VIA Rail

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

How come they are so similar then? Same with TDG regulations. It would be kinder though to not call it lazy but sensible, since there is so much cross border traffic.

Exactly!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

I like Urban Sky discussions, but I wonder how the heck he's allowed to talk about work items like that. I for sure can't disclose of any information from work before I get explicit apporoval from the higher management?

I like them too. He has lots of information. If I gave that kind of information out as a military member, I would be court marshaled and spend a really long time in a really tiny space.

[J81]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

Do go on? Why aren't European DMUs allowed then?

What are you going on about European DMUs for? What does that have anything to do with why we kept the imperial system on the railways?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J81

What are you going on about European DMUs for? What does that have anything to do with why we kept the imperial system on the railways?

That was more about why's TC sucking FRA's dick, but it's not sensible.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

What are you going on about European DMUs for? What does that have anything to do with why we kept the imperial system on the railways?

Because you said he was wrong about TC basing their certs on the USA, which has included (until recently) not being able to use lightweight foreign trains.

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because you said he was wrong about TC basing their certs on the USA, which has included (until recently) not being able to use lightweight foreign trains.

I like your forum translations!

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because you said he was wrong about TC basing their certs on the USA, which has included (until recently) not being able to use lightweight foreign trains.

We can?
I thought the Trillium line can only use theirs if no other train is running.

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Because you said he was wrong about TC basing their certs on the USA, which has included (until recently) not being able to use lightweight foreign trains.

No i said it had nothing to do with TC being lazy. Dont put words in my mouth. Theres a reason why TC works closely with the FRA. Both countries systems are fully integrated so why would TC want that to change? Just so we can run European DMUs?

[p_xavier]

Originally Posted by J81

No i said it had nothing to do with TC being lazy. Dont put words in my mouth. Theres a reason why TC works closely with the FRA. Both countries systems are fully integrated so why would TC want that to change? Just so we can run European DMUs?

As many cities buy oversized, overpolluting and overbuilt trains for their local, intercity and commuter rail services, while they could have better sized trains is either incompetence from TC or lazyness.

[J81]

Originally Posted by p_xavier

As many cities buy oversized, overpolluting and overbuilt trains for their local, intercity and commuter rail services, while they could have better sized trains is either incompetence from TC or lazyness.

Lol oh my. Dont even bother explaining that one.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

No i said it had nothing to do with TC being lazy. Dont put words in my mouth. Theres a reason why TC works closely with the FRA. Both countries systems are fully integrated so why would TC want that to change? Just so we can run European DMUs?

You put the words in the post, that is how a normal person would read it. If the only issue was the word lazy, that is what you should have written. But fine then, we are now agreed.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by J81

Lol oh my. Dont even bother explaining that one.

He is also correct there? Why this bizarre defense of regulations?

[J81]

Originally Posted by milomilo

He is also correct there? Why this bizarre defense of regulations?

Correct on which part?

[milomilo]

The buying overbuilt trains. TC needs to step up and get with the times, even the US has now realized those rules are bad.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Corridor trip between Toronto and Montreal can be up to 9 hours. I can do it in 5 driving. So, why is it a success? You answer that and I will take what you have to say as more than belly aching.

Along with the corrections to your assumption, I would say that there is a difference between keeping something that is only moderately competitive with other modes,(the corridor) and building something from scratch (in Alberta).

Not only that, but VIA is aware that the Corridor needs to be improved to ensure it is truly competitive with other modes so its existence becomes permanent, like GO now is. That's why they're doing HFR.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Along with the corrections to your assumption, I would say that there is a difference between keeping something that is only moderately competitive with other modes,(the corridor) and building something from scratch (in Alberta).

Not only that, but VIA is aware that the Corridor needs to be improved to ensure it is truly competitive with other modes so its existence becomes permanent, like GO now is. That's why they're doing HFR.

Do you notice it is hFr, not hSr? Those letters do mean something.

Starting with an existing rail line and making improvements may work, or it may not. Much better than the perception of the federal government "coming in and taking your land".

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Do you notice it is hFr, not hSr? Those letters do mean something.

Starting with an existing rail line and making improvements may work, or it may not. Much better than the perception of the federal government "coming in and taking your land".

I really don't understand your point here. There is no passenger rail from Calgary to Edmonton. OK, the rails may not (or maybe they actually will) have to be built totally from scratch, but the service does. You'll probably have to double the track to even have a chance of getting decent service.

Here's some pretty extensive work done on building a rail line between the two cities:

CALGARY-EDMONTON HIGH SPEED RAIL PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I really don't understand your point here. There is no passenger rail from Calgary to Edmonton. OK, the rails may not (or maybe they actually will) have to be built totally from scratch, but the service does. You'll probably have to double the track to even have a chance of getting decent service.

Here's some pretty extensive work done on building a rail line between the two cities:

CALGARY-EDMONTON HIGH SPEED RAIL PRE-FEASIBILITY STUDY

Thank you for the information. I will dive into it and learn why it hasn't happened yet.

What I meant is that the change to the HFR line for VIA would be not to go faster, but to be able to run more trains. I'll bet it likely will be slightly faster overall, but it still will have at grade crossing and still likely get up to 90 mph at most.

So, how does this apply to the Chinook corridor? Well, the line, even if owned by VIA, and if upgraded to the same level that the Corridor HFR line, it still would have level crossings and be curvy. Actually it might be straighter.

The HFR line will not be double tracked. So, why should the Chinook line be?

In the study myself and others are working on, my goal would be to see if we can get to a subsidy that is comparable to the Corridor. If that can be done, the fare likely would compete well.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Thank you for the information. I will dive into it and learn why it hasn't happened yet.

What I meant is that the change to the HFR line for VIA would be not to go faster, but to be able to run more trains. I'll bet it likely will be slightly faster overall, but it still will have at grade crossing and still likely get up to 90 mph at most.

So, how does this apply to the Chinook corridor? Well, the line, even if owned by VIA, and if upgraded to the same level that the Corridor HFR line, it still would have level crossings and be curvy. Actually it might be straighter.

The HFR line will not be double tracked. So, why should the Chinook line be?

In the study myself and others are working on, my goal would be to see if we can get to a subsidy that is comparable to the Corridor. If that can be done, the fare likely would compete well.

HFR doesn't need to be double tracked for the most part because it won't be sharing with freight trains.

Here's a quote from that study:

People wishing to travel between Calgary and Edmonton presently have three options; namely, to
drive, take the bus or fly. Conventional passenger rail service did operate between the two cities
until the mid 1980s but was discontinued because it was unattractive and, as a result, uneconomic.
The rail service consisted of two trains daily that took three hours and 40 minutes between the
cities, as compared to three hours and 15 minutes by bus or three hours by car. Not surprisingly,
the train captured less than one percent of the total travel market.

Exactly what I have been saying! Though, 3hr40 for the train is a bit faster than I expected. But that was back then, it will probably be slower now in the same way all the other VIA operations have got slower.

[Dengler Avenue]

Doesn’t single track, even with passing tracks here and there, still hamper the frequency though? Like, can we achieve hourly frequency with just single track?