Heavy Rail, Commuter Rail, & Intercity Transportation

[Tvisforme]

Originally Posted by chowhou

...The KVR switchbacks coming up out of Penticton are dozens of kilometres long for a 2km climb. Honestly, that's probably not even enough for the 10k feet trains they're running nowadays.

Looking at the first link, it mentions "distributed power" for the longer trains. Does having locomotives positioned in the middle of long trains help with overall stability when cornering? I'm not especially familiar with the physics involved in rail travel, but it does seem that (for example) a three kilometre long train would have issues on sharper corners. How do they keep these trains from pulling themselves off of the tracks?

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Tvisforme

Looking at the first link, it mentions "distributed power" for the longer trains. Does having locomotives positioned in the middle of long trains help with overall stability when cornering? I'm not especially familiar with the physics involved in rail travel, but it does seem that (for example) a three kilometre long train would have issues on sharper corners. How do they keep these trains from pulling themselves off of the tracks?

You're exactly right.

For cornering in order to not derail you have keep side loads within a certain tolerance. Distributing power through the train helps because you'll be reducing the potential side load for each segment that has had power taken off of it and applied to another section. You can kind of think of distributed power as multiple smaller trains tailgating each other (power wise).

I don't think they still do it, but I believe they used to have extra engines on call for particularly demanding terrain that they'd stich into trains in order to distribute (and add) more power before removing them and returning them to home base. If the KVR was reactivated by some hairbrained miracle they'd probably need a half dozen engines per train to handle those switchbacks.

[scottN]

There are switchbacks on the CP mainline too - the spiral tunnels. However if you look at the physics of a railcar being pulled off the tracks going around a corner, I don't think the length of the curve matters much. It's the radius of the corner, and the tension load pulling through the railcar. Long trains make the tension loads higher, unless there are many engines distributed throughout the trains. Steep grades also make the tension higher.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by scottN

There are switchbacks on the CP mainline too - the spiral tunnels. However if you look at the physics of a railcar being pulled off the tracks going around a corner, I don't think the length of the curve matters much. It's the radius of the corner, and the tension load pulling through the railcar. Long trains make the tension loads higher, unless there are many engines distributed throughout the trains. Steep grades also make the tension higher.

For a constant speed, variance in car weight as it goes through the curve will create spikes in tension too.

Also right, but if you want a wider turn you're going to need even longer switchbacks.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

You're bored again? Maybe you need to find another hobby besides trolling up dumb ideas on the other side of the country. There's a reason the Kettle Valley route was closed over 60 years ago. Since then sections have had the tracks removed, some of it has been made into a bike and walking trail (part of the Trans Canada Trail), bridges have burned down and been rebuilt for trail use, some tunnels are now unsafe, (but might be reopened for trail use), and you can ride a steam train on a short section that still has rails. It would cost billions to reinstate it for trains, and would still have all the problems it faced before it was closed, and with more extreme weather events these days it would be a constant repair nightmare.

If the existing rail routes have issues because weather events potentially close them down, then it's worth spending money on making them more resiliant, not on diverting it to a different project that would still be a potential money pit.

I do not do what I do to troll. I do what I do to learn.

It was a CP line, and the fact that many other CP lines were removed, it was most definitely a cost saving/profit raising reason.

If the line was still around they would have been making it more resilient.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I'm starting to think you don't understand rail at all. How tight do you think rail switchbacks are?

In 2018 the average CP train length was over 7200 feet which is over 2 kilometres.

CN guidelines allow for trains up to 12000 feet which is over 3 and a half kilometres.

Do you think switchbacks for these behemoths are on the scale of cars and people? The KVR switchbacks coming up out of Penticton are dozens of kilometres long for a 2km climb. Honestly, that's probably not even enough for the 10k feet trains they're running nowadays.

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by a switchback.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=switchbac...EHfkpBJUQ4lYoAHoECAEQJQ&biw=1349&bih=598
That to me is a switchback.

Originally Posted by scottN

There are switchbacks on the CP mainline too - the spiral tunnels. However if you look at the physics of a railcar being pulled off the tracks going around a corner, I don't think the length of the curve matters much. It's the radius of the corner, and the tension load pulling through the railcar. Long trains make the tension loads higher, unless there are many engines distributed throughout the trains. Steep grades also make the tension higher.

Speed can exacerbate or mitigate it. That is why trans go slower through the spiral tunnels than elsewhere.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I do not do what I do to troll. I do what I do to learn.

Your first question was perfectly reasonable. You had several responses that explained why resurrecting a decommissioned railway that had a whole host of issues when it was operating over 60 years ago wasn't a good idea, and is not likely to ever happen, (and there was a third line in BC you'd overlooked). You then started to argue in long posts that ignore the points that were made, where what you write shows you haven't learned anything. You've bumped this thread several times in a similar fashion. You constantly argue with points that are from members who have local knowledge. That's trolling. The appropriate response at some point (quite early in the exchange) is 'Fair enough, I see why that's not a great idea, thinks for the replies'. Then you should stop.

If you're interested in the Kettle Valley Railway's history you should read Barrie Sanford's 'McCulloch's Wonder'. There you could read how CPR took over the railway in 1931, and started closing it down in 1935 around the time the Great Northern abandoned their Crow's Nest Pass line. They also abandoned the GN line west of Keremeos when heavy rains washed out a bridge at Princeton. The weather did so much damage in 1935 that service was severely disrupted. Forest fires in 1938 took out three of the bridges. In 1939 CPR said they would abandon their Coquihalla line, but reopened it because of the war. It was constantly closed for avalanches and rockslides, and then reopened after repairs. But demand fell off (for both freight, and passengers) that the costs of operating any service were greater than the revenue.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by a switchback.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=switchbac...EHfkpBJUQ4lYoAHoECAEQJQ&biw=1349&bih=598
That to me is a switchback.

Those are roads my friend.

[Migrant_Coconut]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Maybe I am misunderstanding what you mean by a switchback.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=switchbac...EHfkpBJUQ4lYoAHoECAEQJQ&biw=1349&bih=598
That to me is a switchback.

Should be obvious that trains neither climb/descend nor turn as easily as cars do; these are switchbacks for a railway going up the Himalayas.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Your first question was perfectly reasonable. You had several responses that explained why resurrecting a decommissioned railway that had a whole host of issues when it was operating over 60 years ago wasn't a good idea, and is not likely to ever happen, (and there was a third line in BC you'd overlooked). You then started to argue in long posts that ignore the points that were made, where what you write shows you haven't learned anything. You've bumped this thread several times in a similar fashion. You constantly argue with points that are from members who have local knowledge. That's trolling. The appropriate response at some point (quite early in the exchange) is 'Fair enough, I see why that's not a great idea, thinks for the replies'. Then you should stop.

Actually, no. I have acknowledged the things I forgot, like the one going north.
The rest is learning about the challenges. For instance, I am trying to learn what is meant by a switchback as, posted below, I did not know anything like that existed in Canada. If they are using the wrong terminology, then I will learn what they mean and then we can move forward on it.

At not time, am I assuming this line will be reactivated. I am trying to understand the challenges it faced and lead to the eventual closure.

That is not trolling.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(slang)
In slang, a troll is a person who posts or says inflammatory, insincere, digressive,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages online (such as in social media, a newsgroup, a forum, a chat room, a online video game), or in real life, with the intent of provoking others into displaying emotional responses,[2] or manipulating others' perception.

inflammatory - who have I done this to?
insincere - I honestly want to understand this.
digressive/off-topic - This is about heavy rail/intercity rail in the Vancouver/BC area, right?
extraneous - I am not interrupting that which was being discussed, right?

I do feel you are being a troll.
Good thing I like to play with trolls.

Originally Posted by chowhou

Those are roads my friend.

https://www.google.ca/search?q=rail+swit...00Q_AUoAXoECAIQAw&biw=1366&bih=615&dpr=1

That is rail.
Did any part of the KVR have anything like that?
If that is not what you mean, please post a picture to show what you mean.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

Should be obvious that trains neither climb/descend nor turn as easily as cars do; these are switchbacks for a railway going up the Himalayas.

That is over several km. The map for the KVR was over 700km long and look nothing like that.

Can you show a section on the KVR that is that tight?

[Migrant_Coconut]

Correction: over 79.27 kilometres; scale the DHR map down and that's exactly what you have on the KVR. No way in hell CP/CN would ever be interested in buying and maintaining a mountain railway with trestle bridges and hairpin turns.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

At not time, am I assuming this line will be reactivated. I am trying to understand the challenges it faced and lead to the eventual closure.

That is not trolling.

Then you shouldn't ask "would this line help alleviate traffic from the ports to the rest of Canada?" because it would have to be reactivated to do that.

It eventually closed in 1959 because a section near Lear (all the sections were named after Shakespeare characters) washed out. The next day they discovered four sections had washed out, and one had disappeared completely. Repairs were started, but the damage was so severe that CPR decided to close the line. It had only operated for 45 years, and dozens of railway workers had lost their lives building it, and trying to keep it open. It was cheaper and more reliable for CPR to haul freight to Golden, then on the CPR mainline.

The rails were pulled up from Hope to Boston Bar in 1961, and the rest of the tracks on that section a year later. Passenger trains on the remaining part of the KVR stopped operating in 1964, closing down rail service between the coast, and the Kootenays. Apart from a few minor sections, the final tracks were removed in 1979.

[Migrant_Coconut]

In other words, CP wanted to get rid of it because it was a money pit. So there's no way they would've kept it, and even less way it would be a relief line for the regular Golden route.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That is rail.
Did any part of the KVR have anything like that?
If that is not what you mean, please post a picture to show what you mean.

I previously mentioned the switchbacks rising out of Penticton to the East. You can see them on the map posted earlier. There were also some wicked switchbacks rising out of Princeton too. There's no way modern trains would handle those.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by Migrant_Coconut

In other words, CP wanted to get rid of it because it was a money pit. So there's no way they would've kept it, and even less way it would be a relief line for the regular Golden route.

And the Coquihalla Highway was built in the 1980s, much of following the line of the abandoned Kettle Valley Railway. We know how often that road is closed due to severe weather, avalanches or rockslides. The railway would have faced exactly the same conditions, had it remained operating.

[officedweller]

There's the Spiral Tunnels on the CP line through Kicking Horse Pass - and that was built in 1909.
I can't see a major railway using tight switchbacks.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/yoho/culture/kickinghorse/visit/spirale-spiral


https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/yoho/culture/kickinghorse/visit/spirale-spiral

[Alex Mackinnon]

I'm not sure I would call those KVR climbing sections switchbacks, despite it's usage on roadworks.

With trains, that would imply that there are switches, and the train would have to reverse.

I think the correct wording is just a hairpin, but then again I'm not specifically a rail design engineer.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm not sure I would call those KVR climbing sections switchbacks, despite it's usage on roadworks.

With trains, that would imply that there are switches, and the train would have to reverse.

I think the correct wording is just a hairpin, but then again I'm not specifically a rail design engineer.

I think most people are more familiar with switchbacks in a road context and extrapolate that definition to rail, but you're right it's technically wrong in a rail context.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Changing City

Then you shouldn't ask "would this line help alleviate traffic from the ports to the rest of Canada?" because it would have to be reactivated to do that.

It eventually closed in 1959 because a section near Lear (all the sections were named after Shakespeare characters) washed out. The next day they discovered four sections had washed out, and one had disappeared completely. Repairs were started, but the damage was so severe that CPR decided to close the line. It had only operated for 45 years, and dozens of railway workers had lost their lives building it, and trying to keep it open. It was cheaper and more reliable for CPR to haul freight to Golden, then on the CPR mainline.

The rails were pulled up from Hope to Boston Bar in 1961, and the rest of the tracks on that section a year later. Passenger trains on the remaining part of the KVR stopped operating in 1964, closing down rail service between the coast, and the Kootenays. Apart from a few minor sections, the final tracks were removed in 1979.

The rail lines through the Ottawa Valley were removed due to the redundancy of it. There may come a day where they put it back. KVR, not so much, and now I understand why.

Originally Posted by chowhou

I previously mentioned the switchbacks rising out of Penticton to the East. You can see them on the map posted earlier. There were also some wicked switchbacks rising out of Princeton too. There's no way modern trains would handle those.

I looked.
I now understand the problem.
Modern trains are not getting through that easily.

Originally Posted by officedweller

There's the Spiral Tunnels on the CP line through Kicking Horse Pass - and that was built in 1909.
I can't see a major railway using tight switchbacks.
https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/yoho/culture/kickinghorse/visit/spirale-spiral


https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/pn-np/bc/yoho/culture/kickinghorse/visit/spirale-spiral

That was to fix a steep hill, not hard curves. If this line could have been viable, they may have done something about the curves. If money was no issue. I could see a lot of tunneling. However, that is about as likely as HSR across Canada.

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm not sure I would call those KVR climbing sections switchbacks, despite it's usage on roadworks.

With trains, that would imply that there are switches, and the train would have to reverse.

I think the correct wording is just a hairpin, but then again I'm not specifically a rail design engineer.

This is why I asked for clarification. Hairpin turns are bad, but switchbacks would be 10 times worse.

[scottN]

Originally Posted by Alex Mackinnon

I'm not sure I would call those KVR climbing sections switchbacks, despite it's usage on roadworks.

With trains, that would imply that there are switches, and the train would have to reverse.

I think the correct wording is just a hairpin, but then again I'm not specifically a rail design engineer.

Here's the wikipedia article for those who are interested. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zig_zag_(railway). I believe that this is the origin of the word "switchback" because switches were used. Locally the Stevens pass railway had real switchbacks before the completion of the first cascade tunnel.