VIA Rail network developments

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ever seen what's across from the river in Windsor? Or what's in between Vancouver and Kelowna?

And it's amazing how you ignore what's enroute between Toronto and Windsor. From the country's largest airport responsible for 6% of the province's GDP, to the 1.2 million (and growing) residents between Guelph, KWC and London.

Was it that hard to look at a map or was the cheapshot just too hard to resist?

The Airport, Kitchener and Guelph will have regular GO service once several infrastructure projects are completed. London and Windsor are better served by the more southerly and direct mainline. Spending big money on a London to Kitchener rail service makes no sense.

Between Vancouver and Kelowna there is very little population outside of Metro Vancouver (which, again is commuter rail territory).

I have no idea how anyone would possibly get the idea that a Via service in Windsor would effectively serve Detroit

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Airport, Kitchener and Guelph will have regular GO service once several infrastructure projects are completed.

GO is not a replacement for intercity rail service. It's why there's current VIA service there. It's why this was the preferred routing for the HSR. It's why Pearson is planning a massive multi-billion dollar transit hub and making provisions for intercity rail.

Arguing that no place with GO should have VIA service is laughable. Particularly from someone who claims to have lived in Europe. Tell me, when you lived there were intercity trains and commuter/suburban rail mutually exclusive?

Also looks like you're thinking from a Toronto-centric perspective. This line would also be very much about connecting London with Waterloo and Pearson, as it is about connecting London with Toronto.

Originally Posted by acottawa

London and Windsor are better served by the more southerly and direct mainline. Spending big money on a London to Kitchener rail service makes no sense.

Have you sent your resume to Metrolinx yet to be CEO? Clearly you know more than them. They've just announced huge investments to boost capacity from Toronto to Kitchener. Or maybe you should have had David Collenette's job when he recommended the Northern Mainline as preferred for HSR.

There's plenty of sense in using the Northern Mainline for any sort of frequent VIA service because the Southern Mainline is getting more and more congested with GO trains. Above all though, providing through service at Pearson (the country's largest airport) to Waterloo (a decent tech hub) and London (the major centre for Southwestern Ontario) has value in and of itself. Arguably places like Brantford would be better off with GO service than VIA service.

Originally Posted by acottawa

Between Vancouver and Kelowna there is very little population outside of Metro Vancouver (which, again is commuter rail territory).

Good point. And this is still a better investment than spending billions between Oshawa and Cornwall which was the original point of this tangent discussion, based on JohnnyRenton's insistence that building a Lakeshore corridor in addition to HFR is a good idea. You want to defend that?

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea how anyone would possibly get the idea that a Via service in Windsor would effectively serve Detroit

Really? Plenty of Detroit residents already take VIA from Windsor after crossing the border. This is about as dumb as saying you have no idea how Canadians use the Buffalo airport.

There's taxis that run between the VIA station and Detroit. I should hope that post HFR, VIA would simply put on an hourly shuttle into Detroit timed with the train to him up more riders.

[Truenorth00]

Why this was never part of the original REM plan or the airport upgrade is beyond me.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n...lion-into-linking-rem-and-dorval-station

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Airport, Kitchener and Guelph will have regular GO service once several infrastructure projects are completed. London and Windsor are better served by the more southerly and direct mainline. Spending big money on a London to Kitchener rail service makes no sense.

The southern mainline is the main freight route to Windsor and to Sarnia. Your plan would just add to the problems of delays due to freight train interference. Kitchener to London routing makes perfect sense.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea how anyone would possibly get the idea that a Via service in Windsor would effectively serve Detroit

Its called a tunnel and a station. Use the CP tunnel and Amtrak's station, build a Canada Customs pre-clearance and a US Customs facility in it and originate and terminate Windsor trains in Detroit with a stop in Windsor. This would provide connection to trains coming from Chicago to Detroit. There would be no border delays. There would only be delays to individual travellers, not to the whole train and passenger load.

[Truenorth00]

Again, my point here is that there are so many other projects that make sense ahead of building a parallel passenger rail corridor along the Lakeshore. There's no ridership to support that idea, if it's not carrying Toronto-Montreal traffic. There is ridership to support some kind of corridor through to London to Windsor, or between Calgary and Edmonton, etc. The specifics can be debated. What's clear is that they all rank above building exclusive passenger rail between Oshawa and Montreal, after HFR already exists.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Why this was never part of the original REM plan or the airport upgrade is beyond me.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n...lion-into-linking-rem-and-dorval-station

The planners were only looking at this as a project to get people to downtown Montreal. They were not looking at this from a broader viewpoint. Who cares about Ottawa passengers heading to PET airport, which will only increase if HFR gets off the ground? Who cares about Vaudreuil passengers who might want to get to the airport? They are the suburbs. Use a car.

It is just like our own transit planning that ends at the Quebec border even though that is in the middle of the city.

This is the flaw of all of these projects that are so provincial in orientation. They don't look at the whole picture and discount anybody coming from outside the province. They are nobodies.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

The planners were only looking at this as a project to get people to downtown Montreal.

Setting aside the VIA connection, there's an Exo station there and 100 000 residents living in Dorval. Terminating at the airport just makes no sense. Dorval's mayor argues it makes more sense to drive without the extension:

Under the current REM network, Rouleau said many West Island commuters will have to jump through several hoops to access the REM station at the airport. He said it will require commuters “getting off the STM bus, going to the intermodal hub, then take another bus to the airport, go down 35 metres to the REM station… I mean, forget it.

“For me, if I have to do all this, I’m just going to take my car downtown.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-n...e-his-car-downtown-without-rem-extension

I agree that it should not be in REM's remit to pay for a connection just to serve VIA. But with so many other users? Also, why weren't the feds stepping up to pay for the last 700m connection?

[CityTech]

The REM is a rushed plan, you can tell. Lots of little things missing.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again, my point here is that there are so many other projects that make sense ahead of building a parallel passenger rail corridor along the Lakeshore. There's no ridership to support that idea, if it's not carrying Toronto-Montreal traffic. There is ridership to support some kind of corridor through to London to Windsor, or between Calgary and Edmonton, etc. The specifics can be debated. What's clear is that they all rank above building exclusive passenger rail between Oshawa and Montreal, after HFR already exists.

You have way more knowledge on this than I do, but if they did an HFR project on the northern route to London, how do they increase the speed? Why does that train now take 3 1/2 hours to get to Toronto compared to a little over 2 hours through Brantford? Even leaving London, it goes so slow. I've been stopped by it 3 times in the same drive to the airport (Colborne St, Dundas at Hale and Oxford and Clarke lol). 3 1/2 hours isn't going to sell. Is it just the track itself needs upgrading or what"s the deal with that?

[OtrainUser]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

You have way more knowledge on this than I do, but if they did an HFR project on the northern route to London, how do they increase the speed? Why does that train now take 3 1/2 hours to get to Toronto compared to a little over 2 hours through Brantford? Even leaving London, it goes so slow. I've been stopped by it 3 times in the same drive to the airport (Colborne St, Dundas at Hale and Oxford and Clarke lol). 3 1/2 hours isn't going to sell. Is it just the track itself needs upgrading or what"s the deal with that?

Yes the tracks have to be upgraded to support higher speeds.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

You have way more knowledge on this than I do, but if they did an HFR project on the northern route to London, how do they increase the speed? Why does that train now take 3 1/2 hours to get to Toronto compared to a little over 2 hours through Brantford? Even leaving London, it goes so slow. I've been stopped by it 3 times in the same drive to the airport (Colborne St, Dundas at Hale and Oxford and Clarke lol). 3 1/2 hours isn't going to sell. Is it just the track itself needs upgrading or what"s the deal with that?

I would compare this to what VIA proposed from Montreal to Quebec City. It's almost exactly the same distance as Toronto-Kitchener-London. That's a ~3.5 hr trip today. VIA says they can get it to 2:20 hr consistently.

Given all that GO is investing up to Kitchener, I would bet that with some track upgrades from Kitchener to London, they could get Toronto to London to be closer to 2 hrs via Kitchener. Compare this to the Ontario HSR which proposed Toronto-London at 1:13 hrs. This is about 80 kph slower. But the same routing. The added benefit of this route being a connection to Kitchener in 45 mins and to Pearson in 1.5 hrs. London would benefit a ton.

And accomplishing that is a matter of upgrading the track and some of the at-grade crossings.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would compare this to what VIA proposed from Montreal to Quebec City. It's almost exactly the same distance as Toronto-Kitchener-London. That's a ~3.5 hr trip today. VIA says they can get it to 2:20 hr consistently.

Except that Montreal to Quebec City is much closer to Toronto-Sarnia and the better comparison to Toronto-Kitchener-London is Montreal-Ottawa:
Toronto-Brantford-London: 185 km
Montreal-Ottawa: 187 km
Toronto-Kitchener-London: 195 km
Quebec-Montreal: 272 km
Toronto-Brantford-London-Sarnia: 275 km
Toronto-Kitchner-London-Sarnia: 285 km

Given all that GO is investing up to Kitchener, I would bet that with some track upgrades from Kitchener to London, they could get Toronto to London to be closer to 2 hrs via Kitchener. Compare this to the Ontario HSR which proposed Toronto-London at 1:13 hrs. This is about 80 kph slower. But the same routing. The added benefit of this route being a connection to Kitchener in 45 mins and to Pearson in 1.5 hrs. London would benefit a ton.

And accomplishing that is a matter of upgrading the track and some of the at-grade crossings.

In one one of my very first posts on Urban Toronto, I argued that you could reduce the travel time Toronto-Kitchener-London to 97 minutes assuming modern rolling stock and the existing alignment upgraded to a design speed of 160 km/h. This only assumed one stop (Kitchener), but even a 7-stop service would have a travel time below 2 hours:

Source: my own post on Urban Toronto

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Except that Montreal to Quebec City is much closer to Toronto-Sarnia and the better comparison to Toronto-Kitchener-London is Montreal-Ottawa

I did a rough approximation on google maps using driving distance. If it's closer to Montreal-Ottawa that is even better. And puts that sub 2 hr travel time estimation on firmer footing.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

In one of my very first posts on Urban Toronto, I argued that you could reduce the travel time Toronto-Kitchener-London to 97 minutes assuming modern rolling stock and the existing alignment upgraded to a design speed of 160 km/h. This only assumed one stop (Kitchener), but even a 7-stop service would have a travel time below 2 hours.

Absolutely. It's a distance and corridor setup that's more in line, to my eyes anyway, with the kind of HSR commuter setups you see elsewhere. Even a trip that's close to 2 hrs +/- 10 mins and frequent would make a huge difference to London. I hope the day comes where this corridor is developed and sees the same 15-18 trains per day proposed for HFR today. I can imagine what that would do to Kitchener and London.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I Absolutely. It's a distance and corridor setup that's more in line, to my eyes anyway, with the kind of HSR commuter setups you see elsewhere. Even a trip that's close to 2 hrs +/- 10 mins and frequent would make a huge difference to London. I hope the day comes where this corridor is developed and sees the same 15-18 trains per day proposed for HFR today. I can imagine what that would do to Kitchener and London.

I agree. For a distance of under 200 km, HSR would provide little benefit over HFR but would be much more expensive. Frequency and reliability are far more important.

If GO is offering frequent service to KW, I would suggest that there only be one stop between them (possibly at or near YYZ).

My only concern with sharing track with GO is will the track be upgraded enough for VIA to not be delayed by GO trains? Are the plans to fully double track the line or just have long sidings?

[Dengler Avenue]

Right now Metrolinx is adding the 4th track between Etobicoke North and Union Station to completely separate UP Express from Kitchener Line. VIA might need to consider something like that too. That said, track-sharing might not be possible if we’re talking about speed differential of 40 km/h (120 km/h for Go, 160 km/h for VIA, for example).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Right now Metrolinx is adding the 4th track between Etobicoke North and Union Station to completely separate UP Express from Kitchener Line. VIA might need to consider something like that too. That said, track-sharing might not be possible if we’re talking about speed differential of 40 km/h (120 km/h for Go, 160 km/h for VIA, for example).

I figure if HFR happens, there will be some kind of management plan on how they share the tracks. Slower speeds in busier corridor. Consolidation of service....maybe GO and UPE merge and UPE is replaced with a people mover connecting to a frequent GO service at Malton.

There's also the $11 billion transit hub that Pearson has said they'll build and are planning for.

[lrt's friend]

Sorry, too late to apply for this job at VIA Rail regarding the HFR project.

https://ca.linkedin.com/jobs/view/projec...y-rail-hfr-at-via-rail-canada-1362898623

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by JohnnyRenton

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?

Originally Posted by Mister F

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.

Just to provide some timetable data:

Compiled from: historic VIA Rail and CN timetables

As you can see, VIA Rail’s remaining Corridor routes have exceeded the April 1989 service levels (i.e. the last timetable before the January 1990 cuts) since October 2015 and are now (166,801 km) 52.3% higher than in January 1990 (109,516 km), 16.6% higher than in July 2014 (142,997 km), 9% higher than in April 1989 (153,019 km) and only 2.6% lower than the all-time high in June 1985 (171,190 km).

As for the Corridor East (i.e. all Corridor routes east of Toronto), these services have exceeded the April 1989 service levels since January 2000 and are now (119,219 km) 83.8% higher than in January 1990 (64,876 km), 23.8% higher than in July 2014 (96,307 km), 38.5% higher than in April 1989 (86,058 km, the last timetable before the January 1990 cuts) and still 19% higher than the pre-1990 high in June 1985 (100,160 km), having exceeded that previous record since June 2015.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Just to provide some timetable data:

Compiled from: historic VIA Rail and CN timetables

As you can see, VIA Rail’s remaining Corridor routes have exceeded the April 1989 service levels (i.e. the last timetable before the January 1990 cuts) since October 2015 and are now (166,801 km) 52.3% higher than in January 1990 (109,516 km), 16.6% higher than in July 2014 (142,997 km), 9% higher than in April 1989 (153,019 km) and only 2.6% lower than the all-time high in June 1985 (171,190 km).

As for the Corridor East (i.e. all Corridor routes east of Toronto), these services have exceeded the April 1989 service levels since January 2000 and are now (119,219 km) 83.8% higher than in January 1990 (64,876 km), 23.8% higher than in July 2014 (96,307 km), 38.5% higher than in April 1989 (86,058 km, the last timetable before the January 1990 cuts) and still 19% higher than the pre-1990 high in June 1985 (100,160 km), having exceeded that previous record since June 2015.

You need to add the trains operated by CP Rail to your graph, especially between Montreal - Quebec. Are the trains such as the Ocean and the St Laurent that stopped in Levis rather than Ste Foy or Quebec as being part of the Montreal - Quebec total? What about the pooled trains between Ottawa and Toronto running on CP trackage? Rather than list weekly mileages it would be more user friendly to graph the weekly train frequency on each route. This would increase the frequency in the 1960's and show the real impact of government cut backs over the years which to date have not been reversed.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

You need to add the trains operated by CP Rail to your graph, especially between Montreal - Quebec.

I was explicitly referring to "VIA Rail’s remaining Corridor routes" (i.e. those Corridor routes, which survived the 1990 cuts), but if you have such a clear opinion about what I should make my figure about, then why don't you create your own (I've linked to my timetable archives, which includes several gigabytes of CN, CP and VIA timetables, so more than enough to find whatever answers you are looking for)? Or maybe you could just ask politely if it wasn't too much of an inconvenience for me to also add certain routes and I might even feel compelled to do the work myself, because (as you might have guessed), I have already created a timetable database, which makes any timetable analysis dramatically less time consuming than working yourself through hundreds of PDFs...

Are the trains such as the Ocean and the St Laurent that stopped in Levis rather than Ste Foy or Quebec as being part of the Montreal - Quebec total?

I've only counted Corridor trains and therefore no trains which continue beyond the CMA of Quebec City. However, I have counted transcontinental trains between Montreal and Ottawa (provided they operated via the Alexandria Subdivision) and international trains between Toronto and Sarnia-Chicago or Windsor-Detroit (provided they operated via the Dundas or Guelph Subdivisions), as these trains acted as Corridor trains and linked through London, Sarnia or Windsor, rather than only serving an adjacent city on the opposite side of the river (as in Quebec City with Levis).

What about the pooled trains between Ottawa and Toronto running on CP trackage?

The routes via the Havelock or Belleville subdivisions have been abandoned in 1965/66 and are therefore none of the remaining corridor routes. However, once HFR becomes reality, I will of course include the services via Havelock and Trois-Rivières.

Rather than list weekly mileages it would be more user friendly to graph the weekly train frequency on each route.

Agreed, but this would not allow to meaningfully aggregate multiple routes and would make it difficult to allow for trains serving only part of a route (e.g. Toronto-Kitchener vs. Toronto-Kitchener-London-Sarnia).

This would increase the frequency in the 1960's and show the real impact of government cut backs over the years which to date have not been reversed.

You see, you are trying to make an entirely different point than I do: I'm arguing that the cuts in frequency on VIA's surviving Corridor routes have been almost reversed (or more than reversed, if we exclude Southwestern Ontario), whereas nobody denies that there were more intercity rail services offered throughout the 1980s over the railway network across the entire Corridor than there are today...