Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin
Please post an actual quote from our official work, and point out its errors. We tend to be quite careful in qualifying our statements. In particular, I'm a curmudgeon for methodology. So please dispense with indirect references. Cite directly.
|
Certainly. As I said, it is impossible to run three rail lines comprising 400km in length on an hourly service with only six trains. That in itself is pure physics and logic. So, that means that you will either NOT run the trains every hour, or you WILL start with only one line, or you need more train sets.
Regarding hourly service, I quote:
“Our plan involves operating three-coach, double decker diesel-electric passenger trains with
hourly service every day, through Ottawa and Gatineau, and extending out to six rural towns,” said Scott Ivay (
link)
"As part of the project, three-coach double decker diesel-electric passenger trains will be operated with
hourly service through Ottawa and Gatineau." (
link)
"Moose will provide train service to stations approximately
every hour from 5:30 am to midnight. " (
link - y
our letter to CTA dated 25 Nov 16)
Regarding 6 trains:
"Start-up service assessments will assume use of two Bombardier BiLevel Coaches and one Cab Cars per trainset, with
six running trains," (
Link -
Annex J to your CTA submission)
Regarding 3 lines over 400km of track.
I think there's enough references to that, but to make it official:
" over the
400 km set of railway routes" (
link -
your application to CTA)
and:
Annex F of your CTA submission is the official map showing the three routes (
link)
In regards to whether you would start with a single line first and then expand or if you would start the whole network right at the beginning.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin
Correct. 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.
|
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Potvin
It's an issue of network scale. The succession model you're describing is feasible with public sector funding because a government can run the financing through the tax system. 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. However, once the Greater National Capital Region network main lines are assured, all sorts of short line connections in the areas you speak of become easy and lucrative to finance under the PPR.
|
and I guess indirectly this refers to the same thing, the need to have the whole network up and running right away to get the metropolitan scale mobility right away which is what will generate the increase in property values.
"
early development of approximately 35 Linked Localities," (
link - your CTA application letter)
Now that I've shown you where I've drawn my conclusions from, I would appreciate if you could explain the discrepancies. Specifically,
in your start-up phase:
-Do you still plan on hourly service, or a lower frequency?
-Do you plan on starting with one line initially, or is your intent to start all three lines right from the get go?
-Do you plan on operating with six running sets during the start up phase?
As I've demonstrated in my basic modelling, it is not possible to do all of the above. Either you need more trains, or you will have less frequent service, or you can only operate a portion of the network. I'm estimating a factor of three (approximately); that is, you either need 3 times as many trains as indicated, or you will have service only 1/3 of the desired frequency identified, or you can operate only 1/3 of the total route. I'm just curious which of those three options you might be going with (combinations are possible as well of course).
Prev
Linear Mode
