mtltransitguy Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 The principal problem with rail in the corridor isn't speed - it's frequency. VIA should run at least hourly daytime from London to Kingston and from Ottawa to Montreal, with minimum stops on the extra services and more work done on remediating Permanent Slow Orders where feasible to bring up average rather than maximum train speeds. Stock would be an issue but there are 33 Renaissance cars in storage according to La Presse (see most recent Transport 2000 Hotline).At the same time VIA should withdraw from non-core network/intraprovincial service like Toronto-Niagara stoppers and White River-Sudbury and make Ontario (through GO/Northland) take it on. No point in having a 350km/h service every two-four hours going head to head with Air Canada and Westjet when fast 160km/h expresses every hour is what's needed right now. A successful inter-regional service can then act as the springboard for more ambitious projects. AGREED! The main problem with taking VIA are the horrible hours. Four hours to get to Toronto is reasonable, but service stopping at 6pm is not! Amtrak is a very good network, at least you can get to places you need to go. The only problem with Amtrak, is that some major cities are without any decent service because of politics and lack of proper investment. Where Amtrak does go, it's great. I'll say it this way, I'd much rather ride Amtrak over VIA any day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IRT_BMT_IND Posted January 4, 2009 Report Share Posted January 4, 2009 The principal problem with rail in the corridor isn't speed - it's frequency. VIA should run at least hourly daytime from London to Kingston and from Ottawa to Montreal, with minimum stops on the extra services and more work done on remediating Permanent Slow Orders where feasible to bring up average rather than maximum train speeds. Stock would be an issue but there are 33 Renaissance cars in storage according to La Presse (see most recent Transport 2000 Hotline).At the same time VIA should withdraw from non-core network/intraprovincial service like Toronto-Niagara stoppers and White River-Sudbury and make Ontario (through GO/Northland) take it on. No point in having a 350km/h service every two-four hours going head to head with Air Canada and Westjet when fast 160km/h expresses every hour is what's needed right now. A successful inter-regional service can then act as the springboard for more ambitious projects. IMO, Via should shoot for hourly service on all corridor routes, and daily service on all of the other ones. Hourly service on the corridor could be accomplished in a few years if there is sufficient political will, a TGV type service would be nice, but would take at least 20-30 years to get up and running. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madsad Posted January 6, 2009 Report Share Posted January 6, 2009 The principal problem with rail in the corridor isn't speed - it's frequency. Good point, but perhaps reliability should trump both speed and frequency, but yes, a slower, but frequent, reliable service is better. Something that can be up and running next year, is better than a TGV-esque pipe-dream that will never happen. No point in having a 350km/h service every two-four hours going head to head with Air Canada and Westjet when fast 160km/h expresses every hour is what's needed right now. A successful inter-regional service can then act as the springboard for more ambitious projects. The days of cheap air travel are ending. One need not be too concerned with going head-to-head with the airlines, unless they do the smart thing, and invest in rail. There will be a return to passenger railroads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Langan Posted January 11, 2009 Report Share Posted January 11, 2009 I just want everyone to know I posted a new topic under general railway discussion that relates to the upcoming free public high speed trains symposium coming up January 31st. check out that topic for more info. Paul Langan High Speed Rail Canada founder http://highspeedrail.ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urbanfan89 Posted January 16, 2009 Report Share Posted January 16, 2009 My High Speed Rail proposal will maximize the amount of existing infrastructure being used to reduce costs, similar to France's TGVs: Pegs: Stations served by HSR trains, can be either by local or express trains. Thick line: Newly built line, on new ROW Thin line: Existing line, upgraded to speed and electrification Dark Red: 350 km/h Red: 300 km/h Orange: 250 km/h Yellow: 200 km/h Blue: Regular railway line with HSR trains running on them http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&....831055&z=7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Langan Posted January 18, 2009 Report Share Posted January 18, 2009 My High Speed Rail proposal will maximize the amount of existing infrastructure being used to reduce costs, similar to France's TGVs:Pegs: Stations served by HSR trains, can be either by local or express trains. Thick line: Newly built line, on new ROW Thin line: Existing line, upgraded to speed and electrification Dark Red: 350 km/h Red: 300 km/h Orange: 250 km/h Yellow: 200 km/h Blue: Regular railway line with HSR trains running on them http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&....831055&z=7 The High Speed Rail Symposium is not just about high speed rail but also higher speed rail also. Two of the presenters will be talking about higher speeds along existing rail corridors. As far as VIA Rail that is a totally different subject. VIA Rail has many fundamental problems that make them a non viable transportation option to most Canadians. Frequency of service doesn't mean anything if you can't afford to take it. VIA's prices are simply ridiculous. It would cost almost $800.00 (798.00) for my family to travel from Guelph to Ottawa by train in January. Don't confuse VIA Rail with what a modern passenger rail system could be in Canada. FYI- We will be announcing the name of another major presenter at the symposium on Tuesday this week. There are only 48 seats left for the symposium so if you are interested register at http://www.highspeedrail.ca Say hi and introduce yourself at the symposium. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SidneyTransitfan Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 I am a major rail-enthusiast and I am glad that Canada is thinking of having a high-speed rail system built. California is too. Personally I'd like to see some British traction being used. (Which requires 25,000kv electrification set at 5.7 meters high). Although most of our rails may be restricted to 125mph (201kph), the trains are not. Some have a top-speed of 140 (Virgin Pendolino Class 390), others 160 (Intercity 225 Class 91s and Mk4 stock) and the Class 373 Eurostar sets have a top speed of 186mph (300kph). Also I agree that train travel across Canada and Even North America is far too slow and expensive. I looked at prices from Pacific Central Station in Vancouver to Toronto and Montreal. ($2,400!) And compared them to sleeper trains in the UK for a much shorter distance ($50-90!) While Britain's buses and commuter trains cost roughly $40 for a trip into London and back, and Canada's prices for a similar journey only cost $5, long-haul passenger trains are a different story! Long Live British Rail! Long Live Canada High Speed Rail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 As far as VIA Rail that is a totally different subject. VIA Rail has many fundamental problems that make them a non viable transportation option to most Canadians. Really? And how would an independent high-speed rail system improve on this for most Canadians? Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Really? And how would an independent high-speed rail system improve on this for most Canadians?Dan I have a question that is a bit different. What is the fastest freight rail corridor in the world? Do they all average about 70mph? I'm just wondering if the tracks are upgraded for high speed service that there could be room for high speed freight service? Which would increase revenue for the carrier. In terms of Mail or parcel services? I'm sure it would be more cost effective than having to truck it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Langan Posted January 19, 2009 Report Share Posted January 19, 2009 Really? And how would an independent high-speed rail system improve on this for most Canadians?Dan Come out to the symposium , learn and ask questions. FYI- We had high speed trains in Canada from 1968-1982 when the Turbo was running. Their Canadian passenger train record speed of 226kph is well documented. Amazingly VIA Rail can't even reach speeds from over 30 years ago. Asking for train speeds that we had over 30 yrs ago is not too much to ask for is it? Paul I have a question that is a bit different. What is the fastest freight rail corridor in the world? Do they all average about 70mph? I'm just wondering if the tracks are upgraded for high speed service that there could be room for high speed freight service? Which would increase revenue for the carrier. In terms of Mail or parcel services? I'm sure it would be more cost effective than having to truck it there. fyi - Its common to have move light freight and mail service as part of high speed passenger trains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Come out to the symposium , learn and ask questions. FYI- We had high speed trains in Canada from 1968-1982 when the Turbo was running. Their Canadian passenger train record speed of 226kph is well documented. Amazingly VIA Rail can't even reach speeds from over 30 years ago. Asking for train speeds that we had over 30 yrs ago is not too much to ask for is it? Paul fyi - Its common to have move light freight and mail service as part of high speed passenger trains. How about heavy freight? High speed Autotracks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Come out to the symposium , learn and ask questions. FYI- We had high speed trains in Canada from 1968-1982 when the Turbo was running. Their Canadian passenger train record speed of 226kph is well documented. Amazingly VIA Rail can't even reach speeds from over 30 years ago. Asking for train speeds that we had over 30 yrs ago is not too much to ask for is it? Paul It's not high on my priority list - I'd rather actually talk about ways of actually improving what we have and ways to impliment the changes, rather than sitting around drooling over videos of what is done elsewhere. And the record is 226km/h - big deal. It was a one-off event that only happened because the railroad wanted to advertise its new marketing scheme, and with the help of police to shut down level crossings along the line. Also for the record, the maximum legal train speed at the time was 95mph - now it's 100mph - so in fact a bit of progress has been made. I'm far more interested in ways we can push that number higher (with the resulting frequency and ridership gains) than pie-in-the-sky gimmick and schemes. But thanks for avoiding the question altogether. fyi - Its common to have move light freight and mail service as part of high speed passenger trains. Bullshit! Every single high-speed railway in the world has a separation between freight and passenger trains. High-speed rail lines are built to standards that simply aren't efficient for freights (high amounts of superelevation, steep grades). Mail can be carried, and parcel/express service too. But not any sort of real freight service. Shaun, to answer your question - most freight services in the world measure their speed not by how fast their trains go, but by the amount of time taken to travel between destinations. A number of US roads run high-priority trains for companies such as UPS and the automakers, and I'm sure the same is done in Europe as well. For the most part, the vast majority of freight that travels over the railways is not high enough value to warrant any sort of specialized high-speed equipment. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orion9131 Posted January 20, 2009 Report Share Posted January 20, 2009 Come out to the symposium , learn and ask questions. FYI- We had high speed trains in Canada from 1968-1982 when the Turbo was running. Their Canadian passenger train record speed of 226kph is well documented. Amazingly VIA Rail can't even reach speeds from over 30 years ago. Asking for train speeds that we had over 30 yrs ago is not too much to ask for is it? Paul The Turbo may have been faster, than the Rapidos, but you couldn't call it high-speed then. If you want speed, then build new infrastructure, or invest in upgrading the current infrastructure to accomodate high speed trains. fyi - Its common to have move light freight and mail service as part of high speed passenger trains. I may be wrong, but only La Postal in France uses the high speed lines to carry freight, and TGV trainsets are used specifically for that purpose. t Other than La Postal, here is no evidence of any frieght trains being allowed to access any European, or Asian high speed corridor. High Speed 1 does have passing loops for freight, but it's not used, and I highly doubt that it will be used. High Speed line are built primarily for high speed passengers train, and should remain so. There are articles, and white papers out there, that discuss building high speed lines in the US to accomodate freight, as a means to attract private investors. But I honestly do not see how you can run freight trains at 200+km/h unless the cargo is enclosed. There is also an article in Modern Railways(I forget the issue number), that actually shows that the idea of running long freight trains at lower speeds is actually cost effective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 The Turbo may have been faster, than the Rapidos, but you couldn't call it high-speed then. If you want speed, then build new infrastructure, or invest in upgrading the current infrastructure to accomodate high speed trains.I may be wrong, but only La Postal in France uses the high speed lines to carry freight, and TGV trainsets are used specifically for that purpose. t Other than La Postal, here is no evidence of any frieght trains being allowed to access any European, or Asian high speed corridor. High Speed 1 does have passing loops for freight, but it's not used, and I highly doubt that it will be used. High Speed line are built primarily for high speed passengers train, and should remain so. There are articles, and white papers out there, that discuss building high speed lines in the US to accomodate freight, as a means to attract private investors. But I honestly do not see how you can run freight trains at 200+km/h unless the cargo is enclosed. There is also an article in Modern Railways(I forget the issue number), that actually shows that the idea of running long freight trains at lower speeds is actually cost effective. Bickering and dreams/fantasies aside.... what would be a realistic expectation? Seriously. More request service with existing equipment? Better on-time performance? Better tracks with trains being able to maintain higher speeds for a longer duration? Some grade separation projects such as the ones in and around Toronto? (Toronto West Diamond, etc?) Maybee some better equipment would be stretching it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 Bickering and dreams/fantasies aside....what would be a realistic expectation? Seriously. More request service with existing equipment? Better on-time performance? Better tracks with trains being able to maintain higher speeds for a longer duration? Some grade separation projects such as the ones in and around Toronto? (Toronto West Diamond, etc?) Maybee some better equipment would be stretching it? While speed would be nice, people want to be able to get on a train at any time and arrive on time - they don't want to have to worry about scheduling their life around it. Therefore, it seems to me that the best thing to do is to (1) invest in more equipment to allow for more departures, (2) invest in more trackage to allow not just those additional departures but also increased freight service in the future run efficiently without treading on each others toes, and (3) invest in a maintenance and overhaul program that ensures that the fixed plant and rolling stock continue to be reliable as they age. Other things, like grade separation projects (not just rail-rail, but also with autos) and enhanced stations (more platforms, better waiting areas) should also be high up on the list, but dependent only on additional monies. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 While speed would be nice, people want to be able to get on a train at any time and arrive on time - they don't want to have to worry about scheduling their life around it.Therefore, it seems to me that the best thing to do is to (1) invest in more equipment to allow for more departures, (2) invest in more trackage to allow not just those additional departures but also increased freight service in the future run efficiently without treading on each others toes, and (3) invest in a maintenance and overhaul program that ensures that the fixed plant and rolling stock continue to be reliable as they age. Other things, like grade separation projects (not just rail-rail, but also with autos) and enhanced stations (more platforms, better waiting areas) should also be high up on the list, but dependent only on additional monies. Dan In terms of purchasing more rolling stock, could they use Acela Type cars being hauled by regular locomotives? Since they are essentially an updated version of the LRC cars that VIA currently has. In the short term, someone on another board suggested using GO Transit equipment for shorter routes (on weekends), freeing up VIA equipment for other routes. I wonder if this would be feasible? Of course there would be no assigned seating, no food service, and the seating is not as comfortable, but if the price is right i think it would be a idea worth while investigating? Of course the equipment would have to be serviced and returned for it's regular run for the weekday rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 In terms of purchasing more rolling stock, could they use Acela Type cars being hauled by regular locomotives? Since they are essentially an updated version of the LRC cars that VIA currently has. They could certainly use the Acela-type cars with other locos. Other options include Alsthom for the Superliner or Horizon cars and Bombardier's own MultiLevel and BiLevel cars. And for the record, the only thing that the Acela equipment shares is the tilting system (and even then, only in terms of function and some design). In the short term, someone on another board suggested using GO Transit equipment for shorter routes (on weekends), freeing up VIA equipment for other routes. I wonder if this would be feasible? Of course there would be no assigned seating, no food service, and the seating is not as comfortable, but if the price is right i think it would be a idea worth while investigating? Of course the equipment would have to be serviced and returned for it's regular run for the weekday rush. I don't think that it is feasible, as you would then require GO units as well. I think what is feasible in the short-term however, is to purchase a small (20 cars or so) fleet of BiLevel equipment from Bombardier, and have them outfitted with interiors similar to the HEP2 cars. This way, VIA would be able to quickly add cars to their roster, and would also be able to free up other equipment to offer more or longer trains. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 They could certainly use the Acela-type cars with other locos. Other options include Alsthom for the Superliner or Horizon cars and Bombardier's own MultiLevel and BiLevel cars.And for the record, the only thing that the Acela equipment shares is the tilting system (and even then, only in terms of function and some design). I don't think that it is feasible, as you would then require GO units as well. I think what is feasible in the short-term however, is to purchase a small (20 cars or so) fleet of BiLevel equipment from Bombardier, and have them outfitted with interiors similar to the HEP2 cars. This way, VIA would be able to quickly add cars to their roster, and would also be able to free up other equipment to offer more or longer trains. Dan How long would it take to have them delivered? What about the higher platform at Montreal? Could they not outfit doors on the mid level by taking out some of the seats and windows? I guess if it was something that is currently in regular production it would be less expensive and faster for delivery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 How long would it take to have them delivered? GO gets theirs about 10-12 months after they're ordered - I would assume that VIA could get theirs in a similar timeframe. What about the higher platform at Montreal? Could they not outfit doors on the mid level by taking out some of the seats and windows? My understanding is that the cars can be outfitted for high platforms. I don't know if they would fit under the catenary though. I guess if it was something that is currently in regular production it would be less expensive and faster for delivery? That's the idea. GO is paying $2.5mil for each of their BiLevels, and they're pretty much loaded with every option available - I can't see them being that much more expensive for VIA. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boo2277 Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 My understanding is that the cars can be outfitted for high platforms. I don't know if they would fit under the catenary though.Dan VIA wouldnt have to worry about their cars fitting under the catenary if they get multi-levels because those already fit under the catenary and this is confirmed since the Montreal Transit Agency ordered a large fleet of multi-levels to be used on all they're commuter lines including the electrified one. And, as a reply to Shaun's question about Montreal's central station... the multi-levels are already outfitted with high platform doors making them usable at all stations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 21, 2009 Report Share Posted January 21, 2009 VIA wouldnt have to worry about their cars fitting under the catenary if they get multi-levels because those already fit under the catenary and this is confirmed since the Montreal Transit Agency ordered a large fleet of multi-levels to be used on all they're commuter lines including the electrified one. And, as a reply to Shaun's question about Montreal's central station... the multi-levels are already outfitted with high platform doors making them usable at all stations. Does anyone have any idea how much VIA paid for the LRC cars back in the day? And how much that would be in today's dollars? Multilevels and bi-levels are different. But dont they operate GO Transit Style Bi-levels in Montreal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 Does anyone have any idea how much VIA paid for the LRC cars back in the day? And how much that would be in today's dollars? No idea, but the number I've heard bandied about is almost $4mil per car today. Multilevels and bi-levels are different. But dont they operate GO Transit Style Bi-levels in Montreal? They do operate BiLevel cars in Montréal, but only on the lines to Lucien-L'Allier. As noted, the MultiLevel cars are designed to fit into a tighter clearance envelope. Although now that I think about it, a BiLevel car is about the same height as an F59, so if AMT's F59PHI's can fit into the trainshed at Windsor, so can a BiLevel. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 No idea, but the number I've heard bandied about is almost $4mil per car today.They do operate BiLevel cars in Montréal, but only on the lines to Lucien-L'Allier. As noted, the MultiLevel cars are designed to fit into a tighter clearance envelope. Although now that I think about it, a BiLevel car is about the same height as an F59, so if AMT's F59PHI's can fit into the trainshed at Windsor, so can a BiLevel. Dan How about an Acela trainset (the cars only)? Any idea how much Amtrak paid for those? I'm just trying to get a ball park as to how much it would cost. Wouldnt a fleet of 50 or 100 be a minimum? Otherwise it's like having oddballs in a fleet isnt it? But Bi-levels or Multi-levels have more revenue per axle and more bums in seats, as well as a more efficient operation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smallspy Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 How about an Acela trainset (the cars only)? Any idea how much Amtrak paid for those? I'm just trying to get a ball park as to how much it would cost. I have never seen a breakdown in pricing for the order that resulted in the Acela trainsets and the HHP-8s. Wouldnt a fleet of 50 or 100 be a minimum? Otherwise it's like having oddballs in a fleet isnt it? But Bi-levels or Multi-levels have more revenue per axle and more bums in seats, as well as a more efficient operation. Why would there be a minimum? GO has ordered their BiLevels in as few as 10 at one time, and one of the West Coast operators currently has an order with BBD for 7 or 8 units. Dan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaun Posted January 22, 2009 Report Share Posted January 22, 2009 I have never seen a breakdown in pricing for the order that resulted in the Acela trainsets and the HHP-8s.Why would there be a minimum? GO has ordered their BiLevels in as few as 10 at one time, and one of the West Coast operators currently has an order with BBD for 7 or 8 units. Dan I thought it would make more sense to create train sets rather than to mix and match. Unless they create another class of customer/ticket or make it non assigned seating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now