News   Apr 01, 2026
UrbanToronto Explores the State of Environment with Special Features Throughout April
 40     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
UTPro Crane Report Q1 2026: Year-to-Year Dip, But Quarterly Rise
 306     0 
News   Apr 01, 2026
Transit Progress and Tall Towers Made Headlines in March, 2026
 548     0 

VIA Rail

Remember kids, IF it costs Ott one hundred billion , it will result in spending ten billion more due to Smith demnding, & rightfully so, the CGY/EDM/BF route be completely funded by Ott.

When it comes to bribing CN/CP, they might be more receptive then you think. Their business is much more geered to getting their products to ports ie BC/Mon/Hfx while the Corridor is not very importnt or not enough tht some nice bribes/coercion would force them to work together on certin routes in the Corridor. It would end up being much more cost/time effective. The line is there & some bribes would let us use it right now while spending pennies on the Loonie then building from scrtch.
 
robmausser said:
People fail to understand just how cost prohibitive expropriations are in our country.
Click to expand...
This isn’t a Canadian problem, rather a problem many developed western countries face. Property values are higher as cities urbanize, look to NYC with the 2nd ave subway. Not sure how you can avoid compensating people for expropriating land unless you proactively buy land before values have risen
 
ssiguy2 said:
Remember kids, IF it costs Ott one hundred billion , it will result in spending ten billion more due to Smith demnding, & rightfully so, the CGY/EDM/BF route be completely funded by Ott.

When it comes to bribing CN/CP, they might be more receptive then you think. Their business is much more geered to getting their products to ports ie BC/Mon/Hfx while the Corridor is not very importnt or not enough tht some nice bribes/coercion would force them to work together on certin routes in the Corridor. It would end up being much more cost/time effective. The line is there & some bribes would let us use it right now while spending pennies on the Loonie then building from scrtch.
Click to expand...
Maybe one of them could even be bribed to reactivate the line through the Ottawa Valley to bypass the Toronto-Montreal section to allow more space for passenger trains. I wouldn't doubt both of them could figure out whether that would be worth operating it again.
 
smallspy said:
And don't kid yourself - the line is not flat. Not even remotely close. Just look at Paul's analysis for proof of that.
Click to expand...
Yeah 0.6% isn't nothing, yes not at steep as the limehouse hill but it's substantial enough that if you encounter wet rail + fall leaves you are not gonna have a fun time.
smallspy said:
There seems to be nothing in the timetable or GOIs that indicate that this is the case.
Click to expand...
It's just rule 42 gbo not a PSO in which everyone would get a bulletin regarding that
 
Bordercollie said:
Why did they remove the Sanders from the F40's? I guess that computer controlled traction control doesn't help.
Click to expand...
Not just the F40s, but the P42s as well.

An earlier regime at VIA decided that they didn't need them in an effort to reduce maintenance. And so they were plugged and cut out, and later removed altogether.

Krypto98 said:
Yeah 0.6% isn't nothing, yes not at steep as the limehouse hill but it's substantial enough that if you encounter wet rail + fall leaves you are not gonna have a fun time.
Click to expand...
And keep in mind that in some ways it's trickier with passenger equipment than with freight equipment. Passenger locos have a far lower starting tractive effort, and a far higher "transition" point than freight locos.

That, coupled with the lack of sanders on the VIA locos, means that they can sometimes get into some pretty hairy situations.

Dan
 
smallspy said:
Not just the F40s, but the P42s as well.

An earlier regime at VIA decided that they didn't need them in an effort to reduce maintenance. And so they were plugged and cut out, and later removed altogether.


And keep in mind that in some ways it's trickier with passenger equipment than with freight equipment. Passenger locos have a far lower starting tractive effort, and a far higher "transition" point than freight locos.

That, coupled with the lack of sanders on the VIA locos, means that they can sometimes get into some pretty hairy situations.

Dan
Click to expand...
Interesting that GO decided to keep sanders but VIA removed them .
 
Urban Sky said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree - for a more vanilla HFR, none of this is as critical. It does matter for HSR because if the plan really were to reach 3 hour Toronto-Montreal, the approaches can't have any significant delays that eat up that time.... and even a single 45 mph turnout becomes a significant time waster. The current 15 mph limits on the approach to Montreal Central, and the potential for tight 15 mph curvature from the Uxbridge Sub up to Agincourt, must be avoided in any scenario.

To my mind, those grade separations and added track do need to be a priority even for HFR.... unless CN and CPKC are far more amenable to getting out of the way than I suspect, a conflict every half hour will be problemmatic.

Urban Sky said:
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).
Click to expand...

To my mind, HSR ought to have trains up to "moderate" speed (150 km/h-ish) very soon after leaving the terminal, and thereafter not encumbered by slow orders below that point.

A complicating factor may be the desire for "suburban" stops in east end GTA and near Dorval - the leg between the central station and the suburban stop need not be full HSR quality because the time saved is trivial. However, there is a risk that if that fact leads to tolerating the current track and turnout speeds, the first 12-15 miles at each end will be inappropriately slow. It boils down to how much money one would allocate to improve those approaches.

I note that H2 plans a fairly major station in west end London, albeit with dedicated trackage from there to Euston. I recall Heathrow Express reaching 100 mph on its dash to Paddington. That range of speed and dedicated trackage seems like a good model to work from.

- Paul
 
smallspy said:
Not just the F40s, but the P42s as well.

An earlier regime at VIA decided that they didn't need them in an effort to reduce maintenance. And so they were plugged and cut out, and later removed altogether.


And keep in mind that in some ways it's trickier with passenger equipment than with freight equipment. Passenger locos have a far lower starting tractive effort, and a far higher "transition" point than freight locos.

That, coupled with the lack of sanders on the VIA locos, means that they can sometimes get into some pretty hairy situations.

Dan
Click to expand...
Dan, is Sandite application a thing in Canada? Might be a way to work around the lack of locomotive sanders.
 
Urban Sky said:
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…
Click to expand...
I did notice the wealth of space in Agincourt Yard, I wasn't concerned about that, more just about the general co-operation needed from CP to go through Belleville sub and Agincourt Yard. I understand that CP is happy to have us upgrade Havelock for them. I guess you think they're willing to work with the feds to quad track Belleville sub?

Obviously I'm not a railroad guy, but I lurk here and like to stare at maps and wonder what's possible, while trying to stay away from fantasyland.
 
ARG1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Cote-de-Liesse? That seems to be a poor choice to me. think in the mind of most Montrealers, Cote-de-Liesse runs from Dorval to Decarie. Most think of that section of "Cote-de-Liesse" as the A40 sliproad.

But perhaps the biggest issue, is that the station is over a half-kilometre to Cote-de-Liesse! That makes the Greenwood station name almost seem reasonable.

Though looking on the map - it's hard to see a decent name. Partially because there doesn't seem to be any vehicular access to the station (though I suppose extending Canora Road is a possibility). It's like the old York University GO station, stuck behind industrial buildings - hopefully there'll be a pedestrian pathway.

It doesn't look like a likely place to see a TOD. Obviously it wouldn't be there if it wasn't for the Repentigny commuter train. I think they'd have been better served to move the half-kilometre to the south - though that's a challenging spot with Cote-de-Liesse dead-ending at the tracks on both sides - similar to the old SRT stations at Lawrence East and and Ellesmere.
 
dowlingm said:
Dan, is Sandite application a thing in Canada? Might be a way to work around the lack of locomotive sanders.
Click to expand...
I've only heard of it being used in very limited testing applications in North America. Keep in mind though, the reason why its done in places like England specifically is due to the lack of sanding equipment on almost all rolling stock. That isn't the case here.

Dan
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top