VIA Rail

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The three projects reviewed by the PBO are a total of $43.6 billion, which is a plausible cost for a mixed HSR/conventional system.

That's the number I was thinking though the timeline and likelihood of not paying anything close to that because the US is likely to cancel their subsidies does make the math quite a bit different.

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For all the Liberal failings on this file (and there have been many), the fact that this project is finally getting interest from experienced rail developers like DB and SNCF does bode well.

Sadly, I can't see the CPC interested in anything but revisionism where they do everything possible to rip out anything with a Liberal smell to get back to 2015. I hope I am wrong. But our history is full of both major parties behaving this way. Guess we'll see in 2 years.

Lets face it, the CPC does not want to spend money on "green" infrastructure especially if it is owned and operated by a crown corp.

The only hope to get this project to the point of no return prior to the next election or into some form of joint federal/provincial project that is extremely difficult and painful to undo.

If Go was to be a "user" of the tracks leading into Toronto and the Montreal equivalent to became a user of the infrastructure near Montreal that may make it hard for the Conservatives to back out of it. But I don't think that is part of the plan.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by casper

Lets face it, the CPC does not want to spend money on "green" infrastructure especially if it is owned and operated by a crown corp.

The only hope to get this project to the point of no return prior to the next election or into some form of joint federal/provincial project that is extremely difficult and painful to undo.

We shall see what happens. Both provinces support this project. And there is strong interest from major multinationals to participate in the project. So cancelling it outright would be a blow to our international reputation. They could still cancel it. But if that happens, the Liberals at least have some fault for not getting a shovel in the ground after a decade in power (by the time the Tories take over).

Originally Posted by casper

If Go was to be a "user" of the tracks leading into Toronto and the Montreal equivalent to became a user of the infrastructure near Montreal that may make it hard for the Conservatives to back out of it. But I don't think that is part of the plan.

GO is a user of all the major rail corridors leading into Toronto and would probably use the track to Peterborough to start service, a project the Conservatives have been strongly supportive of since Peterborough is a conservative stronghold.

[ScreamingViking]

Originally Posted by casper

If Go was to be a "user" of the tracks leading into Toronto and the Montreal equivalent to became a user of the infrastructure near Montreal that may make it hard for the Conservatives to back out of it. But I don't think that is part of the plan.

GO is more than a user -- they've acquired much of their network. I believe the only parts they do not own are at the western end of the Lakeshore corridor through to Niagara Falls (CN's freight operation relies on it), I think also the tail end of the Kitchener corridor, and CP still owns the one to Milton. There may be other sections. On the Lakeshore East line there were dedicated tracks for GO Trains built next to the existing subdivision through Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, and Oshawa.

However, there is freight traffic allowed on parts of the Lakeshore corridor (e.g., to access a rail yard and the Ford plant in Oakville, and a refinery and cement facility in Mississauga) so there is still the occasional freight delay. It's much better than it used to be though before GO's purchase (actually Metrolinx is the owner).

[casper]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We shall see what happens. Both provinces support this project. And there is strong interest from major multinationals to participate in the project. So cancelling it outright would be a blow to our international reputation. They could still cancel it. But if that happens, the Liberals at least have some fault for not getting a shovel in the ground after a decade in power (by the time the Tories take over).

Agreed, the Liberals should have moved more quickly.

They need to get on with getting as much of their agenda locked in in case they lose in a years time.

[MonctonRad]

Interesting video about passenger rail expansion inAlberta.

• Video Link

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by ScreamingViking

GO is more than a user -- they've acquired much of their network. I believe the only parts they do not own are at the western end of the Lakeshore corridor through to Niagara Falls (CN's freight operation relies on it), I think also the tail end of the Kitchener corridor, and CP still owns the one to Milton. There may be other sections. On the Lakeshore East line there were dedicated tracks for GO Trains built next to the existing subdivision through Pickering, Ajax, Whitby, and Oshawa.

However, there is freight traffic allowed on parts of the Lakeshore corridor (e.g., to access a rail yard and the Ford plant in Oakville, and a refinery and cement facility in Mississauga) so there is still the occasional freight delay. It's much better than it used to be though before GO's purchase (actually Metrolinx is the owner).

With the Kitchen corridor GO owns all of it except for a frustrating section between Bramlea station and Georgetown which is frustrating since that stretch acts as a bottle neck preventing frequent service to Brampton city centre, Mount Pleasant, and points beyond. It's where the CN mainline shares the corridor and it would require widening or a CN bypass to increase frequency, with widening threatening the historic Brampton station building and other disruptive changes and a bypass being very expensive.

Personally I think there should be a short tunnel of maybe 1.5-2km or a viaduct over the existing tracks. Once GO RER is up the trains can be shorter and more frequent allowing for a shorter station platform, and it would really only need a single track. If a stop was with faster accelerating electric trains you can maintain an average speed of 60km/h when including one stop so it would only take a couple min for each train to clear that stretch. So you could have service as frequent as 10 min per direction, although 15-20 min per direction would be more forgiving with inevitable delays.

If there were 8 car, single level EMUs with two 2ph serving Kitchener and 2tph for Cambridge using an upgraded branch spur at Georgetown, that would provide 15 min service to Brampton, MP, Georgetown, and Guelph. They could run express past Bramlea (which would have a separate local service terminating there), perhaps with a stop at Eglinton for some trips. Although people could also just transfer to a local service at Bramlea to access intermediate stops. And of course there could still be additional peak services using the existing service tracks to provide capacity.

[Nouvellecosse]

This recent video that I watched about new night train service in Europe made me think more about how this could be used in North America to reduce both car reliance and emissions from air travel. While there has long been sleeper service in North America, I don't recall seeing sleeper pods like those in this European service. Seems like a great way to reduce costs, not unlike pod hotels in places like Tokyo. I can imagine it being a cheaper way to implement an attractive service between cities that are around 700-1000km apart since it wouldn't require the expensive track upgrades or alignment changes that HSR would. People could leave in the evening and wake up early in their destination with the whole day ahead of them since the unproductive travel time would be spent sleeping, something they would be doing anyway.

To be in the destination that early would normally require them to get up much earlier and go through the whole flight process, or to stay in a hotel which is extra cost and hassle. From Toronto I can see NYC, DC, Chicago and QC being a good distance for it. Montreal, despite being a bit close, could also work if they slowed the trains down which would also make for a more relaxing ride anyway. Winnipeg would be too far although the sleeping portion would allow people to bypass the endless boring stretch in Northern Ont. Ideally the total journey should be no less than around 8-9 hours to allow for a full night's sleep and time to get to sleep and get up and moving the next day. It could also be a couple more hours longer as well giving time for people to enjoy the sunset and then get up and have breakfast and enjoy the scenery the next morning. Anything longer than that though would still probably be more of a tourist thing.

In the era of smartphones, laptops and tablets, it's already easy to pass time on Long journeys when you don't have to operate a vehicle. However, spending hours on end "passing time" is still not very productive. Of course, some people can work remotely and therefore be productive, but that's not realistic for a lot of people who either don't have jobs that allow for remote work. Or like me, need privacy because of the confidential phone conversations and screen content. A sleeper set up would actually allow me that extra privacy for any waking part of the trip assuming that there was decent internet available.

For crossing international borders they would need to be either pre-clearance the originating station with no intermediate stops, or Customs at the receiving station because having a border stop requiring everyone to wake up in the middle of the night would be a no-go. The only major issue is that it would still need a way to address the delays due to freight that are currently common with passenger rail in NA. If you needed to be at your destination for a meeting or appointment at say 9am, it would be great if you arrived at 8 and had time to get cleaned up and walk a few blocks but not if you couldn't be sure you wouldn't actually arrive late. A minor downside is that it wouldn't really facilitate intermediate stops since it would be the middle of the night, but if the service was attractive enough they can hopefully fill the trains just with traffic between the two end points.

Anyway, thoughts?

• Video Link

[Djeffery]

I remember we took an overnight train to Montreal as our senior class trip in high school (fall of 1986). We couldn't get approval to take 3 days off school so we left Thursday evening from London, switched in Toronto and took the redeye and back on the express early train on Monday. Of course, it was just coach and we stayed up all night partying and made for a long day on Friday before we got to the hotel lol. I don't recall now but I think it was a good 8 hour trip from Toronto and seemed to spend a lot of time stopped along the way, probably waiting for freight.

[Truenorth00]

There's a few problems with bringing the kind of overnight service seen in Europe to North America.

1) Non-recurrent engineering (NRE) costs. It's a huge cost to adapt and certify these designs for FRA and TC compliance. VIA's long haul fleet is too small to do it alone.

2) The market for it. We have two travel markets. Those who can afford to fly and are time sensitive. Those who have the time to drive and are cost sensitive. The first group can rent a car on arrival or stay downtown. The second group has their car with them. Beyond railfans, what's the market for spending slightly less than airfare, taking nearly as long as the car and arriving at your destination without a vehicle? In Europe, rising taxes on flights, good travel speed and reliable local transit, make sleepers a decent middle class option (buses are for their poor). We don't have those conditions here. And if you look at that Nightjet video, the Europeans really pack those pods in by stacking them. Density reduces costs.

I have long argued that airline business class lie flat pods would be a decent option for a 24-48 hr rail trip. They are in production and have already met airline crashworthiness standards. Repurposing should be less difficult. And airlines have learned to fit them in like Tetris. But again certification and market.

[acottawa]

I could see it working for Toronto-New York if they could manage customs in a more convenient way. The savings of the hotel night in New York may be appealing to leisure travellers if they could get a price point close to what OBB offers. But as Truenorth says, getting rolling stock for one route is prohibitive.

Domestically there is a lack of city pairs in the 8-12 hour range.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a few problems with bringing the kind of overnight service seen in Europe to North America.

1) Non-recurrent engineering (NRE) costs. It's a huge cost to adapt and certify these designs for FRA and TC compliance. VIA's long haul fleet is too small to do it alone.

2) The market for it. We have two travel markets. Those who can afford to fly and are time sensitive. Those who have the time to drive and are cost sensitive. The first group can rent a car on arrival or stay downtown. The second group has their car with them. Beyond railfans, what's the market for spending slightly less than airfare, taking nearly as long as the car and arriving at your destination without a vehicle? In Europe, rising taxes on flights, good travel speed and reliable local transit, make sleepers a decent middle class option (buses are for their poor). We don't have those conditions here. And if you look at that Nightjet video, the Europeans really pack those pods in by stacking them. Density reduces costs.

I have long argued that airline business class lie flat pods would be a decent option for a 24-48 hr rail trip. They are in production and have already met airline crashworthiness standards. Repurposing should be less difficult. And airlines have learned to fit them in like Tetris. But again certification and market.

Such a service would be ideal for people who are both time and cost sensitive. I don't think there's actually a clear binary between caring about time and not about money vs caring about money and not about time. I think most people care about both to some degree. I'm sure you're right that the current market divides people based on where they fall along that spectrum, but I suspect it's largely because of what the current offerings are. I suspect if any such service were created, it would be in conjunction with changes in the economic and regulatory circumstances such as increased gas prices (whether natural market increases or from carbon pricing) and from increased emissions regulations for airlines. It would have to be part of a widespread package of decarbonization solutions rather than just a new BAU service offering. It would be in a world where an intercity rail renaissance was seen as a key part of that strategy. Not an inevitable or even probable world, but perhaps a possible one.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I could see it working for Toronto-New York if they could manage customs in a more convenient way. The savings of the hotel night in New York may be appealing to leisure travellers if they could get a price point close to what OBB offers. But as Truenorth says, getting rolling stock for one route is prohibitive.

Domestically there is a lack of city pairs in the 8-12 hour range.

Yes it would probably need to be more than a single route. I wish there were more domestic city pairs that were suitable (maybe Vancouver to Calgary or Edmonton?) but we're just very large and low density as a country. I can't see any major rolling stock procurement being predicated on offering US service when there's no guarantee of a stable regulatory environment. They could change their policies at any point threatening the viability.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

I remember we took an overnight train to Montreal as our senior class trip in high school (fall of 1986). We couldn't get approval to take 3 days off school so we left Thursday evening from London, switched in Toronto and took the redeye and back on the express early train on Monday. Of course, it was just coach and we stayed up all night partying and made for a long day on Friday before we got to the hotel lol. I don't recall now but I think it was a good 8 hour trip from Toronto and seemed to spend a lot of time stopped along the way, probably waiting for freight.

Good times. (I graduated in '87, but I was already in Montreal )

I took the red eye to/from Toronto many times back in the old days. Some good times spent (mostly) in the bar car.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Domestically there is a lack of city pairs in the 8-12 hour range.

This is also a big problem. A lot of the sleeper services in Europe generally aim for 8-14 hr trips. They don't aim to spend more than one night on the train. They basically design the service to cover no more than the time between dinner and breakfast at most. This minimizes meals onboard and allows for turnaround to run two services in 24 hrs maximizing utilization. Given our slow (freight blocked) rail networks, it's difficult to cover enough distance in 10-12 hours to make it relevant. The video in the example above was just over 12.5 hrs (with a 2 hr delay) to cover 1138 km. Using this example, basically we should be trying to do Montreal-Halifax in less than 11 hrs (to allow for a quick turn) to allow for a round trip within 24 hrs. I don't even know if something like this would be possible without massive capital expenditure on track upgrades.

[YOWetal]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's a few problems with bringing the kind of overnight service seen in Europe to North America.

1) Non-recurrent engineering (NRE) costs. It's a huge cost to adapt and certify these designs for FRA and TC compliance. VIA's long haul fleet is too small to do it alone.

2) The market for it. We have two travel markets. Those who can afford to fly and are time sensitive. Those who have the time to drive and are cost sensitive. The first group can rent a car on arrival or stay downtown. The second group has their car with them. Beyond railfans, what's the market for spending slightly less than airfare, taking nearly as long as the car and arriving at your destination without a vehicle? In Europe, rising taxes on flights, good travel speed and reliable local transit, make sleepers a decent middle class option (buses are for their poor). We don't have those conditions here. And if you look at that Nightjet video, the Europeans really pack those pods in by stacking them. Density reduces costs.

I have long argued that airline business class lie flat pods would be a decent option for a 24-48 hr rail trip. They are in production and have already met airline crashworthiness standards. Repurposing should be less difficult. And airlines have learned to fit them in like Tetris. But again certification and market.

All this is true but even in Europe night trains are not that popular outside of Eastern and Southern Europe where they are sometimes dirt cheap. There are still 10-20 daytime train for every nightime train on most routes and the same ore more low cost flights. Let's get daytime trains up and running before we worry about night trains.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All this is true but even in Europe night trains are not that popular outside of Eastern and Southern Europe where they are sometimes dirt cheap. There are still 10-20 daytime train for every nightime train on most routes and the same ore more low cost flights. Let's get daytime trains up and running before we worry about night trains.

At the same time, the European market is a lot different so I'm not sure why we'd need to mirror every aspect of their transportation system in order to learn from certain parts that are most applicable. Europe is much more densely populated making daytime trains useful for a greater number of intermediate stops while there's a higher number of tourists, higher gas prices, cheap flights, and less rail-based freight. That means that for them, non-tourist travelers are going to have cheaper flight options for longer distances between major destinations like London - Berlin, while the people who don't want to fly because it's less comfortable or they're going to a smaller intermediate destination wouldn't find driving as appealing. So the intermediate traffic helps to support the route so that end-end service can also work when it wouldn't on its own. As a result, there's lots of rail routes with high quality passenger service.

I hate to say it but I'm not very optimistic about longer-distance intercity rail in NA in general. I'm bullish on short distance regional connections in dense regions like Toronto to Windsor, Kingston, or NF. But longer distance daytime service I can only really see working if there's a high enough potential passenger volume to warrant dedicated, high quality tracks that allow higher speeds and fewer delays. In Canada that's basically limited to HFR in The Corridor or Calgary - Edmonton.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is also a big problem. A lot of the sleeper services in Europe generally aim for 8-14 hr trips. They don't aim to spend more than one night on the train. They basically design the service to cover no more than the time between dinner and breakfast at most. This minimizes meals onboard and allows for turnaround to run two services in 24 hrs maximizing utilization. Given our slow (freight blocked) rail networks, it's difficult to cover enough distance in 10-12 hours to make it relevant. The video in the example above was just over 12.5 hrs (with a 2 hr delay) to cover 1138 km. Using this example, basically we should be trying to do Montreal-Halifax in less than 11 hrs (to allow for a quick turn) to allow for a round trip within 24 hrs. I don't even know if something like this would be possible without massive capital expenditure on track upgrades.

You could save a lot of time on the Halifax/Montreal run if you used the CNR mainline the entire way. The main CNR line in NB is northwesterly out of Moncton to Grand Falls and Edmunston before entering Quebec. It is deadly boring most of the way through the wilderness, but, there is a nifty trestle bridge up by Grand Falls.

It would be a Class A railway for the entire route and would literally shave about 8 hours off the trip. It would still be difficult to get it down to an 11 hour journey unless VIA was able to negotiate priority over the freight trains.

Still, the possibility of daily return service would be intriguing.

The existing ROW from Moncton up to Miramichi, Bathurst and Campbellton could be served by a local train. This route is actually quite popular with locals on the north shore wanting to get down to Moncton, and this popularity would only increase if the service frequency could be increased to daily.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by YOWetal

All this is true but even in Europe night trains are not that popular outside of Eastern and Southern Europe where they are sometimes dirt cheap. There are still 10-20 daytime train for every nightime train on most routes and the same ore more low cost flights. Let's get daytime trains up and running before we worry about night trains.

Your information is out of date. Go look up what Europe is building with the TEN-T network. And go look up the success OBB is having with its Nightjet services. People thought sleepers were dead a decade ago. OBB's success has completely changed opinions. Now they are planning HSR sleeper services.

[acottawa]

Most of the new investment in new night services has been by OBB, which makes sense as Vienna is more or less in the middle of Europe and Austria doesn’t have one of those Ryanair airports.