[steveintoronto]

Nothing of this matters as long as Transport Canada imposes the FRA standards of crash-worthiness (as helplessly outdated and counter-productive they might be). Doing the trick of concessioning it as a light rail like the O-Train in Ottawa will almost certainly not work for an intercity passenger rail service.

As a cross-over to the VIA string, if a dedicated passenger track on the Toronto to Montreal corridor becomes reality....one has to wonder on the possibilities for rolling stock if European type regs are adopted?

 

[crs1026]

As a cross-over to the VIA string, if a dedicated passenger track on the Toronto to Montreal corridor becomes reality....one has to wonder on the possibilities for rolling stock if European regs are adopted?

"Dedicated" does not mean "freight excluded throughout". There are numerous places where the lines would still intersect and where freight and passenger trains could potentially cross each others' paths. Any choice of equipment that can't access those parts of the network where freight operations are continuing would be impractical and inflexible.

- Paul

 

[mdrejhon]

"Dedicated" does not mean "freight excluded throughout". There are numerous places where the lines would still intersect and where freight and passenger trains could potentially cross each others' paths. Any choice of equipment that can't access those parts of the network where freight operations are continuing would be impractical and inflexible.
- Paul

It already covered in negotiations -- e.g.

It is assumed for the purpose of this IBC that GO: 1) adopts international (UIC and EN) technical standards;2) this approach is accepted by Transport Canada under the Alternate Practice policy; and 3) by CN and CPR where they interact with RER services. Operating rule changes would need to be discussed and confirmed with Transport Canada and other bodies. This discussion with Transport Canada is particularly important with respect to rolling stock, train control and electrification costs.

We don't know how VIA will be designing HFR, nor we know what Transport Canada will impose as rules where EMUs & freight will interact. If both VIA and Metrolinx are transitioning to electrified owned corridors modified to have more 'controllable' freight interaction that has operating rules that satisfies Transport Canada. If there's few enough.

Like extra headways before the freight conflict points (shared track, crossovers, etc) --

The extra headways can be automatically enforced by a good CBTC system to the point where a train driver couldn't accidentally get too close to a conflict point about to be occupied by a freight train. In many of the CBTC systems -- it signals what kind of train it is -- so all trains surrounding it knows that it's a freight train ahead and can have custom braking rules automatically enforced if the train driver's not paying attention... So two GO RER trains can chase each other closely, but a GO RER train is automatically prevented from trailing a freight train closely or get close to a crossing point that's currently being approached by a freight train...

Likewise, it works vice versa -- the CBTC-equipped freight train is also prevented from approaching a crossover about to be momentarily occupied by a GO train -- and can't tailgate a GO train if it tried to.

In some implementations, a CTC communicating to a capable CBTC-equipped can also dictate which train gets priority too, so if two trains are approaching a conflict point, one is already cleared to enter and the other automatically brakes if the engineer/train driver doesn't do it first....

Yes, it assumes the CBTC system is all set up and working properly... and the electrified corridors are configured properly... But we're talking about double-digit multibillion and a 25-year timeframe.

But yes, perhaps the initial HFR trainsets probably will be FRA-compliant but the incremental upgrade to HSR trainsets may not arrive until 2040s+, for example, and may follow lighter European structural strength on the corridors that has catenary.

In this multibillion dollar initiatives by RER and HFR, they will probably design overhead-electrificiation-filled corridors in a way to discourage frequent freight transit through them, reducing the number of freight conflict points to assigned tracks in the corridor, sidings, and whenever they cross each other, there will probably be custom new Transport Canada operating rules made possible by CBTC, with the rules modelled after international standards.

 

[crs1026]

The ideal outcome would be for TC to say "in light of the improved train control implemented, potential collisions between freight and new (non-standard) passenger vehicles are an acceptable risk". Assuming, of course, that enhanced train control is implemented that would justify this.

In Montreal, you have the Atlantic Canada CN trains using the CN line from Cape to Ballantyne. You have the CSX trains coming east from Coteau. You have the shortline that connects to the VIA Alexandria line at Glen Robertson. There are sections around Ottawa that see freights. The route through Smiths Falls is over freight trackage, and CP still accesses Brockville. Then there's Oshawa. And London. And Carew. And Ajax.

- Paul

 

[steveintoronto]

The ideal outcome would be for TC to say "in light of the improved train control implemented, potential collisions between freight and new (non-standard) passenger vehicles are an acceptable risk". Assuming, of course, that enhanced train control is implemented that would justify this.

In Montreal, you have the Atlantic Canada CN trains using the CN line from Cape to Ballantyne. You have the CSX trains coming east from Coteau. You have the shortline that connects to the VIA Alexandria line at Glen Robertson. There are sections around Ottawa that see freights. The route through Smiths Falls is over freight trackage, and CP still accesses Brockville. Then there's Oshawa. And London. And Carew. And Ajax.

- Paul

As proposed so far, yes, but that could change with temporal or physical separation at some points. They are freight corridors, doubtless, but as is done in many other nations, the incline gradients for passenger track could be considerably steeper than for freight, especially if the passenger routing is electrified. Just catching up on MD's post, he's making some of the same points.

Let me flip this over: If you are investing $Billions, wouldn't it make sense to invest a fraction more to have *dedicated* routings? Of course, this is all conjecture at this point, but I suspect someone or two somewhere is already crunching the numbers.

 

[mdrejhon]

Technically (semantics), it's not really non-standard, but adopting a lighter European or European-derived structural standard.

The long term electrification process would very likely "streamline the freight conflict points". optimizations, merged into fewer conflict points... This might be something mandated by Transport Canada. A possible cost-add (e.g. two or three "Transport Canada enforced condition" rail to rail grade separations to allow high-traffic freight to go over/under an electrified corridor).

Considering EMUs for RER will only be coming to Bramalea/Aurora/Stoufville initially, and possibly not LSE/LSW, there's not much corridor to permit non-FRA trains by 2025. It's a start (for the first 10 years) of a long incremental march to true HSR.

 

[steveintoronto]

The ideal outcome would be for TC to say "in light of the improved train control implemented, potential collisions between freight and new (non-standard) passenger vehicles are an acceptable risk". Assuming, of course, that enhanced train control is implemented that would justify this.

In Montreal, you have the Atlantic Canada CN trains using the CN line from Cape to Ballantyne. You have the CSX trains coming east from Coteau. You have the shortline that connects to the VIA Alexandria line at Glen Robertson. There are sections around Ottawa that see freights. The route through Smiths Falls is over freight trackage, and CP still accesses Brockville. Then there's Oshawa. And London. And Carew. And Ajax.

- Paul

I'll check D-S' claims again, but when this was put to Urban-Sky, he talked of a "dedicated single track with passing loops". Remember, this is to be electrified (in the preferential form) and CN has stated a policy of not running freight under catenary, or the inverse actually. My understanding, albeit I'm going to have to check it later and update this post, is that the *RoW* was being used, not the track itself in almost all cases. That surprised me, as it entails a huge amount of infrastructure, perhaps grade-separation in many cases where there isn't any now, but I'll double-check that. If that *isn't* the proposal, or one of them, then your point stands. It's an excellent point of discussion though, as it really does determine grand possibilities or not.

Edit to Add: In a way, the Bramalea south to Union RER leg is a microcosm of what TC will approve. That 'three year wait' for the $3M study allows for many other factors to clarify before the bigger picture can be seen at all ends.

Unless, fingers crossed, there's a 'Big Bang' at Transport Canada. A massive shake-up is in the works, but how that affects regulation remains to be seen.

 

[mdrejhon]

Now that I have a feeling VIA HFR (if approved) will arrive at the same time as GO RER, my analysis is:

2025: Euro-strength trains allowed to Bramalea, to Aurora, and to MtJoy/Stoufville (EMU RER plan), and perhaps to Whitby yard
2030-2035: Euro-strength trains allowed LSE/LSW (current plan is electric locomotives only)
2035-2040: Euro-strength trains allowed on incremental VIA HSR upgrade to HFR network
(or thereabouts -- but the point is an incremental progression)

Sounds like a reasonable progression, given I have provided evidence that Transport Canada's may apparently be willing to be flexible, bit-by-bit, no?

This incremental progression will be on time when VIA is ready to finally ready to add a ~240kph(ish) HSR fleet to a highly successful HFR network that is by then finally fully grade-separated and fully covered by PTC/CBTC, thereby by then potentially satisfying a bunch of Transport Canada requirements to permit these lovely Euro HSR train consists onboard...

 

[rbt]

Now that I have a feeling VIA HFR (if approved) will arrive at the same time as GO RER, my analysis is:

2025: Euro-strength trains allowed to Bramalea, to Aurora, and to MtJoy/Stoufville (EMU RER plan), and perhaps to Whitby yard
2030-2035: Euro-strength trains allowed LSE/LSW (current plan is electric locomotives only)
2035-2040: Euro-strength trains allowed on incremental VIA HSR upgrade to HFR network
(or thereabouts -- but the point is an incremental progression)

Bit by bit until somebody dies, then about 15 steps backward. Recent Philadelphia (Amtrak) and Santiago (Spain HSR) accidents will be at the fore-front of any thoughts around regulation changes. Lack of modern train control and an inattentive driver was the cause in both cases but Amtrak's stronger passenger train build almost certainly saved lives.

The Amtrak train was travelling at 102 mph, 238 passengers resulting in 8 deaths.

The Spain HSR train was travelling at 100mph, 218 passengers resulting in 79 deaths.

 

[mdrejhon]

Bit by bit until somebody dies, then about 15 steps backward. Recent Amtrak accidents will be at the fore-front of any thoughts around regulation changes.

True.

That said, many of these would have been prevented by grade-separation and working/mandatory CBTC/PTC.

The 2015 philly derailment would have been prevented. PTC wasn't live at the time.

 

[kEiThZ]

The Amtrak train was travelling at 102 mph, 238 passengers resulting in 8 deaths.

The Spain HSR train was travelling at 100mph, 218 passengers resulting in 79 deaths.

Wow. That's an order of magnitude difference. ~3.4% vs. 36%.

 

[mdrejhon]

Was there ever a study of the structural differences of the trains, given both trains were overspeed and derailed on 50mph curves?

The one in Spain had a wall and more obstacles, so there was a lot of deaths from crashing into that, and not from the derailment structural strength differences. But it is also worth a comparison study.

I did read that the hybrid locomotive train configuration Spain used is also very different from Eurostar/TGV EMU trains, with the overweight hybrid locomotive being a potential factor in making derailment more fatal. (The high speed train that derailed in spain used electric locomotive front/rear end units & diesel generator cars immediately behind them).

Regardless...
...Key to all of this, is a mandatory properly working PTC/CBTC system that would automatically brake trains before the curve -- neither of which happened in either the Amtrak or Spain incidents.

 

[rbt]

Was there ever a study of the structural differences of the trains, given both trains were overspeed and derailed on 50mph curves?

Not publicly that I'm aware of but I have little doubt FRA has looked at it internally.

Do we know anything about the Alstom trains ordered for the NEC corridor? $2.5B for 28 train sets seems inline with pricing in Europe. I know they got an exception to the buy-America policy but I don't recall any exceptions to the heavier FRA standards beyond what NEC already might have.

 

[steveintoronto]

The US has already approved a number of "exceptions" to FRA regs:
[...][
This report summarizes structural analyses performed in support of a Hazard Analysis and subsequent waiver petition for operation of European EMUs in a shared-use arrangement in the Caltrain Corridor.

Currently, Caltrain operates a mix of FRA-compliant passenger locomotives and coaches. Caltrain intends to electrify the San Francisco-San Jose
corridor, and intends to operate European EMUs and FRA-compliant locomotive-hauled passenger trains at the same time. Freight trains, operated by the
Union Pacific Railroad under a trackage rights agreement, would be restricted to operating at night after Caltrain service shuts down.The European EMUs are built to European structural and crashworthiness standards. A detailed analysis of these vehicles, submitted as a separate report, indicates that while they would not comply with a number of Federal Regulations in their current condition, modifications should be practicable to the design, such that waivers need only be sought for:
•
49 CFR 238.203 Static End Strength
•
49 CFR 238.205 Anti-Climbing Mechanism
•
49 CFR 238.207 Link Between Coupling Mechanism and Carbody
•
49 CFR 238.211 Collision Posts
•
49 CFR 238.213 Corner Posts
This report summarizes analyses performed by two European Carbuilders (Siemens and Alstom), as well as supplementary analyses performed by the Caltrain
team, The Volpe Center, and other resources. Final results are formatted in such a way that they can be used as “outcomes” in mishap scenarios identified in a separate Hazard Analysis performed by the Caltrain team.][...]
http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Calt...l+Analysis+of+European+EMU+-+Rev3+12-1-09.pdf

It never ceases to amaze me how examples are missed by those who refuse to see, because they don't want to. Change is coming, if for no other reason than it has to. Unless the Supreme Court of Canada awards extraordinary powers to TC to dictate policy, change is coming. They'll do as they're told. Time to start realizing what *can* be done, not what can't.

Desjardins-Siciliano is banking on it, as are "the investors". As are Canadians.

 

[steveintoronto]

Do we know anything about the Alstom trains ordered for the NEC corridor? ...I know they got an exception to the buy-America policy but I don't recall any exceptions to the heavier FRA standards beyond what NEC already might have.

09.21.15
SCHUMER ANNOUNCES: AMTRAK IS SET TO SELECT HORNELL’S ALSTOM AS PART OF $2.5 BILLION PROGRAM TO BUILD SAFER, NEXT GENERATION HIGH-SPEED TRAINS; SENATOR SAYS PROJECT WILL CREATE 750 JOBS INCLUDING 400 DIRECT MANUFACTURING JOBS AT ALSTOM IN HORNELL

Schumer Says NY Companies Like Alstom, ATM, and Transit Air in Hornell, as well as PWI in Wellsville and Vapor Stone Rail in Plattsburg, Will Directly Benefit from Impending Amtrak Board Decision

Project Will be Major Lift to Upstate New York Economy, Including Alstom & Their Suppliers & Create Hundreds of Good-Paying Jobs

https://www.schumer.senate.gov/news...rect-manufacturing-jobs-at-alstom-in-hornell-