[Krypto98]

Zephyr has two level crossings already, it's a fairly small 6500 feet. I would be moving the whole siding south of Queensville Side road where there is much more length without road crossings.

More likely, it will be the passenger train, and not the freights, that will be using the siding. And it's long enough already for that.

I do suspect that the mods are simply higher turnout speeds and maybe signalling the siding track - can't remember if the sidings on the Bala are even signalled.

- Paul

Just Medora and Brechin East are signaled sidings with 25 mph speed limits. Medora fits about 13k feet and Brechin East fits 12.6k but only 8.8k between crossings

Will it fit oversiding trains? Cus if not, it isn't that useful.

That's kinda why I mentioned extending smail southwards to the crossing south of smail (would then fit 14k feet) or moving Pefferlaw entirely. But since the business case nentiond Zephyr then I'll just keep it at Zephyr

north side of Zephyr to Queensville fits 8.8k feet

Moving Zephyr completely south to fit between Queensville and Princess street would fit about 12k feet.

Currently York-Durham line's crossing in Zephyr has been closed for the last 2 years at least. North side of zephyr to Princess Street fits about 21k feet...

 

[crs1026]

• Minimal passing track construction at Zephyr (1.2 miles or 1.93 km)​

​

I do think they mean south, not north, as there is a sizable creek at the north end.

- Paul

 

[smallspy]

Will it fit oversiding trains? Cus if not, it isn't that useful.

What do you think? They talk about adding 1.2 miles to it.

Dan

 

[micheal_can]

What do you think? They talk about adding 1.2 miles to it.

Dan

I do not think so. 1 mile is less than 6000 feet. Oversiding Trains can be over 12,000ft.

 

[Krypto98]

I do think they mean south, not north, as there is a sizable creek at the north end.

- Paul

View attachment 544490

1.94 km is 6364 feet which added to the 6500 that zephyr has already would make it 12,864 feet

 

[Krypto98]

I do not think so. 1 mile is less than 6000 feet. Oversiding Trains can be over 12,000ft.

Max length for trains on the Bala sub is about 13000, might be 12k feet but i would have to double check on that... However in recent memory the longest train I've been on was just shy of 12k feet.

 

[micheal_can]

Max length for trains on the Bala sub is about 13000, might be 12k feet but i would have to double check on that... However in recent memory the longest train I've been on was just shy of 12k feet.

So,this siding should fit that train in there and have the room for the slack in the couplers. This way then it does not mean that the smaller train has to side If CN were good at dispatching, it would be nice that south of Washago on the Bala Sub that the Northlander simply passes each siding with a freight sitting there waiting for them to go. If the sidings are long enough, that could be done.

 

[crs1026]

So,this siding should fit that train in there and have the room for the slack in the couplers. This way then it does not mean that the smaller train has to side If CN were good at dispatching, it would be nice that south of Washago on the Bala Sub that the Northlander simply passes each siding with a freight sitting there waiting for them to go. If the sidings are long enough, that could be done.

Operationally it's sometimes advantageous for the more nimble passenger train to arrive first and take the siding while the freight holds back a little, creeping forward until the passenger train has cleared the main and their signal has cleared. Especially if there are crossings involved. Not a huge time loss for the passenger train. A rigid "always put the freight in the siding" strategy is actually disfunctional.

In that stretch, the obstruction may be a southward fleet waiting to make the turn at Doncaster, not just a single train.... adding a lomg siding increases the ability to clear a fleet either overtaking or meeting.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Operationally it's sometimes advantageous for the more nimble passenger train to arrive first and take the siding while the freight holds back a little, creeping forward until the passenger train has cleared the main and their signal has cleared. Especially if there are crossings involved. Not a huge time loss for the passenger train. A rigid "always put the freight in the siding" strategy is actually disfunctional.

In that stretch, the obstruction may be a southward fleet waiting to make the turn at Doncaster, not just a single train.... adding a lomg siding increases the ability to clear a fleet either overtaking or meeting.

- Paul

Since Gormley will be a stop for the Northlander, the siding at Zephyr will be useless for the turn at Doncaster. The more I hear of this, the more the double tracking makes more sense. Even if it were from Zephyr to the existing double track. Do it in stages.

 

[crs1026]

Since Gormley will be a stop for the Northlander, the siding at Zephyr will be useless for the turn at Doncaster. The more I hear of this, the more the double tracking makes more sense. Even if it were from Zephyr to the existing double track. Do it in stages.

And, in doing so, skew the project costs to a degree where the service is no longer economically justifiable?

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

And, in doing so, skew the project costs to a degree where the service is no longer economically justifiable?

- Paul

I think we have been down this road before - the project is not economically justifiable. It is coming back because it is politically justifiable. So, then the question is at what point does the economic outweigh the political gains? To be fair, I feel the entire length of the CN and CP mainlines across Canada should be double track by now.

 

[lenaitch]

I think we have been down this road before - the project is not economically justifiable. It is coming back because it is politically justifiable. So, then the question is at what point does the economic outweigh the political gains? To be fair, I feel the entire length of the CN and CP mainlines across Canada should be double track by now.

Strange that you have been a strong an vocal champion of this proposed service on here.

There has never been a program by any railway to double track their mainline network. Just the opposite, and just off the top of my head, CP had double track between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg as well as east of Smiths Falls and found they didn't need it. Longer trains and better train management tech I suppose.

 

[crs1026]

I think we have been down this road before - the project is not economically justifiable. It is coming back because it is politically justifiable.

But only barely, at the current price quoted. Add any large bells and whistles, and that may turn the project into an albatross.

To be fair, I feel the entire length of the CN and CP mainlines across Canada should be double track by now.

How many vehicles do you have in your own driveway, recognizing you can only drive one at a time?

I will be the first to agree that the railways are disfunctionally miserly about track capacity, but the capital needed to fully doubletrack both lines would sink the railways. And the traffic doesn't demand that much track.

You are definitely out in fantasy land with this one.

- Paul

 

[micheal_can]

Strange that you have been a strong an vocal champion of this proposed service on here.

I know the economics of it, but some things are not just about the dollars and cents. I look at things other than the dollars and sense and ask if spending dollars and cents on it is worth it. That is what most, if not all government projects are about.

There has never been a program by any railway to double track their mainline network. Just the opposite, and just off the top of my head, CP had double track between Thunder Bay and Winnipeg as well as east of Smiths Falls and found they didn't need it. Longer trains and better train management tech I suppose.

I know. And then we have major problems when there are supply chain issues.From factory to consumer there are many bottlenecks.Slots for trains are one of them. The biggest reason they cut back the amount of double track was simply saving money. Proof of that is the backlogs that are created when there is a derailment or rail closure for some other reason.

But only barely, at the current price quoted. Add any large bells and whistles, and that may turn the project into an albatross.

Double the price to get it going and it still would be a go. Ford needs those northern ridings. Bringing it back, even if it takes him a few election cycles will still give him the votes he needs. This could have been up and running by now if it was a high priority thing for the government.

How many vehicles do you have in your own driveway, recognizing you can only drive one at a time?

I will be the first to agree that the railways are disfunctionally miserly about track capacity, but the capital needed to fully doubletrack both lines would sink the railways. And the traffic doesn't demand that much track.

You are definitely out in fantasy land with this one.

- Paul

Do you mean regular year round vehicles, or do you also mean seasonal toys?


As far as double track, if there was regular adding to it, that would make sense, but there really hasn't been much unless it was demanded by something like Metrolinx. The cross Canada is fantasy, but for the most part, it does make sense.if we expect to move more freight faster. A train in Vancouver bound for Toronto should not need to stop except to change crews. Instead, something can be driven by truck the same distance can be faster than the train. That should not be the case since truck drivers cannot operate 24/7 unless they are team drivers. The one thing saving CN and CP in Ontario is that the Bala and Mactier subs are directional.

 

[lenaitch]

I know. And then we have major problems when there are supply chain issues.From factory to consumer there are many bottlenecks.Slots for trains are one of them. The biggest reason they cut back the amount of double track was simply saving money. Proof of that is the backlogs that are created when there is a derailment or rail closure for some other reason.

Just an outsider looking in; bottlenecks have many causes but I'm not sure track capacity is a major one.

So long as they are in the same right of way, a major derailment will inevitably block both tracks.

I would argue roads are subject to weather disruption much more than rail.

As far as double track, if there was regular adding to it, that would make sense, but there really hasn't been much unless it was demanded by something like Metrolinx. The cross Canada is fantasy, but for the most part, it does make sense.if we expect to move more freight faster. A train in Vancouver bound for Toronto should not need to stop except to change crews. Instead, something can be driven by truck the same distance can be faster than the train. That should not be the case since truck drivers cannot operate 24/7 unless they are team drivers. The one thing saving CN and CP in Ontario is that the Bala and Mactier subs are directional.

Logistics folks say it's about 44 hours for a truck to move from Vancouver to Toronto. The railways say '4-5 days'. I can't argue with either of those numbers. A bit of a difference but not huge.

I assume both carriers still have priority trains.