^The reason that Turbo performed much better in 1970 is because CN built sidings that were long enough for freight trains every 20-30 miles between Oshawa and Dorval. Those sidings were long enough for the trains of the day, which were maybe 5000 feet long. Freight timing was much less precise, so those pull-off delays were less of a concern. And, as noted, there was a much lower frequency overall of passenger trains, so a freight train was only delayed once or twice by yielding to overtaking Turbos.
These days, freight trains are 14,000 feet long and train handling is much more complicated. When (as inevitably happens) a VIA train ends up following on the tail of a freight on the Kingston line, it can be 50 miles or more before there is clear track to let VIA cross over and overtake the freight. Or, an opposing VIA has to be held so the overtaking train can run around the freight. This is where the reliability takes a hit.
It would take a set of much longer sidings to replicate that approach today. The sidings would have to be long enough for freights to enter them without slowing down... freights would only decelerate after fully clearing the main line, and their deceleration would have to be less aggressive. We're now talking 5-8 miles of siding every 20 miles. And, if we assume the next VIA is only an hour behind, there will have to be another siding not much farther up the line so that the freight can sprint to its next pull-off to let that following passenger train by. We can't ask CN to lower the velocity of its freights by having them pull off over again and again to let VIA go by.
If the freight is "on hours", ie the crew will time out before the next crew change point, or, if the freight is close to its cutoff time for whatever it is hauling to connect onto other trains at the next freight hub, CN will adamantly avoid impeding the freight train. Those missed connections may add a full day to delivery time for a freight shipment. Again, one can't ask CN to make that level of accommodation.
This isn't to say that the Kingston line couldn't be built to resolve this, but it would be costly. I have to assume that VIA has costed that option against HFR, in some ballpark way at least. HFR will cost out as less, and the increment is probably a couple of billions.
A fully 3-track Kingston line that costs HFR+$2B might be a better value for money than HFR in many ways. I'm partial to that alternative. I really don't like the erosion of the Montreal-Toronto travel time.... but I don't have the $2B to chip in to level the options.
I wonder whether, if VIA shifts its primary trains to HFR, could CN allow 2-3 Turbo-like Toronto-Montreal schedules a day, so that the most time sensitive Toronto-Montreal passengers have options for a fast ride, perhaps at a premium fare.
That would come with tradeoffs in how much local service CN would allow on the line, and I'm not keen to see that market eroded either, but some affordable level of investment might make more of that doable.
Perhaps the "incremental" upgrades to the Havelock line that are being suggested for later years should be weighted against the business case for incremental upgrades to the Kingston line. The cost of say twenty miles of double-tracking or curve reduction on the Havelock line might buy thirty or forty miles of triple track on the Kingston line, where there is less rock and swamp to overcome. Or even new line altogether to gradually get VIA off CN.
- Paul
