felix123
Active Member
Not sure where to post this, but anyone know what happened to steveintoronto? He used to post constantly on these forums and has been silent for a while.
|
|
|
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
VIA Rail
- Thread starter ehlow
- Start date
kEiThZ
Superstar
Does VIA provide speed of 160 km/hr in reality on any section of track?
Yes.
On the track they own.
When was the last time you took VIA?
smallspy
Senior Member
Does VIA provide speed of 160 km/hr in reality on any section of track?
- on well over 100 miles of track between Toronto and Montreal - CN's Kingston Sub - most passenger trains are allowed to operate at 100mph
- almost the entirety of the Smiths Falls Sub - 0.3 to the end at 34.5 - is signed at 100mph for most passenger trains
- the entirety of the Brockville Sub is signed at 100mph for most passenger trains
- the VIA-owned section of the Chatham Sub - 63.8 to 99.14 - is signed at 100mph for most passenger trains
- I'm pretty sure that the Alexandria Sub is almost entirely 100mph as well, but I don't have paperwork to verify that
Now, those limits are dependent on equipment and specific local conditions - curves, track conditions, switches and temporary slow orders for work to be done or being done - but they exist and for long stretches, and trains do operate at those speeds.
Dan
Urban Sky
Senior Member
I'm not trying to disprove your experience, but I'm trying to narrow down the differentiators which caused the gap between what you perceived as a highly satisfactory intercity service (even: something we should emulate) and the present-day VIA services, which you clearly find lacking (and I partly agree): because if it's not the maximum speed reached, the average speed scheduled or the number of frequency - what is it then? Maybe I’m missing something, but the only remaining aspects I can think off would be rolling stock (higher comfort and better amenities), track quality (smoother and less bumpy ride) and reliability (higher punctuality and less equipment breakdowns) and all of these 3 aspects will improve dramatically with HFR and VIA's new fleet...I stand by what I said. As was presented, they are aiming to upgrade track between Dresden and Berlin to 200 km/hr. Obviously, they had not achieved that when I used the service in 2015, however, trains did run on the section of track I was referring to at a speed considerably faster than VIA. This may have not covered even half the distance between Dresden and Berlin at that time, but it was very noticeable. Does VIA provide speed of 160 km/hr in reality on any section of track? Bravo, if they achieve that in the future. Nevertheless, what I was describing was a stepping stone towards 200 km/hr service. HFR is not going to deliver that. Regardless, the route to HSR at 200 km/hr or higher is by upgrading track section by section. This is exactly what was going on between Dresden and Berlin. I don't understand the point of trying to disprove my experience.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
^One caveat to Dan's stats - the effective speed limit will depend on specific equipment (HEP vs LRC, P42 vs F40PH-2) and on permanent and temporary slow orders. There are many optimal consists out there, but many are not.
One (admittedly old) document that I have shows that at that point in time, on the Kingston Sub there was only one stretch of 38.2 miles where 100 mph could be sustained without slowing down - that was between Cornwallish and Brockvilleish. The second longest segment was 20.2 miles between Grafton and Trenton. Only five other segments of 12-13 miles and three of 7-9 miles existed, the remainder were under five miles long.
OK, slowing from 100 to 90 or 80 for a slow order and accelerating back up does not add that many seconds, but no one should have the illusion that VIA trains zoom along at present at the full 100 mph for sustained distances.
Using the data from the track diagram that I have, the theoretical perfect performance of a non-stop train from Guildwood to Dorval would be 202 minutes, assuming the trains pass by those two points at speed, and not making any adjustment for acceleration/deceleration at any of the slow orders en route.
Many of these slow orders could be lifted with capital investment. I hope HFR will provide the opportunity to fix these.
- Paul
One (admittedly old) document that I have shows that at that point in time, on the Kingston Sub there was only one stretch of 38.2 miles where 100 mph could be sustained without slowing down - that was between Cornwallish and Brockvilleish. The second longest segment was 20.2 miles between Grafton and Trenton. Only five other segments of 12-13 miles and three of 7-9 miles existed, the remainder were under five miles long.
OK, slowing from 100 to 90 or 80 for a slow order and accelerating back up does not add that many seconds, but no one should have the illusion that VIA trains zoom along at present at the full 100 mph for sustained distances.
Using the data from the track diagram that I have, the theoretical perfect performance of a non-stop train from Guildwood to Dorval would be 202 minutes, assuming the trains pass by those two points at speed, and not making any adjustment for acceleration/deceleration at any of the slow orders en route.
Many of these slow orders could be lifted with capital investment. I hope HFR will provide the opportunity to fix these.
- Paul
Last edited:
lrt's friend
Active Member
- on well over 100 miles of track between Toronto and Montreal - CN's Kingston Sub - most passenger trains are allowed to operate at 100mph
- almost the entirety of the Smiths Falls Sub - 0.3 to the end at 34.5 - is signed at 100mph for most passenger trains
- the entirety of the Brockville Sub is signed at 100mph for most passenger trains
- the VIA-owned section of the Chatham Sub - 63.8 to 99.14 - is signed at 100mph for most passenger trains
- I'm pretty sure that the Alexandria Sub is almost entirely 100mph as well, but I don't have paperwork to verify that
Now, those limits are dependent on equipment and specific local conditions - curves, track conditions, switches and temporary slow orders for work to be done or being done - but they exist and for long stretches, and trains do operate at those speeds.
Dan
Speed limits are one thing. Service delivery is another. If there is a 100 mph limit on a good portion of track on the Alexandrria sub, then why has there been no time improvement for VIA Service between Ottawa and Montreal? It is still 2 hours, about the same length of time as driving. This tells us that other parts of the route are greatly under performing, which I believe is the entire section on the Island of Montreal to Central Station where trains run terribly slowly.
crs1026
Superstar
Speed limits are one thing. Service delivery is another. If there is a 100 mph limit on a good portion of track on the Alexandrria sub, then why has there been no time improvement for VIA Service between Ottawa and Montreal?
Meets, for one thing. Freights, for a second. Third, terminal zones have lower speed limits. There are some good curves in the last few miles into Montreal station.
Watch VIA's moving map, and you will get a good handle on this. The trains do zip along where they can, but slowing down even once from 100 mph to 45 to cross over adds a lot of time. Slowing down to zero for a single track meet is even more time consuming.
- Paul
lrt's friend
Active Member
I'm not trying to disprove your experience, but I'm trying to narrow down the differentiators which caused the gap between what you perceived as a highly satisfactory intercity service (even: something we should emulate) and the present-day VIA services, which you clearly find lacking (and I partly agree): because if it's not the maximum speed reached, the average speed scheduled or the number of frequency - what is it then? Maybe I’m missing something, but the only remaining aspects I can think off would be rolling stock (higher comfort and better amenities), track quality (smoother and less bumpy ride) and reliability (higher punctuality and less equipment breakdowns) and all of these 3 aspects will improve dramatically with HFR and VIA's new fleet...
My only point was that a significant section of track between Dresden and Berlin allowed trains to run much faster than elsewhere. It was clear that this was achieved with the upgrade of the track on that section. It was very noticeable that the ROW and track was designed to a higher standard. When looking at averages, this can point out that other parts of the route may be under performing. This was 4 years ago, so all the details are not crystal clear, but I do know that trains had to slow down a lot as we approached the Berlin area. Not so much different as I pointed out in my previous post on train speeds on the Island of Montreal.
As you have said yourself with your maps, they are planning 200 kph service on much of the route between Dresden and Berlin. That section of track was obviously designed for that level of service. I will also say, that the train I rode certainly appeared to be running at a speed much faster than I have experienced with VIA and I have used VIA many times between Ottawa and Toronto and Ottawa and Montreal.
I am not sure why a bunch of statistics are being thrown out when I was simply illustrating that faster service can be delivered incrementally by upgrading sections of track that will allow trains to run faster on an upgraded ROW. My experience was mentioned to re-enforce my general statement rather than to make a comparison with any other service.
Obviously the goal for Dresden-Berlin is higher speed than VIA HFR.
Last edited:
lrt's friend
Active Member
Yes I have seen the 'meet' issue on the Alexandria sub. The passing sidings are not long enough to allow trains to maintain reasonably high speeds. Speed limits are only part of the story as your comment suggests. How long can trains in reality maintain those speeds? If what VIA offers is so great, why can they not deliver 3 hr 59 m service between Montreal and Toronto as they were able with the Turbo trains, although I gather that was not always achieved.Meets, for one thing. Freights, for a second. Third, terminal zones have lower speed limits. There are some good curves in the last few miles into Montreal station.
Watch VIA's moving map, and you will get a good handle on this. The trains do zip along where they can, but slowing down even once from 100 mph to 45 to cross over adds a lot of time. Slowing down to zero for a single track meet is even more time consuming.
- Paul
MisterF
Senior Member
Those of you suggesting that the HFR route skip Ottawa to make the Montreal trip a bit faster, I would suggest looking up train, bus and flight schedules to both cites. For example, on a typical weekday there are 60 flights to Montreal and 45 flights to Ottawa. Even if the Ottawa flights use smaller planes (I have no idea if they do), that shows that the there's huge demand for travel to Ottawa and its ties to Toronto are stronger than Montreal's, proportionally. If HFR is primarily meant to serve the major cities, skipping Ottawa would mean giving up a huge percentage of the line's business. Ottawa is absolutely essential to the success of HFR.
Ottawa isn't as far out of the way as people tend to think. A mainline going through Ottawa would be only slightly longer than the existing one and adds a lot of ridership.
Ottawa isn't as far out of the way as people tend to think. A mainline going through Ottawa would be only slightly longer than the existing one and adds a lot of ridership.
nfitz
Superstar
So what's precluding 105 or 110 mph operation on the Kingston sub now? It used to be 90 mph didn't it, for anything that wasn't tilting ... something like that - so something changed. I don't think I've seen the old dual-speed limit signs for a long time.
I assume the peak speed limit is currently 100?
I assume the peak speed limit is currently 100?
Last edited:
smallspy
Senior Member
^One caveat to Dan's stats - the effective speed limit will depend on specific equipment (HEP vs LRC, P42 vs F40PH-2) and on permanent and temporary slow orders. There are many optimal consists out there, but many are not.
More specifically - LRC, REN and HEP-2 equipment is allowed to operate at 100mph. The charts in the timetables will give a different speed where it exists for the two - LRC and REN are allowed the P1 speed, the HEP-2s P2 speed. The long-distance HEP cars have a maximum of 90mph.
And as for the locos, F40s are allowed 95mph and the P42s 100mph.
One (admittedly old) document that I have shows that at that point in time, on the Kingston Sub there was only one stretch of 38.2 miles where 100 mph could be sustained without slowing down - that was between Cornwallish and Brockvilleish. The second longest segment was 20.2 miles between Grafton and Trenton. Only five other segments of 12-13 miles and three of 7-9 miles existed, the remainder were under five miles long.
- Paul
One not-so-old document that I have shows the following long-ish sections of 100mph track on the Kingston Sub:
- 49.3 to 62.6 (13.3 miles) (This whole section allows for P1 equipment to run at 100mph, with additional restrictions for P2 equipment in a couple of locations)
- 85.4 to 111.1 (25.7 miles)
- 112.6 to 121.0 (8.4 miles)
- 143.5 to 154.3 (10.8 miles) (P1 speed only - P2 limited to 95mph)
- 154.9 to 169.5 (14.6 miles) (P1 speed only - P2 limited to 95 with additional restrictions in a couple of locations)
- 184.7 to 198.1 (13.4 miles) (This section is only for eastbounds - there is a 50mph restriction on westbounds at the crossing at 191.02)
- 199.1 to 218.4 (19.3 miles) (This section is only for eastbounds - there is a 90mph restriction on westbounds at the crossing at 216.24)
- 230.8 to 221.1 (9.7 miles) (P1 speed only - P2 limited to 95mph)
- 223.8 to 262.0 (38.2 miles) (P1 speed only - P2 limited to 95 with additional restrictions in a couple of locations)
- 271.4 to 290.9 (19.5 miles) (P1 speed only - P2 limited to 95 with additional restrictions in a couple of locations)
Not including the 2 sections of extended running for westbounds only, that's still over 140 miles of track rated at 100mph on the Kingston Sub. With those two restrictions (one of which is almost negligible), the number is about 175 miles.
OK, slowing from 100 to 90 or 80 for a slow order and accelerating back up does not add that many seconds, but no one should have the illusion that VIA trains zoom along at present at the full 100 mph for sustained distances.
Most passengers would be hard-pressed to tell the difference between 90mph and 100mph.
That said, to me the bigger issue is the crossovers and interlockings. Slowing down from 100 or 95 to 80 to navigate a turn is one thing - slowing down to 45mph to negotiate a crossover and then accelerating back up to speed represents a huge loss of time and performance. I would love to see a number - it doesn't need to be every one of them, but maybe a selection of a half-dozen or so - of the crossovers upgraded to a higher number to allow for higher speed movements. Amtrak has upgraded a lot of the crossovers on their higher-speed lines, and to great benefit for their on-time performance on those corridors.
There was a story told to me by some of the "old hands" that back when VIA was running the Metropolis on its old 3:59 schedule that they could only cross over 4 times on the run. The 5th time would result in the train being delayed enough to become late. I don't know how true it was, but considering how high the average speed was, i believe it.
Many of these slow orders could be lifted with capital investment. I hope HFR will provide the opportunity to fix these.
- Paul
Some can, sure. But many can't, at least not easily or cheaply. Some, like the 70mph PSO through Napanee, would require a several-mile bypass around the town to eliminate. Same with the 45mph PSO through Port Hope. Even that 50mph restriction through the level crossing at 191.02 isn't easily fixed, as it is a farm access located at the end of a long curve. I don't think that a grade separation for someone's driveway is an appropriate answer, but then, what is?
So what's precluding 105 or 110 mph operation on the Kingston sub now? It used to be 90 mph didn't it, for anything that wasn't tilting ... something like that - so something changed. I don't think I've seen the old dual-speed limit signs for a long time.
What's precluding the operation? At the very least, level crossings in the zone to have its speed increased would all need to have their sightlines improved to meet the regulatory standards. I don't know if TC would also require track structure improvements, as Class 5 only really allows up to 100mph.
Dan
bbdfollower
New Member
WRT the competitiveness of VIA vs air, as a frequent business traveller between MTL and Toronto, I would say that at current trip times and frequencies it already is competitive for some travellers.
I often take morning flights into MTL from YTZ and usually take the 830. I can be in the office by 10:30. From a cost perspective the train is cheaper but timing air wins. However, the return from Montreal is often via train. I can walk over to the train station from work and the experience at the lounge there and the business class space on board is my preferred choice for the way home. It’s slower but I don’t have a potential hour long cab ride to contend with. With improved schedules and trip time reductions the train could capture even more of my trips.
Once REM is in place the return will tilt back in the favour of air though.
I often take morning flights into MTL from YTZ and usually take the 830. I can be in the office by 10:30. From a cost perspective the train is cheaper but timing air wins. However, the return from Montreal is often via train. I can walk over to the train station from work and the experience at the lounge there and the business class space on board is my preferred choice for the way home. It’s slower but I don’t have a potential hour long cab ride to contend with. With improved schedules and trip time reductions the train could capture even more of my trips.
Once REM is in place the return will tilt back in the favour of air though.
nfitz
Superstar
Wow - I didn't see that coming. Is the 25 minutes from Central to Dorval really that much different than a cab? Gosh ... I guess it is right now with the construction.Once REM is in place the return will tilt back in the favour of air though.
bbdfollower
New Member
Wow - I didn't see that coming. Is the 25 minutes from Central to Dorval really that much different than a cab? Gosh ... I guess it is right now with the construction.
I flew into Montreal two weeks ago and it took 1h15m to get downtown via cab and another 20m wait in line for the cabs. Granted, that was because my flight was delayed 2 hours and I arrived at 330.
But the biggest issue at the moment is the variability, my walk to the train is constant. The ride to the airport can take over an hour, so that means you realistically are leaving 2 hours before your flight. Also it’s stressful being stuck in traffic or construction... I guess we need to wait and see how packed REM will be to see if the stress is much less.
The point is that there are already people who chose VIA in some cases. And these scenarios are business paid travel, so cost savings aren’t the concern. schedule improvements will only serve to make train more competitive against air, even if the penetration is low, an improvement is still possible.