VIA Rail Canada

[D40LF]

there's no guarantee of a new alignment being passenger only - DB Schencker are running trials with a Class 92 on the London-Channel High Speed 1 alignment. There may be temporal separation but a derailment could still occur through no fault of the passenger operator and cause schedule disruption. Additionally, it would be difficult to avoid this alignment using an existing mixed traffic section to access central Toronto and central Montreal.

Since it was a CN train AND a CN alignment, it is almost certainly CN's fault short of vandalism or a part dropped by a preceding VIA. Possible? Yes, but we'll have to wait several months for TC to say for sure.

Again you jump to conclusions and blame CN. It may have been a CN train on CN track but the cars weren't all owned by CN so if a BNSF car caused the derailment do you really think that CN is going to accept responsibilty or do you think they are going to blame BNSF?

The new alignment would be a dedicated highspeed passenger ROW, much like the SNCF TGV. That the Brits would run freight on a HS line doesn't surprise me, but since privatization they have proven that they have no clue how to run a rail system, and before you say anything about that I come from a family with a very long history with railways in Britain, and that includes myself.

I understand from emails from VIA that normal service was to resume this morning, can anyone confirm?

Also a friend of mine saw a VIA train pass through Kingston on Sunday evening, heading to Montreal. I guess this was a train that was wyed, maybe in Belleville.

[GM5000]

Again you jump to conclusions and blame CN. It may have been a CN train on CN track but the cars weren't all owned by CN so if a BNSF car caused the derailment do you really think that CN is going to accept responsibilty or do you think they are going to blame BNSF?

If CN accepted the BNSF car in interchange, it's CN's responsibility (not that their respective legal departments won't exchange a few emails....).

[dowlingm]

Does anyone know the reason VIA limits its P42DCs to 100mph while Amtrak allows theirs go to 110mph? Thanks in advance.

[Shaun]

Does anyone know the reason VIA limits its P42DCs to 100mph while Amtrak allows theirs go to 110mph? Thanks in advance.

That's because the Maximum track speed in the corridor is 100mph.

[trainmaster_1]

That's because the Maximum track speed in the corridor is 100mph.

It's more so the timing of the grade crossings than anything else, the corridor can allow speeds higher than 100 MPH if you don't include the permanent speed restrictions.

[smallspy]

Does anyone know the reason VIA limits its P42DCs to 100mph while Amtrak allows theirs go to 110mph? Thanks in advance.

Where is the 110mph track in Canada?

Dan

[dowlingm]

Where is the 110mph track in Canada?

Dan

I was under the (mistaken?) impression the limit was on the loco irrespective of the availability of high speed track - thus my question. If it's merely a VIA safety lockout that can be removed, that would be a different thing. However if CN use FRA classes then in theory the Corridor 100mph track should be good for the full 110 of Class 6 - and at one point the track was good for more than that given Wikipedia's assertion that the Turbo managed 140mph and the LRCs 124mph in testing runs. Maybe it's a signalling thing, or that VIA possibly don't have enough P42s to bother maintaining a 110mph timetable?

Oops - missed trainmaster_1's reply on first read.

[Orion VIII]

Wikipedia's assertion

:rage:

[Shaun]

I was under the (mistaken?) impression the limit was on the loco irrespective of the availability of high speed track - thus my question. If it's merely a VIA safety lockout that can be removed, that would be a different thing. However if CN use FRA classes then in theory the Corridor 100mph track should be good for the full 110 of Class 6 - and at one point the track was good for more than that given Wikipedia's assertion that the Turbo managed 140mph and the LRCs 124mph in testing runs. Maybe it's a signalling thing, or that VIA possibly don't have enough P42s to bother maintaining a 110mph timetable?

Oops - missed trainmaster_1's reply on first read.

Those were "tests".

I think it's up to Transport Canada to decide if the corridor speed should be increased to 110. But does 10MPH really make that much difference?

If anything building more areas where trains can maintain higher speeds for longer would be more beneficial for faster trains.

[dowlingm]

But does 10MPH really make that much difference?

If anything building more areas where trains can maintain higher speeds for longer would be more beneficial for faster trains.

I don't disagree as such where a speed bump would require purchasing more equipment - I'm a strong advocate for reducing PSRs and TSRs, and for more grade separation - it was more a question of whether we can squeeze a little more out of what we have. 160km/h is not much faster than the 120-140km/h on the 401, but being able to advertise 177km/h would put a touch more daylight between the two figures, maybe some London and Kingston trips down to something in the 1h55-59 range which breaks a psychological barrier (even if on Kingston it would only be the 44 and maybe the 61)

[translink fan]

well the Amtrak cascades train's max speed to go is 179km/h on the VIA rail tracks here in vancouver. Although, the talgo sets max speed is up to 200km/h. So maybe transport Canada can decide whether to increase the speed or not. of via rail trains in the corridor. But if they were to, i think they'd need to modify the tracks to handle them.

[smallspy]

I was under the (mistaken?) impression the limit was on the loco irrespective of the availability of high speed track - thus my question. If it's merely a VIA safety lockout that can be removed, that would be a different thing. However if CN use FRA classes then in theory the Corridor 100mph track should be good for the full 110 of Class 6 - and at one point the track was good for more than that given Wikipedia's assertion that the Turbo managed 140mph and the LRCs 124mph in testing runs. Maybe it's a signalling thing, or that VIA possibly don't have enough P42s to bother maintaining a 110mph timetable?

Oops - missed trainmaster_1's reply on first read.

Transport Canada does use "Classes" of a sort to denote quality of track (although at different levels than the FRA in the US), but also uses other measures with which to determine maximum track speeds. In Canada, the fastest a passenger train can travel on track with level crossings is 100mph. Removing the level crossings apparently will allow Transport Canada to certify the track for 125mph operation (provided the track and structure allows it as well), but that's theoretical at this point as no such track exists in Canada.

The P42s are geared and can run at 110mph. But as there is no track where that is possible, they can only run as fast as the track (and equipment) allow. There is no "VIA safety lockout".

The test runs were just that - test runs. They involved stretches of track that were closed down to normal traffic at the time, and fleets of police officers to close the level crossings. They can not be used to determine anything other the potential top speed of the equipment.

By the way, if those are the speeds listed on Wikipedia, they are wrong. The top speed of the Turbo was 140.6mph, and the top speed of the LRC was about 129.5mph.

well the Amtrak cascades train's max speed to go is 179km/h on the VIA rail tracks here in vancouver.to handle them.

No they can't. The max speed of any passenger train in Canada is 161km/h (100mph), and that is in the Corridor. I'm pretty sure that the max speed of the trackage south of Vancouver is 80mph.

Dan

[translink fan]

Crap! sorry i didnt know i was putting 179km/h but yeah thats the speed i was shooting for.

[TheAverageJoe]

Crap! sorry i didnt know i was putting 179km/h but yeah thats the speed i was shooting for.

Thats still over the limit in Canada.

[TomW]

That's because the Maximum track speed in the corridor is 100mph.

How much of it is 100mph? Most of it, or only some of it?

Related note: does anyone know how fast the fastest CN freight trains go? I've seen container trains doing at least 100km/hr.

I think it's up to Transport Canada to decide if the corridor speed should be increased to 110. But does 10MPH really make that much difference?

Going from 100mph to 110mph would be a 10% speed increase, and would lead to a 10% decrease in travel times. The rough rule of thumb is that a 1% decrease in travel times will produce a 1% increase in revenue (through more passenegers and/or a willignness to pay higher fares). Plus, a 10% decrease in tavel times means a decraese in staffign costs. So, yes, it can make quite a bit of difference.

I recall something about signalling being a significant issue for 125mph operation... given that in-cab signalling is not a necessity at those speeds, does anyone know what signalling issues there might be?

[smallspy]

How much of it is 100mph? Most of it, or only some of it?

Probably about 70% of the trackage between Toronto and Montreal is rated for 100mph operation for either all passenger trains, or trains which can operate at the higher "LRC" restriction. There is no 100mph track southwest of Toronto, and I don't know how much of the track to/from Ottawa and Quebec City is rated for 100mph.

Related note: does anyone know how fast the fastest CN freight trains go? I've seen container trains doing at least 100km/hr.

Much of the same trackage also has a maximum freight speed of 65mph, although most freights are limited to lower speeds for a variety of different reasons.

Going from 100mph to 110mph would be a 10% speed increase, and would lead to a 10% decrease in travel times. The rough rule of thumb is that a 1% decrease in travel times will produce a 1% increase in revenue (through more passenegers and/or a willignness to pay higher fares). Plus, a 10% decrease in tavel times means a decraese in staffign costs. So, yes, it can make quite a bit of difference.

Wrong.

You need to accelerate from 100 to 110mph - it doesn't happen instantly. If a train was to accelerate at a rate of 2 MPH per minute, it would still need almost 10 miles to reach that higher speed. And if the stretch of track rated for that speed is only 50 miles long (to throw out a number), you're only going to be running at 110mph for about 38 miles of it (2 miles to decelerate smoothly) - assuming that the grades even allow it. All in all, you only save about 2 and a half minutes over those 50 miles.

I recall something about signalling being a significant issue for 125mph operation... given that in-cab signalling is not a necessity at those speeds, does anyone know what signalling issues there might be?

I seem to recall Transport Canada recommending cab signalling for anything running at 125mph and beyond. They probably would also prefer that freight and passenger trains be separated.

Dan

[TomW]

Going from 100mph to 110mph would be a 10% speed increase, and would lead to a 10% decrease in travel times.

Wrong.

You need to accelerate from 100 to 110mph - it doesn't happen instantly. If a train was to accelerate at a rate of 2 MPH per minute, it would still need almost 10 miles to reach that higher speed. And if the stretch of track rated for that speed is only 50 miles long (to throw out a number), you're only going to be running at 110mph for about 38 miles of it (2 miles to decelerate smoothly) - assuming that the grades even allow it. All in all, you only save about 2 and a half minutes over those 50 miles.

OK, I should have said "up to a 10% decrease in travel times".

Sure, 2.5 minutes doesn't seem much, but if the total travel time for your 50 mile stretch drops from 40 minutes to 37.5 minutes, that's a 6% saving in travel time, leading to a 6% increase in revenue.

As for grades, what's bad one way is equally good the other, so it all cancels out over all. (Besides, the faster the train, the less a given change elevation will slow you. Odd, but true).

I seem to recall Transport Canada recommending cab signalling for anything running at 125mph and beyond. They probably would also prefer that freight and passenger trains be separated.

Bear in mind that there are railways which run 125mph trains with line-side signalling without any problems. Anything much over that does need in-cab signalling. I know of some tests done in the 1980s with trains running 140mph (225 km/hr) which found drivers could not reliably observe line-side signals at those speeds.

If Transport Canada does insist on the threshold being strictly 125mph, then VIA can aim for 200km/hr (=124.2 mph) instead. :-)

[smallspy]

OK, I should have said "up to a 10% decrease in travel times".

But even then a 10% decrease in time is only theoretical. The actual value depends on the amount of time spent at that higher speed (plus the time factored in for accelerating and decelerating) versus the overall trip of that train.

Sure, 2.5 minutes doesn't seem much, but if the total travel time for your 50 mile stretch drops from 40 minutes to 37.5 minutes, that's a 6% saving in travel time, leading to a 6% increase in revenue.

Sure, it's an improvement. There's no debating that.

But how are you getting a 6% increase in revenue, exactly? Speed/time is not tied to revenue in any sense - some of the most popular trains in the Corridor are the ones that take the longest time end-to-end.

As for grades, what's bad one way is equally good the other, so it all cancels out over all. (Besides, the faster the train, the less a given change elevation will slow you. Odd, but true).

Grades don't equal out actually. They might if their dispersion was even on the line, but because they aren't there are locations where there is an increase in the speed limits but the trains will never are capable of achieving them.

Although you are certainly correct that faster trains perform better on uphills.

If Transport Canada does insist on the threshold being strictly 125mph, then VIA can aim for 200km/hr (=124.2 mph) instead. :-)

No arguments here. Any increase is a good thing.

Dan

[rollsign29]

Pictures of the new Smiths Falls VIA Station, taken on March 29th, 2011.

Looking south towards town. CP mainline visible in the background.

Looking east towards the existing CP station.

New siding and spur looking east (south) towards junction with CP.

End of new spur and siding looking west (north) towards crossing with Highway 15 and Ottawa.

Overview of station and platform as seen from CP mainline. Intersection in background (where my car is) is Hwy 15/Union St & Ruthven St.

Architecture of the station, eliminating the "box" appearance (barely).

Yet to be installed signage for the platform poles. The temporary table and bench seats barely fit in the "room".

Now, it was brought to my attention that the passing siding doesn't have platform access. I do believe that 1) The passing siding is so that meets between VIA's don't happen on CP's main line at the existing station and 2) As per the schedule, no meets in Smiths Falls necessitate that both trains are scheduled to serve the station. So, if that is true, the train that is NOT scheduled at the station takes the siding and the one that is, takes the main line.

As for that siding/spur, my only guess is that it is an interchange track for any movements between CP and OCRR/CN/whoever it is now.

[TomW]

But how are you getting a 6% increase in revenue, exactly? Speed/time is not tied to revenue in any sense - some of the most popular trains in the Corridor are the ones that take the longest time end-to-end.

When you decrease the travel time, you make the service more attractive (all other things being equal). This will manifest itself either with more people wanting to use the service, and/or people being willing to pay a higher price to use the service. More passengers and/or higher fares means more revenue.

Example: planes can charge more than trains because they are quicker. Or GO Transit can charge more than TTC for intra-Toronto trips for the same reason. Also, if two services have the same price but different travel times, the quicker will generally be more popular.

Your example with the Corridor (I think) misses the point that the trains which take longer on a given serve more stops.

[Shaun]

When you decrease the travel time, you make the service more attractive (all other things being equal). This will manifest itself either with more people wanting to use the service, and/or people being willing to pay a higher price to use the service. More passengers and/or higher fares means more revenue.

Example: planes can charge more than trains because they are quicker. Or GO Transit can charge more than TTC for intra-Toronto trips for the same reason. Also, if two services have the same price but different travel times, the quicker will generally be more popular.

Your example with the Corridor (I think) misses the point that the trains which take longer on a given serve more stops.

Currently are there even smaller stops which could be added to benefit ridership? So there would be express, Semi express and Local?

[rollsign29]

Currently are there even smaller stops which could be added to benefit ridership? So there would be express, Semi express and Local?

And for that to work on a grand scale, you'd likely need a 3-4 track mainline (if you went with 3, then 4 trakcs between places like Belleville and Trenton, Port Hope and Cobourg, ... anywhere reasonably close).

Feasible: Not likely

Solution: Exclusive corridor with new, seperate Lynx service (I love the name of the early 90's proposal for HSR) and then maintain your existing VIA service, possibly even more if ridership grows.

My preference: New corridor, passenger only, with a high-speed operation, but with the addition of semi-local trains on it as well using EMU's. DMU's can be maintained on the existing CN tracks for fully localized service.

So many ideas, so little money or desire to implement them.

[smallspy]

When you decrease the travel time, you make the service more attractive (all other things being equal). This will manifest itself either with more people wanting to use the service, and/or people being willing to pay a higher price to use the service. More passengers and/or higher fares means more revenue.

Example: planes can charge more than trains because they are quicker. Or GO Transit can charge more than TTC for intra-Toronto trips for the same reason. Also, if two services have the same price but different travel times, the quicker will generally be more popular.

Your example with the Corridor (I think) misses the point that the trains which take longer on a given serve more stops.

That's not the case at all.

Let's look at the TTC, shall we - very few of the services that they offer are time-competitive with a car, their primary form of competition. They do offer however lower cost, frequent, and (usually) reliable service. And because of this, the TTC remains popular and has had consistent growth for the past 10 or so years.

Hell, even GO - their schedules become slower and slower, and yet they keep getting more and more riders. Why? Frequent and reliable service and at a lower cost. Speed has little to do with it. And if you look at the travel patterns inside of Toronto, sure, they might be faster to downtown, but more people (on average) take the TTC from a given area because the service is that much more frequent.

The reason planes charge more has nothing to do with their speed, but rather their costs.

Dan

[D40LF]

When you decrease the travel time, you make the service more attractive (all other things being equal). This will manifest itself either with more people wanting to use the service, and/or people being willing to pay a higher price to use the service. More passengers and/or higher fares means more revenue.

Sorry but that doesn't make sense.

People would not want to pay more, anytime there is a fare increase they complain. The average person doesn't want to part with their hard earned money, yes they want to get to their destination faster but for less not more.

If people were happy to pay more then trains would be all Club Cars with one coach for those too poor to pay the extra.

[TomW]

That's not the case at all.

Let's look at the TTC, shall we - very few of the services that they offer are time-competitive with a car, their primary form of competition. They do offer however lower cost, frequent, and (usually) reliable service. And because of this, the TTC remains popular and has had consistent growth for the past 10 or so years.

Hell, even GO - their schedules become slower and slower, and yet they keep getting more and more riders. Why? Frequent and reliable service and at a lower cost.

...

The reason planes charge more has nothing to do with their speed, but rather their costs.

Dan

The fact that TTC isn't time competitive with a car but nevertheless attracts plenty of trips has nothing to do with my point: that if you decease journey times, you make the service more attractive, which manifests itself in higher revenues.

You are right about GO - which proves speed isn't the only factor when it comes to mode choice (and I never argued that it was the only factor).

Planes *need* to charge more because of their higher costs, but people are *willing* to pay more because it's quicker.

Sorry but that doesn't make sense.

People would not want to pay more, anytime there is a fare increase they complain. The average person doesn't want to part with their hard earned money, yes they want to get to their destination faster but for less not more.

What doesn't make sense??

What people want, and what people do, are seperate things. Of course they *want* to pay less, but what happens is that people are willing to spend more if the journey times improve.