News   Jun 14, 2024
News Roundup for June 14, 2024
 361     0 
News   Jun 14, 2024
Spring Cleaning
 317     0 
News   Jun 13, 2024
Sherbourne-Shuter Proposal Reworked for St Mike's Flight Path
 2K     1 

VIA Rail

Urban Sky said:
What you are proposing would severely undermine VIA's efforts of fleet standardization - for benefits which would only materialize in the second half of their usefulness (if ever). I really hope that we will see the day where VIA's Corridor operations become so extensive that having two separate fleets becomes a suitable solution, but we unfortunately are a long way away from that point...
Click to expand...

One size does not fit all, and if you try you end up with something that is not very good in all of its applications. A compromise.

The Avelias absolutely would immediately materialize their usefulness, just like they have on the NEC, even though the majority of the NEC is not rated for HSR: they tilt further than any other north American train has done before, more so than the previous Acelas by Bombardier. Because of this they were able to shave 30 minutes off the Acela route. Thats huge.

Then, you have the added benefit of HSR ready trains when the decision is made to upgrade. Portions that are straight already, like the track from Ottawa to Montreal could be upgraded to HSR standards first, and the time lost in the curvy Havlock section can be "caught up".
 
reaperexpress said:
I think what you're saying is that VIA should get tilting trains (again). What the rest of us are saying is that the 350 km/h Avelia specifically is massively over-engineered for a service which would see at most 230 km/h.

If there were a conventional tilting train available in the North American market then yes, it might make sense, but then again with newly-built passenger-only trackage (i.e. east of Havelock) we can also include much more aggressive superelevation than traditional shared lines. From a maintenance perspective that is far more economical than using tilting trains.
Click to expand...

Not just tilting trains, but trains that tilt more than any other train has in North America.

Even with more aggressive superelevation, you could combine with tilting to further increase speed in curves, cutting down on what many see as a not-so-great proposed travel time of 4h40m between Toronto and Montreal.

Then, you have the added benefit of HSR ready trains when the decision is made to upgrade. Portions that are straight already, like the track from Ottawa to Montreal could be upgraded to HSR standards first, and the time lost in the curvy Havlock section can be "caught up".
 
roger1818 said:
I can't find my original source for this information, but Wikipedia says, "The locomotive shares much of its overall design with the Siemens Vectron diesel and electric locomotives used in Europe and the Siemens ACS-64 electric locomotive built for Amtrak and SEPTA." Since Siemens has a dual mode version of the Vectron, that is further indication that it shouldn't be difficult for them to make a dual mode Charger (not sure if it can easily be done as a retrofit or not though).
Click to expand...

There are already many dual-mode Chargers on order in the Northeast US. The Charger was the result of a multi-agency procurement strategy in the US, involving not only Amtrak but a number of commuter agencies. Dual mode was always part of that strategy.

- Paul
 
robmausser said:
One size does not fit all, and if you try you end up with something that is not very good in all of its applications. A compromise.

The Avelias absolutely would immediately materialize their usefulness, just like they have on the NEC, even though the majority of the NEC is not rated for HSR: they tilt further than any other north American train has done before, more so than the previous Acelas by Bombardier. Because of this they were able to shave 30 minutes off the Acela route. Thats huge.

Then, you have the added benefit of HSR ready trains when the decision is made to upgrade. Portions that are straight already, like the track from Ottawa to Montreal could be upgraded to HSR standards first, and the time lost in the curvy Havlock section can be "caught up".
Click to expand...
Until the federal government forces CN to allow OCS electrification over no matter which part of their network and gives VIA money to electrify the entire HFR corridor, the Avelias would be completely useless, as they are electric-only and developing a bimode version would be prohibitively expensive for an order size of maybe 20 trainsets. What you describe is a fantasy, at least for the next few decades...
 
Last edited:
Another question for those more knowledgeable. Why does it take 45 mins from Dorval to Centrale and how much can really be sped up for HFR?
 
kEiThZ said:
Another question for those more knowledgeable. Why does it take 45 mins from Dorval to Centrale and how much can really be sped up for HFR?
Click to expand...
Basing myself on the most recent Corridor schedules (effective August 31), the scheduled travel time is always 19-22 minutes, except for westbound QMO trains, which have a scheduled travel time of 32 minutes to allow for the turning move after leaving Gare Centrale:

For eastbound trains, all trains have a scheduled travel time of 19-21 minutes:
Train #Departure DORVArrival MTRLTravel Time (in minutes)
22 (weekdays)08:1108:3120
60 (except Sundays)11:2911:4920
2411:5512:1520
6213:2313:4320
2615:5516:1520
6416:4117:0120
2817:4418:0420
6619:5720:1821
3820:3720:5720
6821:5322:1320
668 (except Saturdays)22:3622:5519

For westbound trains, all trains have a scheduled travel time of 21-22 minutes, except QMO trains, which need to turn direction after departure in Montreal (i.e. at Cape Junction), which have all a scheduled travel time of 32 minutes:
Train #Departure MTRLArrival DORVTravel Time (in minutes)
51 (weekdays)06:1106:3221
61 (except Sundays)06:5107:1322
6308:5009:1222
633 (weekends)09:0009:2222
33 (weekdays)09:0009:3232 (QMO)
6511:0011:2222
3512:0412:3632 (QMO)
6713:2313:4421
3716:3017:0232 (QMO)
6916:5617:1721
669 (except Saturdays)18:2218:4321
3918:5019:2232 (QMO)
 
I was playing around with Google Maps. I thought I saw ~45 mins.

Thanks for pulling the schedule.

So can we assume that no turning will be required with the new fleet and future HFR, so ~20 mins on this stretch?
 
In practice the stretch eas
kEiThZ said:
I was playing around with Google Maps. I thought I saw ~45 mins.

Thanks for pulling the schedule.

So can we assume that no turning will be required with the new fleet and future HFR, so ~20 mins on this stretch?
Click to expand...

While the schedule is not too bad, the actual running time east of Dorval.can be a nightmare. It’s a place in the system where the CN-VIA incompatibility is at a maximum.

The entire plant from Central out to St-Henri is built to just 15 mph. That speed limit is partly due to curvature but also baked into the current signalling system. Then there are just enough tight curves that VIA trains can’t really build up and maintain speed. before having to slow for something else. There is a respectable amount of CN local freight and switching activity between Pte—St Charles and the Lachine Canal area. VIA trains tend to weave from one track to the other to dodge these, which means slowing whenever they use crossovers. Speed limits rise west of Turcot, but the curve at Boul St-Joseph is speed restricted so any sprint is not sustained. And platform constraints at Dorval may force one VIA train to wait until another leaves.

VIA’s intrusion on CN is significant because at hourly service levels, (and maybe some Kingston Hub levels, plus commuters, and perhaps Quebec trains taking the long way around the mountain), it’s certain that VIA will have two trains meeting each other somewhere in this stretch - tying up both of CN’s main lines.

Things have been especially bad due to construction impacts, especially REM.

Hopefully HFR will result in changes to the track and signals to improve on some of this. More track is certainly warranted. But to improve timing, not much can be done considering all those curves.

- Paul
 
Last edited:
crs1026 said:
Hopefully HFR will result in changes to the track and signals to improve on some of this. More track is certainly warranted. But to improve timing, not much can be done considering all those curves.
Click to expand...

This is kinda what I've been curious about.

When HFR started it was a $6B dedicated corridor project. It's now up to $10-12B. If we're spending that much, I'd hope that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal runs closer to 4:15 hrs without any bypass. So I'm wondering where the choke points are and where the greatest investment return is. I would hope they can get Toronto-Ottawa down to 2:50 hrs and Ottawa-Montreal down to 1:15 hrs.
 
kEiThZ said:
This is kinda what I've been curious about.

When HFR started it was a $6B dedicated corridor project. It's now up to $10-12B. If we're spending that much, I'd hope that Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal runs closer to 4:15 hrs without any bypass. So I'm wondering where the choke points are and where the greatest investment return is. I would hope they can get Toronto-Ottawa down to 2:50 hrs and Ottawa-Montreal down to 1:15 hrs.
Click to expand...
Smith Falls, Union Station corridor, and it wont be a dedicated corridor from Union to Wherever the corridor starts (Somewhere in Scarborough). Getting into montreal station also has its challenges.
 
^Someone who noted car numbers reported one car in each of two series of business cars, two series of coaches, and the cab car. So that is likely a complete first set with one of each flavour of car configuration.
Hoping the testing starts soon.

- Paul
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top