VIA Rail

[smallspy]

West Coast Mainline has *NOT* brought their signalling up to European standards! THAT is why the speed limit is 125 mph, not 135. WCML is not fully utilizing the *newest* technology to fully realize the benefits.

Who's talking about signalling?

And did they have GPS, solid state accelerometers, fuzzy logic, laser track sensors, active processors, steerable trucks, vector sensing, regenerative and incremental braking and circuits 50 years ago? Hardly.

From your list of the components that actually mean anything in this conversation - steerable trucks - they did, yes. They've been around for a hundred years.

The rest are just better/smaller/more advanced ways to do the same things that they were doing 50 years ago.

The same technology is being used by cars today, because they have wheels. Does it then follows in your logic that auto-technology hasn't come a *huge* way from fifty years ago?

What the hell do cars have to do with this? Last I checked, they weren't bound to rails.

Dan
Toronto, Ont.

 

[steveintoronto]

From your list of the components that actually mean anything in this conversation - steerable trucks - they did, yes. They've been around for a hundred years.

Uh huh.

Here's the 1987 US Patent for steerable trucks, also known as "steerable axles", but commonly referred to as trucks.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4819566.pdf
They were invented and developed in Kingston, at the then UTDC by two Canadians. So perhaps you could inform the US Patent Office that they granted a patent that had been in the public domain for "around for a hundred years"?

Dan: If you're unfamiliar with any of the technology you claim doesn't exist, or has been around for "fifty" or a "hundred" years, I suggest you catch up before making wild and completely unsubstantiated claims.

Clearly, there's two groups of posters in this discussion: Those up on the what the latest technology, practices and applications can do, and those who just flat out state: "You can't do that" and then desperately try to find anything that might justify their stating that.

Here's a later patent application after being assigned to General Motors:

Locomotive and motorized self-steering radial truck therefor
US 4765250 A
Abstract
An arrangement for locomotives and other railway vehicles having steerable or self-steering railway trucks, particularly motorized locomotive trucks, which incorporates axle height transfer of loads from the axles to the frame through connecting rods and steering beams connecting with the end axles. The steering beams are interconnected through upstanding torque tubes, cranks and a high level diagonal link extending over intermediate traction motors or other equipment. A bolsterless suspension of rubber pads supports the carbody with traction and braking loads being transferred through linkage including a carbody post carrying a short pivotally mounted carbody beam attached by connecting rods to an adjacent transom of the truck frame. The arrangement provides a compact and efficient force transfer system with low axle weight transfer while permitting interrelated self-steering action of the front and rear axles, but is also adaptable to forced steering truck arrangements.
[...]
TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention relates to railway vehicles and steering trucks therefor and, more particularly, to railway locomotives and motorized self-steering radial trucks for locomotive use.

BACKGROUND
Various types of steering railway trucks have been proposed wherein the angular positions of the axles and their associated wheels are allowed, or forced, to adjust during curve negotiation to maintain more or less radial positions with respect to the curve. Such arrangements are generally proposed to reduce friction and wear of the wheels and rails by minimizing lateral creep forces. The use of such trucks has been considered both for nonpowered railway cars and for locomotives with motorized axles.

An extended discussion of one such railway truck, intended primary for locomotive application, may be found in U.S. Pat. No. 4,628,824 issued Dec. 16, 1986 to the assignee of the present invention. This patent also contains an extensive list of prior art references. United States patents and applications setting forth additional features for self-steering railway trucks for use with locomotives and the like include U.S. Pat. Nos. 4,679,506 and 4,679,507, both issued July 14, 1987 and application Ser. No. 010,365 filed Feb. 3, 1987, all assigned to the assignee of the present invention.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,679,506 discloses an arrangement for powered three axle self-steering railway locomotive trucks. All axles are motorized and a steering beam pivoted on the frame is utilized as part of a linkage to interconnect the end axles for self-steering yaw motions of opposite sense and equal extent. This arrangement, together with those of U.S. Pat. No. 4,628,824 and application No. 010,365 may be considered as representing earlier arrangements in the development of the present invention.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The present invention provides a railway truck, and in particular embodiments a motorized self-steering railway locomotive truck, in association with a vehicle, or locomotive, carbody to provide additional features of construction and arrangement. These features may be useful in railway trucks generally and/or in self-steering railway trucks and motorized railway locomotive trucks of the forced-steering or self-steering types.

Among the features of the invention is a bolsterless construction in which the carbody is supported by resilient secondary suspension means directly on the railway truck frame and a force transmitting linkage connecting the frame with the carbody includes a carbody post pivotally supporting a relatively short carbody beam having laterally opposite ends, or points, which are connected longitudinally with an adjacent transom of the truck frame.

In another feature of the invention, steering beams connected with the end axles include upstanding torque tubes pivotally mounted on adjacent transoms. The torque tubes carry cranks which are connected by a link extending diagonally over an intermediate traction motor to interconnect the steering beams and the end axles to require self-steering yaw motions of opposite sense and equal extent.

These and other features and advantages of the invention will be more fully understood from the following description of a preferred embodiment of the invention taken together with the accompanying drawings.
[...]

http://www.google.com/patents/US4765250

From General Electric:

[...] The AC4400CW was also one of the first diesel locomotives to be equipped with self-steering "steerable trucks" (which were first offered with the AC4400CW's DC-traction counter-part: the C44-9W, besides first being invented or introduced with the AC4400CW's competition: EMD's SD70MAC; previously on the preceeding SD60MAC) and to be capable of providing "distributed power" to serve as a "distributed power unit" (DPU); which is a form or technique of having multiple locomotives placed on different parts of a train, operate on the same train, and to be controlled by the engineer of a leading locomotive simultaneously without the need of having multiple crews operate multiple locomotive sets at different speeds on different parts of a train. The type of locomotive also included "controlled tractive effort" (CTE), which helped provide better tractive effort for whenever a wheelslip were to occur; similar to what was originally included with EMD's SD80MAC. Although DPU and CTE technology proved reliable on earlier AC4400CW units, the CTE technology had a tendency to fail; thus, a new type of truck or bogey was developed later-on during production, hence providing even better tractive effort; yet was only popular with Ferromex (FXE), CSX, and CP Rail (Canadian Pacific) who were some of the several customers to order both styles or versions of trucks for their AC4400CW fleets.[...]

http://locomotive.wikia.com/wiki/GE_AC4400CW

Here's a scientific/engineering analysis:

The primary purpose of this study is to provide a qualitative analysis of the effects of the self-steering trucks that are commonly used by the US Railroads-namely, EMD's radial truck and GE's steerable truck-on increasing adhesion in curves. Although there exists a number of anecdotal statements about the ability of steerable trucks in general, and self-steering trucks in particular, in increasing adhesion on curves, to the best of the authors' knowledge, there exists no study that provides a qualitative or quantitative analysis of this aspect of steerable trucks. Two aspects of locomotive trucks are essential for their ability to deliver high adhesion in curves. First, the ability to allow the axles to yaw sufficiently relative to the truck frames, such that they can hold a small angle of attack with the rail. Second, providing sufficiently large longitudinal stiffness between the axles and the truck frame, to accommodate the high adhesions. An equivalent stiffness analysis is used to show that the two steerable trucks that are considered for this study are far superior to the conventional, three-axle, straight trucks in providing both a smaller angle of attack and a higher longitudinal stiffness for better adhesion characteristics. The qualitative analysis of this study agrees with the experience of the US Railroads with the adhesion performance of their self-steering trucks. Although not aware of any adhesion data published in the open literature, the authors are familiar with several attempts by the original equipment manufacturers and railroads to collect adhesion data for self-steering trucks. Similar to the findings of this study, the results of such experiments have often indicated the ability to deliver higher adhesion by self-steering trucks as compared to straight trucks. Further, the railroads have experienced that in their operation they can get higher adhesion in curves from steerable trucks than conventional straight trucks

Published in:
Railroad Conference, 2000. Proceedings of the 2000 ASME/IEEE Joint

The technology continues to advance. Unfortunately, some people don't...or can't.

 

[Urban Sky]

VIA Rail's Annual Report 2015 has been published today and has two pages dedicated to HFR:

DEDICATED TRACKS PROJECT

The trend of deteriorating On Time Performance (OTP) continued this year due to ongoing challenges associated with sharing the railway with ever-increasing freight traffic. Though we are working hard to increase our passenger base, not being able to deliver a reliable service makes this a challenge. VIA Rail owns only two per cent of the infrastructure on which it operates, while the remaining 98 per cent is controlled by freight rail companies. This not only impacts our OTP, but it means that our train schedules are dependent on the access we are granted by the owners of the infrastructure.

As a Crown corporation, we have a responsibility to Canadians to be the best, safest and most efficient transportation company possible. The fact remains, however, that we cannot grow our ridership and reduce our operating deficit if we continue to function under the current constraints posed by a shared railway infrastructure.

In order to address this, VIA Rail has developed a project which proposes to build a dedicated passenger rail corridor, between Toronto, Ottawa and Montréal (TOM Corridor): the “Dedicated Tracks Project”. A railway dedicated to passenger trains would eliminate the challenges of sharing tracks with freight trains. It would allow for a greater number of frequencies, shorter trip times and ultimately a safer and more reliable service. As well, it would allow the re-design of the current frequencies operating on the shared environment to better meet regional needs for increased service.

For the past two years, we have been analyzing, researching and testing this strategy, which is aimed at making VIA Rail more relevant to Canadians and to improving its service and financial performance. The project will also increase Canada’s productivity, strengthen the economy and decrease environmental impact.

The first phase of the project targets the TOM Corridor, while a second phase would link Montréal and Québec City, as well as Toronto and London. This project would also require a new, more efficient train car fleet.


THE RIGHT PROJECT AT THE RIGHT TIME

Low frequency is the single most important obstacle to train travel in the TOM Corridor. VIA Rail’s options for service enhancements are hindered by its limited rights of access to the rail infrastructure. A dedicated rail would provide the Crown corporation with full control over its schedule. Experts estimate that once in place, the dedicated tracks project would triple the current train ridership. This increase in passengers coupled with the use of modern equipment would result in a highly positive environmental impact through greenhouse gas reductions equivalent to taking 2.4 million cars off the road every year. From a congestion point of view, we estimate a reduction of 5.5 million car trips in the TOM Corridor leading to enhanced productivity.

The positive economic impact of the Dedicated Tracks Project would be substantial. Whether through reduced congestion, increased productivity or employment creation, Canada would benefit. Approximately 26,000 person years of project employment will be generated, and close to 298,000 permanent jobs would be created. It would also have a highly positive impact on Canada’s rail infrastructure by improving both freight and passenger rail efficiency.

Furthermore, because within a decade of its implementation this project would become self-funded, the current Government of Canada subsidy provided to VIA Rail on a yearly basis would be significantly reduced.

In brief, the Dedicated Tracks Project is a game-changing plan for Canadian passenger rail. It would allow VIA Rail to leverage its own assets and Government of Canada investments into an environmentally sustainable, economy stimulating, and highly service-enhancing nation-building project.

http://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/fil...reports/2015/ViaRail_AnnualReport_2015_EN.pdf (pp. 14-15)

Note that HFR is referred to as "dedicated tracks project" and maybe we would have less confusion in this forum if we also used that term instead...

 

[smallspy]

Dan: If you're unfamiliar with any of the technology you claim doesn't exist, or has been around for "fifty" or a "hundred" years, I suggest you catch up before making wild and completely unsubstantiated claims.

That's rich. Even cute.

Tell you what, you have fun in your sandbox. Let us know when you want the adults back.

Dan
Toront0, Ont.

 

[Urban Sky]

That's rich. Even cute.

Tell you what, you have fun in your sandbox. Let us know when you want the adults back.

Can we just stop the trolling, please, and make only claims we can back up (or are willing to rethink if confronted with facts which contradict those claims)? I currently see only one person playing in the sandbox and (at least: this time) it is not Steve...

 

[steveintoronto]

Urban, quick question: I've tried almost everything to open KMZ and KML files, as used by Google Maps. Perhaps this is automatically referred to an app to open it in Windows, it doesn't in Linux.

Absolutely no problem using Google Maps themselves, but trying to open the "Ontario Railway Map Collection.kmz" or even un-zip it escapes me. Tried in on various machines over the years, never got it to open.

Anyone running Linux out there know the trick?

Edit: Trying this:
http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/install-google-earth-6-in-ubuntu-linux.html

 

[Urban Sky]

Urban, quick question: I've tried almost everything to open KMZ and KML files, as used by Google Maps. Perhaps this is automatically referred to an app to open it in Windows, it doesn't in Linux.

Absolutely no problem using Google Maps themselves, but trying to open the "Ontario Railway Map Collection.kmz" or even un-zip it escapes me. Tried in on various machines over the years, never got it to open.

Anyone running Linux out there know the trick?

Edit: Trying this:
http://www.webupd8.org/2010/11/install-google-earth-6-in-ubuntu-linux.html

Unfortunately absolutely zero Linux experience on my side, but once you have Google Earth installed, you should be able to import the file from within Google Earth by selecting File => Open...

 

[steveintoronto]

Figured out it's impossible in the latest version of Ubuntu 16.04 (at least the 64 bit ver.) until the next revision. The irony? I've now figured out how I could have done it in earlier versions. I did get a test of Google Earth while I had it running though, but due to lack of other files, it won't reboot.

Those maps look like an absolute treasure trove, not to mention Google Earth's ability to do rich overlays. Many thanks for response.
-----------------
Edit to Add: It intrigued me that variable radius axle trucks ("steerable") were developed at UTDC Kingston. In retrospect, it must have been for the UTDC LRVs for Toronto, very tight radius turning loops, and broad gauge TTC wheel spacing. Don't know if they ever designed a bogie for those cars that went into production, but the patent has been very successful.

 

[mdrejhon]

Absolutely no problem using Google Maps themselves, but trying to open the "Ontario Railway Map Collection.kmz" or even un-zip it escapes me. Tried in on various machines over the years, never got it to open.

Rename .kmz to .zip then unzip (zip, not gzip).
Also, there are also online viewers in the web browser, in case Google Earth is not available.
Google "online kml viewer".

 

[steveintoronto]

Rename .kmz to .zip then unzip (zip, not gzip).
Also, there are also online viewers in the web browser, in case Google Earth is not available.
Google "online kml viewer".

MD: I managed to install Google Earth, took about an hour, after many failed earlier attempts. Ubuntu 16.04, even though now released LTS, isn't fully there yet for installing third-party software. So I had to force the installation of some 32 bit files to get it to load. (My OS is 64 bit. Loading 32 bit files can go terribly wrong if not done right) Whether all the extensions are available remains to be seen, I got an alert that without having a 3D video card installed (I have one, a Radeon, but 16.04 hasn't made a proprietary driver available yet) some 3D features can't be displayed, but I'm *incredibly amazed* at what this program does even w/o the 3D display. Since all the files are available from downloaded native memory, navigation is far better than on-line. So needless to say, I've been taking a trip along the Ontario and Quebec...and so far, the curves and gradients are nowhere near as dire as some have made them out to be. More than ever, it appears to 'ready-made' for state-of-the-art tilting and intelligent bogie passenger use. And the track banking *from what I can glean so far* necessary will not block light freight movements. Many light-rail operations in the US host freight temporally with much curvier and convoluted track that what I've seen on the RoW so far.

I'm up to Sharbot Lake from Toronto, and become aware of the incredible work the author/host of the map file overlay has provided. For instance, at Sharbot Lake, a pop-up from an icon:

Campbellford Lake Ontario and Western Railway

Location: The subject railway is located in south-central Ontario, extending between the communities of Agincourt, to the north of Toronto, and Glen Tay which is located just west of Perth.

History: The Campbellford Lake Ontario and Western Railway (CLO and WRy) was incorporated in September 1904 for the purpose of constructing a railway line parallel to the Lake Ontario shoreline from a point on the CPR controlled Ontario & Quebec Railway (O and QRy) near Toronto, through Cobourg and Campbellford, to once again rejoin the O and QRy at Blairton. The history of the company, however, stems from the creation of the Cobourg, Northwestern and Pacific Railway. Incorporated in 1889 by citizens of Cobourg to give that community an east west line to compete with the existing Grand Truck Railway, the affairs of the company ended in failure. The majority of the preconstruction work including surveying, granting of government subsidies, and the finalization of CPR lease arrangements, had all taken place but appropriate funding could not be found. Accordingly, no construction ever took place and the remains of the company ultimately formed part of CLO and WRy.

Surveying of the line was initiated in 1905. It was felt by CPR officials that the proposed route would serve as an alternative to the busy O and QRy line to the north where it was expected double tracking may be required in the near future. Once again, however, further work on the proposed line lagged and it wasn't until May 1912 that grading work commenced. The divisional point chosen for the route was Trenton. In 1913, the line was officially leased for a period of 999 years to the CPR. In conjunction with the work being completed on the CLOR&WR was the double tracking of rail on the O and QRy between Agincourt and Leaside, opened for traffic in early 1914. By June of that year, the new line was completed its full intended length from Agincourt to Glen Tay. This resulted in the CPR having two separate lines within the Montreal to Toronto corridor, serving two distinct areas of the Province. As well, the completed route offered the advantage of challenging the existing Grand Trunk and Canadian Northern lines within communities along the lake shore. Known in short as the Lake Ontario Shoreline Route, the new lined offered improved grades and curves over its northern cousin. Ultimately, large portions of the O&QR route was abandoned in favour of the Shoreline tracks for these very reasons.

Approximate Milage: 190 miles.

Current Status: Under Canadian Pacific ownership (St. Lawrence and Hudson Railway), the line now forms the bulk of the Belleville Subdivision that extends from Toronto east to Smith Falls, a total of 211.5 miles.

Principle Stations: Whitby, Oshawa, Bowmanville, Cobourg, Colborne, Trenton and Belleville.

Remaining Stations: The possibility exists that three CLOR and WRy railway stations remain. They are as follows:
1. Bathurst: Moved to property on Highway #7 across from Steep Rock Resources as a private residence.
2. Roblindale: Moved to Philoxia complex near Marlbank as a storage shed.
3. Thurlow: Moved as a private residence, location unconfirmed.

- : Ontario Railway Map Collection.kmz

Btw! Unless I decompressed the file from frantic efforts earlier, GE *appears* to have unzipped it automatically.

If other readers aren't aware of this program, I highly recommend it. In Windows, it should load a lot more easily. I'm highly impressed....

Edit: Must add -

More than ever, it appears to 'ready-made' for state-of-the-art tilting and intelligent bogie passenger use.

Point made before on this, but it breaks my heart, the RoW is such a *superlative* rail-trail for cycling and hiking, that I pray if it is used for "Dedicated Track", that it be shared still with the Trans-Canada Trail network. That might mean relocating sections of the trail, still a vastly cheaper option than blazing an entirely new RoW with all the attendant approvals and expenses necessary.

 

[ssiguy2]

Moving along.........
I understand the logic of the HSR/DTP for frequency, speed, and scheduling. I totally appreciate that CN/CP have no intention of giving VIA trains the ROW so I can see why they want to do it. That said I'm not sure it's a very good use of funds.

I just don't think Canadians are going to be doing cartwheels that their tax dollars are being used so that VIA trains can get back to the speed they were going 50 years ago. Somehow that just doesn't spark the imagination.

With Queen's Park determined to connect London/Toronto with true HSR and probably Windsor as well, a less frequent, more polluting, and slower train to Montreal seems awfully regressive.

I admit to never being a huge fan of HSR but if QP is building the SWO side of HSR then maybe VIA should just bit the bullet and make it one solid Win/QC line.

 

[steveintoronto]

That said I'm not sure it's a very good use of funds.

It's a very good question, but one that Desjardins-Siciliano has answered very well. It will only happen with *private investment*, and if as successful as hoped, won't cost the taxpayer anything in operating expense.

And here's the answer to your question, albeit indirectly: If private investors (who will be on the hook for a good part of the risk) feel it's a good investment, then ostensibly they pay for the track RoW and electrical infrastructure, retain ownership of it, lease it to VIA (and others, Metrolinx being an obvious one, and CP has indicated interest for freight temporally over the line at night) and VIA's new rolling stock (which is coming due anyway, most of the fleet is on its last legs) is paid by Gov't infrastructure and VIA budget. The investors being approached are very savvy at this form of investment. If they don't think it worthwhile, they won't invest. We're still waiting for more details.

D-S is the first one to state that this must pay its own way. I leave the details to others to explain more thoroughly.

maybe VIA should just bit the bullet and make it one solid Win/QC line

"The bullet" is funding. This is the eventual plan, but initially, the greatest demand and the most profitable is between two points, Toronto and Montreal, with a third city, Ottawa being included since it lies between both.

 

[MisterF]

From the Via Rail annual report:

In order to address this, VIA Rail has developed a project which proposes to build a dedicated passenger rail corridor, between Toronto, Ottawa and Montréal (TOM Corridor): the “Dedicated Tracks Project”. A railway dedicated to passenger trains would eliminate the challenges of sharing tracks with freight trains. It would allow for a greater number of frequencies, shorter trip times and ultimately a safer and more reliable service. As well, it would allow the re-design of the current frequencies operating on the shared environment to better meet regional needs for increased service.

Regardless of which routes are being contemplated, this looks to me like the dedicated corridor would be in addition to the existing trains on the CN corridor, not a replacement for them.

 

[DSC]

From the Via Rail annual report:

Regardless of which routes are being contemplated, this looks to me like the dedicated corridor would be in addition to the existing trains on the CN corridor, not a replacement for them.

Why would VIA build dedicated tracks between T, O and M and then continue to use the CN/CP tracks. Surely their report means that they will also look at their other corridors where they are still 'forced' to share tracks and try to improve service on them too.

 

[steveintoronto]

Why would VIA build dedicated tracks between T, O and M and then continue to use the CN/CP tracks.

Inertia. Unfortunately, at some point, VIA has to cut their losses, and throwing good money after bad in Kingston doesn't make sense. They will have to maintain a service from Kingston to Toronto at least, if not Montreal to Toronto along Lakeshore mainline, if for no other reason than to keep the small cities and towns connected, but I can't see how it can be done without a cut in service. Ridership numbers just don't support it. And the cost of "dedicated track" to serve those numbers just doesn't make economic sense. Railcars might be the answer in lieu of loco-hauled longer consists to maintain the present frequency.

Edit to Clarify:
[And the cost of "dedicated track" to serve those numbers just doesn't make economic sense.] *IF* dedicated track is built along the O&Q alignment. I've traced the route many times now closely with Google Earth, and it would appear the only section that would need an EA, if the dedicated track connects into Smith's Falls from Glen Tay, is the chord into the old Cdn Northern alignment into Ottawa, and even that would only need an EA if it were a broad connection, not a tight loop closer to Smith's Falls.

There appears to be ample space beside the CPR main within their RoW to allow paralleled track Glen Tay to SF.

As much as "dedicated track" infers ownership, remember, this is projected to be financed by investors, and talking a deal with CP might prove highly advantageous in a number of ways. VIA and other passenger operators will have zero degradation of performance, and CP will still be in a position to affect temporally separated freight at night.

If the deal is worded right, CP could be part of the consortium. They've already proven good will with the O-Line in Ottawa. Remember, CN may have stated: (gist) "Never under catenary". CP haven't, and they might get rewarded for being flexible.

Second Edit: The more I think about it, CP *should* be part of the track/RoW consortium. It would allow CP to offer a very underutilized corridor TO to Peterborough, their mainline RoW into Smith Falls to host a dedicated track, expertise and MoW along the line, and a valuable alternative to their southern main into Toronto. At night, at least, it would allow one way routing without having to do lay-bys to pass. It might even offer paths for freight express during the day if slotted between scheduled passenger runs. And it would give CP a large PR coup in terms of *adapting their business model* to embrace better ways of using their infrastructure. And they'd be scooping up CN's loss.

The line would probably best be owned by the consortium, of which CP obviously would be a member, but CP would be a major player, likely to dispatch and manage the line. And CP would further their in-house expertise of handling such projects. That in itself is a salable asset.

I see fertile grounds for discussion...