VIA Rail network developments

[Norman Bates]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I suspect what you are referring to as axis of motion is relating to lateral G's. When going around a corner, centrifugal force (a bit of a misnomer as it isn't a real force but a product of conservation of momentum) pushes you sideways. You can compensate for that by banking the track (vertical G's are easier to deal with). While this is common in Europe and Asia where HSR tracks are used exclusively by high speed trains, here in North America, the corners aren't banked. To compensate, the LRC trains will tilt to simulate banked corners. I gather the original active tilting system initially installed on the LRCs has been removed, but they likely still have passive tilting. The Renaissance cars likely don't as they were likely designed for banked tracks and overnight trains don't need to be fast (they usually end up waiting on a siding somewhere anyway to kill time).

Excellent. Thank you for sharing your superior knowledge.

Yes, it is my understanding that the active suspension in the LRC cars was disconnected some time ago. I remember once waiting at union station circa 2001 when the mechanism was being tested before pulling out. It was a noticeable tilt while sitting there.

As well, I recall the car behind mine on that trip taking a second or so longer to return to flat operation following a tilt. I heard that the mechanisms were prone to maintenance problems.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Norman Bates

Excellent. Thank you for sharing your superior knowledge.

Yes, it is my understanding that the active suspension in the LRC cars was disconnected some time ago. I remember once waiting at union station circa 2001 when the mechanism was being tested before pulling out. It was a noticeable tilt while sitting there.

As well, I recall the car behind mine on that trip taking a second or so longer to return to flat operation following a tilt. I heard that the mechanisms were prone to maintenance problems.

Wikipedia has an excellent article on it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LRC_(train)

I have also requested a book from the Library, New Departures: Rethinking Rail Passenger Policy in the Twenty-First Century, which I gather gives a good review of history.

[eternallyme]

I know the new Greenbank underpass has been fully constructed, and cars should relocate underneath it by this fall...

I believe either Strandherd or Merivale will be built next.

[Norman Bates]

Just back round trip from Quebec City on VIA. I must say that the Renaissance cars were much smoother this time. I was pleasantly surprised. Although leather seating would have been appreciated in business class.

I regularly observed speeds at 150 kph or higher between Quebec City and Montreal as well as Montreal and Ottawa.

Fastest observed speed was 159 kph between casselman and Ottawa.

[roger1818]

I don't think anyone has posted this link: VIA Rail's plan for dedicated tracks

In there, there is a link to the following You Tube video:

• Video Link

Two quotes from the video I find interesting are:

At 1:24:

dedicated tracks on which only passenger services run. When I say passenger services, I not only mean not only the VIA Rail Intercity Service, but the metropolitan or regional services of our partners; Metrolinx here in Toronto, AMT in Quebec

and

At 3:15:

3/4 of the trackage would be current trackage being acquired from freight railways or current right of ways that used to be trackage to be rehabilitated

[lrt's friend]

This entirely consistent with idea of running trains through Peterborough, by re-installing track from west of Perth to Havelock, and VIA acquiring the track from Havelock to Toronto from CP. This is not the main line for CP so not critical to their operations. This does not preclude the continued possibility of running freight trains on those track. What will change will be passenger train priority.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This entirely consistent with idea of running trains through Peterborough, by re-installing track from west of Perth to Havelock, and VIA acquiring the track from Havelock to Toronto from CP. This is not the main line for CP so not critical to their operations. This does not preclude the continued possibility of running freight trains on those track. What will change will be passenger train priority.

The fact that they still won't give even the most basic details about the plan is increasingly bizarre. I would like to see 1) a map 2) an agreement in principle with a freight company.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

This entirely consistent with idea of running trains through Peterborough, by re-installing track from west of Perth to Havelock, and VIA acquiring the track from Havelock to Toronto from CP. This is not the main line for CP so not critical to their operations. This does not preclude the continued possibility of running freight trains on those track. What will change will be passenger train priority.

The main problem with the Peterborough idea is cost. I don't even want to imagine how expensive a line through Peterborough would be... the track from Havelock to Toronto is in such poor shape that it would have to be entirely rebuilt and from there to Ottawa there's a new corridor required and there's no easy way to get from Havelock to Ottawa.

Using the Lakeshore route the whole project could probably be done for $2B-$3B through adding additional tracks, possibly even cheaper if CN and CP can work out a track sharing agreement for the Belleville sub. With the Peterborough option I can't see how it could be anything less than $5B.

The Peterborough route would be faster, true, but only by half an hour or so, not really worth an extra $2B+.

The Peterborough option fits with VIA's claims for travel time, but the Lakeshore option fits with VIA's claims for cost.. we won't know which is exaggerated until announcements are made.

[Kitchissippi]

GO Train has been eying the line to Peterborough for a while for expansion, and if they buy and improve it and make it available to VIA, it might make sense. The bigger problem would be Havelock to Glen Tay where they've ripped up the track and turned it into the TransCanada Trail. I heard CP had a 999 year lease on the ROW, I wonder where that's at.

If I had my druthers, I would straighten up the TransCanada Trail by turning the old OVR Carleton Place-Smiths Falls line to a trail that links to the Cataraqui trail, then the K&P to Kingston and integrate it with the Waterfront Trail towards Toronto. It makes no sense that it unnecessarily meanders through some unremarkable territory anyway. This would free up the ROW through Kaladar.

One remote option is to build some 30kms of new track between Tweed and the Belleville sub which would minimize the amount of rebuilding but that would probably cost quite a bit too.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The main problem with the Peterborough idea is cost. I don't even want to imagine how expensive a line through Peterborough would be... the track from Havelock to Toronto is in such poor shape that it would have to be entirely rebuilt and from there to Ottawa there's a new corridor required and there's no easy way to get from Havelock to Ottawa.

The other issues is the abandoned ROW from Havelock to Smith's Falls isn't very straight, making it more difficult to run even at 160 km/h and now that much of it is part of the Trans Canada Trail, getting the ROW back could be tough.

Using the Lakeshore route the whole project could probably be done for $2B-$3B through adding additional tracks, possibly even cheaper if CN and CP can work out a track sharing agreement for the Belleville sub. With the Peterborough option I can't see how it could be anything less than $5B.

With the right deal, I am sure VIA could get CP and CN to share track at least between New Castle and Bellville (their tracks are either parallel or close to it there). West of Oshawa, CN will have a high incentive to make a deal, with all of the GO and VIA trains on the line (both current and planned). With that in VIA's possession, the short stretch between Oshawa and New Castle looses a lot of value to CN, so a deal should be easy. It is east of Bellville that things will get a bit dicey.

The Peterborough route would be faster, true, but only by half an hour or so, not really worth an extra $2B+.

With the lower speeds (mentioned above), I am not sure it would be that much faster.

The Peterborough option fits with VIA's claims for travel time, but the Lakeshore option fits with VIA's claims for cost.. we won't know which is exaggerated until announcements are made.

My guess is the time savings will be had by using class 7 track in some sections, allowing 200km/h speeds. My guess is they won't upgrade class 5 double track, but sections that are below that or require new track will be class 7 (unless it is otherwise speed limited).

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by roger1818

With the right deal, I am sure VIA could get CP and CN to share track at least between New Castle and Bellville (their tracks are either parallel or close to it there). West of Oshawa, CN will have a high incentive to make a deal, with all of the GO and VIA trains on the line (both current and planned). With that in VIA's possession, the short stretch between Oshawa and New Castle looses a lot of value to CN, so a deal should be easy. It is east of Bellville that things will get a bit dicey.

GO already has their own tracks between Oshawa and Pickering... they built their own parallel set of tracks right next to the CN tracks back in the 1990s. From Pickering through Toronto, the corridor is fully owned by Metrolinx and there's very little freight there, in fact I don't think there is any at all.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The fact that they still won't give even the most basic details about the plan is increasingly bizarre. I would like to see 1) a map 2) an agreement in principle with a freight company.

My guess is they haven't finalized the deal to buy the track, and until it is finalized, they want to hold their cards tight to make changing routes easier.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

The main problem with the Peterborough idea is cost. I don't even want to imagine how expensive a line through Peterborough would be... the track from Havelock to Toronto is in such poor shape that it would have to be entirely rebuilt and from there to Ottawa there's a new corridor required and there's no easy way to get from Havelock to Ottawa.

Using the Lakeshore route the whole project could probably be done for $2B-$3B through adding additional tracks, possibly even cheaper if CN and CP can work out a track sharing agreement for the Belleville sub. With the Peterborough option I can't see how it could be anything less than $5B.

The Peterborough route would be faster, true, but only by half an hour or so, not really worth an extra $2B+.

The Peterborough option fits with VIA's claims for travel time, but the Lakeshore option fits with VIA's claims for cost.. we won't know which is exaggerated until announcements are made.

Also ridership would be much, much lower on the Highway 7 corridor. A good comparison is with highway traffic counts - the 401 never drops much below 30,000 from Prescott westward (from Kingston westward it is generally about 40,000 to Cobourg and rising higher from there), while Highway 7 between Perth and Havelock is around 4,000 to 5,500 (it rises rapidly east of Perth and west of Havelock). That alone suggests there is 6 to 10 times as much demand on the lakeshore route.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

My guess is they haven't finalized the deal to buy the track, and until it is finalized, they want to hold their cards tight to make changing routes easier.

Without a deal everything via is saying is pure speculation: the cost estimates, the technical requirements for the rolling stock, the ridership projections.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

GO already has their own tracks between Oshawa and Pickering... they built their own parallel set of tracks right next to the CN tracks back in the 1990s. From Pickering through Toronto, the corridor is fully owned by Metrolinx and there's very little freight there, in fact I don't think there is any at all.

I was wondering if that was the case, but couldn't find any references to confirm this. With a bit more digging, I found the reference: (Metrolinx acquires key commuter-rail segment of CN's Kingston Subdivision east of Toronto Union Station. From this, it seems as though CN still has operating rights on this track (presumably at night, when passenger trains aren't running):

We are pleased to have concluded this sales agreement to transfer a critical link in the commuter rail network to Metrolinx, while protecting CN's operating rights over this line to ensure continued service to its freight customers.

I assume VIA also uses the Metrolinx tracks. It is much easier to co-ordinate scheduls between intercity and commuter trains than it is with freight trains. They are both trying to follow tighter schedules and even though the GO trains are slower than the VIA trains, they are still much faster than freight trains.

I gather Metrolinx is wanting to extend the Lakeshore East to Bowmenville. If so, they would probably want to extend their dedicated tracks, VIA Rail could certainly piggyback off of that. The question is would they continue to follow the Kingston Subdivision and put the station south of the 401 (an awkward location) or would they cross the 401 and follow the CPR ROW into central Bowmenville.

Thinking about it, much of CP's Belleville Subdivision is single track. While not optimal, it might be more feasible for VIA to buy it from east of Oshawa to Bellville and have CP use CN's tracks. It would likely be easier for CP to share double tracks than have their own single track with sidings and I am sure it would be less headache for CN not have the pressure of passenger trains. VIA would have to replace the Port Hope, Cobourg, Trenton Jct. and Belleville stations.

[eternallyme]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was wondering if that was the case, but couldn't find any references to confirm this. With a bit more digging, I found the reference: (Metrolinx acquires key commuter-rail segment of CN's Kingston Subdivision east of Toronto Union Station. From this, it seems as though CN still has operating rights on this track (presumably at night, when passenger trains aren't running):



I assume VIA also uses the Metrolinx tracks. It is much easier to co-ordinate scheduls between intercity and commuter trains than it is with freight trains. They are both trying to follow tighter schedules and even though the GO trains are slower than the VIA trains, they are still much faster than freight trains.

I gather Metrolinx is wanting to extend the Lakeshore East to Bowmenville. If so, they would probably want to extend their dedicated tracks, VIA Rail could certainly piggyback off of that. The question is would they continue to follow the Kingston Subdivision and put the station south of the 401 (an awkward location) or would they cross the 401 and follow the CPR ROW into central Bowmenville.

Thinking about it, much of CP's Belleville Subdivision is single track. While not optimal, it might be more feasible for VIA to buy it from east of Oshawa to Bellville and have CP use CN's tracks. It would likely be easier for CP to share double tracks than have their own single track with sidings and I am sure it would be less headache for CN not have the pressure of passenger trains. VIA would have to replace the Port Hope, Cobourg, Trenton Jct. and Belleville stations.

In the GTA, most freight follows the corridor just south of Highway 407 so there are few conflicts between Union and Oshawa. I believe the plan is to shift the GO tracks to the CP corridor between Oshawa and Bowmanville to catch more ridership. As most of it is single track and no convenient reconnection to the CN line exists, 3 tracks would most likely be needed on that corridor (with 2 of them shared VIA/GO). It would be easy to extend that setup to Newcastle as well (and GO would have a cheap extension) where the track ROW's rejoin.

Regarding the "7 corridor", IIRC there has never been a track between Carleton Place and Perth, which makes it even more expensive to start that route since not only is ridership lower, you would have to build a track on a whole new ROW with expropriation, probably just south of Mississippi Lake, or divert it via Smiths Falls which takes some time away (and requires a second station there). Also there has never been a direct line between Sharbot Lake and Madoc so a new ROW would be needed there too, not just rebuilding on a trail ROW.

Not sure what CP's traffic in the 401 corridor is (I believe CN dominates freight in southern Ontario) but that is their only connection between east and west. Ideally, they would sell all their routes east of Toronto to CN (perhaps in exchange for CP having more in the west, i.e. an exclusive connection to Vancouver) so that VIA/Metrolinx could have that ROW.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Also ridership would be much, much lower on the Highway 7 corridor. A good comparison is with highway traffic counts - the 401 never drops much below 30,000 from Prescott westward (from Kingston westward it is generally about 40,000 to Cobourg and rising higher from there), while Highway 7 between Perth and Havelock is around 4,000 to 5,500 (it rises rapidly east of Perth and west of Havelock). That alone suggests there is 6 to 10 times as much demand on the lakeshore route.

I was thinking the same thing, but for different reasons (its hard to compare Hwy. 7 with the 401). Yes this route gains Peterborough (80,660), but the next largest city it gains is Perth (6,211). In return you lose: Oshawa (290,937), Kingston (117,787), Belleville (63,985), Quinte West (a.k.a. Trenton) (43,086), Brockville (23,354), Cobourg (18,519), Port Hope (12,230), and Napanee (7,221). All of which are larger than Perth. VIA's vision of HFR is to serve these middle cities and towns, not bypass them.

Population counts (in brackets) as of 2011 from Wikipedia.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was thinking the same thing, but for different reasons (its hard to compare Hwy. 7 with the 401). Yes this route gains Peterborough (80,660), but the next largest city it gains is Perth (6,211). In return you lose: Oshawa (290,937), Kingston (117,787), Belleville (63,985), Quinte West (a.k.a. Trenton) (43,086), Brockville (23,354), Cobourg (18,519), Port Hope (12,230), and Napanee (7,221). All of which are larger than Perth. VIA's vision of HFR is to serve these middle cities and towns, not bypass them.

Population counts (in brackets) as of 2011 from Wikipedia.

I look at this way. Even if the Peteborough route is used, this does not mean that service ends on the Lakeshore route, but then again, you do not need an hourly train to any of the intermediate cities.

I am just looking at the corridor and the Peterborough route has a connector down the Don Valley that feeds directly into Union Station.

Also, the population disadvantages of the Peterborough route can be turned into an advantage. It means fewer stops and therefore faster average speed. Since it is going through mostly rural areas, the cost of rebuilding the track will be reduced. Furthermore, if the rail bed has been maintained as a trail between Havelock and Glen Tay, it means that all the bridges are still there. Some will need repairs or replacement obviously, but still, it is not as if everything has been removed entirely.

Also, it is critical for VIA's business plan that there is little or no interaction with freight trains. Adding new double tracking between Oshawa and Brockville is going to be an enormous expense on a densely populated corridor. I expect there is many grade separated crossings on that corridor that will not be able to handle two more tracks. On the other hand, the Peterborough route through rural areas will require very few grade separations. In almost all cases, gates will be sufficient. Here we have the advantage of using conventional speed trains that we do not have to spend a fortune on grade separations.

Also, I just can't imagine being able to reduce travel times to 2.5 hours while still following that indirect route via Brockville.

Of course, there is that other possibility of using the old rail corridor between Smith's Falls and Napanee via Chaffey's Locks. The rail bridge in Smith's Falls over the Rideau Canal still exists, so does the bridge at Chaffey's Locks and over the 401 at Napanee. Unfortunately, the route bypasses Kingston, but I don't know how you achieve sufficient speed increases to avoid this.

[Kitchissippi]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I was thinking the same thing, but for different reasons (its hard to compare Hwy. 7 with the 401). Yes this route gains Peterborough (80,660), but the next largest city it gains is Perth (6,211). In return you lose: Oshawa (290,937), Kingston (117,787), Belleville (63,985), Quinte West (a.k.a. Trenton) (43,086), Brockville (23,354), Cobourg (18,519), Port Hope (12,230), and Napanee (7,221). All of which are larger than Perth. VIA's vision of HFR is to serve these middle cities and towns, not bypass them.

Population counts (in brackets) as of 2011 from Wikipedia.

I doubt they'll give up on the Seaway route, it will just retain the less frequent not-as-fast service, much like there's two ways to get to London from Toronto. The Belleville sub would make some sense if they buy/improve it for express service, shaving out the jog out to Brockville.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

I am just looking at the corridor and the Peterborough route has a connector down the Don Valley that feeds directly into Union Station.

That is the Richmond Hill GO line and it's a very problematic route as its very curvy and prone to flooding.

The Toronto connection is yet another problem with the Peterborough route. The other possible way into Union would mean building a track switch near Agincourt GO (just north of the 401) and then using the Stouffville GO line to Union, and with GO RER coming in on that line there's probably not enough space for VIA. The Lakeshore East line is the only line coming in to Union Station from the east where Metrolinx has ensured enough space for high-frequency intercity rail, as they've followed VIA's direction on this matter and VIA has never given any indications that they need another corridor.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also, it is critical for VIA's business plan that there is little or no interaction with freight trains. Adding new double tracking between Oshawa and Brockville is going to be an enormous expense on a densely populated corridor. I expect there is many grade separated crossings on that corridor that will not be able to handle two more tracks. On the other hand, the Peterborough route through rural areas will require very few grade separations. In almost all cases, gates will be sufficient. Here we have the advantage of using conventional speed trains that we do not have to spend a fortune on grade separations.

Uh, what? Adding a third track with some sidings to increase to 4 in some places (all that's needed to separate freight & passenger traffic) is much cheaper than building a full-standard track through Peterborough. The entire GTA-Havelock route is only one track... so very single bridge structure on that route is going to have be replaced/expanded too... both routes have this problem. If you honestly think the Peterborough route is cheaper you're very much out to lunch...

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Also, I just can't imagine being able to reduce travel times to 2.5 hours while still following that indirect route via Brockville

This is true, but I imagine the 2.5 hour travel time is an exaggeration.

VIA just bought the tracks from Brockville to Smiths Falls.. something they probably wouldn't have done if they weren't planning on using it for dedicated tracks.