VIA Rail network developments

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by 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.

The Metrolinx Study said

Operations through CP’s Toronto Yard. The Havelock S/D ends at the eastern limit of the yard. To access the CP Belleville S/D all trains would have to travel through the yard at a maximum of 15 mph and be subject to conflicts with other train movements in the yard. This would have a serious impact on travel time and make the service unreliable.

It proposes various options to get around this, with varying degrees of cost and time.

[Multi-modal]

From the Minister of Transport mandate letter:

• In your capacity as Minister responsible for VIA Rail, work with the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities to create high frequency rail for the Toronto-Quebec City corridor;
• ...
• Work with VIA Rail to make opportunities to travel to Canada’s National Parks more accessible and affordable.

From the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities mandate letter:

• Make the federal commitment to fund public transit permanent and rise with the cost of construction over time. Ensure that new federal investments in public transit are used to support zero-emission buses and rail systems starting in 2023 and work with municipalities to address any exceptional circumstances;
• ...
• Support the Minister of Transport, in his capacity as Minister responsible for VIA Rail, to create high frequency rail for the Toronto-Quebec City corridor.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is still significant freight sharing, including through Toronto, through Montreal and between Glen Tay and Smith Falls.

I agree that those are the problem spots. There are several options or solving them though. Even if the feasibility study has a preferred route, the EA might veto it, so it is best to wait until you have all the information.

Glen Tay to Smith Falls would be easily solved with double or triple track. Don't forget the Belleville Sub is mostly single track, so CP can't run all that many trains on it to cause interference. It also helps that both the Smiths Falls and Havelock Subs are north of the Belleville Sub, so trains don't need to cross over each other.

There also needs to be a solution for existing freight customers on the Havelock sub.

How much freight traffic is there on the Havelock sub? I would be shocked if there is more than one train a day each way. It would be easy to run those at night, when neither VIA nor GO are running any trains. If that isn't feasible for some reason, that section could be double tracked (likely necessary anyway, if they are sharing it with GO).

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.

Until plans are finalized, it is best not to release the details. They don't want NIMBYs getting upset over something that won't happen anyway.

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.

On one hand you say you want draft information that might change and on the other you say you don't want draft information that might change. Make up your mind.

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).

Meh. Most investors know that those wanting money will paint a picture through rose coloured glasses. To not do so would make them assume that it will cost more than it actually will.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Metrolinx Study said

Operations through CP’s Toronto Yard. The Havelock S/D ends at the eastern limit of the yard. To access the CP Belleville S/D all trains would have to travel through the yard at a maximum of 15 mph and be subject to conflicts with other train movements in the yard. This would have a serious impact on travel time and make the service unreliable.

It proposes various options to get around this, with varying degrees of cost and time.

That study was done in 2010. CP’s Toronto Yard was neutered under Hunter Harrison's reign (2012-2017), so the information in the study is a bit out of date. ref

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

From the Minister of Transport mandate letter:
...
From the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities mandate letter:

Interesting. But how much have these meant in the past?

And we're still 1.5 years from the JPT completing all their work. I am still skeptical that this government is honestly committed to getting shovels in the ground. They don't even have a business case yet.

[Multi-modal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Interesting. But how much have these meant in the past?

And we're still 1.5 years from the JPT completing all their work. I am still skeptical that this government is honestly committed to getting shovels in the ground. They don't even have a business case yet.

You're right to be skeptical given a long history of governments delaying investment in via rail for "additional study". On the other hand mandate letters tend to have a great deal more weight than campaign promises so having multiple mentions of via rail (and HFR) is a good sign.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Multi-modal

You're right to be skeptical given a long history of governments delaying investment in via rail for "additional study". On the other hand mandate letters tend to have a great deal more weight than campaign promises so having multiple mentions of via rail (and HFR) is a good sign.

I am cautiously optimistic. I'm just wondering what happens if a positive business case comes back but the cost is significantly higher as I predicted. Say $6 billion.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am cautiously optimistic. I'm just wondering what happens if a positive business case comes back but the cost is significantly higher as I predicted. Say $6 billion.

I don’t know, but I do believe that VIA Rail is at a crossroads and if the government doesn’t invest soon, it could spell the end for passenger rail in Canada. The new fleet buys some time but shiny new trains won’t help if VIA’s on time performance and travel times continue to get worse and worse because of conflicts with freight trains. One way or another, VIA needs dedicated tracks.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

On one hand you say you want draft information that might change and on the other you say you don't want draft information that might change. Make up your mind.

I want to see (more specifically, I want the media to have access to) the analysis behind the draft numbers that might change.

The initial Via claim in 2015 was that the trip from Toronto-Ottawa would take between 2:30 and 2:45, the Toronto-Montreal run 3:30-3:45, it would attract 7.2M passengers, and that most of the funding would come from the private sector. I believe the cost at that time was 4 billion, including rolling stock and electrification and $3B was coming from the private sector.

By the time the Globe got its hands on internal documents in July, 2019, the travel time to Ottawa had increased to 3:15 and to Montreal to 4:24, the electrified price was up to $6B.

Without the analysis being subject to public scrutiny, the organizations claims have very little credibility.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Meh. Most investors know that those wanting money will paint a picture through rose coloured glasses. To not do so would make them assume that it will cost more than it actually will.

Even if this attracts some investment (a huge if), the principal audience will be politicians and taxpayers. If the final numbers are closer to Truenorth's estimates (which, as I said earlier seem more in line with what transportation projects actually cost), then the headlines will refer to the ballooning costs, the lack of credibility from Via Rail, etc, which will not help to endear either politicians or taxpayers to this proposal.

[Urban_Sky]

Disclaimer: please keep in mind that I can only argue with publicly available information and that I therefore only make arguments I would make without access to any internal and commercially sensitive information.

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is still significant freight sharing, including through Toronto, through Montreal and between Glen Tay and Smith Falls.

ROW-sharing does not necessarily require track-sharing. Track-sharing is inevitable on the Kingston Subdivision, even after partially triple-tracking, but different situations may allow different solutions.

There also needs to be a solution for existing freight customers on the Havelock sub.

The easiest way to exclude any interference between passenger and freight operations is called "temporal separation". For someone who obsesses about the Metrolinx Study so much, it speaks volumes that you conveniently over-read the following section (p.19):

The Havelock Subdivision is currently being used solely for freight traffic. The railway’s primary customers are General Electric, Quaker Oats, Canada Malt, Canwell Lumber, Trent Timber Treating Ltd and Unimin Corporation. All of these clients are located either in Peterborough or towards the eastern
end of the line.

The railway currently operates a single train three times a week. These trains are currently operated during the day but CP staff have stated that they could, if necessary, be operated during the night as they have been in the past.

Due to the condition of the line, trains are operated at 10 miles per hour. As a result a single one way trip between Havelock and the Toronto Yard, a distance of about 85 miles, can take in excess of 10 hours.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I don't want more information before it exists. I want the information that currently exists to be released to the public.

I still don't understand how you can criticize VIA for not releasing all its pre-feasibility studies it did to proof it's concept and to approach potential private investors, while being totally fine with the CDPQ developing its REM project in complete secrecy until it basically only required the province's final approval...

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.

This will be a singular exception from my not-sharing-any-non-public-information policy: all travel time, capital cost and ridership estimates VIA published were based on external engineering studies and not derived from any "rule-of-thumbs". They therefore don't represent VIA's opinions, but the informed opinions of companies which are specialized and reputed to provide such estimates...

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).

Mistakes might have been done in the past (even though I struggle to see how the cost explosion of the triple-tracking project on the Kingston Sub could have been avoided with the arrangement of CN conducting/contracting all the work and billing VIA afterwards), but we won't know how realistic the estimates released by VIA so far are until the JPT (or the federal government) publishes its own studies...

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

The easiest way to exclude any interference between passenger and freight operations is called "temporal separation". For someone who obsesses about the Metrolinx Study so much, it speaks volumes that you conveniently over-read the following section (p.19):

Wow! The Havelock Sub is about 150km (or 93 miles). At 10 mph, about 9:20 of that is actually running. If VIA were to pay to have it upgraded from Class 1 to Class 5 track, CP could run freight trains at 80 mph (passenger trains can run at 95 mph) and save about 8 hours labour each way. This reduction would also mean they could do a same day round trip, potentially saving lodging costs.

From this, I am sure the CPR would be as happy as a clam to sell the Havelock Sub to VIA, even if it means running at night.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even if this attracts some investment (a huge if), the principal audience will be politicians and taxpayers. If the final numbers are closer to Truenorth's estimates (which, as I said earlier seem more in line with what transportation projects actually cost), then the headlines will refer to the ballooning costs, the lack of credibility from Via Rail, etc, which will not help to endear either politicians or taxpayers to this proposal.

To be fair. I am cautiously optimistic that it goes through even with a higher price tag. Population growth along the corridor is not something governments cannot ignore. And everything from traffic congestion to carbon emissions to demands for emergency services to airspace congestion gets worse if we're solely relying on driving and flying to meet growing demands here. HFR is almost as valuable economically as it is environmentally.

Personally, I'm far less critical of VIA than the government. When VIA needs parliamentary approval for $3 million in studies, there's really not much flexibility on what they can do. Where's the opportunity funding that let's them do different things to improve service incrementally every year? Why wasn't the studies the JPT is undertaking right now funded in 2016? This government has wracked up over $80 billion in new debt over the last term. Couldn't find $70 million in there for the studies to be done? And they are planning on adding another $60 billion in new debt. Even if they spend $6-8 billion on HFR, it'll actually be one of their few deficit financed investments that actually has a decent return and relatively immediate payback.

Will add too, I am actually hoping they don't just do basic HFR and do some upgrading where they can bang for bucks. For example, Ottawa-Montreal. Spend what it takes to get this down to say 1:15 hr and they'll massively boost travel between Ottawa and Montreal while also benefiting Toronto-Montreal trips. I also hope they phase things out to get the most infrastructure. They didn't need $2 billion of electrification to launch. That can be done later. Spend all the funds to build a better corridor first. I, for one, hope they don't stick to the lowest cost HFR proposal possible but look at where additional investment is warranted and build the fastest corridor they reasonably can.

[Truenorth00]

Just a reminder of the latest costs and travel times we have:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...for-extending/

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Just a reminder of the latest costs and travel times we have:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...for-extending/

Interesting article. They certainly like to sensationalize things though. I do tend to agree that the Montreal-Quebec City leg should be delayed. I'm guessing that it was added for political reasons though, knowing the government will want to invest in Quebec.

I also don't understand why it is making a big deal out of the estimated cost rising from $4-billion to $4.4-billion. This is an increase of only 10% and probably over half of that is due to inflation.

As for reduced service along existing routes, as I have said before, it all depends how you evaluate the existing service. Does 2 trains departing Kingston 10 minutes apart and then waiting 2 hours for the next one really count as hourly service? I have heard that they are planning for 10 trains a day between Kingston and Toronto, which, while technically a reduction, will actually be equivalent, since the schedules will be optimized for Kingston, not Montreal and Ottawa. Then there are the other stations along the route that most trains don't currently stop at, but will likely have more stops with regional service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Interesting article. They certainly like to sensationalize things though. I do tend to agree that the Montreal-Quebec City leg should be delayed. I'm guessing that it was added for political reasons though, knowing the government will want to invest in Quebec.

I wish they'd defer Montreal-Quebec to Phase 2 and use that billion to improve Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. Toronto-Ottawa at the projected 3:15 would be pretty decent and competitive with air for a lot of travelers. Ottawa-Montreal at 1:33 is decent. But Toronto-Montreal at 4:45 ain't great. Sure, it's better than every Toronto-Montreal train today. But you don't save much over the bus. Additional investment on Ottawa-Montreal has the advantage of getting that Ottawa-Montreal to more commutable times and helping cut Toronto-Montreal times as well. Even cutting 15-20 mins here has a huge impact.

Adding Montreal-Quebec reminds me of the Ontario High Speed Rail project adding Kitchener-London which sort of averaged out the case to a lower benefits ratio than just Toronto-Kitchener. I hope Montreal-Quebec doesn't do that. I wish they'd break it out as a separate analysis. But they may be hoping that adding Montreal-Quebec may draw some CDPQ Infra participation overall and maybe some grants from the government of Quebec itself. Or maybe it's easier to do it all in one go and launch with through service to Quebec.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I also don't understand why it is making a big deal out of the estimated cost rising from $4-billion to $4.4-billion. This is an increase of only 10% and probably over half of that is due to inflation.

Sensationalism sells. The good thing here is that nobody really knows much beyond transit nerds like us. And VIA has only just started to put out very public promotion. So if the cost does come in higher from the project team, there's probably some margin for error. I'm also hoping that the provinces step up to the plate. And pitch in for the portions where HFR will run on commuter tracks.

Originally Posted by roger1818

As for reduced service along existing routes, as I have said before, it all depends how you evaluate the existing service. Does 2 trains departing Kingston 10 minutes apart and then waiting 2 hours for the next one really count as hourly service? I have heard that they are planning for 10 trains a day between Kingston and Toronto, which, while technically a reduction, will actually be equivalent, since the schedules will be optimized for Kingston, not Montreal and Ottawa. Then there are the other stations along the route that most trains don't currently stop at, but will likely have more stops with regional service.

They could cut Kingston service to 6-8 trains a day and still have higher ridership than today if they actually optimize timings for Kingston itself. The times from Kingston's perspective are atrocious. And reliability sucks too. Originating and terminating service at Kingston removes cascading delays caused by thru service.

Kingston should be an exurb to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal based on its location. But current service is not commutable for them. Just look at Kingston-Ottawa for example. First train out of Kingston at 0911. Reaches Ottawa at 1130. Last train from Ottawa to Kingston at 1826. With 10 trains between Kingston and Ottawa, one would think the times would be better suited to day trips and exurban commuters. Montreal is similarly crap for Kingston. Toronto is marginally better. But not by much. The plan to hub at Kingston will do wonders for them, even if they end up with fewer trains.

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Kingston should be an exurb to Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal based on its location. But current service is not commutable for them. Just look at Kingston-Ottawa for example. First train out of Kingston at 0911. Reaches Ottawa at 1130. Last train from Ottawa to Kingston at 1826. With 10 trains between Kingston and Ottawa, one would think the times would be better suited to day trips and exurban commuters. Montreal is similarly crap for Kingston. Toronto is marginally better. But not by much. The plan to hub at Kingston will do wonders for them, even if they end up with fewer trains.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Toronto-Ottawa would be through Peterborough and avoid Kingston altogether?

[PHrenetic]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought Toronto-Ottawa would be through Peterborough and avoid Kingston altogether?

Good Day.

The new HFR is indeed proposed TO - OTT - MTL on new or renewed VIA-owned lines, inc. through Peterborough.

Trunorth00 is referencing VIA's proposed new Lakeshore / River service,
(since the HFR is abandoning the Lakeshore route, and the cities thereupon,)
hubbed out of Kingston with revamped services and schedules such as to optimize and improve service (esp. dependability)
to all the lakeshore and river cities in both east to MTL and west to TO as much as possible in a continuing CN/CP-trackage scenario.
The biggest impact is Kingston through to TO, and therein lies most of the discussion.

EnJoy!

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

[i]


ROW-sharing does not necessarily require track-sharing. Track-sharing is inevitable on the Kingston Subdivision, even after partially triple-tracking, but different situations may allow different solutions.

The easiest way to exclude any interference between passenger and freight operations is called "temporal separation". For someone who obsesses about the Metrolinx Study so much, it speaks volumes that you conveniently over-read the following section (p.19):

Temporal sharing might work on the Havelock sub (where I think the main customer is Quaker Oats), but it is hard to see how it would work on the mainline track through Toronto, Montreal and between Glen Tay and Smith Falls.

But if ROW of way sharing is possible why is this project even necessary? Why not ROW share the CP mainline (which provides a much more direct route and a much larger population) or even the CN mainline?

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

[i]

I still don't understand how you can criticize VIA for not releasing all its pre-feasibility studies it did to proof it's concept and to approach potential private investors, while being totally fine with the CDPQ developing its REM project in complete secrecy until it basically only required the province's final approval...

Because CDP released the information as soon as the project was announced. They didn't spend 5 years making outlandish public claims with nothing in the public record.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

[i]

This will be a singular exception from my not-sharing-any-non-public-information policy: all travel time, capital cost and ridership estimates VIA published were based on external engineering studies and not derived from any "rule-of-thumbs". They therefore don't represent VIA's opinions, but the informed opinions of companies which are specialized and reputed to provide such estimates...


Mistakes might have been done in the past (even though I struggle to see how the cost explosion of the triple-tracking project on the Kingston Sub could have been avoided with the arrangement of CN conducting/contracting all the work and billing VIA afterwards), but we won't know how realistic the estimates released by VIA so far are until the JPT (or the federal government) publishes its own studies...

Ok, then my main questions would be:

Why can't Via release its external engineering studies the way CDP, Metrolinx, Amtrak, and other public transportation companies do?

Why are these external engineering companies producing such drastically results. Between the external engineering companies that informed Via's 2015 statements and the external engineering studies the Globe obtained in 2019 the cost went up by 50% and travel times increased by almost an hour. Obviously one expects inflation and margins of errors, but this is way beyond that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I also don't understand why it is making a big deal out of the estimated cost rising from $4-billion to $4.4-billion. This is an increase of only 10% and probably over half of that is due to inflation.

The earlier $4B included electrification, the latter $4B did not, the electrification-included cost is now $6B, which is a 50% increase and way more than 3-4 years of inflation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To be fair. I am cautiously optimistic that it goes through even with a higher price tag. Population growth along the corridor is not something governments cannot ignore. And everything from traffic congestion to carbon emissions to demands for emergency services to airspace congestion gets worse if we're solely relying on driving and flying to meet growing demands here. HFR is almost as valuable economically as it is environmentally.

Personally, I'm far less critical of VIA than the government. When VIA needs parliamentary approval for $3 million in studies, there's really not much flexibility on what they can do. Where's the opportunity funding that let's them do different things to improve service incrementally every year? Why wasn't the studies the JPT is undertaking right now funded in 2016? This government has wracked up over $80 billion in new debt over the last term. Couldn't find $70 million in there for the studies to be done? And they are planning on adding another $60 billion in new debt. Even if they spend $6-8 billion on HFR, it'll actually be one of their few deficit financed investments that actually has a decent return and relatively immediate payback.

Will add too, I am actually hoping they don't just do basic HFR and do some upgrading where they can bang for bucks. For example, Ottawa-Montreal. Spend what it takes to get this down to say 1:15 hr and they'll massively boost travel between Ottawa and Montreal while also benefiting Toronto-Montreal trips. I also hope they phase things out to get the most infrastructure. They didn't need $2 billion of electrification to launch. That can be done later. Spend all the funds to build a better corridor first. I, for one, hope they don't stick to the lowest cost HFR proposal possible but look at where additional investment is warranted and build the fastest corridor they reasonably can.

You may be right, and they will approve no matter the cost (particularity with the Bloc holding the balance of power). But the whole point of this was to be dramatically cheaper than other options. If this is not the case, I think there should be a costing of alternatives, including higher-speed options (probably not full blown HSR, but faster than what they're planning), a proper greenfield line, and maybe paying CN and CP to consolidate operations in Eastern Ontario to free up the other line for passenger service.

I think that is a good point that Via does not have sufficient research budget. But if as Urban Sky says the analysis was done by external engineering firms, I have yet to see a good explanation for the secrecy. Public transportation companies that have a research budget publish their work.

There was an hour-ish proposal for Ottawa-Montreal. Unfortunately Via Fast was a political disaster that was basically dead on arrival.

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Because CDP released the information as soon as the project was announced. They didn't spend 5 years making outlandish public claims with nothing in the public record.

You have yet to provide me with proof of this statement so where is it?