[Urban Sky]

You do bring up some valid points. A couple thoughts though:

First of all, while for HFR OTTW-MTRL, a significant portion of the cost would directed towards DORV-De Beaujeu, I don't think it would be 100%. For one, in order to achieve that historic low travel time of 37 minutes between OTTW and ALEX, some upgrades would be necessary, especially if they are wanting to run 15 trains a day (my thinking is more/longer sidings). I also think some upgrades will be needed to CN's Montreal Sub (especially near where it crosses the Lachine Canal) to manage the extra traffic and allow for a faster approach into Central Station.

Should it? I thought the money was being spent on the segments that weren't already VIA owned and operated.

VIA has been working for years to incrementally upgrade this track. If you look back at 1988 the best time to Casselman was 31 minutes, compared to 25 minutes today.

I'm with @nfitz on this one: I don't see how the tight budgets communicated so far ($2.1 billion for TRTO-OTTW and $91.5 million for OTTW-MTRL) leave any room for improvements of VIA's existing frequency and whereas complying with the new Track Class 6 in order to achieve speeds of 110 mph will for sure require higher track maintenance levels, these improvements would also benefit VIA's legacy Corridor services (even if HFR doesn't get built at all), as - HFR or not - all Corridor trains will be able to achieve 110 mph. I'm not even sure these improvements would count as capital expenditure, but that depends on how profound the new requirements will be. Even the construction of new sidings (which undoubtedly counts as CapEx) would benefit Corridor services in a non-HFR future, as increased capacity reduces delays and thus increases OTP, especially when the number of frequencies can't increase. Therefore, I wouldn't count any improvements between Smiths Falls and De Beaujeu (excluding the connectors to the Belleville and Winchester Subdivisions as HFR-related...

Fixing the math ... 15 minutes extra travel time, add 5 minutes to stop ... so 20 extra minutes instead of 30.

15 extra minutes. The Express train could just roll through Ottawa Station without incurring the time penalty from stopping there...

It isn't so much how long the passing tracks are but what percentage of the ROW still has passing tracks. According to this article, they removed
"60 miles of double track on the 104.9-mile Winchester Subdivision," so that works out to 57% (between a 1/2 and 2/3). VIA could either build new track parallel to the passing tracks or they could use the passing tracks for their dedicated track in exchange for CP being able to use the VIA's track as double track when VIA isn't using it (or a combination of the two).

According to my Canadian Trackside Guide 2021, the second track has been removed on the following sections of the Winchester Sub:

Location (at start of section)	(MP)	Length	# of tracks
Dorion	18.9	20.01	2
St. Telesphore	38.91	13.04	1
Glenroy	51.95	5.96	2
Apple Hill	57.91	12.13	1
Avonmore	70.04	4.49	2
Finch	74.53	12.12	1
Winchester	86.65	4.59	2
Inkerman	91.24	11.96	1
Bedell	103.2	7.05	2
Burritts	110.25	9.72	1
Rosedale	119.97	3.83	2
Smiths Falls

This suggests that 58.97 (or 56.2%) out of 104.9 miles of second track have been removed and all (!) of that West of De Beaujeu (MP 35.5).

Secondly, how much the Winchester sub needs to be upgraded really depends how many trains they want to run along it. If they are only running a couple trains a day, they might (with some quid pro quo as mentioned by crs1026) be able to negotiate a deal with CP to give them priority on the existing track with minimal upgrades. While class 4 certainly isn't optimal, if they don't have to slow down, the top speed of 80 mph (129 km/h) should allow trains to travel from De Beaujeu to Smiths Falls in less than 90 minutes (an average speed of 97 km/h). If they want to run 4-6 trains a day, they would could likely get away with only rebuilding the double track that CP removed (connecting the passing tracks). Only if they wanted full HFR service on the bypass they would likely require fully dedicated track that is independent from CP's track. I agree that last option would be very expensive and the money would be better spent elsewhere..

Getting back to Class 5 on the Winchester can’t be that expensive, because there are no major civil projects required…. no new separations, no curves to be eased, no new rail. Perhaps some tie replacement , surfacing, or ballasting… and maybe renewing crossings or fixing low spots. It’s hard to say what CP would ask to maintain that for a decade or more… it certainly implies more maintenance done more often, but not a new investment in bigger or better rails or track materials.

I’m not even sure they need to relay much of the former double track, unless they are building in an option for growth. Once VIA needed to have its trains meet and pass each other, more and longer passing sections might be needed, but a morning, midday, and afternoon service plan leaves CP lots of capacity. There might have to be a one-hour curfew before each VIa slot at each end, to remove any risk of a VIA overtaking a slower freight. Again, there is no need for new grading or culverts so the nominal figure based on Kingston Sub triple tracking is high.

- Paul

Let's do yet another back-of-the-envelope calcualtion:

Suppose that a VIA train can obtain an average speed of 90% of the maximum allowed speed at Track Class 4, 80% at Track Class 5 and a freight train can obtain 70% at Track Class 4 and 60% at Track Class 5. In this case, the travel times would be as follows between Dorval and Smiths Falls:

Segment	TT (VIA, Track Class 5)	TT (VIA, Track Class 4)	TT (Freight, Track Class 5)	TT (Freight, Track Class 4)
Assumed Track Speed	100 mph (161 km/h)	80 mph (129 km/h)	80 mph (129 km/h)	60 mph (97 km/h)
Assumed Average Speed	128.7 km/h	115.9 km/h	77.2 km/h	67.6 km/h
(in % of track speed)	80%	90%	60%	70%
Dorval-De Beaujeu (47 km)	21.9 minutes	24.3 minutes	36.5 minutes	41.7 minutes
De Beaujeu-Smiths Falls (142.1 km)	66.2 minutes	73.6 minutes	110.4 minutes	126.1 minutes
Combined (189.1 km)	88.1 minutes	97.9 minutes	146.9 minutes	167.9 minutes

That means that every VIA train operating on Track Class 4 will consume a departure window of 2:20 hours ([168-98]*2=140 minutes) and at Track Class 5 1:58 hours ([147-88]*2=118 minutes). Even without adding any headway buffers (determined by the frequency of intermediary signals), you can easily see that even operating 3 trains per day would wipe out a large proportion of daylight operating hours. Conversely, for Dorion-De Beaujeu, the corresponding figure would be 35 minutes for Track Class 4 ([42-24.5]*2) and 29 minutes for Track Class 5 ([36.5-22]*2) - thus enough to let CP's freight trains comfortably swim in-between hourly departures...

 

[crs1026]

That means that every VIA train operating on Track Class 4 will consume a departure window of 2:20 hours ([168-98]*2=140 minutes) and at Track Class 5 1:58 hours ([147-88]*2=118 minutes). Even without adding any headway buffers (determined by the frequency of intermediary signals), you can easily see that even operating 3 trains per day would wipe out a large proportion of daylight operating hours. Conversely, for Dorion-De Beaujeu, the corresponding figure would be 35 minutes for Track Class 4 ([42-24.5]*2) and 29 minutes for Track Class 5 ([36.5-22]*2) - thus enough to let CP's freight trains comfortably swim in-between hourly departures...

That's if you assume that VIA has exclusive use of the entire main line end-to-end from the moment a VIA train is due (signals lined up ahead of time) to the time it departs the other end. In reality that wouldn't be the case.

Say the day begins with the first express VIA westbound leaving Dorion-ish at 07:30. Eastbounds out of Smiths Falls may proceed, so long as they are able to reach one of the unoccupied passing zones ahead of the VIA. They might have to clear, and hold in the passing zone, for 20-30 minutes ahead of the VIA. CP would start holding westbounds out of Montreal around 05:30ish, so that the VIA westbound can clear Smiths Falls without catching up to and being delayed by a westbound. (And even that can be shaved, if there aren't any eastbounds due, as the passing tracks are available and a westbound freight can slide into one to be overtaken). Once the VIA reaches Dorion, westbound freights can be fleeted behind it, making whatever meets with eastbound freights are required.

Assuming a fairly symmetrical schedule, the eastbound VIA out of Toronto won't be met until the westbound VIA is west of Smiths Falls, so that becomes VIA's problem. When the eastbound shows up, the hold/proceed pattern reverses, but the delays to freight remain fairly brief.

And in fact, CP is down to 3-4 freights in each direction per 24 hour period, so even doubling their freight business doesn't overload this operating pattern. The only problem comes when VIA wants to run a second train in each of those windows.... dispatching becomes much more complicated, and freight delays are magnified, if passing capacity has to be reserved for a meet between two VIA's.

The biggest impact to CP is actually the shortening of track availability for maintenance of way. With only a few freights out there, MOW crews get longer stretches of track and time to fix things. If they have to clear every couple hours for a VIA, their productivity falls.

The absurdity is, in spite of everything we agree on about the need to get passenger away from freight - here we are applying brain power to find a clever solution to help VIA run on a freight line, and mitigate the risks and likelihood of problems in freight operations cascading to VIA. Maybe @nfitz has a point.... if we applied the same brain power to the CN line, VIA wouldn't need to move at all? I'm more inclined to think the Winchester thing is just a bad idea and we shouldn't try to polish a cannonball.

- Paul

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm more inclined to think the Winchester thing is just a bad idea and we shouldn't try to polish a cannonball

Just the brain power required on this forum too figure this out, should tell you how bad this will be in real life.

I don't buy for a second, that faster service to Montreal is about the business case. Something tells me, the government is just frustrated with the political blowback of spending $8B and getting 4:45 hr for TO-MTL. Understandable. But building a bypass is not the solution here. I think the public interest is better served and business case improved by improvements along the whole line, than one specific segment. Saving everybody 15 mins is much preferable to saving TO-MTL pax half an hour.

 

[roger1818]

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.

I do agree with @kEiThZ that this may be more political than anything. Having said that, I do think by having a couple (i.e. 2) of high yielding express trains a day during the most popular travel times could be lucrative (a third, mid-day train, not so much).

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.

VIA's track in Ottawa

 

[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