VIA Rail

[reaperexpress]

Is the MP40's speed limit engine horsepower or a limit of the wheelset etc?

Im curious because the current MP40 fleet is being converted to dual cummins Q60 engines with a total of 5400 hp, much more than the current 4000 hp. http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsmotivepower-repower-metrolinx-locomotives-new-engines

Even more curious is that wikipedia states that the max speed of the MP40 is 108 mph (174 km/h) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPI_MPXpress

Here is my source for GO's MP40 top speed.

Locomotives can be equipped with a variety of final drive gear ratios (the ratio between the electric motor and the wheels). A ratio that has the motor spinning faster for a given ground speed will provide more torque and acceleration, whereas the opposite would provide a higher top speed.

For example, when VIA's F40PHs were overhauled, I'm guessing they had the final drive ratio changed to reflect that they were getting an increase in useable horsepower, which in turn allowed their top speed to be increased from 90 mph (145 km/h) to 95 mph (153 km/h). But I'm having trouble finding sources to support this notion.

In any case, I'm also guessing that GO opted for a gear ratio that would provide the best acceleration while still being able to (approximately) attain the highest speed limit. I assume that the new more-powerful engines will have the gear ratio set such that all of the extra power is put toward acceleration rather than top speed.

 

[smallspy]

Is the MP40's speed limit engine horsepower or a limit of the wheelset etc?

Wheelset plus gear ratio. The engine horsepower does come into play but is more of a variable that works with and against with gradient, trailing weight, curvature, wind, rail conditions, etc.

Im curious because the current MP40 fleet is being converted to dual cummins Q60 engines with a total of 5400 hp, much more than the current 4000 hp. http://www.railway-technology.com/news/newsmotivepower-repower-metrolinx-locomotives-new-engines

All else being equal, that additional horsepower would come into play above about 26mph or so. At that point, the engine is producing the maximum amount of horsepower, the main alternator the maximum amperage, and the traction motors are able to use it all. Below that number, the traction motors can't use all of the available amperage, and above that speed the alternator can't keep up with the demand - and thus the acceleration curve begins to level off. Assuming that the systems are equal, the point at which the acceleration curve begins to level off would be several mph higher than that number.

Even more curious is that wikipedia states that the max speed of the MP40 is 108 mph (174 km/h) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPI_MPXpress

The highest available gear ratio on an MP36 or MP40 allows it to achieve 108mph. To the best of my knowledge, no units have been built with that gearing.

Locomotives can be equipped with a variety of final drive gear ratios (the ratio between the electric motor and the wheels). A ratio that has the motor spinning faster for a given ground speed will provide more torque and acceleration, whereas the opposite would provide a higher top speed.

Correct, with the added comment that the top safe speed of a traction motor is about 3000rpm, so that numbere coupled with the ratio would be considered the maximum speed - and the control equipment of that locomotive set up for that.

For example, when VIA's F40PHs were overhauled, I'm guessing they had the final drive ratio changed to reflect that they were getting an increase in useable horsepower, which in turn allowed their top speed to be increased from 90 mph (145 km/h) to 95 mph (153 km/h). But I'm having trouble finding sources to support this notion.

That's because that's not what happened. The units have the exact same traction motors and gearboxes as when built, but had their control circuitry modified to allow for 95mph before the overspeed warning turned on, rather than 90mph.

In any case, I'm also guessing that GO opted for a gear ratio that would provide the best acceleration while still being able to (approximately) attain the highest speed limit. I assume that the new more-powerful engines will have the gear ratio set such that all of the extra power is put toward acceleration rather than top speed.

The additional weight of the locomotive coupled with the improved wheelslip systems of the MP40 allow for a higher top speed, but still maintain a similar acceleration curve with the same weight. (Of course, the converse of this is that the higher speed and additional weight of the locomotive do more damage to the track, requiring more maintenance.)

As for the future gear ratios of the Tier-IV models, who knows. There's so little information available on what is happening either inside GO/Metrolinx or publicly that it's frankly a crapshoot.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[ehlow]

http://www.thestar.com/business/eco...oks-at-private-funds-to-build-own-tracks.html
VIA Rail looks at private funds to build own tracks

 

[gweed123]

http://www.thestar.com/business/eco...oks-at-private-funds-to-build-own-tracks.html
VIA Rail looks at private funds to build own tracks

That's great news! It'll be interesting to know a couple more details about this:

1) Will the new tracks be laid parallel to existing tracks, or on entirely new corridors? Or a mixture of both?
2) Will the new tracks be built to HSR standards, so that they can easily be upgraded to HSR?

I have to say, Toronto to Ottawa in 2 1/2 hours is pretty appealing...

 

[rbt]

http://www.thestar.com/business/eco...oks-at-private-funds-to-build-own-tracks.html
VIA Rail looks at private funds to build own tracks

What I take from this announcement is that someone high-up at VIA believes HSR will appear in Ontario, that VIA won't be in control of it, it will be popular (few remaining VIA passengers), and that it probably won't stop with just the London to Toronto route.

Also, we've learned the federal Conservatives are perfectly happy with this scenario (no federal funding and they still have to drum up support in the media before getting approval).


If it happened 5 years ago I'd say they're trying to reclaim customers lost to the airlines (Porter mostly) but it's been far too long for that.

 

[gweed123]

Someone at VIA recently realized Metrolinx would take over all their Ontario territory if they didn't start doing something.

What I take from this announcement is that VIA believes HSR will appear in Ontario, that VIA won't be in control of it, and that they don't think it will stop with just London to Toronto. Also, we've learned the federal Conservatives don't care.

Interesting perspective. Given that "The Corridor" is Via's bread and butter, they certainly wouldn't want GO expanding into their territory too much.

 

[k10ery]

What I take from this announcement is that someone high-up at VIA believes HSR will appear in Ontario, that VIA won't be in control of it, and that it probably won't stop with just the London to Toronto route.

Also, we've learned the federal Conservatives are perfectly happy with this scenario (no federal funding and they still have to drum up support in the media before getting approval).

So this is just a PR campaign, not a serious plan? Because, of course, there is no way a private flotation is going to attract investors without federal loan guarantees. This would have to be a P3 or bust.

 

[gweed123]

So this is just a PR campaign, not a serious plan? Because, of course, there is no way a private flotation is going to attract investors without federal loan guarantees. This would have to be a P3 or bust.

Why do you say it won't be able to attract private investors? They aren't launching a new, unproven service. They're making upgrades to their infrastructure so that they can deliver the service they're already delivering more efficiently. Other than raising prices (which would be dumb), there's no way that these infrastructure improvements could make VIA less attractive than what it is today. I'd venture to say that these improvements would make the service even more popular. 3hrs from downtown Toronto to downtown Montreal? You can't even do that by plane (unless you're using Porter and you have your timing down to a tee).

 

[k10ery]

Why do you say it won't be able to attract private investors? They aren't launching a new, unproven service. They're making upgrades to their infrastructure so that they can deliver the service they're already delivering more efficiently. Other than raising prices (which would be dumb), there's no way that these infrastructure improvements could make VIA less attractive than what it is today. I'd venture to say that these improvements would make the service even more popular. 3hrs from downtown Toronto to downtown Montreal? You can't even do that by plane (unless you're using Porter and you have your timing down to a tee).

Oh, I'd love to see this happen personally. But 60% utilization? That kind of yield management would make anyone in the airline industry shudder.

More importantly, if the federal government pulls their operating subsidy, they'll be out of business in a month. With that uncertainty, no one would invest without guarantees.

 

[gweed123]

Oh, I'd love to see this happen personally. But 60% utilization? That kind of yield management would make anyone in the airline industry shudder.

More importantly, if the federal government pulls their operating subsidy, they'll be out of business in a month. With that uncertainty, no one would invest without guarantees.

Isn't the federal subsidization for the other parts of VIA's operations though? I was under the impression that the services along the QC-W corridor were profitable, and were helping subsidize the rest of the system.

Also, the 60% utilization I see as an opportunity. If they're 60% full and still running a profit, how well will they do when they can get more runs out of each crew per day, and the decrease in travel time leads to an increase in ridership?

 

[k10ery]

Isn't the federal subsidization for the other parts of VIA's operations though? I was under the impression that the services along the QC-W corridor were profitable, and were helping subsidize the rest of the system.

Also, the 60% utilization I see as an opportunity. If they're 60% full and still running a profit, how well will they do when they can get more runs out of each crew per day, and the decrease in travel time leads to an increase in ridership?

You're saying if via loses its subsidy and goes out of business, then another entity could make a profit on the Toronto Montreal corridor. That may well be but existing investors would still likely lose their shirts in the bankruptcy, without a P3 to protect them. I suppose Network Rail is the model here.

 

[gweed123]

You're saying if via loses its subsidy and goes out of business, then another entity could make a profit on the Toronto Montreal corridor. That may well be but existing investors would still likely lose their shirts in the bankruptcy, without a P3 to protect them. I suppose Network Rail is the model here.

I'm saying that if VIA lost its' federal subsidy, it would drop other routes (the Canadian, etc) before it got rid of or sold off the QC-W routes. Like any business, if you lose a revenue stream (even if that stream happens to be government money), you cut the services that you offer that are a net loss to run until you achieve a fiscal balance. VIA would only really go bankrupt if none of the services it offered were making money, and they were all relying on federal subsidies to break even. But that isn't the case, because the QC-W corridor is a net profit for VIA.

 

[smallspy]

I'm saying that if VIA lost its' federal subsidy, it would drop other routes (the Canadian, etc) before it got rid of or sold off the QC-W routes. Like any business, if you lose a revenue stream (even if that stream happens to be government money), you cut the services that you offer that are a net loss to run until you achieve a fiscal balance. VIA would only really go bankrupt if none of the services it offered were making money, and they were all relying on federal subsidies to break even. But that isn't the case, because the QC-W corridor is a net profit for VIA.

It's not quite that easy.

VIA receives separate funding for particular services, particularly the "remote" services in northern Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec. If the general subsidy is cut, but they still receive the special funding for those services, they are obliged to keep them going, no matter how well or poorly those services do financially.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[gweed123]

It's not quite that easy.

VIA receives separate funding for particular services, particularly the "remote" services in northern Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec. If the general subsidy is cut, but they still receive the special funding for those services, they are obliged to keep them going, no matter how well or poorly those services do financially.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

That's a good point. But still, if the QC-W corridor generates a profit, what would it matter if the federal subsidy gets cut? Yes, other routes in other places that aren't subject to those specific funding arrangements may be in trouble, but the QC-W corridor would be fine. Again, if my assumption that the QC-W generates a profit for VIA is incorrect, please let me know. I have only heard that from others on here, and haven't verified it for myself.

 

[mdrejhon]

That's great news! It'll be interesting to know a couple more details about this:

1) Will the new tracks be laid parallel to existing tracks, or on entirely new corridors? Or a mixture of both?
2) Will the new tracks be built to HSR standards, so that they can easily be upgraded to HSR?

I have to say, Toronto to Ottawa in 2 1/2 hours is pretty appealing...

Same.

If this unexpectedly goes ahead, VIA really needs to make sure that their corridor alignments are HSR-compatible, few gentle curves, even if they initially cheap out using level crossings, no electrification yet, and skipped fencing.

If it manages to get to HSR standard, I am definitely going to do weekend visits to Ottawa (my hometown) much more often, if I can leave right after work and still arrive in Ottawa on time for a late Friday dinner with family, spend a whole full weekend in Ottawa, and return Monday morning arriving on time for my work. Kingston would literally become a bedroom community for both Toronto/Ottawa and easily double in population. The development opportunity and new taxpayer dollars is attractive. It will, alas, probably cost more than $3 billion if rail is laid to HSR standards (straight arrow corridors and grade full grade separation). Even simple 160kph service (As their trainsets are able to perform that fast already) would still save a full hour with dedicated rail.

Some high speed rail routes in other parts of the world is profitable, so once the business case gradually makes sense eventually within the next few decades, something is going to give. Metrolinx would own their London-Kitchener-Toronto high speed rail, and VIA would own their Toronto-Kingston-Ottawa high speed rail, and VIA would operate the whole length.

Metrolinx would operate the high speed commuter trains for the GTA area, and VIA operates the high speed long-distance intercity trains -- much like TGV domestic/Eurostar international runs different HSR trains on differents parts of the same segment of contiguous European high speed rail. GO RER expresses would eventually be upgraded to GO HSR, probably as the next generational upgrade cycle.

I'm realistically guesstimating 2030s-2040s before the Metrolinx segments of HSR begins to get built, but I have totally no idea about Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal timing -- the VIA crystal ball is far more cloudy. Current Ontario government want HSR in built within 10 years, a bigger feasibility study is currently under way, but I'll double that (survival through a few governments), then add a 5 year delay, to put construction into 2030s. Could be as early as late 2020s, when GO RER is fully operating and the next GO upgrade cycle is being planned out, especially with a successful Union station, and potentially profitable capital-cost-paid UPX ($50M+/year profit with average 40-50%-full UPX trains; after operations paid), and population warming up (post Union/UPX/GO RER) to further train-related infrastructure expansion.