Rural Commuter Rail

[acottawa]

^

I think you're underestimating stop times. The 5 stop GO train from Oakville to Toronto takes almost twice as long (40 vs 20 minutes) as the nonstop Via train.

[mousquet]

I think we should face a couple of actual facts if we want to win one more battle on the ground.

First, high-speed transit was meant to be real fast, so it simply can't have too many stops along a given route. It is only supposed to be easily accessible and fast links between metro areas that are large enough. So, going from Winnipeg to Calgary or from Montreal to Detroit for example makes sense, if you don't have to serve every single small community that would claim they deserve their own stop in between. We've had that problem here in France. Of course, everyone wants to be served regardless population figures, which causes harm to the efficiency of the overall system. Sometimes, people need to watch figures and be reasonable.

Second, our traditional HSR technology is growing old and almost outdated. We need massive funding to take it to the next level (why not maglev eventually, after all?), that would take Alstom, Bombardier and Siemens merged altogether, once and for all, so they can stand as a powerful lobby to put the Canadian, French and German authorities under pressure to fund innovative infrastructures. Development of the TGV goes back to the 1970s/80s here. It's just growing too old.

The Chinese are being faster than we are right now, that's bad. I mean, good for them, but we need to survive their thing, cause we still have a couple of essential things to teach them about.

[acottawa]

^
This forum has a high speed rail thread.

[mousquet]

Originally Posted by acottawa

^
This forum has a high speed rail thread.

Right, I apologize for the off-topic..

But we've had problems with our large TER network over here too.
That's to serve smaller communities.

You see? Everything is actually tied and makes a whole thing, from your larger town to your tiny village.

[Joseph Potvin]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Three questions:
1. What frequency of service does MOOSE intend to provide?
2. How many trains does MOOSE intend to purchase?
3. Does your financial estimate for both upfront capital expenditures and for annual operating costs account for this number of trains?

@Charles5,

The financial and the engineering "design, feasibility and revenue/cost" studies will provide answers to such questions. We refer to our initial numbers as "Class D" (even "Class E") estimates. Also, any initial proof-of-concept start-up service, then various expansions, then eventual full service goals, are different numbers. It is too early to be concluding what you suggest to conclude.

Joseph Potvin
Director General | Directeur général
Moose Consortium (Mobility Ottawa-Outaouais: Systems & Enterprises) | www.letsgomoose.com
Consortium Moose (Mobilité Outaouais-Ottawa: Systèmes & Enterprises) | www.onyvamoose.com

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

@Charles5,

The financial and the engineering "design, feasibility and revenue/cost" studies will provide answers to such questions. We refer to our initial numbers as "Class D" (even "Class E") estimates. Also, any initial proof-of-concept start-up service, then various expansions, then eventual full service goals, are different numbers. It is too early to be concluding what you suggest to conclude.

In other words, you don't know yet, and yet you continue to put forward the idea that you could stand up a complete railway network within a year. So why do you include all of those figures in such documents as your press releases and Application for Certificate of Fitness from CTA as if they were real numbers. You are quite ready to talk about how easy and simple it will be to stand up a railway network and throw around numbers, when from some simple estimates it appears that your Class D/E estimates could easily be off by a factor of three.

A rail line that operates every hour is significantly different from one where service is only provided every three hours. Or conversely, a rail line that requires three times as many trains is significantly different as well in regards to both stand up and operating costs. If someone like I can find issues like that in a simple review of your documentation, then I would have hoped that the MOOSE consortium would have noticed it after 6 years of work on this project, and I would imagine that potential investors will find similar issues when conducting a due diligence review.

As I stated when asking the question; the numbers you consistently use lead to an impossible scenario.

[acottawa]

A feasibility study needs something to model. Even if you got the money for a study, they couldn't tell you anything useful if you don't know the key parameters of the proposed business. I seems like a lot of time and energy and money went into litigation and regulatory processes when maybe it should have gone into refining the business plan.

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

The financial and the engineering "design, feasibility and revenue/cost" studies will provide answers to such questions.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

The formal peer-reviewed feasibility study should be done by end of October.

Well, I guess your schedule is a little off then, or are you referring to another year?

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

Also, any initial proof-of-concept start-up service, then various expansions, then eventual full service goals, are different numbers. It is too early to be concluding what you suggest to conclude.

And that too seems to contradict several statements you've made in the past. You've always been of the position that this is an all or nothing thing, that without the complete network starting all at once it wouldn't make sense to any developers. Now you want to start with a "proof-of-concept service" whereas before it was all or nothing. Some quotes to that effect.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

For there to be any significant value added around stations, all empirical studies show that the market needs two assurances: (a) that the station will stay put, and (b) that from any station, you'll get metropolitan-scale mobility. One test-it-out line won't do that.
...
The old aphorism "go big, or go home" applies here. Scale matters.

Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin

It's an issue of network scale.... The PPR has to generate cash flow early on, and if this is going to be based on property value increments, all the empirical studies show that this requires a metropolitan catchment area.

[1overcosc]

Originally Posted by acottawa

^

I think you're underestimating stop times. The 5 stop GO train from Oakville to Toronto takes almost twice as long (40 vs 20 minutes) as the nonstop Via train.

With GO the general rule is that every stop adds 3 minutes to the schedule for the bilevels, 1.5 minutes for the DMUs used on the UP train. (With RER, the use of EMUs is expected to cut that to around 1 minute).

[Truenorth00]

LOL. I hope Joe Potvin keeps posting. All those perspective investors will find this thread on a Google search and will have lots of questions for him.

As will regulators overlooking his submissions.

You'd think as a former public servant, he'd know better than to put crap information in a submission to a government agency.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Joseph Potvin,

Three questions:

1. What frequency of service does MOOSE intend to provide?

2. How many trains does MOOSE intend to purchase?

3. Does your financial estimate for both upfront capital expenditures and for annual operating costs account for this number of trains?

The issue:
In your Letter of Application to CTA of 29 Jun 16 you claim that MOOSE will operate a 400km (para 20) network over 3 lines (Annex F). There will be approximately 50 stations (para 20). You indicate that you will use 6 trains to do that. (Annex J, para 3b) and that you will provide hourly service (page 6 of update 25 Nov 16).
To do that you would need each train to complete its run from end to end of each line in under an hour, give some time to conduct your “pit stop program” at the end of each line (Annex J, para 4.2), and then head out again in the opposite direction.

This is obviously impossible. Some simple math:

Assuming each line is 130km long.
Assume 15 stops per line and each stop reduces travel time by 2 minutes due to deceleration, offloading/onloading passengers, and acceleration. Total time lost at stations = 30 min.
To get from one end of the line to another in an hour would require the train to travel over 300km/hr. (60 min/hr -15x2 min/stop – 5min pitstop)=35min leaving 25min or 0.416 hours for travel. 130km/0.416hr = 312km/hr.

A more likely scenario is about a 3 hr turn around. This would give you a much more comfortable 3 minutes loss per station (45 min total), a 15 minute pit stop at each end, and 2 hours to travel 130km equating to an average of 65km/hr (remember we’re dealing with passing tracks, bridges, etc). In my mind that means you would require at least 18 trains and would probably need another 2 or 3 for ongoing maintenance issues.

I definitely agree with you that 6 trains is nowhere near enough to run three lines of this nature, but...

(b) Start-up service assessments will assume use of two Bombardier BiLevel Coaches and one Cab
Cars per trainset, with six running trains, plus two spare coaches and two spare Cab Cars. No
train supplier has yet been selected, and this train, built in Thunder Bay, Ontario, is a convenient
and realistic planning reference.

In other words, MOOSE will have at least 6 trains once their entire system is fully set up.

Originally Posted by Charles5

Well, I guess your schedule is a little off then, or are you referring to another year?

I don't think a private company running behind schedule is the biggest problem here. I'm sure MOOSE realizes that there's enough urgency to get planning done since after all, every passing minute means that another section of track is at risk of being turned into a multi-use trail.

If you really want to complain about projects being behind the schedule, the city has a wide range of projects for you to pick from.

I want to know the results of the study too! But, we'll just have to wait..

Originally Posted by Charles5

And that too seems to contradict several statements you've made in the past. You've always been of the position that this is an all or nothing thing, that without the complete network starting all at once it wouldn't make sense to any developers. Now you want to start with a "proof-of-concept service" whereas before it was all or nothing. Some quotes to that effect.

This may just be my interpretation of everything he's said, but I think there's a difference between "start-up assessment" and a "final product". MOOSE's plan wouldn't work if they scaled back their final product to being just a single line, but if they started out with one line (and 6 trains), they could asses the operation of that line and use that data to help optimize their planned service for the remaining lines (along with the rest of their research from the feasibility study).

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

All those perspective investors will find this thread on a Google search and will have lots of questions for him.

As if they wouldn't have questions otherwise?

[Charles5]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

... but if they started out with one line (and 6 trains), they could asses the operation of that line and use that data to help optimize their planned service for the remaining lines...

Two issues. First, Joseph Potvin has said repeatedly that they would never start with a trial line, that this was an all or nothing thing. (see my post four up from here). Secondly, if you were to read the following paragraph of their operating manual (3c) you can see that it states clearly that each train is supposed to start off in one of the six terminus of the network.

It's obvious they haven't done any proper modelling of the train service. I'm not sure why you keep trying to find excuses for them.

[Charles5]

@Joseph Potvin

Let me rephrase my question in a manner that you should be able to answer.

Are your current financial estimates based on an assumption that you will start your operations with 6 trainsets along with two spare coaches and two spare cab cars, as detailed in Annex J to your CTA submission (para 3b).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

This may just be my interpretation of everything he's said, but I think there's a difference between "start-up assessment" and a "final product". MOOSE's plan wouldn't work if they scaled back their final product to being just a single line, but if they started out with one line (and 6 trains), they could asses the operation of that line and use that data to help optimize their planned service for the remaining lines (along with the rest of their research from the feasibility study).

That would have been a more sensible strategy. The city is looking for a developer to pay for an extension of the Trillium Line. If Mr. Potvin has a brilliant (secret) strategy to market high density rural living then he could have worked with a developer there. If that lifestyle proved popular then they could have looked at other places to implement the business model.

[OCCheetos]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Two issues. First, Joseph Potvin has said repeatedly that they would never start with a trial line, that this was an all or nothing thing. (see my post four up from here). Secondly, if you were to read the following paragraph of their operating manual (3c) you can see that it states clearly that each train is supposed to start off in one of the six terminus of the network.

It's obvious they haven't done any proper modelling of the train service. I'm not sure why you keep trying to find excuses for them.

You could interpret it as being "Each of the six trains will be beginning service every day from [each of] the terminus located in the semirural
towns, and heading into the urban area." or "Each of the six trains will be beginning service every day from the terminus [that they are assigned to] located in the semirural
towns, and heading into the urban area."

The difference being that not all 6 could be operating at once (to start).

What I said before is that the "master plan" of MOOSE wouldn't be able to be downscaled (i.e. 3 lines, with 6 termini is a must, any less wouldn't work), but from a practical perspective, development resources are finite, and trying to build all houses along every possible line at every possible station at the same time would be difficult. Resources would be either spread thin, or be very expensive. MOOSE could start with the one line (if I were to guess, I'd say Bristol <-> Alexandria) where they could concentrate all of their development resources and start operation relatively quickly, then expanding to fulfill their final plan of the other two lines.

I suppose you could say I'm being a bit of an "optimist" here, but I'm just interpreting the same data you are, so overall, it'd be nice to have some clarification from Mr. Potvin.

[roger1818]

I think the point is with a 2 hour one way trip (a reasonable time for a 130km route with 15 stops) on each line (4 hour round trip) and 3 lines, 6 trains would only provide service every 2 hours.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by OCCheetos

As if they wouldn't have questions otherwise?

They most certainly will have a lot more after reading threads like this.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Charles5

Are your current financial estimates based on an assumption that you will start your operations with 6 trainsets along with two spare coaches and two spare cab cars

I find it interesting that while a trainset would consist of a locomotive, 2 coaches and 1 cab car, they plan to have 2 spare coaches, 2 spare cab cars and no spare locomotives. Is that because the locomotives are too expensive to have a spare of and since the cab car is at the back of the train, it is more likely to get damaged than the coaches, so they need an extra spare?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I find it interesting that while a trainset would consist of a locomotive, 2 coaches and 1 cab car, they plan to have 2 spare coaches, 2 spare cab cars and no spare locomotives. Is that because the locomotives are too expensive to have a spare of and since the cab car is at the back of the train, it is more likely to get damaged than the coaches, so they need an extra spare?

Just guessing, but a train set that small could be pulled by any locomotive (so they could rent/borrow, etc), whereas the platforms, etc. would be designed for a specific coach and cab car so you would need backups on hand.

I can't think of any reason why they would want to use bi-level coaches for a trainset that small. Bi level coaches would normally be used to address capacity issues, but a DMU could easily handle that number of passengers.

[Allandale25]

If the Moose proponents were counting on a change in the provincial government and the PC party being more amenable to their proposal, they may want to be aware of this from the PC party platform (page 52):

"The province has promised two-way, all-day GO train service – especially to places like our vital high-tech hub, Kitchener-Waterloo – but the province commonly delays and pushes back the target operation dates for these services. The province should fulfill its promise and should formally commit to complete major transit projects that are already under construction. These major transit projects include the Ottawa Light Rail Transit project’s Phase 2, Hamilton’s Light Rail Transit project, Kitchener-Waterloo’s Light Rail Transit project, and the Finch West Light Rail Transit project.

Patrick Brown and the Ontario PCs will fulfill the existing commitments to two-way, all day GO train service and complete major transit projects already under construction, including those in Ottawa, Hamilton, and Kitchener-Waterloo."

Full PDF here.