VIA Rail network developments

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Freight trains are fairly infrequent; freight companies like to have fewer trips with bigger trains. For this reason, CN doesn't really need a double tracked mainline. It can get by with one track with periodic sidings (like what VIA uses on its Ottawa-Montreal route) for all its traffic.

I disagree. If double track was so irreverent for freight, why would CN and CP have come up with "directional running" agreements for both the Fraser Canyon (between Ashcroft and Mission in BC) and in Northern Ontario (between Sudbury and Parry Sound), whereby all all eastbound trains use one railway's track and all west bound trains use the other's?

While delays waiting on a siding may not be as big a deal for freight as it is for passengers, it still cost the railways money. It also limits the length of trains to the length of the sidings (which is actually one reason why VIA trains sometimes have to wait, is the freight train is too long for the siding). It may not always be worth the cost of building double track, but if they already have it, they won't consider it irrelevant and freely give it up.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I finally found some information about the proposed route:

http://transport-action-ontario.com/...rt-2015-12.pdf

Transport Action seems to think the proposal follows the CP track for a while and then connects to the line through peterborough (which I believe LRTfriend has been suggesting).

I am curious how reliable this unknown source of Trasport Action's is? While it would be a good route for HSR, it doesn't match what Yves Desjardins-Siciliano has been saying about HFR servicing the cities between the major ones.

Here is my theory. VIA Rail took the 2011 HSR feasibility study, cut out all of the expensive bits required for 300 km/h trains and used that to create a budgetary estimate (in terms of both money and travel time) for HFR (the HSR study probably had enough information that they could just plug in new numbers to get a ball park estimate). It is quite possible that even though all the information they have released is based on this route, VIA Rail doesn't really want to use it and is keeping their options open to use a different route that hasn't been studied. This would explain both the travel times and the secrecy of the route.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I disagree. If double track was so irreverent for freight, why would CN and CP have come up with "directional running" agreements for both the Fraser Canyon (between Ashcroft and Mission in BC) and in Northern Ontario (between Sudbury and Parry Sound), whereby all all eastbound trains use one railway's track and all west bound trains use the other's?

Because those two corridors actually require double tracks much more so than the Kingston Subdivision does, because those two sections of track are part of the transcontinental corridor which is VERY long, so scheduling is very constrained; furthermore, there's both CN and CP traffic to worry about, whereas the Kingston Subdivision is CN only.

If it weren't for VIA traffic, CN would probably not even need the sidings, given that they only send freights through a few times a day and it only takes 4 hours to go from Toronto to Montreal.

This sort of directional running arrangement you described, however, been proposed for the tracks between Toronto and Belleville where the CN and CP lines are very close together; it's called the "Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation" and it's mostly been advocated by the City of Belleville as a way to remove the CP corridor from Belleville's waterfront.

Originally Posted by roger1818

While delays waiting on a siding may not be as big a deal for freight as it is for passengers, it still cost the railways money. It also limits the length of trains to the length of the sidings (which is actually one reason why VIA trains sometimes have to wait, is the freight train is too long for the siding).

The sidings just have to be long enough. Building long sidings is still cheaper than building an entire extra track.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It may not always be worth the cost of building double track, but if they already have it, they won't consider it irrelevant and freely give it up.

That's not how CN and CP work, at all. They're always actively looking to get rid of any track they don't need anymore, or that they feel could be put to a more profitable use. CP tore up the tracks out Pembroke even though there were customers using it, because they figured those tracks could net a higher profit margin if repurposed to build new tracks around the Alberta oilpatch.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by waterloowarrior

I thought the Cataraqui Trail follows an old rail line to Smiths Falls. It connects to the K&P just north of Kingston in Harrowsmith.

The problem with the K&P is that it basically heads north west from Kingston to Harrowsmith. It is better than the Brockville Subdivision as the K&P is only about 18 km (as the crow flies) as opposed to the Brockville Sub's 46 km in approximately the same direction.

For those interested in old routes, Natural Resources Canada have a map (in both PDF and JPG) of the Ontario and Quebec Railway Territories from a 1915 Atlas.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Because those two corridors actually require double tracks much more so than the Kingston Subdivision does, because those two sections of track are part of the transcontinental corridor which is VERY long, so scheduling is very constrained; furthermore, there's both CN and CP traffic to worry about, whereas the Kingston Subdivision is CN only.

If it weren't for VIA traffic, CN would probably not even need the sidings, given that they only send freights through a few times a day and it only takes 4 hours to go from Toronto to Montreal.

This sort of directional running arrangement you described, however, been proposed for the tracks between Toronto and Belleville where the CN and CP lines are very close together; it's called the "Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation" and it's mostly been advocated by the City of Belleville as a way to remove the CP corridor from Belleville's waterfront.



The sidings just have to be long enough. Building long sidings is still cheaper than building an entire extra track.



That's not how CN and CP work, at all. They're always actively looking to get rid of any track they don't need anymore, or that they feel could be put to a more profitable use. CP tore up the tracks out Pembroke even though there were customers using it, because they figured those tracks could net a higher profit margin if repurposed to build new tracks around the Alberta oilpatch.

Regarding Belleville, that waterfront corridor would be *perfect* for passenger rail.

In Port Hope and Cobourg they make no difference, except for the fact the CN corridor is twinned and the CP corridor is single track (important in Port Hope due to the long bridges). Personally, I would build 2 new tracks (for freight) near the 401, abandon at least part of the CP route through town (get freight trains out of downtown) and use the CN route for VIA/HSR there. Between Trenton and Colborne, the tracks would flip, with passenger rail on the CP line through Trenton and Belleville (twinned) as that line is much closer to the downtown areas.

From Shannonville to Kingston, widening the CN ROW to 4 tracks would be necessary as the CP line diverges. One thought for Kingston, in order to serve downtown directly: twin/upgrade the little used waterfront spur, then run it in a tunnel underneath King Street to a downtown/waterfront station, then rise it back along the old K&P ROW to rejoin the CN ROW...only challenge there might be cost since that would be an expensive proposition.

[lrt's friend]

It makes no sense reusing the waterfront Kingston station when the object is to increase speed. That requires stations to allow trains to run through the station and not having to use a spur that they then have to back out of into order to continue the trip. That is the advantage of Ottawa's current two stations when compared to the old downtown Union Station.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

Because those two corridors actually require double tracks much more so than the Kingston Subdivision does, because those two sections of track are part of the transcontinental corridor which is VERY long, so scheduling is very constrained; furthermore, there's both CN and CP traffic to worry about, whereas the Kingston Subdivision is CN only.

The Kingston Subdivision is on the transcontinental corridor. It is the only link on the CN network from points west (Western Canada, Chicago, New Orleans) to points east (Atlantic Canada, Montreal, New York, etc).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I am curious how reliable this unknown source of Trasport Action's is? While it would be a good route for HSR, it doesn't match what Yves Desjardins-Siciliano has been saying about HFR servicing the cities between the major ones.

Here is my theory. VIA Rail took the 2011 HSR feasibility study, cut out all of the expensive bits required for 300 km/h trains and used that to create a budgetary estimate (in terms of both money and travel time) for HFR (the HSR study probably had enough information that they could just plug in new numbers to get a ball park estimate). It is quite possible that even though all the information they have released is based on this route, VIA Rail doesn't really want to use it and is keeping their options open to use a different route that hasn't been studied. This would explain both the travel times and the secrecy of the route.

That's a good theory.

I think the dilemma they have is that any use of the lakeshore line and conventional speeds pretty much offers no benefit to Toronto-Montreal travelers (because whatever gains they get from eliminating bottlenecks will be cancelled out by going out of their way to get to Ottawa), so they need either high speeds (big $$$) or a shorter route and the only way to get a shorter route is to bypass lakeshore communities, which will piss people off.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

This sort of directional running arrangement you described, however, been proposed for the tracks between Toronto and Belleville where the CN and CP lines are very close together; it's called the "Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation" and it's mostly been advocated by the City of Belleville as a way to remove the CP corridor from Belleville's waterfront.

The only reference I can find to the "Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation" either directly or indirectly relates to a publication by Transport Action Canada called The VIA 1-4-10 Plan (written in November 2015 by Greg Gormick) as part of the author's "High-Performance Rail Alternative" [to VIA's HFR proposal]. While it is an impressive looking document, what is conspicuous in its absence, are references of any type. Maybe the anther did thorough research and just couldn't be bothered to list his sources, or maybe the entire document is an opinion piece that is written to look like a factual document. I just can't tell.

Interestingly it is also Mr. Gormick who is claiming the VIA Rail wants to use the Peterborough route in the link provided by acottawa. Maybe everything is above board, but something just doesn't smell right with all of Mr. Gormick's claims.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Kingston Subdivision is on the transcontinental corridor. It is the only link on the CN network from points west (Western Canada, Chicago, New Orleans) to points east (Atlantic Canada, Montreal, New York, etc).

Yes, but most of the traffic on the Kingston sub is bound for long stops in Toronto or Montreal; whereas trips in Northern Ontario or the Fraser Valley are generally on more or less uninterrupted trips across thousands of kilometres. This makes it a lot easier to predict scheduling, because the trip wasn't started four days ago.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The only reference I can find to the "Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation" either directly or indirectly relates to a publication by Transport Action Canada called The VIA 1-4-10 Plan (written in November 2015 by Greg Gormick) as part of the author's "High-Performance Rail Alternative" [to VIA's HFR proposal]. While it is an impressive looking document, what is conspicuous in its absence, are references of any type. Maybe the anther did thorough research and just couldn't be bothered to list his sources, or maybe the entire document is an opinion piece that is written to look like a factual document. I just can't tell.

Interestingly it is also Mr. Gormick who is claiming the VIA Rail wants to use the Peterborough route in the link provided by acottawa. Maybe everything is above board, but something just doesn't smell right with all of Mr. Gormick's claims.

Gormick has always had his head in the clouds.. but he didn't invent the Shannonville-Newcastle Line Consolidation idea. It was first floated by either CP or the City of Belleville around 2000 or so in discussions about problems with Belleville's waterfront railway. If you're looking for references check Belleville's council records, it will be in there probably.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

It was first floated by either CP or the City of Belleville around 2000 or so in discussions about problems with Belleville's waterfront railway.

Either are certainly possible. The trick is getting CN on side as there is little benefit for them to have CP use their track, unless they are well compensated financially. Even then it may not be enough.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Off to Quebec City this weekend on the Rock and roll renaissance car.

Currently on train 32 from Ottawa to Montreal on renaissance cars. Its my first expereince with them (this route usually uses LRCs). Here are some of my observations:

• You can only bring one piece of lugage onboard, but they do offer checked baggage. Nice for those who have large luggage, but not so good for those who are travelling light with a small suitcase and a laptop bag.
• The strange seat/floor configuration is cramped for those with long legs, though it look like I could have fit my suitcase under my seat and my laptop in the overhead compartment .
• Ironically, there is more space between seats though for using a laptop and the tild doesn't affect this as, like the new LRC seats, they slide forward to told rather than lean back.
• The decor looks like something out of the 70's which is strange considering they are much newer than that.
• And yes, they do seem to rock and roll more than the LRCs. My guess is the tilt mechnism is beeing fooled by bumps in the track and thinking the train is going into a curve.

Overall, I much prefer the LRCs, especially the newly renovated ones.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Currently on train 32 from Ottawa to Montreal on renaissance cars. Its my first expereince with them (this route usually uses LRCs).

Wow, my return trip is also on Renaissance cars. I take the train to Montreal about 4 or 5 times a year and have always used LRCs so something must have changed.

I gather this train was originally scheduled to be on LRCs as a bunch of passengers had seat assignments that didn't exist (the Renaissance cars have fewer seats than LRCs). For that reason alone, replacing all of the corridor triansets with one standardized type will give VIA more flexibility to reallocate trainsets. Bi-directional operation would also be very helpful. The train was continuing on from Quebec City, so it had to back out of the station onto the Victoria Bridge to use a wye to turn around. The new trains would be able to continue on normally, running in the opposite direction, reducing the travel time.

[roger1818]

I'm wondering if the Renaissance cars aren't allowed to travel at the full 160 km/h that the LRC's travel? The train left Montreal early, and while there was a delay getting to Dorval (4 min) due to congestion, it seemed normal after that (we didn't even have to come to a full stop to let train 38 pass and I didn't even notice train 28), yet it was even later at Alexandria (12 min), and is scheduled to be even later still into Ottawa (14 min). Normally the LRC's can make up time, not lose it.

[Aylmer]

I suspect we might currently be on the same train 37

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm wondering if the Renaissance cars aren't allowed to travel at the full 160 km/h that the LRC's travel? The train left Montreal early, and while there was a delay getting to Dorval (4 min) due to congestion, it seemed normal after that (we didn't even have to come to a full stop to let train 38 pass and I didn't even notice train 28), yet it was even later at Alexandria (12 min), and is scheduled to be even later still into Ottawa (14 min). Normally the LRC's can make up time, not lose it.

I travelled at an indicated 159 km/h on a renaissance between casselman and Ottawa last month.

[eemy]

They've been mentioning that GO Transit and TTC schedules are delayed due to the heat; perhaps VIA is similarly affected?

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Aylmer

I suspect we might currently be on the same train 37

Yup. That's the train I was on.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by jeremy_haak

They've been mentioning that GO Transit and TTC schedules are delayed due to the heat; perhaps VIA is similarly affected?

Good point. Hot weather can create sun kinks in the track (especially when the sun is shining directly on the track). Here is a video explaining them. Its probably one reason why rail lines often have a row of trees beside the track.

• Video Link