VIA Rail network developments

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't know the history of updates at CdD, but they currently have dozens of documents related to the project online, including all sorts detail.

https://www.cdpqinfra.com/fr/documentation

Indeed, but it’s already been under construction for some while by now, so why would you expect a similar level of documentation from a project which doesn’t even have an investor yet? By the time the public (and the communities concerned) first learnt about the REM (April 22, 2016), the project was already (!) at a much more advanced stage than HFR is now.

Anyways, let me ask you another question: if HFR is advanced under such “secrecy” as you claim: how come that almost every community along the HFR and legacy route have expressed their full support of the HFR project?

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Look at it this way. If you're right, and Via's estimates regarding cost, ridership, private sector investment and time are basically sound (within a reasonable margin of error) then this thing will probably get built in a few years, I'm just some crank on the internet and you're going to be riding a shiny new train through the wilderness.

If my suspicions are, and these estimates are not well grounded in empirical data and proper modelling (and cannot be scrutinized by the media or outside experts because of the secrecy) then Via will probably have wasted a decade before this all unravels (a decade when there were otherwise massive amounts of money available for infrastructure).

I was at a senior political-level meeting when Via Fast was effectively killed (I was junior-something nobody note-taker). That project too was shrouded in pointless secrecy and the politicians were taken aback when they saw the actual numbers. I fear Via is making the same mistake again.

You may be right that the end result is that a cost/benefit analysis may prove that this project cannot go ahead.

But there is definitely merit in doing the current study. There is history that indicates that rail service between Montreal and Toronto in 4 hours is possible. The recent history of the Ottawa-Toronto route indicates that there is growing demand for rail service. There is logic that rail service that is faster than car travel will attract more riders with increasing congestion on Highway 401. It also makes sense that the only way to deliver faster service is to move away from congested freight lines. This rail line is already partially owned by VIA and the line from Glen Tay to Havelock will also be owned by VIA with the possibility of additional track being acquired by VIA west of Havelock. Then GO and VIA may be able to share costs west of Peterborough if commuter trains will share the track. We all see the revolution with GO Transit in Toronto. So, this is a potential win, win.

The current study tells us what we need to know about the route and gives us a much better idea of costs and ridership potential.

How does doing nothing accomplish anything? That is what you are suggesting, right? This is the best idea I have heard so far, that isn't pure pie in the sky, and conditions have changed since VIA Fast. There is a resurgence in interest in rail service all over the country as we are seeing in various metropolitan areas.

There are no other ideas on the table that won't cost a lot more or that have not already been tried, eg adding track on the Lakeshore route that didn't speed up VIA trains at all after spending $100Ms.

I frankly don't understand your negative take on all of this.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Because this proposal was accompanied by very specific cost and time estimates.

Via did not say: "There is an underused railway and railtrail running through Eastern Ontario that we think might be a basis for a new train service. We did a rough order of magnitude estimate, but we don't know what it would cost, or how long it would take, but we would like some money for a detailed feasibility study to find out."

Instead the president of Via rail went around making very specific estimates for how much it would cost, how long it would take, how many riders it would attract and also predicted that it would attract private sector investment. Those are some pretty big claims to make based on a rough order of magnitude estimate.

Given the early stage of the process, I expected those to be estimates, not exact figures.

The biggest expenditures in a modern rail project are not the track, it is the grade separations (look at the $430M estimate to grade separate the Barrhaven crossings), geological interventions, etc. The higher the speed estimates, the more such interventions are necessary.

Grade separation is only mandatory for Class 7 track (125 mph / 201 km/h).
Class 5 track (100 mph / 160 km/h for LRCs) has no requirement for grade separation. Class 6 track (110 mph / 177 km/h) can be built without grade separation, but it is recommended. The fastest parts of the route are through the wilderness, where there few crossings.

When Via rail last served Peterborough, the train took three hours.

I assume you mean from Peterborough and Toronto as I don't think VIA ever operated trains from Ottawa to Peterborough (the track was torn up in the early 70's). According to the 1976-10-31 timetable (courtesy urban_sky) it only took about 2 hours (with an extra half hour to Havelock). However, that was with 1950's RDCs and the route had 11 stops between Toronto and Peterborough.

With modern equipment and fewer stops, VIA could do much better, not to mention upgraded track.

When Metrolinx studied a go extension a decade ago, they estimated it it would cost $1.5B to get two hour service to Peterborough (which would not be fast enough for Via's time estimates).

Don't forget Metrolinx would be running commuter rail. Commuter trains tend to have a lower top speed and make many more stops. Assuming they planed to use all 11 stops VIA previously used and VIA only has the 1 stop (Eglinton) and if you assume each additional stop adds 3 minutes (1 extra minute slowing down, 1 minute stopped and 1 extra minute accelerating), that alone would shave off 30 minutes.

The project is all for not if trains have to weave their way through the CP yard and mainline to get to Union Station.

The "last mile" is always the key and a solution needs to be found. There are options, but they aren't cheap. I can totally understand why VIA wants to keep their hand close to their chest on this one as once the exact route becomes public, it will become even more expensive for them to acquire any land they need (buying land as it becomes available is always better than expropriating).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Yes, it’s also been under construction for some while by now, so why would you expect a similar level of documentation from a project which doesn’t even have an investor yet? By the time the public (and the communities concerned) first learnt about the REM (April 22, 2016), the project was already (!) at a much more advanced stage than HFR is now.

I suspect that VIA was forced to announce HFR before they were ready. They were in desperate need of a new fleet and couldn't wait until the HFR plan was ready. They could have only asked for money for the fleet but:

• It would have looked bad to ask for more money only a couple years after asking for the new fleet,
• They wanted to be sure that the new fleet would be appropriate for HFR.

As a result, it was a bit of a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't type situation.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Look at it this way. If you're right, and Via's estimates regarding cost, ridership, private sector investment and time are basically sound (within a reasonable margin of error) then this thing will probably get built in a few years, I'm just some crank on the internet and you're going to be riding a shiny new train through the wilderness.

If my suspicions are, and these estimates are not well grounded in empirical data and proper modelling (and cannot be scrutinized by the media or outside experts because of the secrecy) then Via will probably have wasted a decade before this all unravels (a decade when there were otherwise massive amounts of money available for infrastructure).

I am starting to wonder if you actually understand what a ROME is. Nowhere has VIA ever suggested that billions be invested based on their back of the envelope calculations. What they have consistently said is that the idea has sufficient merit to warrant further study and they’d prefer to do that with a private partner.

As for “wasted a decade”, that talking point is entirely irrelevant when no government has been willing to invest substantially in rail. The Harper Conservatives weren’t even willing to fund the replacement of their worn out fleet. So why do you think any substantial capital idea beyond that would have been entertained? They are literally further today than they were a decade ago. And that's based on just having the Siemens fleet replacement contract underway.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I was at a senior political-level meeting when Via Fast was effectively killed (I was junior-something nobody note-taker). That project too was shrouded in pointless secrecy and the politicians were taken aback when they saw the actual numbers. I fear Via is making the same mistake again.

Guess it’s a good thing that nothing here is shrouded in secrecy to decision makers. They’ll only be asked for a decision once all the studies are done and they can come up with a sound plan that has details allowing the bureaucrats and politicians to make an informed decision.

Maybe the politicians will reject the proposal. Maybe they won't. But at least the decision will be one that was made with detailed facts backing the recommendation. That's a lot more than can be said for VIA Fast.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I suspect that VIA was forced to announce HFR before they were ready. They were in desperate need of a new fleet and couldn't wait until the HFR plan was ready. They could have only asked for money for the fleet but:

• It would have looked bad to ask for more money only a couple years after asking for the new fleet,
• They wanted to be sure that the new fleet would be appropriate for HFR.

As a result, it was a bit of a dammed if you do, dammed if you don't type situation.

Not really. HFR is not high speed rail. It’s full speed rail. So nothing special is required to use the same rolling stock on the HFR corridor.

YDS was also pushing for at least a study of HFR for almost a decade. It was pushed aside from normal support for existing services. The reality for VIA is that they are wholly dependent on government for resources. So after that tabletop exercise when they use rough wrap rates and look at track geometry off Google to estimate how much the thing would cost and how it would perform, they would need funding allocated by Parliament to even study the plan further. At that point, making the idea public wasn’t optional. They aren’t a defence or intelligence outfit that can be allocated millions without transparency. Even if it’s just for study.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Not really. HFR is not high speed rail. It’s full speed rail. So nothing special is required to use the same rolling stock on the HFR corridor.

I understand that it isn't HSR, but there were some requirements that would have seemed strange without dedicated tracks being on the table. Off the top of my head these include:

• The option to buy additional triansets,
• Provision for future diesel and electric operation,
• Capable of speeds up to 200km/h.

YDS was also pushing for at least a study of HFR for almost a decade. It was pushed aside from normal support for existing services. The reality for VIA is that they are wholly dependent on government for resources. So after that tabletop exercise when they use rough wrap rates and look at track geometry off Google to estimate how much the thing would cost and how it would perform, they would need funding allocated by Parliament to even study the plan further. At that point, making the idea public wasn’t optional. They aren’t a defence or intelligence outfit that can be allocated millions without transparency. Even if it’s just for study.

This brings up a difference between VIA and most (if not all) of the other agencies acottawa is comparing it to. Most transportation agencies have a mandate to improve their service, and have a budget to investigate options to do so. VIA's mandate is to maintain the status quo, and any ideas of improvements need special funding to do anything beyond the most basic, back of the napkin analysis. The others can wait until there is solid evidence that an idea is feasible before announcing it. VIA needs to announce it way before that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I understand that it isn't HSR, but there were some requirements that would have seemed strange without dedicated tracks being on the table. Off the top of my head these include:

• The option to buy additional triansets,
• Provision for future diesel and electric operation,
• Capable of speeds up to 200km/h.

None of that is strange to me. If you anticipate traffic might go up or you might start new services elsewhere (not just the Corridor), or you might replace other fleets, leveraging your large order for a potential discount with options is eminently sensible. And especially so given our government procurement policies and politics in Canada. Dual mode is also sensible to me given where electrification is going in Toronto and Montreal. The only odd one is 200 kph speed requirement. But I doubt any competitor who also had dual mode had a tough time meeting that requirement. It might even be justified as a requirement for resale value.

Originally Posted by roger1818

This brings up a difference between VIA and most (if not all) of the other agencies acottawa is comparing it to. Most transportation agencies have a mandate to improve their service, and have a budget to investigate options to do so. VIA's mandate is to maintain the status quo, and any ideas of improvements need special funding to do anything beyond the most basic, back of the napkin analysis. The others can wait until there is solid evidence that an idea is feasible before announcing it. VIA needs to announce it way before that.

Yup. VIA is ridiculously micromanaged and underresourced. I can't believe they needed parliamentary allocation for the $3 million of pre-feasibility studies for HFR. Somone has said that Ottawa-Montreal could be brought up to HFR standards for some $90 million. If that's true, that stuff like this could not be easily funded speaks to how messed up the governance situation is for VIA.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Indeed, but it’s already been under construction for some while by now, so why would you expect a similar level of documentation from a project which doesn’t even have an investor yet? By the time the public (and the communities concerned) first learnt about the REM (April 22, 2016), the project was already (!) at a much more advanced stage than HFR is now.

Anyways, let me ask you another question: if HFR is advanced under such “secrecy” as you claim: how come that almost every community along the HFR and legacy route have expressed their full support of the HFR project?

And as soon as they announced the project, they released a whole bunch of documents. Via announced a project almost 6 years ago and has released almost nothing.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

You may be right that the end result is that a cost/benefit analysis may prove that this project cannot go ahead.

But there is definitely merit in doing the current study. There is history that indicates that rail service between Montreal and Toronto in 4 hours is possible. The recent history of the Ottawa-Toronto route indicates that there is growing demand for rail service. There is logic that rail service that is faster than car travel will attract more riders with increasing congestion on Highway 401. It also makes sense that the only way to deliver faster service is to move away from congested freight lines. This rail line is already partially owned by VIA and the line from Glen Tay to Havelock will also be owned by VIA with the possibility of additional track being acquired by VIA west of Havelock. Then GO and VIA may be able to share costs west of Peterborough if commuter trains will share the track. We all see the revolution with GO Transit in Toronto. So, this is a potential win, win.

The current study tells us what we need to know about the route and gives us a much better idea of costs and ridership potential.

How does doing nothing accomplish anything? That is what you are suggesting, right? This is the best idea I have heard so far, that isn't pure pie in the sky, and conditions have changed since VIA Fast. There is a resurgence in interest in rail service all over the country as we are seeing in various metropolitan areas.

There are no other ideas on the table that won't cost a lot more or that have not already been tried, eg adding track on the Lakeshore route that didn't speed up VIA trains at all after spending $100Ms.

I frankly don't understand your negative take on all of this.

My negative take on all of this is based on the observation that
1)Via's cost estimates are way lower than other rail projects in Canada. If you look at what Metrolinx estimated for the Peterborough line, what Metrolinx spends on actual projects (e.g. a billion dollars to make the track between Pearson and Kitchener suitable for high frequency service), what grade separations cost (e.g. $400M for a handful of projects in Barrhaven), Via's own capital projects from a decade ago, etc. Maybe Via has found some new way to build track, grade separations, etc. If they had, the responsible thing to do is tell the public, because Metrolinx and other agencies could save billions.
2) Via's speed estimates have average speeds 2/3 of the maximum speed of the rolling stock. This is a significant achievement considering the number of stops, how curvy the planned route is and the amount of sharing with freight and other services that will still be required. From an engineering perspective I am sure this is possible, but when combined with point (1) there are some serious issues here.

If Via were a normal transportation company, and released its studies, undertook public consultations, etc. then problems (if there are problems) might have turned up 6 years ago as media interviewed experts, engineers and economists not affiliated with the company had a chance to look at it, etc. Via would have then had the opportunity to update the plan, go back to the drawing board, or reason to bring in independent experts.

With all of this secrecy, it will still be several years before we find out of Via's claims are accurate (within some reasonable margin of error). If they are not then we will have found out many years after we should have, and Via has wasted a decade pursuing the infrastructure equivalent of the Fyre Festival. And not just any decade, but a decade of low interest rates, a reasonably strong economy when infrastructure funds have flown relatively freely. If Via has to press the reset button in a few years, it could be a long time before the circumstances are right again. That is why I have a negative view of this. The pointless secrecy has potentially cost us a generation in passenger rail development.

As I said, maybe I am just a paranoid crank. Maybe Via has a sophisticated team of in-house economists, and world class in house engineering team that has found solutions to build things way cheaper then other transportation agencies. But with all due respect to the hard-working people at Via, they have been underfunded for decades, so it is hard to believe they have that kind of capacity.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

And as soon as they announced the project, they released a whole bunch of documents. Via announced a project almost 6 years ago and has released almost nothing.

What proof do you have of this? I knew nothing about REM myself until construction finally started.

[milomilo]

To chime in on this from a position of relative ignorance, I too was surprised by REM. I'm sure it was more known about to local people, but it really did seem to come out of nowhere and was ready to go right out the gate, which seemed very out of the ordinary to me. For comparison, the Green Line in Calgary has been talked about for years and years, with the plan slowly being developed in public and still not close to being under construction.

My takeaway from this is that the lack of information given by VIA at this stage is not unusual. I fully suspect that the suspicions cost estimates will go up is correct, but that is true of any major project. It's certainly not an argument to just not investigate anything.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by OtrainUser

What proof do you have of this? I knew nothing about REM myself until construction finally started.

What drove this was the emergency replacement of the Champlain Bridge. A lot of the infrastructure to the north already existed. So, Montreal had a big start on REM.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by acottawa

My negative take on all of this is based on the observation that
1)Via's cost estimates are way lower than other rail projects in Canada. If you look at what Metrolinx estimated for the Peterborough line, what Metrolinx spends on actual projects (e.g. a billion dollars to make the track between Pearson and Kitchener suitable for high frequency service), what grade separations cost (e.g. $400M for a handful of projects in Barrhaven), Via's own capital projects from a decade ago, etc. Maybe Via has found some new way to build track, grade separations, etc. If they had, the responsible thing to do is tell the public, because Metrolinx and other agencies could save billions.
2) Via's speed estimates have average speeds 2/3 of the maximum speed of the rolling stock. This is a significant achievement considering the number of stops, how curvy the planned route is and the amount of sharing with freight and other services that will still be required. From an engineering perspective I am sure this is possible, but when combined with point (1) there are some serious issues here.

If Via were a normal transportation company, and released its studies, undertook public consultations, etc. then problems (if there are problems) might have turned up 6 years ago as media interviewed experts, engineers and economists not affiliated with the company had a chance to look at it, etc. Via would have then had the opportunity to update the plan, go back to the drawing board, or reason to bring in independent experts.

With all of this secrecy, it will still be several years before we find out of Via's claims are accurate (within some reasonable margin of error). If they are not then we will have found out many years after we should have, and Via has wasted a decade pursuing the infrastructure equivalent of the Fyre Festival. And not just any decade, but a decade of low interest rates, a reasonably strong economy when infrastructure funds have flown relatively freely. If Via has to press the reset button in a few years, it could be a long time before the circumstances are right again. That is why I have a negative view of this. The pointless secrecy has potentially cost us a generation in passenger rail development.

As I said, maybe I am just a paranoid crank. Maybe Via has a sophisticated team of in-house economists, and world class in house engineering team that has found solutions to build things way cheaper then other transportation agencies. But with all due respect to the hard-working people at Via, they have been underfunded for decades, so it is hard to believe they have that kind of capacity.

VIA has not had the money to do the studies that you wanted until now.

They are totally dependent on the federal government to finance more than current operations.

I don't understand your complaint about time frames. Even local transit projects get held up for many years. There are many examples in the Toronto area. REM is a big exception, because an opportunity existed and a willing financial partner.

Your comments about freight issues are mostly false. Competition with freight is minimal or non-existent on most of the route. That is the whole point. I understand that their will be problems around Agincourt yards but the current study will address that. There were already studies done by GO Transit and that will be used to develop a solution. There is no comparison between the Pearson-Kitchener route that has serious freight-passenger interactions, and capacity problems. HFR will be using mostly underused railways.

The project does not require grade separations although there may be a few strategic ones built. The issue at Barrhaven is more a municipal issue than a VIA problem. The Barrhaven cost issue is extreme because of local soil conditions. Many grade separations are included in the Trillium line extension but not costing in the same magnitude.

You want information before it exists. All we had was a concept up to the current study. Now we wait for the details, including a better estimate of costs. I am sure you are right that the past figures were low-balled but that is typical in early rough estimates.

My message here, is that we need to show more patience and let the current process complete. Then and only then will we have many more details that you are looking for.

[Truenorth00]

The route will apparently be nailed down by March 2020. And then the EA work done after if all that I've read was true. Which means past estimates were not necessarily based on a detailed route map. I suspect that all VIA did was have a few planners look at existing information, distance, approx per km rates for various things and do a rough estimate with an excel sheet. That's what you get before you really get the $70 million to do detailed work.

I fully expect the price tag will rise. And we'll see something like $6 billion for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal (unelectrified) and $2 billion for Montreal-Quebec City (unelectrified). I also think ridership of 10 million is being underestimated. The regular growth VIA has now would get them over 8 million in a decade. Imagine what faster and more frequent service would do. I am betting the government pulls the trigger on an unelectrified TOM for Phase 1 and electrification and Montreal-Quebec for Phase 2, to start as Phase 1 construction ends.

There's probably also a confluence of interests here. Paying for some track work and electrification along the HFR corridor would help Metrolinx in Toronto and AMT in Montreal. It's a way to provide some investment without sending cheques to the provinces.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Barrhaven cost issue is extreme because of local soil conditions. Many grade separations are included in the Trillium line extension but not costing in the same magnitude.

The other factor in Barrhaven is they are trying to grade separate an reasonably heavily used active rail line. They can't shutdown the line for a day or two (let alone a year or two), they need to keep the trains running, which means working overnight to build bypass tracks and working in tight quarters with preventative measures to ensure the temporary tracks doesn't get damaged by construction.

[roger1818]

Regarding getting through CPR's Toronto Yard, the yard today is a pale reflection of what it once was. Here are Aerial/Satellite Photographs of it "today" and in 1977. If you click on them to zoom in, you can see that they have torn up many of the tracks in the centre of the yard. I am sure it wouldn't be difficult for VIA to buy land from CP.


Imagery ©2019 Google, Map data ©2019


City of Toronto Archives

[Dengler Avenue]

Wow you’re right. I pass by that area from time to time and never notice that the centre tracks aren’t even there. Thanks for sharing.

[c_speed3108]

I think more of their operations have shifted to their large mult-model facility in Vaughan

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

VIA has not had the money to do the studies that you wanted until now.

They are totally dependent on the federal government to finance more than current operations.

I don't understand your complaint about time frames. Even local transit projects get held up for many years. There are many examples in the Toronto area. REM is a big exception, because an opportunity existed and a willing financial partner.

Your comments about freight issues are mostly false. Competition with freight is minimal or non-existent on most of the route. That is the whole point. I understand that their will be problems around Agincourt yards but the current study will address that. There were already studies done by GO Transit and that will be used to develop a solution. There is no comparison between the Pearson-Kitchener route that has serious freight-passenger interactions, and capacity problems. HFR will be using mostly underused railways.

The project does not require grade separations although there may be a few strategic ones built. The issue at Barrhaven is more a municipal issue than a VIA problem. The Barrhaven cost issue is extreme because of local soil conditions. Many grade separations are included in the Trillium line extension but not costing in the same magnitude.

You want information before it exists. All we had was a concept up to the current study. Now we wait for the details, including a better estimate of costs. I am sure you are right that the past figures were low-balled but that is typical in early rough estimates.

My message here, is that we need to show more patience and let the current process complete. Then and only then will we have many more details that you are looking for.

There is still significant freight sharing, including through Toronto, through Montreal and between Glen Tay and Smith Falls. There also needs to be a solution for existing freight customers on the Havelock sub.

I don't want more information before it exists. I want the information that currently exists to be released to the public. If Via's estimates were based on some sort of an average cost per km then the public should know that.

As I said earlier, a message like "we don't know what this proposal would cost, but we think this route has significant advantages and would like funds for a feasibility study" would be much better than making very specific claims on time, cost, ridership that are not backed up with analysis.

Truenorth's estimates seem much closer to what rail projects in Canada actually cost, but Via has now created a significant credibility gap for themselves by consistently circulating lowball numbers for years. That credibility gap can seriously undermine the viability of the project (which could have been avoided if they had just released their analysis in the first place and outside observers quickly realized that the estimates were pretty far off).