[MisterF]

I honestly don't understand the obsession some people have with skipping Ottawa. Ottawa drives a lot more ridership for Via Rail than its size would suggest, and more car and plane traffic too. It's only slightly behind Montreal for importance to intercity travel. For every passenger you lose by skipping it, you'd have to gain more than one extra passenger to Montreal to make it worth it. Substantially more than one if you increase your capital costs by building a bypass. Seems unlikely that a slightly faster trip to Montreal would generate that.

 

[roger1818]

I honestly don't understand the obsession some people have with skipping Ottawa. Ottawa drives a lot more ridership for Via Rail than its size would suggest, and more car and plane traffic too. It's one of the most important cities for travel in the Corridor, only slightly behind Montreal. For every passenger you lose by skipping it, you'd have to gain more than one extra passenger to Montreal to make it worth it. Substantially more than one if you increase your capital costs by building a bypass. Seems unlikely that a slightly faster trip to Montreal would generate that.

While I agree that the vast majority of HFR trains should travel via Ottawa, a couple faster (i.e. shorter travel time, not higher velocity), express trains during peak travel times would be attractive to some and could be high yielding.

 

[crs1026]

If we were willing to sacrifice all local service on the Lakeshore, VIA certainly could run a few express trains along the Kingston Sub. The problem is, you can't have it both ways, and sacrificing service to the communities along the lakeshore is not an option.

Especially if, as I suspect, CN is determined to downgrade track quality and passenger speed once HFR has opened. It may be a case of paying CP to maintain 100 miles of mostly single track to a higher quality, instead of having to pay CN to maintain 300 miles of double track to achieve the same thing.

While it is true that VIA could run the express trains through Ottawa on existing track without stopping, the problem is the track geometry isn't conducive for maintaining higher speeds. Straightening curves in urban areas would be expensive and, similar to costs of using a bypass, doing so wouldn't benefit trains that are slowing to a stop in Ottawa anyway. Using the Winchester sub as a bypass only becomes a reasonable option if the costs can be kept to a minimum.

I have always wondered why those few miles from Fallowfield to Ottawa Station are so very slow. While the line is curvy, those curves are not that tight. I have hopes that they would get some attention under HFR, especially now that the level crossing with the O-Train has been addressed. That might be one place to extract some time savings, and it would benefit all users not just the through passengers.

- Paul

 

[crs1026]

As a postscript, while Googling I happened upon the EA for the new overpass that eliminates the level crossing of the O-Train with VIA at the Ellwood Diamond.

When the EA was conducted, VIA specified that an overpass design should permit a 60 mph speed instead of the current 35 mph over the diamond. I'm speculating that the train speed through the approaches to the diamond have traditionally been kept slow as a safety consideration, limiting the potential risk should a VIA train run through a red signal leading to a collision with an O-Train.

A 60 mph speed limit is a lot better than what's allowed at present, although not particularly fast either for a well-fenced right of way. But maybe those curves prevent any further improvement.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

As a postscript, while Googling I happened upon the EA for the new overpass that eliminates the level crossing of the O-Train with VIA at the Ellwood Diamond.

When the EA was conducted, VIA specified that an overpass design should permit a 60 mph speed instead of the current 35 mph over the diamond. I'm speculating that the train speed through the approaches to the diamond have traditionally been kept slow as a safety consideration, limiting the potential risk should a VIA train run through a red signal leading to a collision with an O-Train.

A 60 mph speed limit is a lot better than what's allowed at present, although not particularly fast either for a well-fenced right of way. But maybe those curves prevent any further improvement.

- Paul

View attachment 364965

Interesting. I knew about the project to grade separate the Ellwood Diamond, but didn't know about the speed limit change. Given that the diamond is only about 5km from the station, the new 60mph is likely plenty fast enough as a departing train won't be able to accelerate much faster than that (or an arriving train will need to slow down on approach). I expect there is also a speed limit on the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Federal Bridge, which is about half way between (≈8 km from) Ottawa and Fallowfield stations. I don't know what the speed limit currently is, but given that the train will have only just left one station and is approaching another, I don't see much benefit of making the speed limit too high.

 

[roger1818]

FYI, here is a picture of the new grade separation from the City of Ottawa's website.

The new grade separated Ellwood Diamond bridge, August 2021.

 

[ssiguy2]

Interesting development out of Germany in terms of hydrogen trains..........

Siemens has worked with DB and have begun marketing their new hydrogen trains {Talgo is already working on theirs to be out by 2023/24} and the 3 car trains have a top speed of 160km/hr as do the new HydroFlex trains out of the UK. This is a full 20km/hr faster than the dominant player so far which is Alstom which made it's debut just a few years ago. The Siemes trains also have a 3 car range of 1000 km. Perhaps within a few years we will see hydrogen trains meet the 200km/hr threshold.

Another big development is that Europe has now officially set a guideline for refueling systems for continuity. This may seem small but it's not as the more universal and widespread a technology/operational system becomes the faster and cheaper the implementation becomes due to economy of scale. If hydrogen HSR is achieved within a few years, I think VIA will probably adopt it for it's HFR system. The savings of not having to put in ovehead connections on routes as long as Windsor to QC would not only save billions but also make implementation much faster.

Also hydrogen for HFR would mean economies of scale as VIA must decarbonize it's entire massive coast to coast system over the next 3 decades. This obviously will allow VIA to "piggy back" upon CN/CP's plan decarbonization via hydrogen which CN is already starting to implement with shunting.

If

 

[kEiThZ]

Ugggh. How many times are we going to discuss this? What they are doing in Europe is irrelevant. All that is relevant to VIA is what the freight rail operators (whose networks VIA uses) decide on. VIA and Amtrak will both adopt some variation of whatever is developed for freight rail in North America.

Also, Hydrail in Europe, has a very narrow use case. Not enough frequency to electrify. Short enough to make Hydrail practical. None of this applies to VIA, except for maybe some RDC replacements. The Corridor will eventually be mostly electrified. And the long haul routes will probably have an easier time going to biofuels than hydrogen.

 

[roger1818]

Ugggh. How many times are we going to discuss this? What they are doing in Europe is irrelevant. All that is relevant to VIA is what the freight rail operators (whose networks VIA uses) decide on. VIA and Amtrak will both adopt some variation of whatever is developed for freight rail in North America.

Also, Hydrail in Europe, has a very narrow use case. Not enough frequency to electrify. Short enough to make Hydrail practical. None of this applies to VIA, except for maybe some RDC replacements. The Corridor will eventually be mostly electrified. And the long haul routes will probably have an easier time going to biofuels than hydrogen.

I agree with everything you say, except the part about biofuels. Rather than start the debate again, I’ll just post this press release.

Welcome to CPKC Home Page – English. We go places no one else can go

CPKC is the first and only single-line rail network connecting a continent - Canada, the United States and Mexico.

www.cpr.ca

 

[Urban Sky]

I agree with everything you say, except the part about biofuels. Rather than start the debate again, I’ll just post this press release.

Welcome to CPKC Home Page – English. We go places no one else can go

CPKC is the first and only single-line rail network connecting a continent - Canada, the United States and Mexico.

www.cpr.ca

The idea of wasting fossil fuels for switching at yards is looking increasingly anachronistic and like an obvious field for locomotives powered by Hydrogen (or a battery). However, what electrification technology will be adopted for long-haul mainline applications (i.e. the kind which is most relevant for VIA's non-Corridor operations) still remains a completely different story...

 

[kEiThZ]

I agree with everything you say, except the part about biofuels. Rather than start the debate again, I’ll just post this press release.

Welcome to CPKC Home Page – English. We go places no one else can go

CPKC is the first and only single-line rail network connecting a continent - Canada, the United States and Mexico.

www.cpr.ca

As I said, VIA will use whatever the freight rail operators use for long haul. Till that solution emerges and matures, VIA can deploy biofuels (if necessary) with their existing fleet. And it still is very much up in the air. For every example of a hydrogen pilot, there's also examples of others:

CN Advances Sustainability Efforts With Wabtec’s Battery-Electric Locomotive | cn.ca

CN Advances Sustainability Efforts With Wabtec’s Battery-Electric Locomotive

www.cn.ca

 

[roger1818]

As I said, VIA will use whatever the freight rail operators use for long haul.

And I said I agree with that.

Till that solution emerges and matures, VIA can deploy biofuels (if necessary) with their existing fleet.

Except, at most locations, VIA uses the same refiling facilities as the freight rail operators, so VIA using biofuels outside of the corridor would really only be feasible if the freight operators did the same. I don't want to start the debate on here again, but I don't think that would be as green an option as its proponents like to claim.

And it still is very much up in the air.

Agreed.

For every example of a hydrogen pilot, there's also examples of others:

CN Advances Sustainability Efforts With Wabtec’s Battery-Electric Locomotive | cn.ca

CN Advances Sustainability Efforts With Wabtec’s Battery-Electric Locomotive

www.cn.ca

That is more of a fuel reduction strategy than a fuel replacement strategy, and is very fuel agnostic. The other locomotives in the consist could be powered by diesel, biofuel, hydrogen or even nuclear (once again I am not trying to say any one of those are better than others).

All this to say, I was not trying to say that hydrogen is the best option, but that I am not convinced that biofuel is the easiest and best option for long distance trains.

 

[ssiguy2]

My point was that as hydrogen infrastructure develops as do suppliers, the chances of hydrogen for non-Corridor routes in a given as the distances for battery are far too large and for freight battery is useless except for shunting. US is also already working on hydrogen freight. If the HFR was ready to go than I can see catenary but lets be serious, construction won't start for years and the longer it takes the more viable hydrogen becomes.

Let us also not forget that VIA is a crown corporation and is dependent upon Ottawa for funding and hence Ottawa essentially dictates routes, frequency, where new infrastructure will be built, and rolling stock. "Technically" this is the exclusively VIA's decision but when Ottawa controls all the purse strings, is is Ottawa that sets agenda. With that in mind, Ottawa is spending billions on hydrogen development and expects hydrogen to make up 1/3 of our entire energy needs by 2050 and they will want to get a show piece of hydrogen infrastructure and HFR fits perfectly.

 

[Urban Sky]

My point was that as hydrogen infrastructure develops as do suppliers, the chances of hydrogen for non-Corridor routes in a given as the distances for battery are far too large and for freight battery is useless except for shunting. US is also already working on hydrogen freight. If the HFR was ready to go than I can see catenary but lets be serious, construction won't start for years and the longer it takes the more viable hydrogen becomes.

Let us also not forget that VIA is a crown corporation and is dependent upon Ottawa for funding and hence Ottawa essentially dictates routes, frequency, where new infrastructure will be built, and rolling stock. "Technically" this is the exclusively VIA's decision but when Ottawa controls all the purse strings, is is Ottawa that sets agenda. With that in mind, Ottawa is spending billions on hydrogen development and expects hydrogen to make up 1/3 of our entire energy needs by 2050 and they will want to get a show piece of hydrogen infrastructure and HFR fits perfectly.

Nothing of what you write changes the fact that it would be pure madness to decide how to electrify VIA's operations before the same question has been answered for its host railroads. Regardless of how much of an urgent priority electrifying VIA might be to you, electrifying CN and CP will always remain a much higher priority, because it determines what paths towards full electrification of VIA's operations are economically justifiable and which ones aren't...

 

[ssiguy2]

Whether you think VIA should build catenary or not is a debate worth having. That said, in terms of freight, CP & CP are going hydrogen, That is no longer a question not only because it makes sense but also because of one key point..............there aren't any alternatives. Catenary for tens of thousands of track would bankrupt any freight company and battery is a non-starter bordering on laughable which is why no freight companies are investing in battery except for potential shunting.

For freight {and airplanes, agriculture, mining, steel production, cargo, long-distance trucking & passenger rail} hydrogen is the ONLY clean option. Whether you, or I, like the fact or not doesn't matter, hydrogen is coming because it is the only viable alternative to oil. For all these sectors we either go with blue and/or green hydrogen or we stick with oil...............there is no second option.