[kEiThZ]

Not only that but there are many 3-car DMU's available where there is only a power pack in the lead car and the other 2 cars are just regular carriages.

@roger1818 has simply dismissed this off-hand by arguing the power produced would be insufficient to move an unpowered car.

I am willing to buy there's commonality reasons why VIA might want to stick with a simplified fleet of coaches pulled by locos. But I find it hard to believe there's some relatively hard break even as low as 2-3 DMU units. Especially when you look at how much a locomotive costs.

 

[robmausser]

@roger1818 has simply dismissed this off-hand by arguing the power produced would be insufficient to move an unpowered car.

I am willing to buy there's commonality reasons why VIA might want to stick with a simplified fleet of coaches pulled by locos. But I find it hard to believe there's some relatively hard break even as low as 2-3 DMU units. Especially when you look at how much a locomotive costs.

Yes and there is no way that something like this is an efficient use of fuel, etc

 

[roger1818]

^To be honest, I forget where I read that - may have been here or may have been in the media. It was an article or source, not a railway buff rumour.

I guess time will tell if your source was reliable or not. If I had to take a guess (and it is a guess), what you might have heard is that CP didn't agree to sell that segment of the Winchester and Vaudreuil Subs. outright and move most of their trains either onto CN's Kingston Sub or onto a new/rebuilt ROW on the south shore (a large portion of their freight is crossing over to the south shore to go further east anyway, so why send it to Montreal).

The new Winchester alignment has five mile double track sections spaced roughly ten miles apart. The east end, where VIA would want to be, remains double track.

I kind of gathered the east end remains double track. The question is, is that because of a need of CP's (basically as a another siding) or did they keep it in hopes that they could sell or lease it to VIA? Even if the former, how hard would it be to triple track it?

The issues would be the need to interleave VIA with freight and AMT service, especially close in to Dorval.

I agree there would be additional congestion but there are solutions. Double track has more the double the capacity of single track (since you don't have to wait for the train to completely clear the switch and for the switch to throw) and given that both the M&O sub and the Winchester Sub both are now single track with sidings, it isn't inconceivable for all three to be able to share the Vaudreuil Sub.

Plus the ikelihood that VIA might need bith tracks somewhere to enable meets.

That is just a scheduling problem and could be avoided by making sure trains don't need to pass each other there.

And why would CP welcome VIA at all?

Money. If they can sell or lease infrastructure they don't need, that is good for the bottom line.

 

[roger1818]

Eh? You've repeatedly shot down the idea of deploying DMUs on the assertion that a three car loco is cheaper to operate, based on the idea that a single loco is cheaper to maintain than multiple power packs. Do you have evidence for such an assertion or are you just guessing? Source please.

I will quote the same source I did last Wednesday:

They currently do, and their maintenance costs are high. Reducing the variability in the equipment they use would greatly reduce their maintenance costs. DMUs have their advantages, but they also have their disadvantages. Check out this article, Why You Don’t See Many Long Distance Diesel Multiple Unit Trains.

In it, it says, "For trains with more than 4 cars the economics fall increasingly in the favor of locomotive power." Maybe a bad assumption on my part, but if the economics of trains with 4 (or more) cars favors locomotive power, then 3 cars must be the break even point, but maybe it slightly favours DMUs. Either way it is close.

Not only that but there are many 3-car DMU's available where there is only a power pack in the lead car and the other 2 cars are just regular carriages.

If that exists, how is that a DMU? Sounds like a conventional train where the locomotive also has seats in it. There are some DMUs where there is a power pack car that is a diesel generator and the other units have electric traction motors in them (thus not "just regular carriages").

 

[kEiThZ]

In it, it says, "For trains with more than 4 cars the economics fall increasingly in the favor of locomotive power." Maybe a bad assumption on my part, but if the economics of trains with 4 (or more) cars favors locomotive power, then 3 cars must be the break even point, but maybe it slightly favours DMUs. Either way it is close.

That "source" is hardly authoritative. It's an opinion piece with no actual evidence beyond anecdotes. And right after the line you quote, he cites the example of Irish Rail operating 4 & 5 car DMUs.

To translate that scant evidence to an assertion that anything more than three cars requires a loco is quite the stretch. That maybe true for a host of other factors. But not for anything you've provided here. At minimum we can say that DMUs or even BEMUs could be competitive on running costs for the applications being discussed here 3-4 car trains for some Corridor/Lakeshore and some regional service. Where that works out on personnel and other organizational costs is more debatable.

If that exists, how is that a DMU? Sounds like a conventional train where the locomotive also has seats in it.

Adding an unpowered coach doesn't make it any less of a DMU. It's still distributed power with multiple powered units and no locomotive. And yes, this does exist elsewhere. The main advantage of an MU is more powered axles improving total traction. If the operator doesn't need the traction or the top speed, they can add an unpowered car.

 

[dowlingm]

Perhaps VIA could order dome cars like this to replace the stainless fleet?

Would be interesting to know if Rocky demanded any sort of exclusivity from Stadler to prevent VIA from being able to acquire an identical coach.

If VIA had also ordered some bilevels from Stadler it might have cascaded enough stock off West Coast service to allow some of the spending on the refresh of the HEP stock to be forgone, and provide a robust rolling stock complement for Montreal long haul services. But that wouldn't have allowed the sprinkling of job announcements to various refurbishment shops. Amtrak is still saying they intend to replace some Superliner Is, and whatever they pick may be an opportunity for VIA to piggyback on a modified option order.

 

[ManyQuestions]

I had assumed that HFR plan included an extension of the VIA rail owned trackage from the Alexandria subdivision to Dorion either alongside the CN trackage (likely by installing a new track on the southern side and transferring the northern track to VIA along with the reactivation of the gentler curve at the Coteau junction) or along the CP trackage that would offer a more direct route but have less space for the installation of additional tracks. However, the space constraints with the CP route are rendered less signifiant by CP's partial single tracking. The extra length of extra track to be installed alongside the CP line would be about 26km while the length of extra track to be installed along the CN line would be about 21km. However, the potential of taking over sections of disused track along the CP line would reduce the total amount of new track that would need to be installed. The total distance saved by using the CP line would be 5km, a distance that would mostly be travelled at 160km/h given that the sharp curve off the alexandra subdivision will exist in both cases. Therefore, the time savings from the usage of the CP route would only be approximately two minutes. Honestly, I am personally surprised by how minimal the benefit is from diverting the train to a more direct route and I invite you to verify this by comparing the distances between De-Beaujeu and Dorion along both tracks if you are incredulous about this claim.

Given this, it seems that it would make sense if the HFR money be used for the installation of an additional VIA controlled line along whichever route is cheaper. While I am no expert in railway cost predictions, I do not see how such a simple track addition could cost more than 50 million Canadian dollars given that it is almost entirely over flat ground without obstructions or rough terrain. This would leave the remaining hundred million dollars for the more interesting realignment projects on the island of Montreal. Unfortunately, improvements here will be more complex due to the railyards and the EXO Vaudreuil line. Furthermore, the tracks on the island are already responsible for many of the slowdowns that push the majority of travel times to beyond two hours and were the reason for why I was surprised by the small size of the budget allocation to this leg of the project. However, I am more optimistic now that I have spent time looking at how much of the ~150m would be left to those improvements instead of studying for my exams.

 

[ManyQuestions]

VIA has no direct control over any particular track on CN's territory. They may own track materials, and there may be agreement over who pays for maintaining what track, but in practice the dispatching utilises whatever track is needed.

East of Coteau, HFR will likely use CN, as CP has reportedly turned VIA away. Some modest amount of investment will likely be needed as Coteau is already a pinch point due to freight trains stopping and switching.

Hourly HFR would equate to VIA occupying one of the two main line tracks from Coteau to Dorval all day long. In theory, CN could simply hold freights to follow the hourly HFR movements, but there would be potential for the following HFR train to tag a slow moving freight. And, movements in and out of the yard at Ballantyne would cause some further congestion. One would expect that some track would have to be added eventually. Not a huge expense, but it will consume some of that $150M.


Assuming HFR is an hourly service pattern, trains will make more meets than at present, and that will add to trip times. The 1:35 is a credible goal on this line, but the schedule padding you observed may be eaten up by meets.

I am also confused about the MAX 188km/hr reading; I think it is why I did not post the data immediately and subsequently forgot about it. It appears to either be the axis maximum or a single erroneous speed measurement that I could not find on the graph. The speed measurements have a low accuracy because they were recorded as run using the GPS in my watch, it evidently did not have a high enough polling rate to maintain a good speed measurement while traveling through the curved and forested section of track between Alexandria and Casselman. I had a second recording running on my phone but it fully lost signal in that section leaving a major gap in the data.

The higher frequencies is indeed what made me suspicious about the low capital cost. I had initially assumed that near complete double tracking would be required along the entire line but this is evidently not the plan. The time delays from meets is indeed a major concern - a major reason for the fast travel time in my recording is that there were none due to the coronavirus schedule. Even though my prior post was positive about the viability of this part of the project, I am still incredulous given that the single track approach results in a brittle schedule that is subject to uncertainty from on-island track congestion. I understand that improved dispatching will be a key part of the operation but remain concerned it will be unable to overcome the effects that random delays have when there is zero excess capacity.

 

[crs1026]

I kind of gathered the east end remains double track. The question is, is that because of a need of CP's (basically as a another siding) or did they keep it in hopes that they could sell or lease it to VIA? Even if the former, how hard would it be to triple track it?

Obviously we are speculating, but a couple of theories - having the second track gives flexibility should trains have to be held out of the terminal area if the terminal isn’t ready for them, or when AMT needs the track. Possibly CP does anticipate some further interest in the line by AMT or VIA, and is leaving well enough alone until those plans mature.... especially if capital costs can be passed to these agencies.

I agree there would be additional congestion but there are solutions. Double track has more the double the capacity of single track (since you don't have to wait for the train to completely clear the switch and for the switch to throw) and given that both the M&O sub and the Winchester Sub both are now single track with sidings, it isn't inconceivable for all three to be able to share the Vaudreuil Sub.

Taking then two rail lines together (east of Dorion, anyways) it’s rather silly that anyone would have to add a fifth track to a four track corridor. The limiting factor is the institutional firewalling created by CP owning two lines, and CN owning two lines, and the two railways refusing to coproduce.

Yes, there are lots of spots where a third track could be added, but only in part. Obviously, the river crossings would be hugely expensive. There are some good fills. And there are urban areas where a third track might encroach on property.

The lens we are using should be - how much triple tracking can VIA afford within the limited envelope ($150M - $200M) that the HFR BCS allows. The CP idea removes the need for CN to pay CN for more track at Coteau.... if CP needs just as much money to reroute HFR, then there is no business case for doing so.

That is just a scheduling problem and could be avoided by making sure trains don't need to pass each other there.

Agree, but this gets complicated. On hourly service, each train will encounter a meet every 30 minutes. Try planning the schedule such that there is no meet between De Beaujeu and Ballantyne.... now cascade that down the entire line and see how many sidings you will need further west at your 30-minute points.

Money. If they can sell or lease infrastructure they don't need, that is good for the bottom line.

If they don’t need the infrastructure for their own use, it’s already gone. The question is, how much infrastructure must be added to absorb HFR, and who pays for that. Sure, the mainline has empty periods, but if the intent is that a) HfR will take precedence over freight, and b) freight will not be impacted, you are adding a lot of infrastructure to keep everything out of others’ way. CP already has curfew periods to accommodate AMT. The money will have to be pretty good to service the added capital and incent CP for the added headaches.

- Paul

 

[roger1818]

That "source" is hardly authoritative. It's an opinion piece with no actual evidence beyond anecdotes. And right after the line you quote, he cites the example of Irish Rail operating 4 & 5 car DMUs.

Then provide a more authoritative source that proves your point (not just an example of someone deciding to use DMUs).

To translate that scant evidence to an assertion that anything more than three cars requires a loco is quite the stretch. That maybe true for a host of other factors. But not for anything you've provided here. At minimum we can say that DMUs or even BEMUs could be competitive on running costs for the applications being discussed here 3-4 car trains for some Corridor/Lakeshore and some regional service. Where that works out on personnel and other organizational costs is more debatable.

Once again. Prove me wrong.

Adding an unpowered coach doesn't make it any less of a DMU. It's still distributed power with multiple powered units and no locomotive. And yes, this does exist elsewhere. The main advantage of an MU is more powered axles improving total traction. If the operator doesn't need the traction or the top speed, they can add an unpowered car.

It is if you only have a single unit in the DMU (or should it be DSU (Diesel Single Unit)?) and 2 coaches (thus twice as many coaches as units) as @robmausser was saying.

 

[robmausser]

It is if you only have a single unit in the DMU (or should it be DSU (Diesel Single Unit)?) and 2 coaches (thus twice as many coaches as units) as @robmausser was saying.

If the coaches have powered wheels, but not an engine, in other words its a single motor DMU with electric traction power on all vehicles, then its different than a locomotive hauled train as you get traction power on all (or most) wheels. This allows for better acceleration profiles and energy efficiency.

Furthermore, a full sized loco has to be designed to haul a very large consist, even if its only hauling two or three coaches. DMU's are typically designed to haul a smaller train, so the engine is typically smaller and lighter, there is substantial weight savings throughout.

If you wanted more than a 3-car consist, you could link together another DMU (potentially) but as you said, once you get into 5 car, 6 car DMU's its more beneficial to use a loco hauled unit.

 

[roger1818]

If the coaches have powered wheels, but not an engine, in other words its a single motor DMU with electric traction power on all vehicles, then its different than a locomotive hauled train as you get traction power on all (or most) wheels. This allows for better acceleration profiles and energy efficiency.

Then they are no longer standard coaches but EMU units. I did mention this option earlier:

There are some DMUs where there is a power pack car that is a diesel generator and the other units have electric traction motors in them (thus not "just regular carriages").

Furthermore, a full sized loco has to be designed to haul a very large consist, even if its only hauling two or three coaches. DMU's are typically designed to haul a smaller train, so the engine is typically smaller and lighter, there is substantial weight savings throughout.

If you wanted more than a 3-car consist, you could link together another DMU (potentially) but as you said, once you get into 5 car, 6 car DMU's its more beneficial to use a loco hauled unit.

No arguments from me there. What I am questioning is:

1. At what threshold it makes sense to use a DMU vs conventional train?
2. Will VIA have enough trains of that size (especially if they can increase their modal share) to make it worth buying a separate class of trainset?
3. Do DMUs make as much sense for VIA, where they are expected to have their trainset last 30+ years rather than replace them every 15 years?

 

[kEiThZ]

Then provide a more authoritative source that proves your point

Once again. Prove me wrong.

That's not how this works. You are the one making the assertion. Burden of proof is on you. We have examples where more than 3 car DMUs are used routinely. You say this is uneconomical despite real-life examples of just such a practice. So furnish the evidence that shows this to be the case. Unless you want us to believe that the rail operators elsewhere running more than 3 car DMUs are purposefully deploying uneconomical trainsets.

I have repeatedly said that there may be O&M reasons why operating a small trainset loco pulled fleet may be cheaper. What I don't buy is your allusion that there's a hard crossover point as low as 3 cars, all based on the rough idea that maintaining three power packs is more expensive than one.

Also, once we start discussing deploying a unique type (DMU or otherwise) from the Kingston hub, it's not exactly a small type anymore. That's a hub that's going to require at least 12-15 trainsets based on what the mayor of Kingston suggests the schedule might be. So if similar trains are deployed on a few other operations, we're in a unit count that would be more than half of what the current Siemens order is.

 

[Allandale25]

Brief VIA Rail reference in the Fall Economic Statement.

 

[ManyQuestions]

Obviously we are speculating, but a couple of theories - having the second track gives flexibility should trains have to be held out of the terminal area if the terminal isn’t ready for them, or when AMT needs the track. Possibly CP does anticipate some further interest in the line by AMT or VIA, and is leaving well enough alone until those plans mature.... especially if capital costs can be passed to these agencies.



Taking then two rail lines together (east of Dorion, anyways) it’s rather silly that anyone would have to add a fifth track to a four track corridor. The limiting factor is the institutional firewalling created by CP owning two lines, and CN owning two lines, and the two railways refusing to coproduce.

Yes, there are lots of spots where a third track could be added, but only in part. Obviously, the river crossings would be hugely expensive. There are some good fills. And there are urban areas where a third track might encroach on property.

The lens we are using should be - how much triple tracking can VIA afford within the limited envelope ($150M - $200M) that the HFR BCS allows. The CP idea removes the need for CN to pay CN for more track at Coteau.... if CP needs just as much money to reroute HFR, then there is no business case for doing so.



Agree, but this gets complicated. On hourly service, each train will encounter a meet every 30 minutes. Try planning the schedule such that there is no meet between De Beaujeu and Ballantyne.... now cascade that down the entire line and see how many sidings you will need further west at your 30-minute points.



If they don’t need the infrastructure for their own use, it’s already gone. The question is, how much infrastructure must be added to absorb HFR, and who pays for that. Sure, the mainline has empty periods, but if the intent is that a) HfR will take precedence over freight, and b) freight will not be impacted, you are adding a lot of infrastructure to keep everything out of others’ way. CP already has curfew periods to accommodate AMT. The money will have to be pretty good to service the added capital and incent CP for the added headaches.

- Paul

Single track operation between De Beaujeu and Ballantyne may be possible, but likely should not be prioritized. All routes between these points contain ample space for easily adding additional tracks along much of their lengths. It could easily be significantly cheaper to construct long sections VIA-controlled double track with highspeed turnouts to allow trains to pass each other there rather than within the central parts of the city. Furthermore, long sections of VIA double track could signifiante negate the compounding of delays arising from congested inner city trackage. There is room for additional tracks along most of the route from De Beaujeu to Saint Henri. It would make sense to conduct some kind of track expansion and realignment as a primary method of adding capacity. The Train de l'Ouest study is likely of interest for evaluating the cost of it, I understand that it was based on adding AMT (pre EXO) owned trackage between the CP and CN lines through the west island. However, the major issue in both that plan and the new VIA HFR plan is how to handle the separation of trains from Côte Staint-Luc yards. Some form of grade separation between passenger and freight will likely be required and could easily consume a major portion of the budget and cause major construction disruptions.