[SaugeenJunction]

Maybe someone can correct me on this, but why can they not cut out the bad structural parts, and weld in new structural parts?

Not with aluminum frames on the LRCs. That material doesn't work like steel.

 

[micheal_can]

Not with aluminum frames on the LRCs. That material doesn't work like steel.

You can weld aluminum. Even aircraft aluminum you can weld.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Canada first, Germany second!

VIA Uber Alles

 

[steveintoronto]

If HFR is electric, why would they then take the option for the 16 extra diesel trainsets?

Perhaps to hedge their bets on the "upgrade-able to electric" option? Since you don't know the written terms of the option, arguing it is moot. Post some reference, and then we can discuss it.

What was the VIA HFR proposal? $6 billion total? Was that including rolling stock? Clearly it doesn't can't include anywhere close to $5 billion of electrification!

Since you don't know what the proposal is, is it a little wild and reckless to be disputing your own imagination?

Google for "HFR private investment". The figures VIA are touting are for rolling stock, the RoW is to be private. First hit Googling:
VIA Rail looks to private investment for $3-billion dedicated track plan

Btw: Using the Great Western electrification as a template for anything defies the laws of belief. It was multiples per distance than European norms, which is why it became such a lightning rod and sparked the UK's Hydrail imbroglio.

 

[nfitz]

Since you don't know what the proposal is, is it a little wild and reckless to be disputing your own imagination?

I was looking at a newspaper report from early 2018, that said about $6 billion. We've tossed the numbers around before further up the thread ... not sure why you aren't aware of this or try and pretend that I'm not aware we've had these dicussions.

$3 billion as you can see, clearly doesn't allow for electrification; nor does $6 billion. Either that number never included electrification, or the costing for this project isn't simply grossly incompetent - it is criminal!

Btw: Using the Great Western electrification as a template for anything defies the laws of belief.

$US4 million per route mile is typical for electrification in the USA.That's CAN$3.3 million a kilometre - about $3 billion from Toronto to Quebec City. A bit less than the $5 billion in the UK. But that's still only single-track, and clearly not within the budgets discussed! (note, math error fixed)

The issue with the Great Western, isn't that it's unusually high, it's the initial estimate was criminally low. Not sure why.

It's easy enough to see what's going on with VIA. There's a long history of Quebec engineers underestimating project costs by extreme amounts. I'm not sure what the systemic issue is that makes engineers there believe that it's okay to do this - whether it's simply gross incompetence, or ignoring reality, and simply providing the bosses the numbers they want.

 

[steveintoronto]

It's easy enough to see what's going on with VIA. There's a long history of Quebec engineers underestimating project costs by extreme amounts.

I see. That puts your other comments in context. I'll stick to reference and fact.

The issue with the Great Western, isn't that it's unusually high, it's the initial estimate was criminally low. Not sure why.

The cost of electrifying the Great Western Railway mainline has tripled from the original estimate to as much as £2.8bn, an overrun that puts a host of other rail improvement schemes in doubt.

Mark Carne, the chief executive of Network Rail, told the public accounts committee on Wednesday that the delayed project to electrify the London to Cardiff line would cost £2.5bn-£2.8bn instead of the £874m projected in 2013.

MPs lambasted Carne, as well as the rail regulator tasked with scrutinising Network Rail’s spending, for failing to keep a grip on the costs. Meg Hillier, chair of the committee, said it was “a staggering increase” given that Network Rail had said only a year ago that it would cost £1.6bn.
[...]

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ainline-triples-to-28bn-risking-other-schemes

It's easy enough to see what was going on: Quebec engineers, in London. And a long history of werewolves...

Meantime, those bloody foreigners on the Mainland:

Building a case for cost reductions in the electrification of UK infrastructure
The cost of electrification in the UK is substantially higher than in other countries. Noel Dolphin, Director of Furrer+Frey, discusses how this is hindering the rail sector’s progress, and highlights a successful European case study that the UK could learn from.
[...]
Cost of electrification
However, electrification costs on the Schönbuchbahn project are a fraction of UK electrification costs.

The overall project cost £89.82 million, including the electrification construction and materials which were £8.11 million. The electrification was for 29.60 STKM and the majority of the 17.9km-long route was two-track with only some sections single-track. The costs equated to £273,810 per kilometre per STKM for materials and construction. This includes the materials and installation of foundations, structures, small part steelwork and registration equipment, plus conductors. Project management by the client and design costs were budgeted separately, but when included, the total costs for electrification of the Schönbuchbahn was £9.85 million, or £290,000 per kilometre per STKM.
[...]

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com...-in-the-electrification-of-uk-infrastructure/

 

[SaugeenJunction]

You can weld aluminum. Even aircraft aluminum you can weld.

The entire frames are getting micro cracks in them. Welding doesn't fix that, and identifying the problem areas would mean stripping each car to the bones.

 

[nfitz]

I see. That puts your other comments in context. I'll stick to reference and fact.

There's lot of references to costs for major Quebec transportation projects being grossly underestimated. Look at the 3-station Metro extension to Laval. The cost estimate on that was so low, there was a provincial investigation. The total cost wasn't even that extreme, at about $750 million - $140 million per kilometre. But the original estimate was a bizarre $179 million (total!) in 1998. In the same time-frame, the similar-length Sheppard subway was costing $1 billion, but came in approximately on (I think actually slightly under) budget.

Clearly the metro extension budget was very unrealistically low. We see cost overruns in Toronto construction - but we don't see such extreme under-budgeting.

I'm not sure why you are so willing to stick your head in the sand, and ignore what is quite blatant. I've given you UK and US examples of higher cost to electrify, than the entire HFR budget (either the $3 billion or $6 billion) versions. Why do you think it's going to cost a fraction in Ontario and Quebec than it does in the USA and England?

 

[steveintoronto]

Why do you think it's going to cost a fraction in Ontario and Quebec than it does in the USA and England?

Here's what you wrote:

In reality I'd think that HFR electrification from Toronto to Quebec City would be more than that, with passing track, and lot less inefficiency per km with a lot of single-track segments, so the cost per km of track would be higher than the Great Western, which has a lot of 4-track segments!

Europe altogether, as detailed in the links I posted, is a fraction of the UK costs, let alone the Great Western (full disclosure, I have a brother who works First Great Western trains on the western mainline).

But I digress...

HFR will be run on privately owned track. VIA, at least in the preliminary proposals put forward, or more correctly, the Gov't of Canada will own the trainsets.

I'm quite willing to see what private enterprise comes up with as a proposal for establishing and electrifying that RoW.

Meantime, your choice of the Great Western electrification is 'bollocks' even by UK standards:

[...]However, price predictions put forward by Network Rail missed the mark. For example, the cost of the Great Western electrification scheme rose from £874m in 2013 to £2.8bn in 2015, making it around seven times more expensive than electrifying the UK’s East Coast route.[...]

https://www.railway-technology.com/features/will-uk-ever-get-electrification-back-track/

Issue 164 – Electrification can be affordable

• 4th June 2018
• David Shirres BSc CEng MIMechE DEM

This month we focus on the benefits of electrification and how it can be delivered at an acceptable cost. For example, our ‘Why electrify?’ feature shows that, when diesel driven, current bi-mode trains have only two-thirds the traction power of their electric mode.

[...]
Chris Grayling’s parliamentary statement cancelling various electrification schemes included the comment that “bi-mode trains can improve journeys without the need for electrification”. Yet, as a recent National Audit Office report revealed, when he decided to cancel these schemes, he was advised that bi-mode rolling stock with the required speed and acceleration did not exist. To use a term coined by the Trump administration, Grayling’s comment was an alternative fact.

A significant factor in his decision was the almost-threefold increase in GW electrification costs. There are many reasons for this, from which it is important to acknowledge mistakes rather than assign blame. In this way, the lessons learnt can ensure that future electrification can be delivered in a cost-effective manner. One such mistake was over-engineered OLE structures, as is evident in comparison with continental high-speed lines and previous UK electrification.

Yet, during a recent inspection of the GW electrification scheme, Rail Engineer was advised that its structures were deliberately chunky as lightweight East Coast electrification equipment was prone to weather extremes. This is another alternative fact. Rail Engineer understands from various sources, including one of its previous route directors, that East Coast wiring problems were primarily due to lack of maintenance. Furthermore our ‘Getting electrification right’ feature explains how the GW OLE structure design issues have been acknowledged and addressed.

This feature describes the good work being done by Network Rail’s engineers and the Railway Industry Association to show how electrification can be delivered at half the cost per mile of the GW electrification scheme. This is not just a theoretical aspiration, as electrification is currently being delivered at, or below, this lower cost in Scotland and Germany, where there is a steady rolling programme.
[...]

https://www.railengineer.uk/2018/06/04/issue-164-electrification-can-be-affordable/

And indeed the Europeans are doing it even cheaper than the East Coast Mainline was even:

[...]
The Rail Industry Association (RIA) is currently collating case studies and benchmarking costs from across Europe. From suppliers it is now clear that UK electrification costs are out of kilter with European norms. At Furrer+Frey we have been electrifying railways for almost 100 years, so in order to support the work of the RIA we have looked at some recent European projects. [...]

https://www.globalrailwayreview.com...-in-the-electrification-of-uk-infrastructure/

I'd suggest that if a company like Siemens is involved in a consortium to build a RoW for HFR, they'd be utilizing engineers, most likely their own (they are one of the world's largest electrical companies) to cost a system to meet high standards for a competitive price.

Just like their trains...

 

[steveintoronto]

You can weld aluminum. Even aircraft aluminum you can weld.

6.1 Asset condition 6.1.1 Cars LRC  VIA Rail has 97 LRC cars, which represent 60.6% of the Corridor fleet;  An independent engineering evaluation identified that the LRC’s aluminum car body is subject to corrosion and structural issues; and  The fleet has already gone through two major overhaul programs for corrosion repair and renewal of vehicle interiors as well as its mechanical and electrical systems all for the purpose of extending the LRC’s life, but further refurbishment is not an option.

https://m.viarail.ca/sites/all/file...ny/corporate-plan/CorporatePlan_2017_2021.pdf

 

[Urban Sky]

There's lot of references to costs for major Quebec transportation projects being grossly underestimated.

This is not a uniquely Quebec-specific problem and I highly recommend the academic works of Bernd Flyvbjerg, who studied this global phenomenon (which extends far beyond rail infrastructure) extensively. Also, as a resident of the GTHA with its own experiences of cost overruns and ridership over-estimations (UP Express, anyone?) I would choose a slightly more modest tone when talking about the engineers of other provinces...

Now to the topic of electrification:

• One of the main cost drivers for electrification in the United Kingdom is the high number of overpasses - most of which were built according to the railway clearance standards of Victorian times, where electrification was simply unknown. I invite you to start counting the number of overpasses (i.e. bridge over the railroad) on the London-Cardiff line using Google Earth and compare it with the HFR route...
• How can a fleet consisting of a diesel locomotive, some cars and a cab car be electrified? Replace the locomotive through an electric locomotive and you have a single-mode electric train or replace the cab car through the same electric locomotive and you have a bi-mode train.
• What is the main benefit of electrification? Lower operating costs (energy, but also maintenance) and higher acceleration capabilities.
  • Where is that benefit the highest? Where the train operates at high speeds, but has to decelerate and accelerate frequently (e.g. segments with a high design speed, but semi-frequent curves with lower speed limits)
• What is the main disadvantage of electrification? High capital costs.
  • Where is that disadvantage the highest? Where the train operates over segments with frequent structures which conflict with the required clearance for electrification (e.g. urban areas with frequent overpasses or segments shared with stakeholders which are resistant against electrification)

One reason why you struggle to sanity-check the cost estimates which are so far available could be that your assumption of the scope of the required engineering work does not match what is actually planned. Another one could be your unconventional application of mathematics:

$US4 million per route mile is typical for electrification in the USA.That's CAN$8.6 million a kilometre - over $7 billion from Toronto to Quebec City.

Distance between Toronto and Quebec City: 580 km + 280 km = 860 km = 535 miles
535 miles * US$4 million = US$2.14 billion = C$2.86 billion

Maybe we should first discuss the quality of engineering made in Ontario before we dismiss what you suspect to have been fabricated by your peers in Quebec?

 

[dowlingm]

What faster trains? These trains would run the same speed as the current trains.

To start with, I would hope that the new trainsets would be cleared to 100 in “LRC 100mph” track territory, giving a small bump where service is currently operated by 90mph power or coaches (as I recall not all F40s are good for 95, although the 90mph units may be dedicated to LD services perhaps?)

 

[steveintoronto]

To start with, I would hope that the new trainsets would be cleared to 100 in “LRC 100mph” track territory, giving a small bump where service is currently operated by 90mph power or coaches (as I recall not all F40s are good for 95, although the 90mph units may be dedicated to LD services perhaps?)

It would be the height of insanity not to, albeit some have made the claim (perhaps correctly) that CN themselves state the highest speed permitted on their track. (Is LRC 100 still in force, even with the signs there?) Acceleration will be slightly better due to the power to weight ratio of the new trainsets, but that's still only as good as the allowed top speed in the bigger picture.

If the Chargers aren't allowed to go any higher, all the more grist for the mill of HFR. I think most of us are looking forward to this 'announcement' in January.

How can a fleet consisting of a diesel locomotive, some cars and a cab car be electrified? Replace the locomotive through an electric locomotive and you have a single-mode electric train or replace the cab car through the same electric locomotive and you have a bi-mode train.

I've gone over all the wording VIA and D-S have stated on this, and they've consistently made that clear. What I can't find, and perhaps it's not published, are the terms of the supplementary order. They are quite possibly open as to what locomotive mode is chosen. What I can't see happening, for a number of reasons, track forces and cost two huge ones, is the 'upgrading' of the Chargers to bi-mode. I even have to question towing/pushing them with an electric the other end, but Brightline is in fact doing this with diesel both ends, one of them deadhead, so perhaps operationally it's considered a small cost for flexibility?

I also note that Brightline do this with 400 hp less w/ their Chargers, albeit Florida is pretty damn flat...Once their consists are lengthened, they might use both at once.

And as another kick at Hydrail, and the claims by some as per gist: "Germany and France have turned to Hydrail instead of catenary":

[...] In Germany there is a rolling electrification programme that aims to electrify 200km of track a year, every year, which creates a stable work bank and leads to companies investing in machinery and people. However, most importantly, a rolling programme of electrification reduces unit rates (the cost per kilometre)[...]

By Noel Dolphin
4 June 2018
.https://www.globalrailwayreview.com...-in-the-electrification-of-uk-infrastructure/

 

[Urban Sky]

Now to the topic of electrification:

• One of the main cost drivers for electrification in the United Kingdom is the high number of overpasses - most of which were built according to the railway clearance standards of Victorian times, where electrification was simply unknown. I invite you to start counting the number of overpasses (i.e. bridge over the railroad) on the London-Cardiff line using Google Earth and compare it with the HFR route...
• How can a fleet consisting of a diesel locomotive, some cars and a cab car be electrified? Replace the locomotive through an electric locomotive and you have a single-mode electric train or replace the cab car through the same electric locomotive and you have a bi-mode train.
• What is the main benefit of electrification? Lower operating costs (energy, but also maintenance) and higher acceleration capabilities.
  • Where is that benefit the highest? Where the train operates at high speeds, but has to decelerate and accelerate frequently (e.g. segments with a high design speed, but semi-frequent curves with lower speed limits)
• What is the main disadvantage of electrification? High capital costs.
  • Where is that disadvantage the highest? Where the train operates over segments with frequent structures which conflict with the required clearance for electrification (e.g. urban areas with frequent overpasses or segments shared with stakeholders which are resistant against electrification)

One reason why you struggle to sanity-check the cost estimates which are so far available could be that your assumption of the scope of the required engineering work does not match what is actually planned.

To be less nebulous:

(5) VIA Rail’s current Corridor services are provided on non-electrified infrastructure. However, over the thirty year life cycle of the trainsets, VIA Rail intends to reduce its use of fossil fuels. Therefore, VIA Rail is working on a long term plan to build its own dedicated infrastructure for passenger service in the Corridor that could be electrified to reduce the use of fossil fuels and allow operation at up to 125 mph. This long term plan has been presented by VIA Rail to its shareholder, the Government of Canada, and has yet to be approved. It should be noted that portions of the new routes on this infrastructure would remain non-electrified. Communities located in the current Corridor would also continue to be served by VIA Rail on the current non-electrified infrastructure.

https://m.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/new-fleet/VIA Rail_Corridor_Fleet_Renewal_Project_Request_for_Qualifications.pdf

I've gone over all the wording VIA and D-S have stated on this, and they've consistently made that clear. What I can't find, and perhaps it's not published, is the terms of the supplementary order. They are quite possibly open as to what locomotive mode is chosen. What I can't see happening, for a number of reasons, track forces and cost two huge ones, is the 'upgrading' of the Chargers to bi-mode.

(6) Options to acquire additional trainsets will be principally predicated on the Government of Canada's decision regarding VIA Rail's long term plan to build its own dedicated infrastructure. In the event that VIA Rail is given the authority to build its own infrastructure in the Corridor but such infrastructure is not electrified, then additional diesel only trainsets will be required to enable increased service frequencies. If VIA Rail is given the authority to build its own infrastructure and electrification is required, then the additional trainsets must be capable of both diesel and electric operation (dual-mode) at up to 125 mph, with seamless transition, and bi-directional operation. If the decision on VIA Rail's long term plan and the timeframe to implement this decision is not yet established at the time of the order for the additional trainsets, then the delivery of the additional trainsets could be deferred until the decision and schedule is available.

https://m.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/media/pdfs/About_VIA/new-fleet/VIA Rail_Corridor_Fleet_Renewal_Project_Request_for_Qualifications.pdf

 

[littlewill1166]

It would be the height of insanity not to, albeit some have made the claim (perhaps correctly) that CN themselves state the highest speed permitted on their track. (Is LRC 100 still in force, even with the signs there?) Acceleration will be slightly better due to the power to weight ratio of the new trainsets, but that's still only as good as the allowed top speed in the bigger picture.

Well, not all drivers follow the speed limit. I've been on an LRC consist pulled by a P42 travelling 170 km/h on Lakeshore West (it was bumpy to say the least)