[smallspy]

Ummm, the above would seem to conflict w/the below:



To be clear, I actually looked at the aerials over the entire section of corridor, and what I noted was:

1) The bridge over McCowan clearly has ample room for additional track:

View attachment 509212

Not a single track bridge:

View attachment 509213

I count room for three tracks.

The bridge over McCowan is wide enough for 2 tracks (not 3), it's true. But double-tracking over it only buys about a kilometer of distance before the next choke-point which would prevent it from being widened further.

And considering the work required to the signal system in order to allow for that, CN has likely come to the conclusion that it's not worth it. They've had 60 years to lengthen the double-track that far if they really felt that it would help.

Then there's 14th Avenue: (also 2 tracks)

View attachment 509218

Absolutely not. Only a single track. The distances between the girders are only just wide enough for a single track.

And look at the abutments as well - there is no additional support beyond what exists immediately under the bridge.

The crossing at Markham road is set up for two tracks:

View attachment 509214

Those three bridges cover the western 1/3 of the route.

Same as above. Only a single track, with no room for expansion.

***

Point taken, however, that other crossings are single span, notably the Rouge, CP and the 401

I can't make up my mind on 9th Line or Steeles, both look like twin track design from underneath and have one up on top now, but the one on top the aerial view is not convincing as to sufficient room for twin track.

Single track again. Same bridge construction as the above two, although 9th Line has the added fun of having to cross the CP's Havelock Sub as well.

****

On the siding; for the benefit of others (this distance roughly agrees w/ Dan's assessment):

View attachment 509229

That's 7,800ft (includes sections where second track was clearly present but is now clearly abandoned/disused.)

***

I'm not sure of the extent of work required for the embankment to extend the passing track to the south/east, but were it otherwise viable, you could get to ~3.4km total length before hitting the level crossing at Woodview.

I don't think that the geography is particularly difficult through there, and so I suspect that doubling through here would be relatively easy.

But Woodview is a problem. If it was grade-separated, then there is no reason why the double-track couldn't extend to just west of the bridge over Fairport. CN would then have a single 1 mile long stretch of single track (the bridge over the 401) in between two double-track sections, and which would give them a lot more flexibility.

Dan

 

[Urban Sky]

I don’t know how much further off-topic this discussion will bring us, but just a friendly reminder that, if in doubt, there is a dedicated place for any freight (and other) rail discussions:

General railway discussions

I just saw on the news that Domtar is shutting down its pulp and paper mill in Espanola. In addition to being devastating to the community (a mill has been there in one form or another for over a century), it will no doubt have a significant impact on the viability of the Huron Central Railway...

urbantoronto.ca

 

[Northern Light]

I don’t know how much further off-topic this discussion will bring us, but just a friendly reminder that, if in doubt, there is a dedicated place for any freight (and other) rail discussions:

General railway discussions

I just saw on the news that Domtar is shutting down its pulp and paper mill in Espanola. In addition to being devastating to the community (a mill has been there in one form or another for over a century), it will no doubt have a significant impact on the viability of the Huron Central Railway...

urbantoronto.ca

An equally friendly reminder, that this section of track was brought up in the context of both VIA and GO diverting over it due to work elsewhere on normally utilized routes. This isn't that far off topic.

Its also being used an example piece in conversation as to how the way in which Class 1 freights choose to manage their track has knock-on effects on VIA/other carriers.

I think there's a worthwhile discussion to be had (not ad nauseum) on where we (in this case in our region) are at; in respect of rail infra, and the relative desirability and means required to ameliorate things.

Which is hard to know without having some baseline conversation about how much investment is needed (passing track) to achieve an improvement, and what utility that may have.

In this case, admittedly, the utility for VIA as with Mx, would generally be infrequent, at most, one would hope; barring running scheduled service on the York sub, which I don't think anyone views as a serious consideration even in the medium term.

 

[Krypto98]

@Urban Sky was a bit more snarky than I was going to be..........

But he's on point.

The average running speed for the Shinkansen from Osaka to Tokyo is ~200km/ph or thereabouts. Sure its peak speed between stations is much faster, but the trip time has acceleration/deceleration and dwell time.

If you apply that to Toronto - Sudbury, assuming a completely new, straight as possible line ROW, only moving out of the way of major inlets/bays etc. You have a distance of ~350km to cover. That would put your best possible run time at ~1 hr 45, rather optimistically.

Translating the price for that train from Japan, I get about $127CAD 1-way for 500km, assuming, you could pro-rate that to the shorter 350km distance, you're at $88.90 one way, assuming a 10% discount on a round-trip, you're at ~$160.

That there is some seriously pricey commuting.



Again, this is maximum speed, not average operating speed. I imagine with few stops, you could drive average speeds a bit higher than is currently seen in Japan, but I wouldn't imagine one would see much better than a 25% improvement in the foreseeable future.

Sure, that would knock down the super-optimistic commute to 1hr 20 at a push. But that's borderline fantasy and the cost of getting that done would be astronomical.

I'm happy to favour restoring more City-Pair rail services in Canada.

I'm happy to consider subsidizing CP/CN to improve their trackage, and straighten some bit of alignment (or build partially new ROW if one can get competitive times and utility from that.

But that would not deliver Sudbury-Toronto as a commuter line.

Also if one was to shell out that kind of dough, beyond the mainline corridor in Southern Ontario/Quebec it would logically be to extend existing commuter runs just one city further (ie. Barrie to Orillia by dropping commute times) or Stouffville to Uxbridge/Lindsay; or of course to other logical City-Pairs which would be Edmonton/Calgary.

I'm not sure if you've been along the row from Toronto to Sudbury, but north of Washago it's extremely curvy, quite hilly and the terrain is quite difficult with lots of rock cuts and lakes/rivers. A realignment would be in the billions. The current speeds range from 35-45 mph I would be happy to improve the speeds and times, that would make my trip times on the Bala faster but the amount of money it would take, I don't see CN/CP or the government shelling out the money.

 

[Northern Light]

I'm not sure if you've been along the row from Toronto to Sudbury, but north of Washago it's extremely curvy, quite hilly and the terrain is quite difficult with lots of rock cuts and lakes/rivers

I have, and that's what would make a re-alignment potentially desirable, were cost not an issue; its those characteristics that impede speed.

Time is money for the Class 1s too (as you know, you're services aren't free!) LOL

. A realignment would be in the billions.

No question. The only question is whether there is any 'value for money' in delivering some improvement. I'll be the first to concede that there are better places to invest that money, particularly from a passenger rail point of view.

But there is a cost to us all in the slower delivery of goods/commodities, so I wouldn't dismiss out of hand the idea there may be some level of investment worth cost-sharing between CN/CP and the gov't in Central/Northern Ontario, just as there might be in other segments (notably in my mind, through the Rockies, and again from Saint John To Halifax).

I suspect a careful study would find the ROI pretty far out/stretched, but no harm in a look-see. (I don't imagine this straightening the whole segment by the way, that was only raised relative to someone else musing about HSR from Toronto-Sudbury).

The current speeds range from 35-45 mph I would be happy to improve the speeds and times, that would make my trip times on the Bala faster but the amount of money it would take, I don't see CN/CP or the government shelling out the money.

Probably not; it would require finding an optimal segment, where one could address the curves, gradients, barriers etc. in such a way as to shave a large enough number of km off the route, plus achieve enough increased speed to show a benefit over a generation, notwithstanding the cost; which again, is probably a sub-optimal use of funds, at least in the near to medium term.

 

[Urban Sky]

I don’t think the issue for longhaul freight or passenger services lies in the time spent moving as much as in the time wasted while stationary. Track speeds across CN’s transcontinental corridors are more than adequate. What’s lacking are sidings and - especially - yard tracks. Dreaming about new and faster freight rail alignments (which could also be used by passenger trains) seems to miss the point…

 

[micheal_can]

I'm not sure if you've been along the row from Toronto to Sudbury, but north of Washago it's extremely curvy, quite hilly and the terrain is quite difficult with lots of rock cuts and lakes/rivers. A realignment would be in the billions. The current speeds range from 35-45 mph I would be happy to improve the speeds and times, that would make my trip times on the Bala faster but the amount of money it would take, I don't see CN/CP or the government shelling out the money.

If there was a more regular passenger service along that route, then it may one day be warranted. Even if it was a daily, I don't feel that would be a justification. However, if the goal was to add Toronto -Sudbury to the Corridor service and you wanted it to be competitive with the car or bus, then maybe, but even still, it would be hard to justify that kind of investment. And if we are going to do that, why not build a new Via owned line that way?

 

[Urban Sky]

Just two little details for the debates we are currently having here:

First, even if CN and/or CP were to build a new freight ROW along their respective transcontinental lines (which seems far-fetched, as it wouldn’t address the actual bottlenecks, which could be fixed in far cheaper ways), Toronto-Sudbury would presumably be among the last segments considered for this, as it already should have amongst the fastest inter-yard average speeds, thanks to the directional routing zone (DRZ) between Parry Sound and Sudbury. Also, the obvious solution to increasing average speeds further would be to expand the DRZ further south to Bala (the Southern-most point where CN’s Bala and CP’s MacTier Subdivisions are adjacent) or all the way to Toronto (where CN’s York/Halton Subdisivision could act as connector between the two railroads’ corridors).

Second, even if a new, faster and more performant rail corridor was to be built between the GTHA and Sudbury, VIA would not start running any “Corridor” services (i.e. service frequency of at-least daily) over it, simply because Sudbury is too small to act as a terminus point (only Sarnia is smaller and only served because it was along CN’s Toronto-Chicago passenger route) and there are virtually no population centers along the 300 km between Barrie (as the northern edge of a generously defined Toronto region) and Sudbury, with Parry Sound (a small town not even qualifying for Census Aglomeration status with a regional population of less than 10k) being far too small to act as a significant trip generator.

We should therefore be clear that both ideas, as compelling as they might look at first glance, are little more than railfan fantasies…

 

[Urban Sky]

Further to the above, a full explanation (also of „N“ and „R“ behind the boarding time) has been posted here:

Re: This Could Be the Week for Siemens on the Kingston Sub

groups.io

Here is Montreal’s departure board from this morning, for those who want to practice what they learnt in the link above:

 

[lenaitch]

Just two little details for the debates we are currently having here:

First, even if CN and/or CP were to build a new freight ROW along their respective transcontinental lines (which seems far-fetched, as it wouldn’t address the actual bottlenecks, which could be fixed in far cheaper ways), Toronto-Sudbury would presumably be among the last segments considered for this, as it already should have amongst the fastest inter-yard average speeds, thanks to the directional routing zone (DRZ) between Parry Sound and Sudbury. Also, the obvious solution to increasing average speeds further would be to expand the DRZ further south to Bala (the Southern-most point where CN’s Bala and CP’s MacTier Subdivisions are adjacent) or all the way to Toronto (where CN’s York/Halton Subdisivision could act as connector between the two railroads’ corridors).

Second, even if a new, faster and more performant rail corridor was to be built between the GTHA and Sudbury, VIA would not start running any “Corridor” services (i.e. service frequency of at-least daily) over it, simply because Sudbury is too small to act as a terminus point (only Sarnia is smaller and only served because it was along CN’s Toronto-Chicago passenger route) and there are virtually no population centers along the 300 km between Barrie (as the northern edge of a generously defined Toronto region) and Sudbury, with Parry Sound (a small town not even qualifying for Census Aglomeration status with a regional population of less than 10k) being far too small to act as a significant trip generator.

We should therefore be clear that both ideas, as compelling as they might look at first glance, are little more than railfan fantasies…

Wait for it. Wait for it . . . "But they could. It would generate passengers". Built it and they will come.

Even if somebody, somewhere built an arrow-straight, pond-flat ROW, what is the practical top speed for a heavy, 2 km+ long freight. Diminishing returns abound.

 

[micheal_can]

Just two little details for the debates we are currently having here:

First, even if CN and/or CP were to build a new freight ROW along their respective transcontinental lines (which seems far-fetched, as it wouldn’t address the actual bottlenecks, which could be fixed in far cheaper ways), Toronto-Sudbury would presumably be among the last segments considered for this, as it already should have amongst the fastest inter-yard average speeds, thanks to the directional routing zone (DRZ) between Parry Sound and Sudbury. Also, the obvious solution to increasing average speeds further would be to expand the DRZ further south to Bala (the Southern-most point where CN’s Bala and CP’s MacTier Subdivisions are adjacent) or all the way to Toronto (where CN’s York/Halton Subdisivision could act as connector between the two railroads’ corridors).

Second, even if a new, faster and more performant rail corridor was to be built between the GTHA and Sudbury, VIA would not start running any “Corridor” services (i.e. service frequency of at-least daily) over it, simply because Sudbury is too small to act as a terminus point (only Sarnia is smaller and only served because it was along CN’s Toronto-Chicago passenger route) and there are virtually no population centers along the 300 km between Barrie (as the northern edge of a generously defined Toronto region) and Sudbury, with Parry Sound (a small town not even qualifying for Census Aglomeration status with a regional population of less than 10k) being far too small to act as a significant trip generator.

We should therefore be clear that both ideas, as compelling as they might look at first glance, are little more than railfan fantasies…

However...

With the twinning of Highway 69, CN has made a new ROW but has yet to lay tracks down. When they work on the next section to twin the highway, that new, straighter ROW will be used. It can be seen on a satellite view

To dip my feet into the fantasy world, I do wonder if the Northlander return is a success whether the province would look at Sudbury - Toronto passenger rail service. I do not feel that Via would add it. There are much better places that Via should invest in.

There are currently 4 buses to North Bay and 3 to Sudbury.

PDF Schedules | Ontario Northland

PDF schedules are available for passengers who would like a detailed overview of our bus routes. As schedules and stop times are subject to change, please refer to 'Schedules' on our website for the most up to date schedule.

ontarionorthland.ca

 

[Urban Sky]

However...

With the twinning of Highway 69, CN has made a new ROW but has yet to lay tracks down. When they work on the next section to twin the highway, that new, straighter ROW will be used. It can be seen on a satellite view

Sure, if they repeat this 2km long realignment a mere 200+ times, they could have the entire Toronto-Sudbury segment completely realigned:

 

[Northern Light]

I get that any material improvement in the Toronto-Sudbury corridor (alignment) is unlikely; I've never suggested otherwise.

I have also not linked that to material changes in Toronto-Sudbury passenger rail service.

*****

I equally understand frustration with endless fantasies.

However............

*****

If this thread is going to be limited entirely to the status quo, or highly realistic near-term changes to VIA the entire thread will be reduced to ' Oooh, a Charger sighting'
Which you'll have to forgive me if I can't get excited over, notwithstanding the long time need for new rolling stock.

There needs to be some room to discuss what could reasonably be in terms of VIA/passenger service in this country, in this thread, or we might as well shut it down; because there's precious little to discuss otherwise.
That's not an invitation to endlessly harp about HSR from Yellowknife to Whitehorse; or whatever bizarre unrealistic thought passes through someone's head. It is a suggestion that considering the relative opportunity for infrastructure improvements which may benefit existing, or future passenger rail; even if their impetus were primarily or solely advance the interest of the Class 1s, is fair game.

The relative merit of such potential can't be logically discussed if every time it is raised in any way shape or form its met with derision.

How about this:

When ideas for potential improvement are discussed, they ought to:

a) Not be entirely outlandish, and if they are, they should be ignored.
b) If logically, they would be a low priority and face obstacles, the reasons for that can be discussed.
c) When an idea is explained to be a likely low priority, its important to highlight the higher priorities. We should all share in common a desire to improve transportation service in Canada, by both bus and rail. I think we can all get that the corridor, possibly followed by some logical spurs therefrom (ie. Niagara); Vancouver to the U.S. border and Edmonton-Calgary constitute the vast majority of viable projects for HFR/HSR or other major upgrade primarily to serve passenger rail. That should not preclude reasonable consideration of smaller-scale projects for conventional services from time to time.

*************

In line w/the above. May I propose that our expert commentators here identify the best opportunities of which they are aware, outside of the 3 projects I identified above.
Then we have something useful to discuss.

Perhaps, a reexamination of services VIA itself considered running but was unable to deliver for any number of reasons:

Saint John - HFX

London-Sarnia

Some discussion in the past of Sudbury-White River becoming Sudbury- Thunder Bay.

Do any of these have near-term merit? What is the gap between the current state of things and what would be required to launch such services?

Note I am not advocating for any of the above, its simply a jumping off point to discuss something other than what we apparently shouldn't discuss in this thread, which is all this thread has been about for awhile now.

 

[Bureaucromancer]

Some discussion in the past of Sudbury-White River becoming Sudbury- Thunder Bay.

Gotta say that I like that rather a lot, though I think ONR should be involved in some way.

 

[micheal_can]

Gotta say that I like that rather a lot, though I think ONR should be involved in some way.

A Toronto- Winnipeg on the CP route would be a good thing and could be done with ONR.