VIA Rail

[Urban Sky]

So why then is VIA so constrained on 2-track (and especially 3-track) sections of the Kingston sub?

Maybe because VIA wants to operate its trains faster than CN's freight trains, but CN is not willing to give VIA dispatching priority? Therefore, VIA trains can only overtake any trains if they don't slow down any CN trains - and that is a lot easier to achieve with 3 or more tracks than with 2 tracks...

 

[crs1026]

Would have to work around CN.

I hadn't realised that CN was only single-track anywhere on the York-sub.

Which puzzles me - surely freight traffic on the Kingston sub can't be greater than the eastern end of the York sub. So why then is VIA so constrained on 2-track (and especially 3-track) sections of the Kingston sub?

The need for HFR through Peterborough rather than dedicated tracks for VIA puzzles me even more if CN only needs one, and at most two, tracks.

To be precise - the York Sub is double track from Mac Yard to McCowans (12.8 miles) and then single track McCowans to Pickering Jct (12.2 miles).

There are crossovers connecting to the Kingston Sub at Liverpool and Pickering Jct. These are about 1.5 miles apart. Once upon a time, that allowed CN freights to clear the Kingston Sub there for meets, but with trains having grown longer, that's no longer possible. A westbound freight will now have to hold on the main line east of Pickering Jct to wait for an eastbound freight to come "down the hill" from McCowans. That ties up one of the two Kingston tracks that VIA uses.

There used to be a siding halfway between McCowans and Liverpool called Beare. It also became too short to be usable, so it was removed not too long ago.

So yes, the York Sub is one-train-at-a-time from the connection with the Kingston Sub. That may make VIA one-train-at-a-time through the Whitby-Pickering stretch also.... and VIA has no ability to predict or schedule around when that logjam might arise. That unpredictability is what gets in VIA's way.

- Paul

 

[Bordercollie]

When they built the Flyover at the Uxbridge sub they didnt to think of keeping the connecting track with the York SUB in place incase or required detours? And additional operational flexibility?

 

[nfitz]

Maybe because VIA wants to operate its trains faster than CN's freight trains, but CN is not willing to give VIA dispatching priority? Therefore, VIA trains can only overtake any trains if they don't slow down any CN trains - and that is a lot easier to achieve with 3 or more tracks than with 2 tracks...

If CN only needs a single track, why can't VIA simply operate on 3 tracks - perhaps with some sidings for freights to pass each other?

Seems more practical than starting a whole new route to Ottawa, and then having to duplicate a lot of service through Kingston.

To be precise - the York Sub is double track from Mac Yard to McCowans (12.8 miles) and then single track McCowans to Pickering Jct (12.2 miles).

There are crossovers connecting to the Kingston Sub at Liverpool and Pickering Jct. These are about 1.5 miles apart. Once upon a time, that allowed CN freights to clear the Kingston Sub there for meets, but with trains having grown longer, that's no longer possible. A westbound freight will now have to hold on the main line east of Pickering Jct to wait for an eastbound freight to come "down the hill" from McCowans. That ties up one of the two Kingston tracks that VIA uses.

There used to be a siding halfway between McCowans and Liverpool called Beare. It also became too short to be usable, so it was removed not too long ago.

So yes, the York Sub is one-train-at-a-time from the connection with the Kingston Sub. That may make VIA one-train-at-a-time through the Whitby-Pickering stretch also.... and VIA has no ability to predict or schedule around when that logjam might arise. That unpredictability is what gets in VIA's way.

So CN, instead of maintaining (or expanding) their sidings, took advantage of the free infrastructure for VIA to be able to run longer trains and decommission their sidings.

Time for the feds to get serious about regulating the situation.

 

[smallspy]

When they built the Flyover at the Uxbridge sub they didnt to think of keeping the connecting track with the York SUB in place incase or required detours? And additional operational flexibility?

Operational flexibility for a once-in-10-year event? Or cost savings by not having to build and maintain a new connection? The bean counter in me sees the obvious answer.

Also remember that the Uxbridge Sub passes under 14th Avenue. This means that the original connection would also have to be regraded as well.

Dan

 

[Bordercollie]

If CN only needs a single track, why can't VIA simply operate on 3 tracks - perhaps with some sidings for freights to pass each other?

Seems more practical than starting a whole new route to Ottawa, and then having to duplicate a lot of service through Kingston.

Likely because even if you where to build additional tracks in the existing corridor there is no guarantee that you wont be impeded by freight traffic. Since you dont work the track dispatching and rack time will always be dictated by the host railway.

Building your own corridor would allow you to run train as much as you want when you want. No freight trains blocking your path.

 

[crs1026]

If CN only needs a single track, why can't VIA simply operate on 3 tracks - perhaps with some sidings for freights to pass each other?

Seems more practical than starting a whole new route to Ottawa, and then having to duplicate a lot of service through Kingston.

So CN, instead of maintaining (or expanding) their sidings, took advantage of the free infrastructure for VIA to be able to run longer trains and decommission their sidings.

Time for the feds to get serious about regulating the situation.

Pure speculation: CN likely needs one track plus passing zones (as opposed to sidings). So two tracks some of the time, possibly segments of fiveish miles spaced every ten or so miles (similar to how CP reconfigured the Winchester Sub). The reason being, a 2-3 mile long freight train has to enter the passing zone at a fair speed and not decelerate until it’s in the clear….otherwise it will take too long to creep into the passing track, blocking the main line.

VIA cannot afford to encounter two freight trains passing each other - as even with a third track, at hourly headways there will be not one but two VIA’s to accommodate. Wiggling opposing VIA trains past each other will cause delays and slow running to VIA trains. So, no, more third track will not solve the problem, although it might help somewhat.

Expanding CN’s sidings is not trivial. In the case of the York Sub, the east end of the Liverpool-Pickering passing track is bounded by Highway 401 on one end and a deep ravine at Duffins Creek at the other. If it’s a choice between building a substantial bridge to extend the passing track, or just laying claim to the two tracks that CN owns, then obviously CN is going to serve its own interest ahead of VIA. If VIA wants to build the extension, fair enough…. but that’s just one location, and there are others…. Port Hope, Belleville, Napanee, Kingston all have spots where only two tracks can be had without bridges. Telling CN to relinquish even one of its two tracks in those locations is not going to fly. There may be enough track capacity for a moderate local service - mostly because local trains will catch up to freight less often - but an hourly service with express timings is not feasible.

There are more draconian solutions, if you want to rewrite the national transportation policy…. but that isn’t realistically going to happen.

- Paul

- Paul

 

[robmausser]

Likely because even if you where to build additional tracks in the existing corridor there is no guarantee that you wont be impeded by freight traffic. Since you dont work the track dispatching and rack time will always be dictated by the host railway.

Building your own corridor would allow you to run train as much as you want when you want. No freight trains blocking your path.

You dont even need a likely at the beginning of your sentence; exactly this happened.

In the late 2000's, VIA rail paid CN to build sidings and double/triple tracking throughout the Kingston Sub from Toronto to Montreal. At great expense mind you: an auditor generals investigation claimed that CN overcharged VIA up to 300% more than standard prices for this work.

VIA's ontime performance didnt budge and actually eventually worsened. CN just lengthened their trains to not fit the sidings, and used the extra trackage to improve their own operations.

 

[nfitz]

Likely because even if you where to build additional tracks in the existing corridor there is no guarantee that you wont be impeded by freight traffic. Since you dont work the track dispatching and rack time will always be dictated by the host railway.

There's ways about that - both physically and operationally. You don't see GO traffic between Pickering and Oshawa disrupted by freight (because they made sure it was physically impossible).

And for whatever reason full-day GO service on CN/CP lines from Burlington(?) to whatever Hamilton James Street is called these days has no major delays.

 

[lenaitch]

View attachment 365832
Looks like the construction work on Lakeshore East gives people a new view of the city when going to and from Montreal and Ottawa. I find it crazy that at Hagerman, Doncaster, and Snider you can only head west on the York subdivision when coming from downtown. The only way onto the York subdivision east is via the Halton subdivision which is as far west as you can go and you would be heading northwest to turn east. Was there better network redundancy in the past and then it was sold off or was it always designed to all roads lead to the Toronto Yard?

I can only assume CN built their connections with the York sub. for their operational needs, and had no need to come out of the downtown Toronto yard via Newmarket, Bala or Uxbridge subs when they could simply go east via the Kingston sub.

 

[APTA-2048]

It's due to very sad circumstances, but VIA trains now pass by close to where I live by the Rouge Valley. I had the day off, so I went to get a couple photos.

 

[Urban Sky]

If CN only needs a single track, why can't VIA simply operate on 3 tracks - perhaps with some sidings for freights to pass each other?

Because CN seems to refuse to forgo dispatching control of any tracks built onto its ROW - regardless of who paid for their construction. And to be honest: unless you pay lease payments, you can’t really expect exclusive use of fixed assets which are built onto someone’s else’s land…

So CN, instead of maintaining (or expanding) their sidings, took advantage of the free infrastructure for VIA to be able to run longer trains and decommission their sidings.

You dont even need a likely at the beginning of your sentence; exactly this happened.

In the late 2000's, VIA rail paid CN to build sidings and double/triple tracking throughout the Kingston Sub from Toronto to Montreal. At great expense mind you: an auditor generals investigation claimed that CN overcharged VIA up to 300% more than standard prices for this work.

VIA's ontime performance didnt budge and actually eventually worsened. CN just lengthened their trains to not fit the sidings, and used the extra trackage to improve their own operations.

Before we are starting unjust rumors: all the decommissioned sidings @crs1026 mentioned were along the York Sub and thus far away from any third track CN built on behalf of VIA and the federal taxpayer, just like CN didn't deliberately lengthen their trains to no longer be able to fit them into sidings (they just must have figured out on a spreadsheet that lengthening trains beyond X% of its sidings was more profitable than extending these sidings). Also, the only AOG report examining the partial triple-tracking of the Kingston Sub of which I am aware simply stated that the per-mile cost almost tripled (from $1.6 to $4.5 million) as the project progressed, but (IIRC) did not directly accuse CN of anything worse than poor cost control...

Seems more practical than starting a whole new route to Ottawa, and then having to duplicate a lot of service through Kingston.

There's ways about that - both physically and operationally. You don't see GO traffic between Pickering and Oshawa disrupted by freight (because they made sure it was physically impossible).

Indeed, if you build an entirely new ROW outside of CN's own ROW, you can control your speeds, frequencies and dispatching priority at will. However, are you seriously suggesting that duplicating the Kingston Subdivision for 500 km is going to be cheaper and easier (EA anyone?) than upgrading/restoring the Havelock Sub?

And for whatever reason full-day GO service on CN/CP lines from Burlington(?) to whatever Hamilton James Street is called these days has no major delays.

That station is called West Harbour GO Station these days and the only conflict between GO's hourly service to that station and CN's mainline operations is crossing once over their main track at either Bayview or Hamilton Junction, which is a minor nuisance compared to chasing the tail of freight trains over a length of 500 km...

 

[nfitz]

Because CN seems to refuse to forgo dispatching control of any tracks built onto its ROW - regardless of who paid for their construction. And to be honest: unless you pay lease payments, you can’t really expect exclusive use of fixed assets which are built onto someone’s else’s land…

I'm sure that there's a myriad of ways the federal government can convince them otherwise, if they really wanted to.

Or if they wanted to play dirty, blocking CN's access to the trackage near Belleville where they have no title to the land. Though that would screw VIA too ...

 

[kEiThZ]

I'm sure that there's a myriad of ways the federal government can convince them otherwise, if they really wanted to.

Or if they wanted to play dirty, blocking CN's access to the trackage near Belleville where they have no title to the land. Though that would screw VIA too ...

I get why rail fans have fantasies of the feds putting the screws to the freight rail cos. But I think people need to remember those two companies are Canadian champions, far outsized for the country they are coming from. The feds aren't going to go out of their way, to make it painful for them.

We need to accept this reality, get over it, and get on to building proper passenger rail infrastructure.

 

[crs1026]

Before we are starting unjust rumors: all the decommissioned sidings @crs1026 mentioned were along the York Sub and thus far away from any third track CN built on behalf of VIA and the federal taxpayer, just like CN didn't deliberately lengthen their trains to no longer be able to fit them into sidings (they just must have figured out on a spreadsheet that lengthening trains beyond X% of its sidings was more profitable than extending these sidings).

Just to be precise, there were also sidings along the Kingston Sub, and for that matter throughout the country, built to a fairly consistent standard of 6000-7000 feet, which was as long as trains were traditionally. After the elimination of the caboose, and consistent with technological advances in distributed power (remote control of midtrain and rear of train locomotives) the entire industry found ways to make trains longer, reaping huge productivity and cost savings gains in the process. Besides not fitting in sidings, today’s longer trains handle differently, so cannot be quite as nimble as shorter trains.

One is tempted to bring up E Hunter Harrison as being a driving force in these changes. It would be fairer to say that he simply applied pressure to both CN and CP managers, who were a bit change resistant and were not in a hurry to adopt what was already proven and going on elsewhere. EHH’s particular imprint was to find ways to manage oversize trains without spending much if any capital to lengthen sidings. He may have gone too far in the short term, but both CN and CP have recalibrated and are doing what makes good economic and operational sense to restore passing capacity for longer freight trains.

The change in operating practices doomed passenger trains both on the long haul routes and in the corridor, because it removed much of the the potential for faster trains (pax) to overtake slower ones (freight).

The point being - this was not some nefarious conspiracy to harm VIA. It was an orderly evolution of the industry and was unavoidable. Certainly, government could have taken up the slack to protect passenger train capacity by pumping more money into extended sidings etc…. but there is no political appetite to do that..

Also, the only AOG report examining the partial triple-tracking of the Kingston Sub of which I am aware simply stated that the per-mile cost almost tripled (from $1.6 to $4.5 million) as the project progressed, but (IIRC) did not directly accuse CN of anything worse than poor cost control...

Somewhere (youtube?) there was footage of interviews with a former transport official (Pickersgill) who spoke very clearly about the passenger train having no future. The reality is, rightly or wrongly, Ottawa consciously put in place the policies that gave the railways the right to treat VIA with indifference and predation. Nearsighted, certainly, but cast in a certain amount of stone. I would like to see VIA extricated from that, but it’s not as simple as just wielding a pen.

- Paul