VIA Rail

[Nouvellecosse]

But really, looking at the map it seems that the built-up part of town only lasts about 7km, so the amount of time lost by having that as a slow section wouldn't be that notable. It would take about 2.4 min to cover that distance at a cruising speed of 177km/h, while if you reduced it to 70km/h it would take about 6 minutes. In other words, it would sacrifice less than 4 minutes on a multi-hour trip.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But really, looking at the map it seems that the built-up part of town only lasts about 7km, so the amount of time lost by having that as a slow section wouldn't be that notable. It would take about 2.4 min to cover that distance at a cruising speed of 177km/h, while if you reduced it to 70km/h it would take about 6 minutes. In other words, it would sacrifice less than 4 minutes on a multi-hour trip.

More to the point, if a stop is put in that 5-7 km stretch, then almost no time is lost because trains are going to be slowing down anyway. That said, grade separations are required just because of the amount of traffic that will be going through there. They will have to build a trench or viaduct through Peterborough.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

But really, looking at the map it seems that the built-up part of town only lasts about 7km, so the amount of time lost by having that as a slow section wouldn't be that notable. It would take about 2.4 min to cover that distance at a cruising speed of 177km/h, while if you reduced it to 70km/h it would take about 6 minutes. In other words, it would sacrifice less than 4 minutes on a multi-hour trip.

The big dealbreaker is that swing bridge over the canal. Assuming you need a 10 meter clearance (many boats on that canal are quite tall) and we want to approach it at a 1.5% incline, that's 700 meters of earthworks on either side.

At that point, you might as well keep the side to the west as a permanent viaduct running through the residential areas, the downtown and out to the other end of the city. There will be quite a bit of NIMBYism and a fair amount of expropriation.

We might as well bypass the city completely. That way we can also future-proof the line for real HSR, if that ever comes.

A downtown station would be nice, but not a deal breaker. Pretty much everyone in Peterborough owns a car (I grew up there), and downtown isn't enough of a trip generator on its own to build a station that won't include parking (which it shouldn't have).

[JHikka]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

A downtown station would be nice, but not a deal breaker. Pretty much everyone in Peterborough owns a car (I grew up there), and downtown isn't enough of a trip generator on its own to build a station that won't include parking (which it shouldn't have).

Agree with this on the whole. Don't see a non-downtown station being the end of the world in a place where car ownership is a requirement anyway and it really looks like snaking it through the core will cause more headaches than anything else.

[Innsertnamehere]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Going through Peterborough does indeed look like a nightmare. Not having a downtown station would be a mistake too though. It's problems like this that make me skeptical that the option of a a cheap bare bones line really ever existed.

They have to do something about the Trent-Severn canal crossing, I am picturing some sort of tunnel under it which also ties in the grade crossings to the east. Metrolinx has done of a ton of these, it would likely cost a couple hundred million but in my mind is the only really large item on the entire line for bridge work.

The at grade crossings west of downtown in Peterborough can probably largely left as is, perhaps a few of them could be closed and a few seperated in a more traditional pattern. They aren't inherently problematic.

The other big elephant in the room is how to access Toronto Union. I just don't see them being able to use the Stouffville line, Metrolinx is planning a 2 track underpass connection to Lakeshore which limits capacity and is planning crazy frequencies on the line, something like 5 minute frequencies at peak hours.

They probably have to route through the Don Valley on the current abandoned line there, which means you need to revive the Don Valley Bridge. That would likely be a full replacement, as well as a grade separation to get to the north side of the CP line. The way the Don Valley sub meets the CP line, it meets significantly below it's grade and slowly climbs up to it, which means a tunnel under the CP line should be relatively straightforward.

The other big one is dealing with the O-train crossing in Ottawa, which will probably require grade separation, and the real big issue with getting from Gare-Centrale to Trois Riviere.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

They have to do something about the Trent-Severn canal crossing, I am picturing some sort of tunnel under it which also ties in the grade crossings to the east. Metrolinx has done of a ton of these, it would likely cost a couple hundred million but in my mind is the only really large item on the entire line for bridge work.

Brightline is planning to operate a very similar fleet over one or two draw bridges. Given the proximity to Peterborough Station, the resulting travel time losses from the resulting speed restriction would be minimal, such as the interferences between boat and rail traffic (especially if the trains meet somewhere near Peterborough)...

The at grade crossings west of downtown in Peterborough can probably largely left as is, perhaps a few of them could be closed and a few seperated in a more traditional pattern. They aren't inherently problematic.

Agreed, such level crossings exist at other busy VIA lines, such as in Casselman...

The other big elephant in the room is how to access Toronto Union. I just don't see them being able to use the Stouffville line, Metrolinx is planning a 2 track underpass connection to Lakeshore which limits capacity and is planning crazy frequencies on the line, something like 5 minute frequencies at peak hours.

They probably have to route through the Don Valley on the current abandoned line there, which means you need to revive the Don Valley Bridge. That would likely be a full replacement, as well as a grade separation to get to the north side of the CP line. The way the Don Valley sub meets the CP line, it meets significantly below it's grade and slowly climbs up to it, which means a tunnel under the CP line should be relatively straightforward.

Compared with the ridiculous (and in my view: superfluous) expense of building a tunnel underneath the canal, the cost of replacing the Don Valley bridge would be trivial...

The other big one is dealing with the O-train crossing in Ottawa, which will probably require grade separation, and the real big issue with getting from Gare-Centrale to Trois Riviere.

The grade separation is already under construction as we speak, if you refer to Slide 11 in the presentation linked below:

https://kanatanorth.ca/wp-content/up...-Update-EN.pdf

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Brightline is planning to operate a very similar fleet over one or two draw bridges. Given the proximity to Peterborough Station, the resulting travel time losses from the resulting speed restriction would be minimal, such as the interferences between boat and rail traffic (especially if the trains meet somewhere near Peterborough)...

Since you work inside VIA, you probably have the inside scoop, and this response isn't confidence inspiring.

It sounds like the swing bridge will stay. I really think this is a bad idea, given the considerable volume of boat traffic on the Trent-Severn waterway. That bridge will either be primarily open for boaters or open for trains, and, knowing the "boating public" in Peterborough county, I have a feeling that VIA will be on the losing side of that battle.

FEC is actually mulling replacing the drawbridges on the Brightline with a tunnel, even though that would be considerably more expensive (given that this is in coastal Florida, where tunneling is extremely difficult).

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Since you work inside VIA, you probably have the inside scoop, and this response isn't confidence inspiring.

Thank you for reminding me that this could be misinterpreted as speaking with any internal knowledge. I no longer work for VIA and I have no information or knowledge about what routings and solutions might be considered by the Joint Project Office...

[Truenorth00]

I don't see the point of getting so worried about a drawbridge in Peterborough right now. They have literally only just finished a basic business case and scoping for the line. There's still detailed design of the corridor to go. And I'm sure issues like crossing the Trent-Severn are on there. A lot of that will be eventually sorted out by whoever wins the RFP that comes out in the Fall.

Personally, I hope they don't bypass Peterborough. Saying everybody has a car is a rather shitty excuse. We shouldn't be designing a major new rail line on the presumption that everyone can access the station with a car. Terrible idea. They should build a downtown station and integrate it with local transit so that there's a real alternative to driving to the station. This is especially important for Peterborough where this rail line will have to support commuter services, in addition to long-haul travel.

[Innsertnamehere]

Good to know on the O-train separation. Wasn't aware of that.

like it or not Trent Severn needs to be dealt with.

I genuinely don't think it would actually be that challenging to separate it, especially given it's "greenfield" potential for construction without having to provide a rail detour. Just pile, excavate, and construct a bathtub overpass for the Trent-Severn. You could even do the transfer to the bathtub over the winter season to avoid impacts on the canal. You could probably eliminate 5 at grade crossings in one swoop with it too.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The big dealbreaker is that swing bridge over the canal.

Maybe it will only have a frequent service in winter, as that is when the bridge would stay fixed.

On a side note, They should be able to time it similar to the swing bridge on Highway 6 going to Manitoulin Island. It used to be a railway bridge.

"Currently, the bridge strongly favours highway traffic, staying in the closed (motor vehicles can pass) position at all times, except for the first fifteen minutes of each daylight hour during the summer, when it opens to permit boating traffic. At night and when the shipping channel is closed during the winter, the bridge stays in the closed position at all times."

https://www.townofnemi.on.ca/p/swing-bridge

[jamincan]

What sort of frequency are they looking at with HFR exactly? I'm not exactly clear why they couldn't just close the bridge in advance of the train and leave it open otherwise.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by jamincan

What sort of frequency are they looking at with HFR exactly? I'm not exactly clear why they couldn't just close the bridge in advance of the train and leave it open otherwise.

The past articles had something like 15 trains a day. But more recently, there's the odd talk of trains leaving 15-30 minutes apart at different times.

[Truenorth00]

I am really curious about Dorval. One could make the argument that HFR should deviate slightly to better integrate at YUL, similar to how the TGV integrates at CDG in Paris.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am really curious about Dorval. One could make the argument that HFR should deviate slightly to better integrate at YUL, similar to how the TGV integrates at CDG in Paris.

That expensive detour was part of the VIAFast proposal, but is no longer necessary, if the REM is extended to Dorval exo/VIA stations, as it will act like a people mover (i.e. the only thing that fully-automated-but-ridiculously-low-capacity pseudo-transit technology is actually suitable for)...

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

That expensive detour was part of the VIAFast proposal, but is no longer necessary, if the REM is extended to Dorval exo/VIA stations, as it will act like a people mover (i.e. the only thing that fully-automated-but-ridiculously-low-capacity pseudo-transit technology is actually suitable for)...

I get that this is the likely outcome. But it's sort of a terrible outcome. The airport will get a train every 10 mins? In the time waiting, one could pretty much walk from the station to the airport, if there was a direct path. I wonder if they might be better off just building a long high speed movator.

Every time I think of the Dorval-REM-YUL connection, it looks manageable but sort of a pain in the ass....

[milomilo]

Not a VIA question, but a general rail one.

We don't have much double track heavy rail out here, but I've noticed whenever freight trains pass each other on passing loops they do so on the left rather than right. This seems strange as it is opposite to our roads and LRT/subway systems. I'd have thought you'd want the passing sidings to be signalled the same as double track, in case they are ever extended.

Can anyone shed any light on this? I may just be observing a limited data set but I think it sometimes happens (France maybe) where mainline trains drive on a different side to cars.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Not a VIA question, but a general rail one.

We don't have much double track heavy rail out here, but I've noticed whenever freight trains pass each other on passing loops they do so on the left rather than right. This seems strange as it is opposite to our roads and LRT/subway systems. I'd have thought you'd want the passing sidings to be signalled the same as double track, in case they are ever extended.

Can anyone shed any light on this? I may just be observing a limited data set but I think it sometimes happens (France maybe) where mainline trains drive on a different side to cars.

For some weird historic reasons, railway lines built by Germans are signalled to drive on the right track, whereas everywhere else it seems to be for the left track. Interestingly, this means that the tracks in Alsace-Lothringen are still signalled to drive on the right, which means that the LGV East has to use a flyover when merging into the German-built legacy tracks near Vendenheim or Beaudrecourt.

However, in North America, multiple-tracked railways (where they exist!) are generally signalled in both directions, which dramatically increases operational flexibility, even though driving on the right seems to be established practice on the Metrolinx and Amtrak's NEC network...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

For some weird historic reasons, railway lines built by Germans are signalled to drive on the right track, whereas everywhere else it seems to be for the left track. Interestingly, this means that the tracks in Alsace-Lothringen are still signalled to drive on the right, which means that the LGV East has to use a flyover when merging into the German-built legacy tracks near Vendenheim or Beaudrecourt.

However, in North America, multiple-tracked railways (where they exist!) are generally signalled in both directions, which dramatically increases operational flexibility, even though driving on the right seems to be established practice on the Metrolinx and Amtrak's NEC network...

I figured they'd be signalled in both directions. If I'd only seen trains in passing sidings passing on the left a few times I'd have thought it was random or unusual, but it seems like they do it every time, at least on the prairies.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I get that this is the likely outcome. But it's sort of a terrible outcome. The airport will get a train every 10 mins? In the time waiting, one could pretty much walk from the station to the airport, if there was a direct path. I wonder if they might be better off just building a long high speed movator.

Every time I think of the Dorval-REM-YUL connection, it looks manageable but sort of a pain in the ass....

From the terminal to the current station location is about 1km in a straight line which seems like a lot if a person was carrying any luggage. Basically the same as carrying it from the main entrance of Union up University to the main entrance of Canada Life. Not impossible but you'd be walking past two different subway stops.

I think if the REM was extended the best option would be to have both regular service to downtown but also a second booster service consisting of a single railcar running from Dorval to the terminal then maybe continuing on before perhaps heading west and interlining with the West Island branch to give them direct access to the airport as well. These kind of frequency booster services are much cheaper with an automated system.