VIA Rail

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by J81

So you want to have pre clearance in every station between Toronto and the border?
Or are you of the opinion that the train once it leaves Toronto should not stop anywhere until it reaches its US destination? I honestly dont understand your argument.

Either no stops or very few such as in London and Detroit for the Chicago route and perhaps Buffalo and one or two other major upstate cities for the NY route. An international train would be a different class of service compared to domestic and would run express due to both the customs process and to make for faster journey times. Some of the trains could also be night service in which intermediate stops wouldn't be very useful since those trains would be passing overnight. To be clear this would be part of a rail renaissance in which train travel became more heavily used. I'm not suggesting there would be enough demand currently.

Originally Posted by J81

Also, What has been done in the past is always relevant to what gets done in the future.

Well the fact that the tracks exist due to past service patterns would be relevant since it would mean new tracks wouldn't be required to make the route possible. But I don't see what relevance specific legacy passenger services have. There would be enough local and domestic service that the intermediate communities wouldn't be losing much. So I don't think it's true as a general statement. Sometimes past practices are relevant to the future and sometimes they aren't.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by J81

So you want to have pre clearance in every station between Toronto and the border?
Or are you of the opinion that the train once it leaves Toronto should not stop anywhere until it reaches its US destination? I honestly dont understand your argument.

Also, What has been done in the past is always relevant to what gets done in the future.

A sealed train is certainly possible, but in most countries with such services the customs people get on an a little before the border (so probably in after London or Aldershot going towards New York), do their customs stuff and get off at the border with everyone cleared (or removed if they are denied entry).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A sealed train is certainly possible, but in most countries with such services the customs people get on an a little before the border (so probably in after London or Aldershot going towards New York), do their customs stuff and get off at the border with everyone cleared (or removed if they are denied entry).

I suppose that would save time rather than standing around at the station. Although if there were multiple trains per day it would result in a lot of back and forth for the agents including unproductive downtime (aka extra cost) on the reverse trip.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I suppose that would save time rather than standing around at the station. Although if there were multiple trains per day it would result in a lot of back and forth for the agents including unproductive downtime (aka extra cost) on the reverse trip.

Yes, but you are knocking 90 minutes of the trip with no infrastructure cost. This thread is full of multi billion dollar proposals that would knock less time off of trips.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

If it was a point-to-point train with no (or very few) intermediate stops, the best option would be pre-clearance. The train would be inspected prior to any passengers boarding, the passengers would then board after going through customs at the station, then the train would just cross the border without stopping. But there couldn't be any intermediate stops unless the stops had a secure containment area and customers to prevent anyone from wandering off without proper clearance. Basically like a plane in that everything would be done at station and it would cross borders as if they weren't there.

But that would only work if the stations had enough international movements to warrant a dedicated customs operation. If it was a once a day type of thing, then not so much. For a Toronto station I can see it working if there was two daily trains to NYC, two to Chicago, and a maybe a regional train to Buffalo and NF, NY every other hour. Given Toronto traffic and the number of NY plates downtown such a setup might be fairly popular and could take some strain off the main border crossings.

There is no need to offer a point-to-point service like a plane for pre-clearance, as you only need pre-clearance facilities on one side of the border. The problem is that there absolutely is no space at Toronto Union Station. Therefore, you need to do the pre-clearance at the actual border. At the same time, you want to do pre-clearance so that it inconveniences as few people as possible with a forced transfer.

With all that said, that places the optimal location for pre-clearance facilities between Toronto and NYC at Buffalo (thus requiring a routing via the Welland tunnel rather than Niagara Falls, which is irrelevant anyways for international travel) and between Toronto and Chicagoat Detroit Michigan Central. If you have frequent service (e.g., every 2 hours) on either aide, you’d be able to generate the necessary passenger volume spread out over the day to justify such a facility, while providing passengers the necessary flexibility if they miss their connection train (thus allowing said connection trains to leave on time, even if the connection hasn’t artived yet - a pre-requisite for reliable service).

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

There is no need to offer a point-to-point service like a plane for pre-clearance, as you only need pre-clearance facilities on one side of the border. The problem is that there absolutely is no space at Toronto Union Station. Therefore, you need to do the pre-clearance at the actual border. At the same time, you want to do pre-clearance so that it inconveniences as few people as possible with a forced transfer.

I thought about that but ruled it out because the train trips go both ways. You'd only need pre-clearance on one side of the border for trips in one direction, but it would be the other side for the other direction. Not a big issue if the agents performed the screening on the train shortly before crossing the border but it would make having clearance at station side impractical. For instance, with trips going to NYC. If you were pre-cleared at Union the train would be sealed until you passed the border and then everyone could get on and off in NYS freely. But on the way back, the train would need to be sealed on the US side except for the pre-clearance stations eliminating smaller ones. So any stops without customs would only get stops in one direction which wouldn't be that useful. People in NYS whistle stops could take the train to NYC but then couldn't take it back.

So yeah, I am leaning toward on-train being the best option because of that and for the time saving but I don't buy that Union has no space. It may technically be true at the moment due to current configuration, but it's been expanded numerous times and will need some degree of renovation again when it's time to raise the roof for electrification, re-arrange platforms, etc. And during the most recent expansion there were extra retail spaces added so some of that space could easily be displaced for necessary station functions. Union can't renovate to add all these "nice but unnecessary" things like Decathlon while simultaneously being unable to expand rail operations.

[Urban_Sky]

In order to perform pre-clearance (or post-clearance), you need to create a sealed area around the stopped trains, which ensures that nobody can pass between any public area and the train without passing through the border checks.

Such a “secure area” can usually only be created adjacent to a side platform, like Amsterdam Centraal’s Platform 15 or Rotterdam Centraal’s Platform 2. In order to do the same at an island platform, this video of Brussels Midi’s Platform 3 gives you an idea of how much platform width you need to physically separate the two tracks which serve the same platform:

https://youtu.be/VJ9M7xNiYvo?si=OQHwooe2NCZVl74b

Toronto Union has and will not have any remotely sufficiently wide platform to physically separate the passengers from both platform tracks. Similarly, it has and will have only one track with a side platform (Track 1) and as every single other track at Union Station it lacks the adjacent apace (horizontally or vertically) to create the facilities where customs and immigration checks could be performed in full segregation from other passengers.

It’s for the same reason why Amsterdam-London Eurostar trains don’t stop at Schipol Airport or Antwerpen Centraal and why the idea of direct trains from Frankfurt and Cologne to London has died, because neither Schipol Airport, Antwerpen Centraal, Köln Hbf nor Frankfurt Hbf has the space to create dedicated and segregated facilities for UK-bound passengers…

[Djeffery]

As an example of how stringent US Customs and Border Protection is, the workers on the Gordie Howe Bridge construction site between Windsor and Detroit have to be cleared to go work on the bridge each day now that the 2 sides of the bridge are connected. So while it sounds simple to pre-clear and seal a train a hundred miles from the border, it's not the same as pre-clearing passengers at the airport where you have all this big secure space.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

In order to perform pre-clearance (or post-clearance), you need to create a sealed area around the stopped trains, which ensures that nobody can pass between any public area and the train without passing through the border checks.

Such a “secure area” can usually only be created adjacent to a side platform, like Amsterdam Centraal’s Platform 15 or Rotterdam Centraal’s Platform 2. In order to do the same at an island platform, this video of Brussels Midi’s Platform 3 gives you an idea of how much platform width you need to physically separate the two tracks which serve the same platform:

https://youtu.be/VJ9M7xNiYvo?si=OQHwooe2NCZVl74b

Toronto Union has and will not have any remotely sufficiently wide platform to physically separate the passengers from both platform tracks. Similarly, it has and will have only one track with a side platform (Track 1) and as every single other track at Union Station it lacks the adjacent apace (horizontally or vertically) to create the facilities where customs and immigration checks could be performed in full segregation from other passengers.

It’s for the same reason why Amsterdam-London Eurostar trains don’t stop at Schipol Airport or Antwerpen Centraal and why the idea of direct trains from Frankfurt and Cologne to London has died, because neither Schipol Airport, Antwerpen Centraal, Köln Hbf nor Frankfurt Hbf has the space to create dedicated and segregated facilities for UK-bound passengers…

Sounds like it would be a challenge. Makes me wonder how an onboard customs process would work since it wouldn't be happening at station and the train wouldn't need to be stored on the platform prior to departure. It could pull in only when ready for boarding.

That said, I do think Union could create a lot more platform space using offset platforms. Offset platforms would be used in conjunction with the shorter trains made possible by higher frequencies and lower dwell times enabled by electrification and a disentangling of the approach tracks. The total length of some union platforms is over 500m, so if you have trains of 6-8 cars, you could have the platforms for half of them on the York side and the other half on the Bay side with the other side's tracks just running past the other's platforms behind a glass partition. Two eight car trains would have a combined length of about 416m, then add another 10m or so for the tracks to curve around the platforms and you're still well within that length. And there could still be one or two full length platform for The Canadian and longer legacy GO trains.

Extending the platforms that far to the east and west would both create a lot of additional platform space and better spread the passenger volumes throughout the station helping passenger throughput as it gets busier. The renovations needed to allow this wouldn't be justified solely by long distance service, but this would be a good arrangement either way.

[acottawa]

Metrolinx is reconfiguring most of the platforms at Union. I am sure if this was identified as a project by Canada and the US then space could be found.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Sounds like it would be a challenge. Makes me wonder how an onboard customs process would work since it wouldn't be happening at station and the train wouldn't need to be stored on the platform prior to departure. It could pull in only when ready for boarding.

Feel free to quote any international trains where regular immigration and custom checks are executed on board the moving train. As I already told @acottawa, I’m not aware of any international trains on this planet where this happens…

That said, I do think Union could create a lot more platform space using offset platforms. Offset platforms would be used in conjunction with the shorter trains made possible by higher frequencies and lower dwell times enabled by electrification and a disentangling of the approach tracks. The total length of some union platforms is over 500m, so if you have trains of 6-8 cars, you could have the platforms for half of them on the York side and the other half on the Bay side with the other side's tracks just running past the other's platforms behind a glass partition. Two eight car trains would have a combined length of about 416m, then add another 10m or so for the tracks to curve around the platforms and you're still well within that length. And there could still be one or two full length platform for The Canadian and longer legacy GO trains.

Extending the platforms that far to the east and west would both create a lot of additional platform space and better spread the passenger volumes throughout the station helping passenger throughput as it gets busier. The renovations needed to allow this wouldn't be justified solely by long distance service, but this would be a good arrangement either way.

Congratulations, you have provided a fairly accurate descriptions of the ongoing redevelopment of Union Station of increasing the number of platform tracks available by creating quite a few pocket tracks for short, terminating trains!

Source: posted by user @reaperexpress on Urban Toronto

Unfortunately, all these platforms are already allocated for services and there is no space to segregate any of these platforms, especially not during rush hour (e.g., when the “Maple Leaf” currently departs in the only viable daytime slot (considering its travel time of approximately 12 hours)…

[acottawa]

Track 8 would be quite well suited for the discussed purpose. The UT link identifies it as a 2nd “Kitchener Express” track which in Metrolinx’s future plans is an hourly service that doesn’t obviously require two tracks.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Track 8 would be quite well suited for the discussed purpose. The UT link identifies it as a 2nd “Kitchener Express” track which in Metrolinx’s future plans is an hourly service that doesn’t obviously require two tracks.

The figure I posted is presumably based on the RFP documents for RER, whereas the other two figures you refer to show routings which have been added by UT user @reaperexpress. I can’t go into the specifics of the actual plans which ONxpress has submitted during the RFP tender and certainly substantially refined and adjusted since then, but the idea of rigidly splitting up Union Station into a parallel series of single- or double-tracked stations with distinct services is fanciful given the sheer volume of trains these platforms (and the two station throats!) will have to accommodate. There is a reason why all platforms will be designed “agnostic”, so that they can be used by any railroad serving the station, be it GO/RER, VIA, Amtrak or Ontario Northland.

Anyways, the entire discussion is moot, as London and Hamilton are too large for (sealed) international trains to skip, but too small to justify building pre-clearance facilities there. Therefore, the only alternative to time-consuming border checks is to operate reasonably frequent cross-border service from Toronto to Buffalo and Detroit and to have passengers transfer there (after clearing immigration and customs) onto Amtrak trains…

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Feel free to quote any international trains where regular immigration and custom checks are executed on board the moving train. As I already told @acottawa, I’m not aware of any international trains on this planet where this happens…

I'm not really that interested in whether or not something has been done or is being done elsewhere. I'm just interesting in whether or not it is feasible to do. I have no problem with doing something unique as long as it can be made to work. Using other services as case studies can be useful in pointing to potential obstacles or solutions, but their mere existence or lack thereof doesn't mean much on their own. It's possible that something isn't done in other places for a particular reason that renders it infeasible, but I'm just interested in that reason and whether or not it applies in our case.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Congratulations, you have provided a fairly accurate descriptions of the ongoing redevelopment of Union Station of increasing the number of platform tracks available by creating quite a few pocket tracks for short, terminating trains!

Source: posted by user @reaperexpress on Urban Toronto

Unfortunately, all these platforms are already allocated for services and there is no space to segregate any of these platforms, especially not during rush hour (e.g., when the “Maple Leaf” currently departs in the only viable daytime slot (considering its travel time of approximately 12 hours)…

That's somewhat similar to what i envisioned in that there are shorter and longer platforms, but not quite. It's different in that with their design each platform would occupy space in the widest section of the rail shed and has a couple terminating stub tracks and it would definitely not create as much platform space as my plan. So hopefully the current plan isn't locked in stone. But theirs would still be a huge improvement.

I'll try and find time to draw up a schematic of my design at some point.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

I'm not really that interested in whether or not something has been done or is being done elsewhere. I'm just interesting in whether or not it is feasible to do. I have no problem with doing something unique as long as it can be made to work. Using other services as case studies can be useful in pointing to potential obstacles or solutions, but their mere existence or lack thereof doesn't mean much on their own. It's possible that something isn't done in other places for a particular reason that renders it infeasible, but I'm just interested in that reason and whether or not it applies in our case.

Why don’t you briefly describe where and how you would like border checks to take place and then we can work out together what challenges would have to be overcome? Out of my head, labour productivity seems an obvious one, as border agents can’t just work their back, checking passengers crossing the border inthe opposite direction…

That's somewhat similar to what i envisioned in that there are shorter and longer platforms, but not quite. It's different in that with their design each platform would occupy space in the widest section of the rail shed and has a couple terminating stub tracks and it would definitely not create as much platform space as my plan. So hopefully the current plan isn't locked in stone. But theirs would still be a huge improvement.

I'll try and find time to draw up a schematic of my design at some point.

My understanding is that the tracks in Union Station are supported by pillars and therefore it is impossible to apply major changes to the track alignment without knocking down large parts of the station. That’s what is currently done to the southern platform, but is presumably impossible to do without closing every single concourse (not concurrently, but one after the other and that includes the VIA concourse, for which no alternative exists) for months if not years.

As a general remark: if you are smart enough to think of a certain seemingly obvious solution, you can count on the actual experts which were paid to find solutions to have identified the same solution, but also a dozen or so challenges which led to that solution to being discarded as either impractical, unaffordable or inferior to other solutions…

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Why don’t you briefly describe where and how you would like border checks to take place and then we can work out together what challenges would have to be overcome? Out of my head, labour productivity seems an obvious one, as border agents can’t just work their back, checking passengers crossing the border inthe opposite direction…

It was originally acottawa's suggestion to which I already mentioned the challenge of labour productivity if you review some of the prior posts. But they pointed out how great the passenger time savings would be relative to the cost which sounded fairly convincing. Perhaps they can share more details on the idea.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

My understanding is that the tracks in Union Station are supported by pillars and therefore it is impossible to apply major changes to the track alignment without knocking down large parts of the station. That’s what is currently done to the southern platform, but is presumably impossible to do without closing every single concourse (not concurrently, but one after the other and that includes the VIA concourse, for which no alternative exists) for months if not years.

As a general remark: if you are smart enough to think of a certain seemingly obvious solution, you can count on the actual experts which were paid to find solutions to have identified the same solution, but also a dozen or so challenges which led to that solution to being discarded as either impractical, unaffordable or inferior to other solutions…

You could be right. But often with stuff like this the plans tend to be done by engineering consultants or other 3rd parties who are commissioned to find ways to solve a particular problem or achieve a specific goal. So they wouldn't be going outside that mandate to provide solutions for other hypothetical services or operations beyond that limited scope. And what we're discussing here is, AFAIK, beyond any of Metrolink's official considerations. So unless there was a feasibility study for the alternate plan we're discussing, it doesn't make sense to assume there are insurmountable barriers just because there are different plans that exist for other purposes.

For example, one of the things I want to see is for part of the GO system to be upgraded into something more like REM in the longer term. But given the huge frequencies involved using shorter automated trains, it would require a different set up than needed for locomotive hauled stock. So if Metrolink had already decided they were just going to stick with electric locos for the time being due to the cost and difficulty replacing the current coaches they may have only asked for proposals to achieve that. If so, the resulting proposal wouldn't say anything one way or the other about the feasibility of something much more frequent. In other words, if Metrolinx asked "How can we accommodate X number of trains of type Y&Z per hour, the proposed solution would be a way to do that. It wouldn't say anything about whether or not 1.5X number of trains of type A, B, and Z can be accommodated if no one asked.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

It was originally acottawa's suggestion to which I already mentioned the challenge of labour productivity if you review some of the prior posts. But they pointed out how great the passenger time savings would be relative to the cost which sounded fairly convincing. Perhaps they can share more details on the idea.

Border staff is a scarce resource. Just look at Eurostar, which was forced to reduce the passenger loads it accepts, due to the lack of border staff. This also prevents the reopening of Ebbsfleet International and Ashford for Eurostar service. The problem is that railroads don’t control staffing decisions of governments, meaning that they can’t solve the issue with money, even if they wanted…

You could be right. But often with stuff like this the plans tend to be done by engineering consultants or other 3rd parties who are commissioned to find ways to solve a particular problem or achieve a specific goal. So they wouldn't be going outside that mandate to provide solutions for other hypothetical services or operations beyond that limited scope. And what we're discussing here is, AFAIK, beyond any of Metrolink's official considerations. So unless there was a feasibility study for the alternate plan we're discussing, it doesn't make sense to assume there are insurmountable barriers just because there are different plans that exist for other purposes.

For example, one of the things I want to see is for part of the GO system to be upgraded into something more like REM in the longer term. But given the huge frequencies involved using shorter automated trains, it would require a different set up than needed for locomotive hauled stock. So if Metrolink had already decided they were just going to stick with electric locos for the time being due to the cost and difficulty replacing the current coaches they may have only asked for proposals to achieve that. If so, the resulting proposal wouldn't say anything one way or the other about the feasibility of something much more frequent. In other words, if Metrolinx asked "How can we accommodate X number of trains of type Y&Z per hour, the proposed solution would be a way to do that. It wouldn't say anything about whether or not 1.5X number of trains of type A, B, and Z can be accommodated if no one asked.

As long as Metrolinx was operating its own network, plans could be changed at will. Now that operation is being transferred to ONxpress as result of a competitive tendering process, any major change in infrastructure availability and configuration will need to be agreed and accepted by both sides. Massive changes are still possible, but might be much more expensive, depending on what concessions ONxpress demands in return. IIRC, the final design of the infrastructure is actually an integral part of the RER contract ONxpress won, as operation&maintenance is just part of this massive contract…

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Feel free to quote any international trains where regular immigration and custom checks are executed on board the moving train. As I already told @acottawa, I’m not aware of any international trains on this planet where this happens…

That was the standard in Europe before Schengen. I have taken trains in and out of Switzerland, between Germany and the Czech Republic, between Germany and Poland where this was the practice. Most recently (2019) this was the practice between Russia and Finland, both for my outbound daytime trip and return night train had both Russian and Finnish customs on the train.

For high speed services such as Geneva to Paris or the Eurostar there is/was pre-clearance, but nothing Amtrak offers is anywhere close to high speed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

That was the standard in Europe before Schengen. I have taken trains in and out of Switzerland, between Germany and the Czech Republic, between Germany and Poland where this was the practice. Most recently (2019) this was the practice between Russia and Finland, both for my outbound daytime trip and return night train had both Russian and Finnish customs on the train.

For high speed services such as Geneva to Paris or the Eurostar there is/was pre-clearance, but nothing Amtrak offers is anywhere close to high speed.

I'm not sure pre-9/11 and pre-Schengen are great reference points. Different world. I'm not sure there's much point to these cross-border services without American cooperation.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'm not sure pre-9/11 and pre-Schengen are great reference points. Different world. I'm not sure there's much point to these cross-border services without American cooperation.

None of these examples are pre-911. Switzerland joined Schengen in 2008, the Eastern European examples I gave joined Schengen in 2007. The Russia-Finland example was only 5 years ago.

Maybe you are right that the US and Canada are less reasonable on border issues than Russia, but I am also not sure that anyone has looked into the matter in a serious way.