VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I agree. Even if they could match the 2.5 hour travel time (to South Edmonton) of the service prior to 1990

If they build Class 6 track, there's just no reason why they can't make that trip in about 2 hrs from centre to centre. And no grade separation would be needed at crossings.

Originally Posted by roger1818

...with 4 daily departures (instead of 2 on weekdays and 1 on weekends) and keep the reliability high, it could work and give something to build upon.

If they had a dedicated corridor? Hourly service. Size the train accordingly. A three car DEMU or BEMU in each direction every hour is what I would imagine. Or even just a train with a loco, two cars and a cab car. Their limits on frequency basically come down to sharing agreements with freight in and near cities.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Getting to downtown Edmonton could be an issue though.

This is why I said under $3B and not under $1B. Tunneling roll be needed in the cities.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not suggesting HSR for Calgary-Edmonton. Demand doesn't justify it. I think the concept of HFR works there. Just fast enough to avoid grade separation requirements in most places. Done right, that should be a 2 hr trip downtown to downtown. And probably under $3 billion. It would definitely steal a fair bit from the airlines, buses and driving. And would probably develop a solid commuter market out of Red Deer. It's an idea that could get thousands of riders per day. Probably negative return on the capital costs. But would be operationally profitable. And net benefit on externalities.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Sorry. I didn't mean to imply that you were. My reference was that the study was for HSR.

I agree. Even if they could match the 2.5 hour travel time (to South Edmonton) of the service prior to 1990 with 4 daily departures (instead of 2 on weekdays and 1 on weekends) and keep the reliability high, it could work and give something to build upon.

Getting to downtown Edmonton could be an issue though.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they build Class 6 track, there's just no reason why they can't make that trip in about 2 hrs from centre to centre. And no grade separation would be needed at crossings.

If they had a dedicated corridor? Hourly service. Size the train accordingly. A three car DEMU or BEMU in each direction every hour is what I would imagine. Or even just a train with a loco, two cars and a cab car. Their limits on frequency basically come down to sharing agreements with freight in and near cities.

This is why I said under $3B and not under $1B. Tunneling roll be needed in the cities.

They would only need to tunnel in Edmonton as there is still tracks to downtown Calgary.

I'll need to look more into it, but I am not certain that the existing line between the cities is very busy, so, a passenger train ruing 4-10 times a day might not be much of a fit.

Building a new line would have the already pissed off people who think their taxes are being wasted cry fowl. That is why using existing rails, upgrading them as needed would be the better thing politically.

If this were the only line brought in, I would add a few things to it....
1) realign the Canadian so that it stops at the new downtown Edmonton station. This would means someone from Calgary could catch the Canadian if they wanted to.

2) The Jasper-Prince Rupert train, have it terminate in Edmonton. For much of the same reasons. If the 2 are left as not dailies, have them alternate days so that getting to/from Jasper by train is possible daily.

3) Extend the new service to Banff and Lake Louis. 9 million people a year, with 80% going in June July and August could see this as a great way to avoid the traffic.

The Calgary-Edmonton train shut down as part of the cuts in 1989. It is clear this should not have happened. If it were still running, it might have double it's former ridership.

For the southern Canadian, that is a messier situation.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they build Class 6 track, there's just no reason why they can't make that trip in about 2 hrs from centre to centre. And no grade separation would be needed at crossings.

AFAIK, Transport Canada doesn't allow Class 6 without grade separation. Even in the US, while level crossings are permitted, the barriers that are needed for Class 6 are so expensive, you might as well go for grade separation and that gives you an upgrade path to even higher classes.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If they had a dedicated corridor? Hourly service. Size the train accordingly. A three car DEMU or BEMU in each direction every hour is what I would imagine. Or even just a train with a loco, two cars and a cab car. Their limits on frequency basically come down to sharing agreements with freight in and near cities.

The question is, how easily can they get a dedicated corridor. The HFR plan uses underutilized or abandoned corridors. I don't know how easily that could be found between Calgary and Edmonton. The costs would skyrocket if they needed to use a greenfield corridor.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

They would only need to tunnel in Edmonton as there is still tracks to downtown Calgary.

I guess it depends if they want to reroute the line through YYC and have a more direct route downtown.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I'll need to look more into it, but I am not certain that the existing line between the cities is very busy, so, a passenger train ruing 4-10 times a day might not be much of a fit.

That is the big question. How busy are CP's Leduc and Red Deer Subs? Could they shift their operations at night or use CN's Camrose and Three Hills subs?

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If this were the only line brought in, I would add a few things to it....
1) realign the Canadian so that it stops at the new downtown Edmonton station. This would means someone from Calgary could catch the Canadian if they wanted to.

Not sure if it would be worth the cost, but maybe. I would suggest it be done later rather than risk having the whole project scrapped because this option makes the project too expensive.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

2) The Jasper-Prince Rupert train, have it terminate in Edmonton. For much of the same reasons. If the 2 are left as not dailies, have them alternate days so that getting to/from Jasper by train is possible daily.

The Jasper-Prince Rupert train is already run as 2, daytime trains. VIA's 2019 schedule says it is about 6.5 hours between Edmonton and Jasper. I don't know how feasible it is to add that to the aprox. 7.5 hours between Jasper and Prince George. You would likely end up having to run it over a third day.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

3) Extend the new service to Banff and Lake Louis. 9 million people a year, with 80% going in June July and August could see this as a great way to avoid the traffic.

The Banff part at least is being proposed as a separate project. If it is already complete, then sure. If not, once again I would suggest it be done later rather than risk having the whole project scrapped because this extension makes the project too expensive.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Calgary-Edmonton train shut down as part of the cuts in 1989. It is clear this should not have happened. If it were still running, it might have double it's former ridership.

No point crying over split milk.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For the southern Canadian, that is a messier situation.

Agreed. Lets take things 1 step at a time and not over-complicate things.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The Calgary-Edmonton train shut down as part of the cuts in 1989. It is clear this should not have happened. If it were still running, it might have double it's former ridership.

I think you might be misremembering some history here....

On January 15, 1984, Transport Minister Don Mazankowski announced the indefinite suspension of Edmonton-Calgary service. Eleven Dayliner accidents in the previous two years led Edmonton's mayor of the day Laurence Decore to state "It's a seedy, tacky service used by very few people. Its 200 level crossings make it an absolute calamity that has caused too many deaths." Even with $1,000,000 in Alberta government spending and the elimination of 12 grade crossings, the Dayliner made its last run on September 6, 1985. The unsuitability of the South Edmonton station, four miles from the VIA (ex-CN) Edmonton station, as well as competition from road and air travel contributed to the service's demise. Though there have been efforts to start a High-Speed Rail intercity service, since the competition is still out there, this would seem unlikely! Check out Part 2 of this series for photos and which RDC's were in use when.

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2014/04/vias-calgary-edmonton-rdcs-part-1.html?m=1

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

AFAIK, Transport Canada doesn't allow Class 6 without grade separation. Even in the US, while level crossings are permitted, the barriers that are needed for Class 6 are so expensive, you might as well go for grade separation and that gives you an upgrade path to even higher classes.

If that's the case, then how exactly are they engineering HFR, because last I checked, this was the whole premise behind the project: minimal cost by avoiding grade separation and land acquisition.

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is, how easily can they get a dedicated corridor. The HFR plan uses underutilized or abandoned corridors. I don't know how easily that could be found between Calgary and Edmonton. The costs would skyrocket if they needed to use a greenfield corridor.

They'll need a new line and possibly new corridor. It won't be cheap. Like I said, probably $2-3B. Which is not cheap, considering that HFR is over $4B for nearly double the distance. But it's marginally defensible on economic development grounds and might get Albertans to stop whining that the feds never do anything good for their province.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

If that's the case, then how exactly are they engineering HFR, because last I checked, this was the whole premise behind the project: minimal cost by avoiding grade separation and land acquisition.

Hmm. My original thought was that they were planning using class 5 track, since the HFR route from Ottawa to Toronto is almost exactly 400km, so to do it in 3 hours 15 minutes, needs an average speed of 123 km/h. That seemed to me to be reasonable for track with a top speed of 161 km/h (about 76% of top speed).

However, as I started to do some research into this and found a couple interesting references. First of all, from VIA Rail HFR page:

The dedicated tracks would allow VIA Rail to have control over frequencies, speeds, and traffic priorities. For example, trains could travel at speeds of up to 177 kilometres per hour (or 110 miles per hour), reducing travel times from Ottawa to Toronto to as low as 3 hours and 15 minutes from current travel times of approximately 4 hours and 30 minutes.

That is the speed limit of class 6 track, so it sounds like they are hoping to use it.

I also found this reference from SYSTRA saying, "VIA Rail hired SYSTRA Canada to develop track maintenance standards for Canadian railways for high-speed lines (classes 6 to 9)."

Given that Transport Canada's Subpart A - Classes of Track doesn't seem to have any reference to Class 6 track, maybe VIA is building a case to have TC allow class 6 track without grade separation. It is also possible that they will only use class 6 track where no (or very few) grade separations are necessary and class 5 everywhere else.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I think you might be misremembering some history here....



http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com/2014/04/vias-calgary-edmonton-rdcs-part-1.html?m=1

Sorry, I did not know exactly when, but I knew it was gone by the 90s. I have a folder of all the old train schedules. I would have looked there to confirm.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is, how easily can they get a dedicated corridor. The HFR plan uses underutilized or abandoned corridors. I don't know how easily that could be found between Calgary and Edmonton. The costs would skyrocket if they needed to use a greenfield corridor

I guess it depends if they want to reroute the line through YYC and have a more direct route downtown.

As far as I can see, there are no abandoned corridors to utilize. Either this uses an existing corridor or it is a new alignment. The cost of land for the new alignment could easily push this well over $5 billion after everything is built.

Having it skirt around the city may actually allow for more stops, which may mean more ridership.

Originally Posted by roger1818

That is the big question. How busy are CP's Leduc and Red Deer Subs? Could they shift their operations at night or use CN's Camrose and Three Hills subs?

One other idea would be to simply add a dedicated track within the existing ROW. That might make appealing to CP, and also make it less at risk for delays. The question is whether the ROW is wide enough for it.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Not sure if it would be worth the cost, but maybe. I would suggest it be done later rather than risk having the whole project scrapped because this option makes the project too expensive.

The Jasper-Prince Rupert train is already run as 2, daytime trains. VIA's 2019 schedule says it is about 6.5 hours between Edmonton and Jasper. I don't know how feasible it is to add that to the aprox. 7.5 hours between Jasper and Prince George. You would likely end up having to run it over a third day.

The Banff part at least is being proposed as a separate project. If it is already complete, then sure. If not, once again I would suggest it be done later rather than risk having the whole project scrapped because this extension makes the project too expensive.

Al of these would be things that could be done later. I am just looking further than just getting a line between the 2 cities. I am looking at ways to make the whole system work better for everyone.

Originally Posted by roger1818

No point crying over split milk.

Agreed. Lets take things 1 step at a time and not over-complicate things.

I don't worry about what could have been, but instead look at what could work.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Thank you for a number.

I figured on a much shorter train than the 20+ cars you suggest. Why not a single engine with 3-5 cars once a day? That would be 4-8 buses a day.

This is also why they should make a smaller Canadian and run that.

I doubt you even need that. Just use DMUs like on the Trillium Line. That way, you can also have better frequency with more of the seats filled on each train.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I doubt you even need that. Just use DMUs like on the Trillium Line. That way, you can also have better frequency with more of the seats filled on each train.

If we could find one that meets our TC standards for crash worthiness. A simple engine plus cars works well too.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The question is, how easily can they get a dedicated corridor. The HFR plan uses underutilized or abandoned corridors. I don't know how easily that could be found between Calgary and Edmonton. The costs would skyrocket if they needed to use a greenfield corridor.

I guess it depends if they want to reroute the line through YYC and have a more direct route downtown.

Can't they just run the trains on the LRT tracks? Or would that violate Transport Canada regulations?

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Can't they just run the trains on the LRT tracks? Or would that violate Transport Canada regulations?

As far as I understand it, doing so would be a mess. The Via trains would need to meet TC standards for a mainline train, and be bi mode. And then it brings into question the crash worthiness of the LRVs. I have heard of it being done elsewhere, but I cannot remember where or how they do it. However, if we are talking about one day having high frequency on Via, it would be a choke point. If it must go downtown, a better answer is to have it's own tunnel in.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As far as I understand it, doing so would be a mess. The Via trains would need to meet TC standards for a mainline train, and be bi mode. And then it brings into question the crash worthiness of the LRVs. I have heard of it being done elsewhere, but I cannot remember where or how they do it. However, if we are talking about one day having high frequency on Via, it would be a choke point. If it must go downtown, a better answer is to have it's own tunnel in.

A pretty big if on that corridor. It might be cheaper and easier to just add more tracks there, rather than dig a tunnel.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

A pretty big if on that corridor. It might be cheaper and easier to just add more tracks there, rather than dig a tunnel.

Why not refurbish the High Level Bridge? The upper deck was built for triple track (1 central track for the CPR and 2 outer tracks for street cars). Only the central track on the upper deck is used today by the High Level Bridge Streetcar, a historic streetcar. It shouldn’t be too difficult to twin the track so that both VIA and the streetcar could use it.

[roger1818]

Duplicate post

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Why not refurbish the High Level Bridge? The upper deck was built for triple track (1 central track for the CPR and 2 outer tracks for street cars). Only the central track on the upper deck is used today by the High Level Bridge Streetcar, a historic streetcar. It shouldn’t be too difficult to twin the track so that both VIA and the streetcar could use it.

That is an excellent idea!

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'll quantify it. If you can't fill the equivalent of two buses per hour (equal to 1.5 rail cars) for 80% of the route, no capital for construction should be spent. Limit service to a daily. Long haul bussing and driving can do the rest. If you can't fill 100 seats for 80% of the trip, your costs will be really high. Fare recovery ratio will be poor. And the whole service will become a giant moneypit. This is why I argue that there shouldn't be two parallel routes across the Prairies. Just one route.

I would actually go with a different heuristic. IMO, once traffic on the highways gets backed up enough that the province decides to twin the highway, that money should instead go to increasing passenger rail frequency, or at the very least, building some kind of intercity transitway.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I would actually go with a different heuristic. IMO, once traffic on the highways gets backed up enough that the province decides to twin the highway, that money should instead go to increasing passenger rail frequency, or at the very least, building some kind of intercity transitway.

That's a great way of looking at it. But at this point, most of the Trans-Canada could be a century out from this....

[Truenorth00]

The Joint Project Office is looking to hire public consultation experts. Was posted on Merx.

https://www.merx.com/solicitations/open-...gh-Frequency-Rail-HFR-Project/0000182905

So hopefully, they are at a point where the project is moving along and they will be doing public consultations next spring.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

I would actually go with a different heuristic. IMO, once traffic on the highways gets backed up enough that the province decides to twin the highway, that money should instead go to increasing passenger rail frequency, or at the very least, building some kind of intercity transitway.

That certainly fits in well with the Downs–Thomson paradox. As Truenorth00 says though, this won't become an issue on the vast majority of the Trans-Canada Highway for a very long time.

Having said that, there is a big difference between twinning a highway and widening it for increased capacity. Two lane highways can be dangerous and all you need is one slow farm vehicle to cause all sorts of problems that aren't really congestion related. Once you have a 4 lane highway, we should be looking for transit related solutions to congestion issues before further widening the highway.