VIA Rail network developments

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Also, you have to wonder if the necessary upgrades to Peterborough (expecting much slower speeds and lower frequencies than HSR) had capital costs of 900M to 1.5 billion, one has to wonder where Via is getting its cost estimates from for a project 4x longer that requires a significant greenfield construction project.

I don't necessarily trust cost estimates made by government agencies. Remember the man who built stairs in a park for $550 when the city's estimate was between $65K and $150K. Although his staircase was obviously inadequate, the city revised their estimate to $10K.

City takes down $500 DIY park staircase, will replace it for $10,000

One also has to ask what was included in the 900M to 1.5 billion estimate? Double track? Electrification? 15 new luxury stations on the route? I doubt if VIA will double track much of their HFR corridor and i suspect even their electrification option doesn't have them electrify the entire route (only segments that give them the biggest bang for their buck).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

One also has to ask what was included in the 900M to 1.5 billion estimate? Double track? Electrification? 15 new luxury stations on the route? I doubt if VIA will double track much of their HFR corridor and i suspect even their electrification option doesn't have them electrify the entire route (only segments that give them the biggest bang for their buck).

I linked to it in an earlier post, it is pretty detailed.

Also, it was done by an outside consultant for the government.

[roger1818]

How frequently does CP run trains on the active portion of the Havelock Subdivision? I would guess that given it is a spur line it would be no more than one round trip a day, but I don't know. I am curious how hard it will be for VIA to obtain it? If my guess is correct, CP would probably be glad to hand responsibility off to VIA as long as they can maintain access (likely overnight when VIA isn't running trains).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

How frequently does CP run trains on the active portion of the Havelock Subdivision? I would guess that given it is a spur line it would be no more than one round trip a day, but I don't know. I am curious how hard it will be for VIA to obtain it? If my guess is correct, CP would probably be glad to hand responsibility off to VIA as long as they can maintain access (likely overnight when VIA isn't running trains).

I don't think getting access to the Havelock Subdivision would be a signifcant problem. I think the challenges would include:
Upgrading the track for the kinds of speeds Via is promising
Getting from Havelock to Smiths falls (where there is no extant railway).
Getting from Union Station to the Havelock subdivision (which doesn't start until Scarborough).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Getting from Union Station to the Havelock subdivision (which doesn't start until Scarborough).

Could they not use the Belleville Subdivision west (south) of Kennedy? Only a small stretch of it seems to be torn up.

Alternately, they may not want to get to Union Station. One of the risks D-S is concerned about is that they don't own either Union Station or Montreal's Central Station (which could limit their access to platforms). They may decide to build their own station (possibly on Young St?). All other VIA trains could potentially be diverted to this new station. This would free up Union to be exclusively used by GO.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Could they not use the Belleville Subdivision west (south) of Kennedy? Only a small stretch of it seems to be torn up.

Maybe (if CP agrees), but the Belleville Subdivision east of Leaside is the CP mainline between Toronto and Montreal so they would have the same problem they have now sharing track with freight.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Alternately, they may not want to get to Union Station. One of the risks D-S is concerned about is that they don't own either Union Station or Montreal's Central Station (which could limit their access to tracks). They may decide to build their own station (possibly on Young St?). All other VIA trains could potentially be diverted to this new station. This would free up Union to be exclusively used by GO.

There's an old CP station there already (currently a giant LCBO store). That would certainly be a possibility, but it would require CP's agreement and a way to manage conflict with freight traffic.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Maybe (if CP agrees), but the Belleville Subdivision east of Leaside is the CP mainline between Toronto and Montreal so they would have the same problem they have now sharing track with freight.

Only between Kennedy (199.5) and Leaside (206.3), so 6.8 miles. West of that CP uses the North Toronto Subdivision, whereas VIA would stay on the Belleville Subdivision until Don (209.5), where they could connect to the Union Station Rail Corridor.

There's an old CP station there already (currently a giant LCBO store). That would certainly be a possibility, but it would require CP's agreement and a way to manage conflict with freight traffic.

Interesting. It certainly is a beautiful building and would be a coup if VIA could somehow manage to use it effectively.


View of south facade of Summerhill North Toronto CPR station [GFDL (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html) or CC BY 3.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0)], by Shenandoah999 at English Wikipedia, from Wikimedia Commons

[lrt's friend]

Wow! What a beautiful building that was only in use as a rail station from 1916 until 1930. The construction of the current Union Station in 1927 quickly ended its usefulness.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Wow! What a beautiful building that was only in use as a rail station from 1916 until 1930. The construction of the current Union Station in 1927 quickly ended its usefulness.

It's a pretty great liquor store too.

[1overcosc]

I doubt VIA would want to use Summerhill and lose the RER connectivity that Union offers.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If the geography of eastern ontario was such that you had to load your car onto a train or take a ferry to get across it I would believe Via could get 10 million passengers on its train/car ferry service.

You seem to ignore the fact that those people can take the ferry and they choose the train. I think it's pretty deceiving to say only 10 million ride the Eurostar. That's clearly not true. And the Tunnel's owners themselves would take exception to that.

When it comes to the topic at hand, I don't see how demand suddenly goes up if you had a barrier like the Channel. Unless you have policies in place to induce demand. If the ferry had a substantially better value proposition, they wouldn't be bleeding ridership to the Eurotunnel. So your assertion that demand happens just because of geography is rather suspect.

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is an example of the level of detail in the analysis and cost estimates that would be normally done for a major project such as this (which Via is either keeping secret or has not done).

Before the study, people like you kept saying how easy a Peterborough GO train would be, how there is an existing line, etc. After more detailed study (and costing) was available enthusiasm waned.

I have never said the GO Train was easy. And thought it was ridiculous when first proposed. And still do.... The only reason to have commuter services on that corridor is to better serve Scarborough. Peterborough would be a byproduct of that investment.

And you are right that more detail is required. I don't get though, why you expect such detail on the first cut of an idea. Until the last budget, they hadn't been allocated funds to study the concept. I think they did as much as they could for a Rough Order of Magnitude estimate and put that out.

And for a ROME, it's decent. Their per km estimate is not out of line with most pre-dominantly rural rail lines. That's enough to get the conversation rolling and fund actual analysis and EAs and such.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Also, you have to wonder if the necessary upgrades to Peterborough (expecting much slower speeds and lower frequencies than HSR) had capital costs of 900M to 1.5 billion, one has to wonder where Via is getting its cost estimates from for a project 4x longer that requires a significant greenfield construction project.

The proposal to Peterborough has expenses built in which HFR would never need. Higher corridor capacity, more stations and more vehicles. To suggest that this is indicative of substantially poor staff work on HFR is to assume that the entire HFR line is going to be built and operated at a performance level of commuter rail in Toronto. That's quite the assumption.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by 1overcosc

I doubt VIA would want to use Summerhill and lose the RER connectivity that Union offers.

They aren't using Summerhill. It's not just RER and subway connectivity lost (they'd lose the connection to the Spadina line and waterfront LRTs). Using Summerhill means they can't promise downtown to downtown, and that's a major selling point of the service.

Now, if VIA had tons of services, then maybe they could split frequencies and operate a second hub in Toronto. But that's not happening in our lifetimes, if ever. So Summerhill will stay a great LCBO, till GO Midtown gets built someday.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

You seem to ignore the fact that those people can take the ferry and they choose the train. I think it's pretty deceiving to say only 10 million ride the Eurostar. That's clearly not true. And the Tunnel's owners themselves would take exception to that.

When it comes to the topic at hand, I don't see how demand suddenly goes up if you had a barrier like the Channel. Unless you have policies in place to induce demand. If the ferry had a substantially better value proposition, they wouldn't be bleeding ridership to the Eurotunnel. So your assertion that demand happens just because of geography is rather suspect.

The train-ferry takes 35 minutes, the ferry-ferry takes almost two hours, so it is logical that drivers who are concerned about time would be inclined to take the train-ferry.

You can't see how a large body of water could induce demand for services that cross the large body of water? Put it this way, if there was a bridge, do you think drivers would take either the train or the boat?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And you are right that more detail is required. I don't get though, why you expect such detail on the first cut of an idea. Until the last budget, they hadn't been allocated funds to study the concept. I think they did as much as they could for a Rough Order of Magnitude estimate and put that out.

I don't expect detail on the first cut of an idea, but we are well past the idea stage and they have hardly put anything into the public domain. As a public-enterprise I expect them to show their work and identify the assumptions behind the claims they are making.

I am also concerned (and this may not be Via's fault) that the next step is an internal review, rather than some sort of feasibility study done by an independent entity/consultant, which is a normal step for a major infrastructure project.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The proposal to Peterborough has expenses built in which HFR would never need. Higher corridor capacity, more stations and more vehicles. To suggest that this is indicative of substantially poor staff work on HFR is to assume that the entire HFR line is going to be built and operated at a performance level of commuter rail in Toronto. That's quite the assumption.

HFR is proposing more frequency than GO ever did (Via told the City Ottawa it wanted to run up to 48 trains per day as part of its HFR service) and much faster speeds (GO was proposing 60mph). There are a few less stations on the via proposal than the GO proposal, but suburban GO stations are pretty cheaply built, so that is a pretty small amount of the 900M to 1.5B cost.

[lrt's friend]

We have to remember that the track between Coteau and Ottawa and Ottawa and Smiths Falls has already been upgraded. Maybe more and longer sidings will be needed to support HFR, but most of the investment on this portion of the track is already complete.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

We have to remember that the track between Coteau and Ottawa and Ottawa and Smiths Falls has already been upgraded. Maybe more and longer sidings will be needed to support HFR, but most of the investment on this portion of the track is already complete.

Yes, but it hasn't been upgraded for the kinds of speeds Via is talking about. It takes Via 90 minutes to get from Coteau to Fallowfield (despite Via owning all of the track and using 110mph-capable locomotives).

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, but it hasn't been upgraded for the kinds of speeds Via is talking about. It takes Via 90 minutes to get from Coteau to Fallowfield (despite Via owning all of the track and using 110mph-capable locomotives).

As indicated by Transport Canada, Class 5 track has a maximum speed of 95 mph for passenger trains (LRC trains are permitted to run at 100 mph). Unless they upgraded the track to Class 6, 110mph capable locomotives will not be permitted to run at full speed.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

As indicated by Transport Canada, Class 5 track has a maximum speed of 95 mph for passenger trains (LRC trains are permitted to run at 100 mph). Unless they upgraded the track to Class 6, 110mph capable locomotives will not be permitted to run at full speed.

I think that was the point I was trying to make (maybe poorly) - that the track is not currently upgraded for the type of service being proposed.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that was the point I was trying to make (maybe poorly) - that the track is not currently upgraded for the type of service being proposed.

The thing is, saying it takes 90 minutes to travel from Coteau to Fallowfield (a distance of 140km at an average speed of 93 km/h or 58 mph) is a bit misleading. First of all, 10 minutes of that is waiting at Ottawa for people to alight and another 15 minutes is travelling the 15 km to Fallowfield (at an average speed of 60 km/h or 37 mph). While some slight improvements could be made, the short distance between stops prevents the train from getting up to speed preventing any significant gains to be had on that stretch.

A better way to look at it is it takes about 65 minutes to travel the almost 125km from Coteau to Ottawa (an average speed of about 115 km/h or 71 mph). Even then, some of that is stooping at other stations and waiting for oncoming trains. If you consider when using CP's track to Dorion the Ottawa Montreal route will be about 180 km (assuming the same approach into Central station), having express trains run in 90 minutes could be doable without significant mainline improvements. It is the last 5 km into Central station that needs to be fixed though.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The thing is, saying it takes 90 minutes to travel from Coteau to Fallowfield (a distance of 140km at an average speed of 93 km/h or 58 mph) is a bit misleading. First of all, 10 minutes of that is waiting at Ottawa for people to alight and another 15 minutes is travelling the 15 km to Fallowfield (at an average speed of 60 km/h or 37 mph). While some slight improvements could be made, the short distance between stops prevents the train from getting up to speed preventing any significant gains to be had on that stretch.

A better way to look at it is it takes about 65 minutes to travel the almost 125km from Coteau to Ottawa (an average speed of about 115 km/h or 71 mph). Even then, some of that is stooping at other stations and waiting for oncoming trains. If you consider when using CP's track to Dorion the Ottawa Montreal route will be about 180 km (assuming the same approach into Central station), having express trains run in 90 minutes could be doable without significant mainline improvements. It is the last 5 km into Central station that needs to be fixed though.

Ok, but Ottawa and Fallowfield are both planned stops for the HFR, and if they are planning to run way more trains the stopping and waiting will be much worse without upgrading the infrastructure.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ok, but Ottawa and Fallowfield are both planned stops for the HFR, and if they are planning to run way more trains the stopping and waiting will be much worse without upgrading the infrastructure.

How fast do you expect the trains to get over a 15 km stretch? The city is already planning on grade separating Merivale, Woodroffe and the South-eastern transitway (along with Fallowfield, Greenbank, Jockvale and Strandherd), so that will help travel times a bit. Not sure how much else they can do to speed things up between the two stations. As for the dwell time in Ottawa, they will hopefully be able to shorten that to 5 minutes or less.

As for the track east of Ottawa and west of Fallowfield, they will need more and longer passing tracks. In a perfect world they would double track the entire HFR route, but I don't think that is in the budget. Having said that, if the Smiths Falls Subdivision (along with the track east of the Canadian Northern Ontario Railway Federal Bridge to the station) is getting double duty (both HFR and Lakeshore trains to Ottawa), it may need to be double tracked). That is only about 65 km though. At a minimum they should double track the 13 km from the Junction with the Beachburg Sub until Moodie Dr. once Ottawa completes the grade separation.