VIA Rail network developments

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

In the urban areas, you enter into agreements with the freight companies that passenger trains be given priority with a number of rail upgrades being offered in return to minimize interference with freight.

The problems that we have had in the past is that we were asking the freight companies for slots on the entire route. That is clearly not been working, but on short urban sections, I am sure something can be arranged.

Maybe, but the urban sections are fairly core to the national network. If CP won’t let GO run any additional service, why they would be incentivized to do Via a solid is not particularly clear.

[HighwayStar]

Originally Posted by zzptichka

Can someone explain me why VIA makes people line up inside for boarding at major train stations? Why not let people walk up to the train like at all minor stations, and you know, all other places around the world?

This was asked a while back, and the answer was, "because the platforms are so narrow in the Ottawa (and Montreal) stations, they can't trust throngs of people to control themselves".

I have no idea if the above is true.. but I do agree the lining up concept is pretty silly.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even assuming CP agrees to sell the Havelock Sub, ...

I don't know why CP wouldn't want to sell the Havelock Sub to VIA as it is just a spur line that they don't use very much. CP has been abandoning a lot of track lately, so being able to sell an underutilized asset and still maintain access rights is a win-win.

Off the top of my head, hear are the advantages and disadvantages of selling:

Advantages:

• Cash up front
• Lower Cost (they don't have to pay to to maintain the track but instead only have to pay when they want to use the track)
• VIA will upgrade the track, allowing CP to run trains at faster speeds and reduce the risk of derailment (lower insurance costs)
• Easier to abandon in the future, should they not want to provide freight service.

Disadvantage:

• They have to give priority to passenger trains (night time freight only?).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Pretty tepid support from the globe editorial board.

“If the Infrastructure Bank can jump-start a big private rail investment with a small amount of public seed money, then Canadians should support that. Otherwise, this train should remain in the station.”

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/...n-travel-and-how-much-it-could-cost-you/

Basically proposing calling Via’s bluff, which probably makes sense.

Half a clap. Aviation capacity in the GTA is getting maxed out. And roads are getting congested. The author seemed to neglect that bit. We're getting to the point where big spending on the Corridor will be required in some form or another. It's a valid question to ask whether that should be air, rail or road or what the mix should be.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

I've taken the train from Ottawa to Toronto and to Montreal several times now. It is so much more relaxing and convenient than flying or driving. You show up at the station 10 minutes before the train leaves. No security, no extra baggage fees, no seatbelts. Train drops you off downtown (except in Ottawa ) which is perfect if you're going to a concert or sporting event.

The train has a lot of advantages, many of which you just noted. And for people going to Toronto, it is becoming more desirable by the day with traffic, the cost of parking, etc, becoming more daunting (for some) as the city keeps growing.

A bit of a side story. When I was growing up my family had moved to Kingston when I was around 10, which meant that family trips to Toronto were a familiar affair. We always drove, and would always park at the same spot, a surface parking lot at Yonge and Gerrard for $8 or $10 a day. At the time there was so much parking in downtown TO that we never once had to look for a different lot. The same was true when my dad would go Toronto for work, or when my mom would do day trips with her friends to see Jays games.

Now, it is rare for them to actually drive in to Toronto anymore. With my dads health he doesn't really travel much, but my mom still goes to Toronto with her friends to see a game or go to a show probably 4 or 5 times a year. They would take VIA, but it is too unreliable and too expensive when it is more than 2 people. So instead they drive to Oshawa and take the GO train in.

What is interesting is why she does that. It isn't because she is scared of driving in Toronto. She doesn't care for it, but she doesn't hate it either. Part of it is the parking, but not for the reason I would have expected. For her, its because she doesn't like going into unknown, underground parking garages. She doesn't feel safe in them, even if she is with a larger group and not on her own. The train on the other hand is very public and provides a feeling of safety that makes them feel comfortable. There was actually a period where she didn't do many trips to Toronto because the surface parking lot she used to use, which she felt okay using because it was in a busy, open space, was gone, and the frequency from GO Oshawa was not that great, so if you missed a train, you could be waiting a while. When the frequency of GO increased to the point where you could simply drive with a rough ETA in mind and know you wouldn't be waiting for long, it made it a much more desirable way to do the trip.

I know this is just one small example, but I thought the conversation with her was super interesting because it brought up points I had never even considered (I am a tall, white male so unless things are really really dodgy safety is not something I find myself concerned with). These forums are fun and all to pass some time, but there are definitely a lot of viewpoints and perspectives that do not get discussed on them. Not only is that a shame, but I think its to the detriment of rail advocacy in general that there is not a more diverse group of people and viewpoints involved in it.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Even assuming CP agrees to sell the Havelock Sub, Via would not own any of the track it needs in Toronto or Montreal. The Havelock sub ends in Agincourt, and the only route from there is the CP mainline (which they won’t share with GO beyond limited trains to Milton). Same with Montreal, where everything from Coteau to the start of the QG tracks is owned by other companies.

Since 2009 GO has been able to purchase corridors, or space in corridors, to the tune of $1.13 billion. VIA was able to pick up the Brockville subdivision in 2015. It takes time for those kind of purchases to happen, but GO in particular has been quite aggressive in that regard in the past decade. Just because they don't own everything they need to today doesn't mean it will never happen.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I don't know why CP wouldn't want to sell the Havelock Sub to VIA as it is just a spur line that they don't use very much. CP has been abandoning a lot of track lately, so being able to sell an underutilized asset and still maintain access rights is a win-win.

Off the top of my head, hear are the advantages and disadvantages of selling:

Advantages:

• Cash up front
• Lower Cost (they don't have to pay to to maintain the track but instead only have to pay when they want to use the track)
• VIA will upgrade the track, allowing CP to run trains at faster speeds and reduce the risk of derailment (lower insurance costs)
• Easier to abandon in the future, should they not want to provide freight service.

Disadvantage:

• They have to give priority to passenger trains (night time freight only?).

I agree they would probably be willing to sell it. The only clue, perhaps, to the contrary is they haven’t already sold it to a short line operator when they have abandoned or sold almost all other short line operations in Ontario.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

Since 2009 GO has been able to purchase corridors, or space in corridors, to the tune of $1.13 billion. VIA was able to pick up the Brockville subdivision in 2015. It takes time for those kind of purchases to happen, but GO in particular has been quite aggressive in that regard in the past decade. Just because they don't own everything they need to today doesn't mean it will never happen.

Yeah, CN corridors. CN has a parallel freight line running North of the city. CP has only one line through the city.

[CityTech]

The Toronto approach is really unclear. One advantage of sticking with the lakeshore route for dedicated tracks is that the GTA section is already taken care of.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by CityTech

The Toronto approach is really unclear. One advantage of sticking with the lakeshore route for dedicated tracks is that the GTA section is already taken care of.

But the rest is not taken care of and the rest may not be possible to have dedicated track. If it were possible, it will likely be extremely expensive.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yeah, CN corridors. CN has a parallel freight line running North of the city. CP has only one line through the city.

True, which makes a deal much more complicated and expensive to negotiate. But GO/Metrolinx's vision has been pretty clear for the past decade. They've gone from owning 30% of the tracks/corridors they operate on, to 80%. They know that is an absolute requirement for proper service. Negotiating with CP is going to be more challenging, just as they are running into that issue with CN and the planned extension out to Niagara Falls. But just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it wont happen one day.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Montreal-Quebec section was a rather political addition but the route is still well used, probably much more so than southwestern Ontario, where service has been cut in recent years.

Nevertheless, we need to get this going even if it is Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto. Somehow, we need to find a way to speed up service between Montreal and Toronto to get the biggest ridership benefit possible. At this point, that route gets the least benefit, which is disappointing given that they are the two biggest cities.

While it may be getting the smallest decrease in travel time (from 5:04 to 4:45) it is getting a very large increase in frequency (from 6 to 15 trains a day). As others have said, this increase is only possible because the train is going via Ottawa (half the passengers on the train are going between Montreal-Toronto, the other half are going between Montreal-Ottawa, and Ottawa-Toronto).

Don't underestimate the value of this increase in frequency. You can very quickly loose a reduction in travel time by having to wait even longer for a train. By having hourly train service, you never have to wait long for the next one.

It might be wise to consider an Ottawa by-pass as part of Phase 1. With only 15 trains per day (one less than today with Ottawa and Montreal combined), surely market growth will allow for express Montreal-Toronto trains while still maintaining 15 trains per day into Ottawa. In the long-run, this produces a better overall network rather than forcing all Montreal bound passengers through Ottawa.

Maybe it would be worth considering in the future, but not for Phase 1. Bypassing Ottawa would make it faster, but I suspect it would only reduce the travel time by less than an hour. A bypass route should only be used when demand for the train via Ottawa exceeds capacity (to ensure the frequency is kept high). Assuming that only happens a couple times a day, and you want that bypass track to be dedicated for passenger rail, it becomes very expensive, on a per train basis.

A dedicated (passenger rail only) express track only becomes viable when demand becomes high enough that they can fill hourly trains from both Ottawa and Montreal to Toronto (not just a couple express trains a day). That won't happen overnight. In the short term (when demand supports a couple express trains a day), they could borrow CP's Winchester Sub. (from Saint-Polycarpe to Smiths Falls). Not as good as dedicated a dedicated track, but it is overbuilt for CP's current needs so it shouldn't cause the same problems as the CN's track currently used.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The Montreal-Quebec section was a rather political addition but the route is still well used, probably much more so than southwestern Ontario, where service has been cut in recent years.

Nevertheless, we need to get this going even if it is Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto. Somehow, we need to find a way to speed up service between Montreal and Toronto to get the biggest ridership benefit possible. At this point, that route gets the least benefit, which is disappointing given that they are the two biggest cities.

It might be wise to consider an Ottawa by-pass as part of Phase 1. With only 15 trains per day (one less than today with Ottawa and Montreal combined), surely market growth will allow for express Montreal-Toronto trains while still maintaining 15 trains per day into Ottawa. In the long-run, this produces a better overall network rather than forcing all Montreal bound passengers through Ottawa.

That would be missing a large part of the point of the whole project. HFR combines three major routes (Toronto-Ottawa, Toronto-Montreal, Ottawa-Montreal) into a single line. That increases efficiency substantially. Ottawa isn't as far out of the way as people tend to think, making the trip to Montreal only slightly longer but still faster than today. Toronto-Ottawa is currently Via's busiest route and Ottawa is more connected to Toronto than Montreal is, at least per capita. It's absolutely essential to the business case of HFR.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Ridership counts are going to be a big measure of success. They are counting on massive increases in ridership. HFR's success cannot hang on the Ottawa-Toronto route alone. If we cannot count on more than a 15-20 minute saving on the route between Canada's two largest cities, how do we achieve ridership goals?

Higher frequencies, cheaper fares, much better reliability, regular departure times, etc. The fact that the trip to Montreal would be only 19 minutes faster isn't a fatal flaw. The plan isn't perfect but it's still a major improvement over what we currently have and our best chance at any real improvement to our rail network.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Growth that consistently outpace regional population growth and economic growth would be pretty remarkable if sustained. Implying either growth in marketshare for VIA or the creation of new markets. Unlikely to see 5% sustained in my opinion for that long. Especially since VIA is fundamentally capped by how much it can increase service while operating on CN's tracks.

I don't think population has much to do with how much train ridership can increase. Via's share of the market is so low right now that even a modest increase in modal share could mean a doubling of actual ridership.

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

And your right that there definitely is a limit on growth while the network infrastructure situation remains status quo.

But, that doesn't change the fact that all of sudden, in 2016, ridership suddenly increased, in a pretty substantial way, after decades of stagnation or decline. Why did that happen? What changed? From what I have seen, VIA didn't make any substantial changes. There were tiny upgrades here and there to tracks. There was no new equipment, though I guess many coaches had been renovated. There were some new stations in Belleville, Cobourg and Brockville in the past few years. Maybe the sum of all the small changes is what made the difference? Was the growth only on some routes, or was it network wide? Or is it something totally unrelated to VIA, like people hitting the tipping point of dealing with driving and the cost of parking when they go to Toronto and opting for the train instead?

Another thing Via has done is increase frequencies. There are now 10 daily trains between Toronto and Ottawa. They run roughly hourly for much of the day and it looks like Via has tried to make the schedule somewhat regular. This has happened in the same timeframe as selling their HFR plan, which is no coincidence. They're attempting to prove that a regular schedule and increased frequencies can significantly increase ridership. Their financial performance has improved in the last few years as well. Those benefits would be more pronounced with their own route.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

True, which makes a deal much more complicated and expensive to negotiate. But GO/Metrolinx's vision has been pretty clear for the past decade. They've gone from owning 30% of the tracks/corridors they operate on, to 80%. They know that is an absolute requirement for proper service. Negotiating with CP is going to be more challenging, just as they running into that issue with CN and the planned extension out to Niagara Falls. But just because it isn't easy doesn't mean it wont happen one day.

Anything is possible, but the entire logic behind this project is that the freight railways won’t give Via priority and the feds don’t want to use regulatory, statutory or financial powers. If you’re assumption is that the freight companies will change their mind then this project isn’t needed at all.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by mister f

that would be missing a large part of the point of the whole project. Hfr combines three major routes (toronto-ottawa, toronto-montreal, ottawa-montreal) into a single line. That increases efficiency substantially. Ottawa isn't as far out of the way as people tend to think, making the trip to montreal only slightly longer but still faster than today. Toronto-ottawa is currently via's busiest route and ottawa is more connected to toronto than montreal is, at least per capita. It's absolutely essential to the business case of hfr.

Exactly!

Via's share of the market is so low right now that even a modest increase in modal share could mean a doubling of actual ridership.

According to the Winter 2016 issue of Interchange, the modal share of travel between Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal is (was):

• 87% by car,
• 6% by plane, and
• 5% by train.

So VIA only needs to convince less than 6% of those who currently drive to take the train, to double their modal share.

[Gat-Train]

The comments in that article are truly disheartening... people should really take a trip to Europe and see what is possible.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Anything is possible, but the entire logic behind this project is that the freight railways won’t give Via priority and the feds don’t want to use regulatory, statutory or financial powers. If you’re assumption is that the freight companies will change their mind then this project isn’t needed at all.

I am not suggesting that the railways are suddenly going to be altruistic, good citizens and make a deal just to help out the passenger rail companies for the good of society. They exist to make money and both CP and CN know that many of their corridors, active or abandoned, are incredibly valuable to VIA, GO and other commuter agencies for that matter.

It will come down to money in the end. In 2009 GO was starting out with a lot that they needed purchase so the easy deals came first, and as the opportunities came up. And for the moment, they have a lot of corridors that they can modernize and make the most of. So there isn't an immediate pressure for them to make deals to fill in the gaps. But at some point they will have to finish what they started. So whether the solution at that time is to just pay large sums of money to get ownership of part the corridors, or maybe at that point the Feds will start swinging their stick and help GO, VIA, etc, out.

You could argue that HFR isn't the right route to go, and that they should just start spending the money to upgrade service in the existing corridors, and pay CN and CP tons of cash for access to their corridors, where ever that might be necessary. But HFR brings a reasonably modernized route into service a lot quicker, and at a reasonable cost, which is also important and valuable to the future of intercity rail.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I am not suggesting that the railways are suddenly going to be altruistic, good citizens and make a deal just to help out the passenger rail companies for the good of society. They exist to make money and both CP and CN know that many of their corridors, active or abandoned, are incredibly valuable to VIA, GO and other commuter agencies for that matter.

It will come down to money in the end. In 2009 GO was starting out with a lot that they needed purchase so the easy deals came first, and as the opportunities came up. And for the moment, they have a lot of corridors that they can modernize and make the most of. So there isn't an immediate pressure for them to make deals to fill in the gaps. But at some point they will have to finish what they started. So whether the solution at that time is to just pay large sums of money to get ownership of part the corridors, or maybe at that point the Feds will start swinging their stick and help GO, VIA, etc, out.

You could argue that HFR isn't the right route to go, and that they should just start spending the money to upgrade service in the existing corridors, and pay CN and CP tons of cash for access to their corridors, where ever that might be necessary. But HFR brings a reasonably modernized route into service a lot quicker, and at a reasonable cost, which is also important and valuable to the future of intercity rail.

That was already tried with zero success and it went way over budget at the same time. No sense in repeating failed history.

[JohnnyRenton]

Originally Posted by Gat-Train

The comments in that article are truly disheartening... people should really take a trip to Europe and see what is possible.

I'm sure most people here have been to Europe, or a good number of them. But changing a culture where the car has been king for several generations now, whether you are talking about transportation, or how cities are built, isn't going to change overnight.

There is a lot of reason to feel positive about the future of rail in Canada. If you look at what GO has done in the past decade, and what is coming up in just the next few years, they are going to have completely transformed a large part of that rail network from an antiquated relic of the past, into something modern. Since 2006 GO has spent around $8 billion on infrastructure (purchasing corridors, track upgrades, stations, etc, but excluding any fleet purchases) and is on track to kick off another $2-3 billion in infrastructure investment over the next few years. That doesn't even include the amount that will be spent on electrification.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, in 1998 only around 120km of track was owned by passenger rail companies. For its entire history, passenger trains had to run on freight lines. To run a modern passenger rail network it needs to have its own dedicated tracks (even if they are just single track sections is the less busy areas), and because the infrastructure GO and VIA are picking up, that means that they are essentially building the passenger rail network from the ground up. I think if you keep all that in perspective, there are far more reasons to feel positive about the future of rail in Canada, then there are reasons to pessimistic.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

I am not suggesting that the railways are suddenly going to be altruistic, good citizens and make a deal just to help out the passenger rail companies for the good of society. They exist to make money and both CP and CN know that many of their corridors, active or abandoned, are incredibly valuable to VIA, GO and other commuter agencies for that matter.

It will come down to money in the end. In 2009 GO was starting out with a lot that they needed purchase so the easy deals came first, and as the opportunities came up. And for the moment, they have a lot of corridors that they can modernize and make the most of. So there isn't an immediate pressure for them to make deals to fill in the gaps. But at some point they will have to finish what they started. So whether the solution at that time is to just pay large sums of money to get ownership of part the corridors, or maybe at that point the Feds will start swinging their stick and help GO, VIA, etc, out.

You could argue that HFR isn't the right route to go, and that they should just start spending the money to upgrade service in the existing corridors, and pay CN and CP tons of cash for access to their corridors, where ever that might be necessary. But HFR brings a reasonably modernized route into service a lot quicker, and at a reasonable cost, which is also important and valuable to the future of intercity rail.

Whether it is quicker or less costly depends entirely on what the solution is for the urban areas.

CN and CP have so far proved willing to sell off surplus or lightly-used tracks. They have not been willing to sell mainline, and it would be incredibly stupid to do so. The whole reason why we are in this situation is that freight is worth way more than passengers.