[Bordercollie]

Canadian Pacific Railway Royal Hudson 2860 - Railway Museum of British Columbia

The Crown Jewel of our collection, 2860 is one of 65 Hudson type 4-6-4 steam locomotives built for the CPR by Montreal Locomotive Works (MLW). This engine was

www.wcra.org

Lol considering that steam engines could do 90mph we haven't made much progress in 80 years. Although the creature comforts have gotten better the service levels have gotten worse alone with travel times (even in the corridor).

 

[cplchanb]

Lol considering that steam engines could do 90mph we haven't made much progress in 80 years. Although the creature comforts have gotten better the service levels have gotten worse alone with travel times (even in the corridor).

the problem is that we have sat on our hands in terms of building passenger train corridors and just go cheap by leasing off of freight railroads. Obviously in this case they have via by the balls when it comes to priority scheduling.

 

[just east of the creek]

Can steam trains get up to 88 Miles an hour?

Asking for a friend..

In the UK, beginning in the 30’s, there were regular claims on 100mph plus - Flying Scotsman and the Mallard come to mind, there were others. I believe the record was 120 mph plus. Now the average speed of an express could be another story, with all the usual impediments (including refilling of water, possibly coal on longer runs) in place. In the early 60’s, so changeover era from steam, mainline speeds were commonly set at 75-80 mph. I am sure there are rail experts who can add far more to this. I remember from visiting the National Train Museum in York (UK) which is an amazing place for anyone interested in the history of moving people and freight, plus York Minster, the town…well worth a visit one day.

 

[dowlingm]

Is west of Kitchener still OCS territory?

no, and look who paid for the CTC https://www.railwayage.com/cs/guelph-subdivision-upgraded-to-ctc/

 

[SaugeenJunction]

no, and look who paid for the CTC https://www.railwayage.com/cs/guelph-subdivision-upgraded-to-ctc/

I laugh (in a sad way) every time I remember VIA paid for it… and got absolutely zero benefit.

 

[Allandale25]

no, and look who paid for the CTC https://www.railwayage.com/cs/guelph-subdivision-upgraded-to-ctc/

So the CTC equipment and signals has been installed...but isn't being used?

 

[crs1026]

So the CTC equipment and signals has been installed...but isn't being used?

They are being used, and they perform the function that they were originally designed for…. Ie ensuring track integrity and controlling movements on a lightly used line. But it was a bargain basement installation that is not adequate for upgraded service…. Frankly, even running peak trains at close headways in one direction challenges the system. As the new sidings and passing tracks are cut in, one can expect to see it modified a fair bit.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

So the CTC equipment and signals has been installed...but isn't being used?

So before CTC how were the crossings activated?

Are all of the sidings long enough to fit a 12 car GO train with 2 locomotives?

 

[crs1026]

So before CTC how were the crossings activated?

Grade crossing protection is not controlled by CTC, it has its own dedicated circuitry - which was always there. (the CTC and crossing components may communicate with each other in some specific places, but CTC does not trigger the crossing signals.)

Are all of the sidings long enough to fit a 12 car GO train with 2 locomotives?

Sidings? What sidings?

This is the current problem.... there aren't any.

There are short segments of signalised service/yard track, which sort of serve as double track, in Kitchener, and Stratford. There is one siding at Kelly's near Thorndale. (It is 1740 feet in length, a GO train is 1150ish feet)

The current plan appears to be to add a signalised siding at Acton, and then have longer passing track segments at Guelph and from west of Mossboro to Breslau. But nothing has been said about adding sidings west of Kitchener.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

Grade crossing protection is not controlled by CTC, it has its own dedicated circuitry - which was always there. (the CTC and crossing components may communicate with each other in some specific places, but CTC does not trigger the crossing signals.)



Sidings? What sidings?

This is the current problem.... there aren't any.

There are short segments of signalised service/yard track, which sort of serve as double track, in Kitchener, and Stratford. There is one siding at Kelly's near Thorndale. (It is 1740 feet in length, a GO train is 1150ish feet)

The current plan appears to be to add a signalised siding at Acton, and then have longer passing track segments at Guelph and from west of Mossboro to Breslau. But nothing has been said about adding sidings west of Kitchener.

- Paul

The article says

The CTC project includes new wayside signals; new crossing protection (conforming to Transport Canada regulations), upgrading all crossings to automatic warning devices; automatic remotely controlled switches; and switch heaters at three passing sidings (Kellys, Stratford, Kitchener). Railterm will continue to dispatch the line

 

[crs1026]

The article says

The CTC project includes new wayside signals;

This would be needed if any new control points are added, or if other components are being changed which contemplate changes in speed - for instance if a 15mph turnout is being replaced with a 30 mph switch, the existing signals might not be capable of displaying an indication permitting movement at the higher speed. So you would need to replace or modify the signal (by adding another light, upgrading the circuitry, etc).

And, if you upgrade a switch, in addition to upgrading the "home signal" that protects that switch, you may have to modify signals and circuitry for adjacent signals that protect the approach to that "home signal" - so they display an appropriate indication informing the crews of the signals ahead.

new crossing protection (conforming to Transport Canada regulations), upgrading all crossings to automatic warning devices;

iirc There are still one or two crossings with no automatic protection, and some with lights but no gates. CN is under no obligation to upgrade these just to run freights, but GO/VIA will need these in place to run faster and more frequent passenger trains. This is definitely on GO/VIA's tab.

automatic remotely controlled switches; and switch heaters at three passing sidings (Kellys, Stratford, Kitchener). Railterm will continue to dispatch the line

Another example of things that CN is able to live without for freight, but are necessary for passenger. The added automatic switches get yard and freight movements out of the way more quickly, and assure that these won't get in the way. Switch heaters mean a passenger train does not have to sit and wait while the crew digs the switch out of a snowbank, which is what freight trains do in winter when snow clogs the switch. Again, definitely an expense that GO/VIA have to assume.

- Paul

 

[timio]

iirc There are still one or two crossings with no automatic protection, and some with lights but no gates. CN is under no obligation to upgrade these just to run freights, but GO/VIA will need these in place to run faster and more frequent passenger trains. This is definitely on GO/VIA's tab.

There's one just west of Kitchener that's a farm / trail parking crossing with no electronic signal, just the X sign and instruction to stop.

 

[Bordercollie]

There's one just west of Kitchener that's a farm / trail parking crossing with no electronic signal, just the X sign and instruction to stop.

There are those types of crossings on other subdivisions that allow for 90+ mph operation so I don't see this as a problem.

 

[crs1026]

There are those types of crossings on other subdivisions that allow for 90+ mph operation so I don't see this as a problem.

You should read the TC Grade Crossing Regs before you say that.-

- The reg’s state that the adequacy of crossing protection must be reviewed when class of track (and hence speed limits) are raised. So any legal grandfathering from the past when standards were lower may be removed by the plan to upgrade the line.

- The threshold where protection is required is derived from a statistical formula, where number of trains per day is one variable. Increasing the service from a couple of trains a day to possibly a couple dozen movements over the crossing will result in a new much higher value. So the old result is no longer applicable..

In practice, CN may feel that given the onus on the user to yield at grade crossings, it has sufficient protection from legal liability should there be a collision at a grade crossing. So it doesn’t spend money where the Reg’s don’t require it. For public agencies such as GO or VIA, that hardline legal defense may backfire reputationally. It is no longer about who is legally liable - it’s a matter of a public agency needing to look out for the public (even in cases where the member of the public is making a bad decision). So it’s not surprising if the GO or VIA expansion drives us to a higher standard.

- Paul

-

 

[jamincan]

That driveway is actually somewhat problematic already. It provides access to both a parking lot for a very busy mountain bike area (the Hydrocut) as well as a local gravel pit and there has already been an accident with a gravel truck and VIA train at that crossing. It would probably warrant a gated crossing under current conditions, let alone with future upgraded service to London.