VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Any intercity passenger rail investment. What Urban Sky says about CalEd having a tenth of the revenue of Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal becomes much more obvious when you look at a density map like this. It's pretty obvious that there's really only two major population corridor that really warrants substantial rail investment. Quebec-Windsor and CalEd.

I agree.

The question begs to be asked: why wasn't CalEd spared the cuts of the 1990s?

The other question to ask that led us down a rabbit hole... after TOM gets HSR, how soon after that would CalEd see it?

Hopefully with the new Chargers, they have enough that some could be sent to AB for a CalEd service. With the current conditions, they might be able to do 3 trips each way a day with only 2 train sets.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I agree.

The question begs to be asked: why wasn't CalEd spared the cuts of the 1990s?

The other question to ask that led us down a rabbit hole... after TOM gets HSR, how soon after that would CalEd see it?

Hopefully with the new Chargers, they have enough that some could be sent to AB for a CalEd service. With the current conditions, they might be able to do 3 trips each way a day with only 2 train sets.

CP is unlikely to allow any passenger trains unless some alternative tracks are made available such as;
1: route from downtown Edmonton via the High Level Bridge to YEG and then joining the CP tracks at Leduc to avoid the CP yards.
2: rebuilding the tracks with double track through downtown Red Deer so that passenger trains can meet and freights can pass using the existing route.
3: adding double track north of the Bow River to the north side of Airdrie
4: building a passenger track only from the Bow River bridge to where ever the station is located downtown to avoid mainline freight traffic.’

This would allow building a separate right of way until higher frequencies and speeds were required.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

CP is unlikely to allow any passenger trains unless some alternative tracks are made available such as;
1: route from downtown Edmonton via the High Level Bridge to YEG and then joining the CP tracks at Leduc to avoid the CP yards.
2: rebuilding the tracks with double track through downtown Red Deer so that passenger trains can meet and freights can pass using the existing route.
3: adding double track north of the Bow River to the north side of Airdrie
4: building a passenger track only from the Bow River bridge to where ever the station is located downtown to avoid mainline freight traffic.’

This would allow building a separate right of way until higher frequencies and speeds were required.

1) High level bridge is useless as the tracks do not go downtown. So long as it connects to the ETS LRT, it should be good as a restart, but some sort of downtown connection should be looked at.

2), 3) and 4) I would suggest the whole route be double tracked. If possible, have Via own one and CP own the other.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

1) High level bridge is useless as the tracks do not go downtown. So long as it connects to the ETS LRT, it should be good as a restart, but some sort of downtown connection should be looked at.

2), 3) and 4) I would suggest the whole route be double tracked. If possible, have Via own one and CP own the other.

1:The high level bridge could be used as there is space on the ROW currently used by the street car. A tunnel could be built either for the street car or for the rail line allowing one line to be built on top of the other. A station could be built on the ROW by the Government Centre LRT station with a pedestrian tunnel connecting the LRT to the rail station.

2,3,4: The whole line should be double tracked but it would make more sense to phase in the double tracking just as was done with the original TGV in France. This allows to develop more accurate ridership levels, gradually increase frequencies and speeds at a lower upfront cost.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

The question begs to be asked: why wasn't CalEd spared the cuts of the 1990s?

This has been covered before. This service was cancelled before the 90s....

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.co...art-1.html?m=1

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

1:The high level bridge could be used as there is space on the ROW currently used by the street car. A tunnel could be built either for the street car or for the rail line allowing one line to be built on top of the other. A station could be built on the ROW by the Government Centre LRT station with a pedestrian tunnel connecting the LRT to the rail station.

2,3,4: The whole line should be double tracked but it would make more sense to phase in the double tracking just as was done with the original TGV in France. This allows to develop more accurate ridership levels, gradually increase frequencies and speeds at a lower upfront cost.

That makes more sense.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This has been covered before. This service was cancelled before the 90s....

http://tracksidetreasure.blogspot.co...art-1.html?m=1

Do they still have an issue with accidents?

Also, now I can adjust my thinking. It ran at 90mph or 140 km/hr. At 300km, that is about2.5 hours or better. Considering it takes about 3 to drive, this line is ripe for service.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

That makes more sense.



Do they still have an issue with accidents?

Also, now I can adjust my thinking. It ran at 90mph or 140 km/hr. At 300km, that is about2.5 hours or better. Considering it takes about 3 to drive, this line is ripe for service.

To run at 90 mph there will have to be a combination of improved level crossings and complete grade separations to avoid all the level crossing accidents that resulted in the demise of the previous RDC service.The grade separations will require contributions from both the federal and provincial government.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do they still have an issue with accidents?

A largely moot point. Since it was canceled, everything from traffic on that rail corridor to the population of the cities, to competing bus and sure services will have changed. Assuming, you can restart where things left off nearly 40 years ago is laughably naive.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

To run at 90 mph there will have to be a combination of improved level crossings and complete grade separations to avoid all the level crossing accidents that resulted in the demise of the previous RDC service.The grade separations will require contributions from both the federal and provincial government.

I know what is needed to upgrade it.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A largely moot point. Since it was canceled, everything from traffic on that rail corridor to the population of the cities, to competing bus and sure services will have changed. Assuming, you can restart where things left off nearly 40 years ago is laughably naive.

Not moot at all, and no assumptions of just restarting where it left off. For instance, if accidents are now rare, did crossing improve?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know what is needed to upgrade it.



Not moot at all, and no assumptions of just restarting where it left off. For instance, if accidents are now rare, did crossing improve?

Your question is; Do freight trains have similar number of crossing accidents? If not, why? Slower train speeds? Do more of the crossings now have gates compared to the 70s and 80s? This is a very relevant question.

[Truenorth00]

The original question was about why the CalEd service was not spared from the 90s cuts. They were cut before that.

And when it comes to accidents, I don't think the 200 crossings will be substantially better today. Freight just doesn't have the same need for crossing protection. But any attempt to make a service that is even close to competitive with driving would have to resolve this.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Your question is; Do freight trains have similar number of crossing accidents? If not, why? Slower train speeds? Do more of the crossings now have gates compared to the 70s and 80s? This is a very relevant question.

That is what I am trying to find out. Obviously freight moves slower. What I wonder is if anything, besides cancelling the route has been done to reduce accidents.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The original question was about why the CalEd service was not spared from the 90s cuts. They were cut before that.

And when it comes to accidents, I don't think the 200 crossings will be substantially better today. Freight just doesn't have the same need for crossing protection. But any attempt to make a service that is even close to competitive with driving would have to resolve this.

I thought it was canceled later, but thank you for clearing that up.

Obviously, we do not want to return a service that is accident prone. It would be interesting to learn what changes have been made in the 30+ years since the route was cancelled. It would also be interesting to learn whether it is enough to return a safe 90mph train to the line.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The original question was about why the CalEd service was not spared from the 90s cuts. They were cut before that.

And when it comes to accidents, I don't think the 200 crossings will be substantially better today. Freight just doesn't have the same need for crossing protection. But any attempt to make a service that is even close to competitive with driving would have to resolve this.

Clearly some crossings would have to be closed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Clearly some crossings would have to be closed.

Are they still open?
Have they improved any of them?

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Are they still open?
Have they improved any of them?

I am not sure but even if improvements have been made they have not been made to handle 90mph+ speeds. Since there are 200 crossings spaced over 300 km that is approximately 1 crossing every 1.6 km. Clearly some of those crossings need to be removed and traffic diverted to grade separated crossings or improved by other means.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I am not sure but even if improvements have been made they have not been made to handle 90mph+ speeds. Since there are 200 crossings spaced over 300 km that is approximately 1 crossing every 1.6 km. Clearly some of those crossings need to be removed and traffic diverted to grade separated crossings or improved by other means.

There were over 200 crossings. Do those crossing still exist? Have any been closed?

[Truenorth00]

The government launched the RFQ for HFR yesterday. Three bidders to be invited to the RFP phase this summer. Bids above 200 kph running are allowed. So potential High Speed Rail (HSR).

Presser:
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...d-toronto.html

Actual doc:
https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/upload...DDQ-TGF-EN.pdf

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The government launched the RFQ for HFR yesterday. Three bidders to be invited to the RFP phase this summer. Bids above 200 kph running are allowed. So potential High Speed Rail (HSR).

Presser:
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...d-toronto.html

Actual doc:
https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/upload...DDQ-TGF-EN.pdf

It would be interesting if they all come back as HSR. That would change the transportation landscape in Canada. It may be the kick needed to bring Via back to places where it should be.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The government launched the RFQ for HFR yesterday. Three bidders to be invited to the RFP phase this summer. Bids above 200 kph running are allowed. So potential High Speed Rail (HSR).

Presser:
https://www.canada.ca/en/transport-c...d-toronto.html

Actual doc:
https://hfr-tgf.ca/wp-content/upload...DDQ-TGF-EN.pdf

About friggen time! The HFR concept is like 6 years old at this point.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

About friggen time! The HFR concept is like 6 years old at this point.

More than 8 years, actually, since the earliest newspaper article I could find in a quick Google search was from December 2014:
https://financialpost.com/transporta...d-rail-lines?r