub to Havelock
1 and 2 have been talked about a lot on this thread and seem to have serious drawbacks. On 1 you need to get space in CP's mainline through the city and over their yard. On 2 you have the same problem, but you trade a shorter distance but need to somehow manage to turn onto the Belleville sub. And then with 2 you need to use LSE to get to Stouffville.
With smallspy's comment saying the LSE part is doable with signalling, that made me think there is a 3) with LSE all the way to 412 and then up to Havelock.
3) Seems to have some real benefits. You get all the way to Guildwood almost for free, not too much work to get to Pickering, and if you can squeeze in a few spots through to Hwy 412 then you have a straight shot up through farm/undeveloped land beside a highway to Havelock before Peterborough.
Urban Sky
Senior Member
VIA can’t sign property acquisition contracts without TC providing the necessary capital funding.
I suggest you obtain a recent satellite image from the Agincourt Yard. I also struggle to identify any of the other roadblocks which would make you consider building a ~20 km long new greenfield alignment, as you describe below:
What is the problem you are trying to fix here? LSE is going to be quadruple-tracked until at least Scarborough Junction, thus providing dedicated tracks for GO/VIA express trains, whereas I am not aware of plans for adding tracks between Guildwood and Pickering/Liverpool Junction. Conversely, the Stouffville Sub is a relatively short segment between Scarborough Junction and the Belleville Sub with a single stop, which could plausibly also be used by HxR services, due to its hub function…
crs1026
Superstar
It's remarkable to me how the UT discussion of the potential HxR route out of Toronto has been beaten to death, while the route into Montreal gets much less discussion.
There are exactly two double track routes over the Ottawa River at Ste Annes (both of them critical to freight) , a dubious tenancy on CPKC-CN from Dorion/Coteau to Ballantyne, and a fairly tortuous entry into Central Station through St-Henri.
If the premise is hourly service in each direction all day long, someone will need to design a way to get trains from the south to the north every half hour somewhere east of Dorion without conflicting with very long freight trains..... and just how willing will CPKC-CN be to share their capacity?
If the premise is HSR with a high premium on extra fast travel times, the project can't afford tight curves and freight interference.....anywhere.
That says to me that the Stouffville line routing is unacceptable for HSR, as the junction at Scarborough Jct and the curves up to Agincourt will be too slow speed. Also, there will have to be new bridges over rivers at both ends and flyovers/unders. A quite pricey proposition. But we shall see, hopefully soon.
- Pul
There are exactly two double track routes over the Ottawa River at Ste Annes (both of them critical to freight) , a dubious tenancy on CPKC-CN from Dorion/Coteau to Ballantyne, and a fairly tortuous entry into Central Station through St-Henri.
If the premise is hourly service in each direction all day long, someone will need to design a way to get trains from the south to the north every half hour somewhere east of Dorion without conflicting with very long freight trains..... and just how willing will CPKC-CN be to share their capacity?
If the premise is HSR with a high premium on extra fast travel times, the project can't afford tight curves and freight interference.....anywhere.
That says to me that the Stouffville line routing is unacceptable for HSR, as the junction at Scarborough Jct and the curves up to Agincourt will be too slow speed. Also, there will have to be new bridges over rivers at both ends and flyovers/unders. A quite pricey proposition. But we shall see, hopefully soon.
- Pul
Last edited:
lenaitch
Senior Member
Wouldn't that be Treasury Board (TB)? Transport Canada is the regulator - I wasn't aware they doled out money.
Allandale25
Senior Member
Not sure if this was posted yet
"RFQ- Long Distance Regional and Remote Fleet Replacement Project Locomotives"
"RFQ- Long Distance Regional and Remote Fleet Replacement Project Locomotives"
roger1818
Senior Member
That is probably because this is Urban Toronto, not Urban Montreal.
A while back I had suggested that maybe the consortium could build a south shore bypass for CPCK from De Beaujeu to their Adirondack Sub using existing and abandoned ROWs, in exchange for the Vaudreuil Sub et.al. I suspect that most of CPKC's freight isn't destined for the island of Montreal and they would still have access to the island via the Saint-Laurent railway bridge. Others dismissed the idea, saying capacity won't be a problem on the island, and if it is, it would be cheaper to add a 5th track from Dorion to Lachine, even with all the bridges and grade separations required.
smallspy
Senior Member
The Siemens equipment is equipped with sanders. They have far, far less trouble with slippery rail.
Guelph to Silver sees enough train movements that the rails are considerably cleaner. The VIAs therefore have less trouble out there.
And don't kid yourself - the line is not flat. Not even remotely close. Just look at Paul's analysis for proof of that.
Dan
Urban Sky
Senior Member
TC, TB, I don’t care which branch of the federal government is the hold-up which prevents VIA from purchasing the Western end of the Guelph Sub - even though it’s of course not that surprising as long as VIA only operates a daily train (84/87) over these tracks.
Either bridge will need to be replaced at some point. An agreement to share them could include a funding agreement for that eventual replacement, ensuring mutual benefits.
Dedicated VIA tracks could be built between Saine-Anne-de-Bellevue and until after Bannantyne (including a grade separation with the latter).
The remaining double-tracked gap between Saint-Henri could be closed, thus creating dedicated VIA tracks across the entire Montreal Island.
See my comment regarding the Ottawa River bridges. Interference is usually proportional to the differential of average speeds and the length of the shared tracks. Dorion to Sainte-Anne-de-Belleville is fairly short and does not allow high speeds, anyways.
In the long term, there will need to be grade separations to cross over the Belleville Sub near Agincourt and across the Vaudreuil Sub, as well as a dedicated Ottawa River crossing. I’m not convinced that all of that should be part if the initial scope, but if that makes HSR a non-starter (due to the inability to continously electrify the corridor), so be it.
In my view, it matters less how much the terminal speeds are (provided that the really small ones, like <80 km/h are minimized), but how long it takes until no more pesky GO trains are in the way and Higher Speeds (>160 km/h) can be reached - and I struggle to identify an alignment where such point would be reached faster than on the Havelock Sub (when approaching the Belleville Sub and Steeles Avenue East, respectively).
Last edited:
robmausser
Senior Member
20 billion? Youre looking at 100 billion each.
evandyk
Senior Member
Each company is worth about $100B in total. You could buy both companies outright for $100B each.
robmausser
Senior Member
And thats what would have to happen for HSR to exist on the Lakeshore route. Thats what Im saying. Anything short of an outright buyout will not be successful.
SashaLemon
Active Member
Not sure if this has been posted before, and sorry for interrupting the HSR talk, but there is a petition going right now concerning the Newcastle Subdivision and The Ocean service. If you don't mind taking a look at it and signing it that would be great.
https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-5107
https://www.ourcommons.ca/petitions/en/Petition/Details?Petition=e-5107
Bordercollie
Senior Member
Why did they remove the Sanders from the F40's? I guess that computer controlled traction control doesn't help.
ARG1
Senior Member
If by Correspondance A40 you mean Cote-de-Liesse station (ie, the station that the REM and Mascouche Lines will interchange at), it has a name: Cote-de-Liesse. It was only ever called Correspondance A40 during early planning when all they had was a rough alignment.