VIA Rail network developments

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by CityTech

There's also a corn ethanol factory in Havelock that appears to be connected (in fact, it's where the railway line ends) that I imagine would receive corn shipments by rail as well.

As quoted by Urban_Sky in post #1789, the primary customers on the Havelock were (in 2010), "General Electric, Quaker Oats, Canada Malt, Canwell Lumber, Trent Timber Treating Ltd and Unimin Corporation. All of these clients are located either in Peterborough or towards the eastern end of the line."

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You may be right, and they will approve no matter the cost (particularity with the Bloc holding the balance of power). But the whole point of this was to be dramatically cheaper than other options. If this is not the case, I think there should be a costing of alternatives, including higher-speed options (probably not full blown HSR, but faster than what they're planning), a proper greenfield line, and maybe paying CN and CP to consolidate operations in Eastern Ontario to free up the other line for passenger service.

That kind of detailed sensitivity analysis can only be done as part of a $70 million study. Can't get that kind of detail with $3M.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think that is a good point that Via does not have sufficient research budget. But if as Urban Sky says the analysis was done by external engineering firms, I have yet to see a good explanation for the secrecy. Public transportation companies that have a research budget publish their work.

I don't ever recall seeing any sort of preliminary analysis or internally commissioned studies ever released publicly. Metrolinx, for example, only puts out finished product. Full business cases. They won't provide any commissioned work that supports their business cases or technical assessments. At least not ahead of whatever they are publishing completely. Also, dunno which government department you worked in, but at least for us at DND, we've commissioned multi-million dollar engineering studies or surveys and you won't get a copy without ATIP, even though nothing is classified. I don't see any obligation to release work commissioned for internal consumption.

If the caveat is that VIA is making claims, well you should be happy about their updated website. They've removed all information on costs, CO2 reduction, and their only claim on travel time is caveated with "as low as"...

Originally Posted by acottawa

There was an hour-ish proposal for Ottawa-Montreal. Unfortunately Via Fast was a political disaster that was basically dead on arrival.

I am not sure how feasible it would be. The 1:33 hr I've seen proposed previously for HFR is plenty believable. I am just wondering what it would take to get to say 1:15hr. That 18 min cut would do wonders for the commutability of Ottawa-Montreal and make Toronto-Montreal 4.5 hrs. They don't have to get down to 1 hr. But every little bit helps here.

Originally Posted by roger1818

I think you are putting too much weight on travel times. A quoted travel time on the schedule is meaningless if the train is frequently more than 15 minutes late. It also doesn't help if the schedule doesn't match yours and you end up having to wait over an hour for the next train.

This is the entire point of HFR though. To improve reliability and user flexibility (through increased frequencies and optimal timings). With that in mind, talking about how reduced travel times can benefit is the tier of discussion beyond that.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Fixing those issues should be VIA's first priority. Once they are resolved, then they can work on gradually reducing travel times. This can be done gradually by grade separating crossings and increasing the amount of double track.

These issues will be fixed anyway as part of HFR. But if they are going to be doing track work or building a separations or crossings, perhaps now is the time to invest more to maximize return.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Kingston is approximately 175 km from Ottawa, 250 km from Toronto, and 300 km from Montreal. Of those three, only Toronto is large enough to possibly consider Kingston an exurb. For Ottawa, I would consider Smiths Falls (about 70 km) and possibly Brockville (about 115 km) to be exubs, but not Kingston. I just can't see any reason why anyone would commute regularly from Kingston to Ottawa or Montreal. An occasional day trip is another matter though.

Could be the millitary me, but I know several people that work out of Kingston or commute back and forth. And since Ottawa is the closest major city for them, it's much more feasible for Kingston to be an exurb for Ottawa than it would be for Toronto or Montreal. Conditional on having a proper rail link to support that kind of commuting. Keep in mind that exurbs aren't suburbs. Most exurban commuters aren't going in everyday. But they need decently timed departures that will let them do a full or even extended day in the city.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Well, more like 300 km. This is all speculative because of the Via secrecy, but if Via's plan is to build track in the CP ROW then it makes little difference (to CP) the distance this occurs. The CP ROW is probably 50 feet. If VIA needs to buy/lease, 20 feet (as an example) then that prevents future expansion on the entire sub (unless CP wanted to create a bottleneck).

I was referring to the ~500 km of CN mainline that Via currently uses between Toronto and Montreal.

Using the CP mainline would be just as problematic as the CN mainline. It's CP's backbone and they are not going to give, sell, or lease part of it to Via no matter how wide it is. It's simply not going to happen. The Havelock sub, OTOH, is marginal for CP. With HFR CP benefits from a basically brand new line and Via gets control over the vast majority of the route. It's win-win.

Originally Posted by roger1818

It may make little difference to CP, but the cost difference to VIA would be massive. As I said in my previous post, east of the Toronto Yard, the Belleville is single track. To share it with CP, it would have to be at least double tracked if not triple tracked. This is heavily developed land with many crossings that have high traffic volumes. Many of the crossings are grade separated for single track. Widening them for double or triple track would be very expensive.

The Havelock Sub has far fewer crossings and they have much lower traffic volumes. This will result in a much smaller number of grade separations required. They could probably (a guess on my part) grade separate all crossings on it for less than only widening the existing grade separations on the Belleville Sub.

Not that this affects your point at all but the Havelock sub has just as many crossings as the equivalent part of the Belleville sub. It runs through farmland with crossings at basically every concession block. It's not until east of Havelock that the ROW hits the Canadian Shield and the crossings get far apart.

Rural crossings aren't really a factor though, other than the fact that they'll all have to be upgraded to accommodate faster trains. No need for grade separations though.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Mister F

I was referring to the ~500 km of CN mainline that Via currently uses between Toronto and Montreal.

Using the CP mainline would be just as problematic as the CN mainline. It's CP's backbone and they are not going to give, sell, or lease part of it to Via no matter how wide it is. It's simply not going to happen. The Havelock sub, OTOH, is marginal for CP. With HFR CP benefits from a basically brand new line and Via gets control over the vast majority of the route. It's win-win.


Not that this affects your point at all but the Havelock sub has just as many crossings as the equivalent part of the Belleville sub. It runs through farmland with crossings at basically every concession block. It's not until east of Havelock that the ROW hits the Canadian Shield and the crossings get far apart.

Rural crossings aren't really a factor though, other than the fact that they'll all have to be upgraded to accommodate faster trains. No need for grade separations though.

I have no idea what CPs views are or what (if any) discussions Via or Transport Canada has had with them. But the HFR is predicated on VIA getting access to significant chunks of the CP mainline (or spending a lot of money bypassing those areas). If you are right and CP is not willing to do this then it has a significant impact on the cost or viability of this proposal. The Havelock Sub and QGR are not autonomous train lines, they are current or former CP branch lines, currently tightly integrated into the CP rail network and dependent on other track to get anywhere.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That kind of detailed sensitivity analysis can only be done as part of a $70 million study. Can't get that kind of detail with $3M.



I don't ever recall seeing any sort of preliminary analysis or internally commissioned studies ever released publicly. Metrolinx, for example, only puts out finished product. Full business cases. They won't provide any commissioned work that supports their business cases or technical assessments. At least not ahead of whatever they are publishing completely. Also, dunno which government department you worked in, but at least for us at DND, we've commissioned multi-million dollar engineering studies or surveys and you won't get a copy without ATIP, even though nothing is classified. I don't see any obligation to release work commissioned for internal consumption.

If the caveat is that VIA is making claims, well you should be happy about their updated website. They've removed all information on costs, CO2 reduction, and their only claim on travel time is caveated with "as low as"...



I am not sure how feasible it would be. The 1:33 hr I've seen proposed previously for HFR is plenty believable. I am just wondering what it would take to get to say 1:15hr. That 18 min cut would do wonders for the commutability of Ottawa-Montreal and make Toronto-Montreal 4.5 hrs. They don't have to get down to 1 hr. But every little bit helps here.



This is the entire point of HFR though. To improve reliability and user flexibility (through increased frequencies and optimal timings). With that in mind, talking about how reduced travel times can benefit is the tier of discussion beyond that.




These issues will be fixed anyway as part of HFR. But if they are going to be doing track work or building a separations or crossings, perhaps now is the time to invest more to maximize return.



Could be the millitary me, but I know several people that work out of Kingston or commute back and forth. And since Ottawa is the closest major city for them, it's much more feasible for Kingston to be an exurb for Ottawa than it would be for Toronto or Montreal. Conditional on having a proper rail link to support that kind of commuting. Keep in mind that exurbs aren't suburbs. Most exurban commuters aren't going in everyday. But they need decently timed departures that will let them do a full or even extended day in the city.

Yes, I agree different parts of the federal government have distant standards for releasing information. Departments or agencies dealing with sensitive information obviously have a higher standard. But I am not sure DND should be the baseline for Via to be judged against.

I would suggest a second look at the Metrolinx website. They publish commissioned reports at various stages in the development process. This, for example is a series of reports Metrolinx published in the leadup to UPX, none was a complete business case.

Georgetown Corridor Airport Rail Link Forecasting Update – December 2011
Toronto Airport Rail Link Comparator Rail Links and Other Services – June 2012
Toronto Union Pearson Express Ridership Forecast Update – May 2013
Toronto Union Pearson Express Ridership Forecast Summary Results – June 2013
Air Rail Link Customer Experience and Business Strategy & Plan
Air Rail Link Study (Discrete Choice)
ARL Market Assessment Final Report – November 2011


For the Relief Line they published an initial business case in 2015, and then a full business case in 2018. For the Kitenener and Niagara projects they have only published initial cases so far (presumably with the full business case to come). Metorlinx also publishes feasibility studies for projects for which it has not developed a business case (the Peterborough project, for example).

I may be wrong, but I would think military people in Kingston disproportionately live East of the river to avoid the need to cross the bridge every day. By the time they get to the train station they could have covered significant ground on the road to Ottawa. I don't think there is any reason to expect regional trains out of Kingston to be either more reliable or faster than existing Via service.

[Mister F]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea what CPs views are or what (if any) discussions Via or Transport Canada has had with them. But the HFR is predicated on VIA getting access to significant chunks of the CP mainline (or spending a lot of money bypassing those areas). If you are right and CP is not willing to do this then it has a significant impact on the cost or viability of this proposal. The Havelock Sub and QGR are not autonomous train lines, they are current or former CP branch lines, currently tightly integrated into the CP rail network and dependent on other track to get anywhere.

Not that any of us have access to behind the scenes discussions, but it's been explained to you multiple times that with HFR CP gets one of their marginal lines completely rebuilt for free. Even if they sell the line to Via it would be a massive improvement to the freight operations there. All they need to do is grant Via the right to use a small stretch of their mainline ROW between Perth and Smiths Falls. Hell, they'd even get the flexibility of running trains east from Havelock if they want to, without having to pay for the infrastructure. That's a benefit even if they could only do it at night. If Via tries to use the Belleville sub then CP gets none of these things, they just get Via intruding on the backbone of their operations.

Sure we don't know officially what CP's views are but the fact that Via uses almost none of their tracks in the entire country should give you a pretty good idea. Railways are extremely protective of their rights of way and their interests. They don't want another agency interfering with their infrastructure unless they get something in return. In the case of HFR, CP gets a lot and gives up little.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I am not sure how feasible it would be. The 1:33 hr I've seen proposed previously for HFR is plenty believable. I am just wondering what it would take to get to say 1:15hr. That 18 min cut would do wonders for the commutability of Ottawa-Montreal and make Toronto-Montreal 4.5 hrs. They don't have to get down to 1 hr. But every little bit helps here.

Knocking even an extra 15 minutes off of a 90 minute trip is not trivial and would push the plan into the realm of HSR.

This is the entire point of HFR though. To improve reliability and user flexibility (through increased frequencies and optimal timings). With that in mind, talking about how reduced travel times can benefit is the tier of discussion beyond that.

You are talking as if HFR is a done deal and you are proposing enhancements to an already approved plan. By pushing for feature creep at this early stage risks having the whole plan rejected. Lets push to get HFR built and then worry about future improvements.

These issues will be fixed anyway as part of HFR. But if they are going to be doing track work or building a separations or crossings, perhaps now is the time to invest more to maximize return.

I agree that new track with grade separations should be built to Class 7 standards, but upgrades track that wasn't going to be touched or adding grade separations that aren't being planned for can wait and be done in the future.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I have no idea what CPs views are or what (if any) discussions Via or Transport Canada has had with them. But the HFR is predicated on VIA getting access to significant chunks of the CP mainline (or spending a lot of money bypassing those areas). If you are right and CP is not willing to do this then it has a significant impact on the cost or viability of this proposal. The Havelock Sub and QGR are not autonomous train lines, they are current or former CP branch lines, currently tightly integrated into the CP rail network and dependent on other track to get anywhere.

If you think 12% ( (15.5 miles + 9.3 miles) / 206.3 miles ) is a significant chunk, then I don't know what to say.

As I said before, the parts they need are extremely easy to deal with. It is the parts along the lakeshore that would be difficult, especially the part through Belleville, where there is pressure to have CP abandon the track. If CP does end up abandoning the part of the Belleville sub through Belleville (ironic I know) and uses CN's track, that would make the Lakeshore even worse for VIA.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Yes, I agree different parts of the federal government have distant standards for releasing information. Departments or agencies dealing with sensitive information obviously have a higher standard. But I am not sure DND should be the baseline for Via to be judged against.

I would suggest a second look at the Metrolinx website. They publish commissioned reports at various stages in the development process. This, for example is a series of reports Metrolinx published in the leadup to UPX, none was a complete business case.

Georgetown Corridor Airport Rail Link Forecasting Update – December 2011
Toronto Airport Rail Link Comparator Rail Links and Other Services – June 2012
Toronto Union Pearson Express Ridership Forecast Update – May 2013
Toronto Union Pearson Express Ridership Forecast Summary Results – June 2013
Air Rail Link Customer Experience and Business Strategy & Plan
Air Rail Link Study (Discrete Choice)
ARL Market Assessment Final Report – November 2011


For the Relief Line they published an initial business case in 2015, and then a full business case in 2018. For the Kitenener and Niagara projects they have only published initial cases so far (presumably with the full business case to come). Metorlinx also publishes feasibility studies for projects for which it has not developed a business case (the Peterborough project, for example).

I may be wrong, but I would think military people in Kingston disproportionately live East of the river to avoid the need to cross the bridge every day. By the time they get to the train station they could have covered significant ground on the road to Ottawa. I don't think there is any reason to expect regional trains out of Kingston to be either more reliable or faster than existing Via service.

They do generally live east of the river, but with the John Counter bridge under construction, driving from the east-of-river suburbs of Kingston to the train station will actually be pretty fast.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by CityTech

They do generally live east of the river, but with the John Counter bridge under construction, driving from the east-of-river suburbs of Kingston to the train station will actually be pretty fast.

Are there plans to have John Counter Bvd cross the Cataraqui River? That is an awfully wide part of the river for a crossing (I measure it to be over 1 km wide).

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Are there plans to have John Counter Bvd cross the Cataraqui River? That is an awfully wide part of the river for a crossing (I measure it to be over 1 km wide).

Yes. It started preliminary construction this year and is expected to be finished in 2023.

https://thirdcrossing.cityofkingston.ca/

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by CityTech

Yes. It started preliminary construction this year and is expected to be finished in 2023.

https://thirdcrossing.cityofkingston.ca/

Wow! That is quite the project! The residents along Kenwoods Cir must not be happy.

[CityTech]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Wow! That is quite the project! The residents along Kenwoods Cir must not be happy.

I think it's been planned for decades.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

If you think 12% ( (15.5 miles + 9.3 miles) / 206.3 miles ) is a significant chunk, then I don't know what to say.

As I said before, the parts they need are extremely easy to deal with. It is the parts along the lakeshore that would be difficult, especially the part through Belleville, where there is pressure to have CP abandon the track. If CP does end up abandoning the part of the Belleville sub through Belleville (ironic I know) and uses CN's track, that would make the Lakeshore even worse for VIA.

Plus Montreal, where trains have to get from Coteau to Laval via central montreal. I don't know what routing Via is planning through Montreal (because that's a state secret), but that distance is 70 km by car (so 40 miles might be a good guestimate).

CP is not going to abandon the track because a municipal government wants it, and even if they did, Via could use the abandoned track (which is more centrally located for passenger service).

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by CityTech

They do generally live east of the river, but with the John Counter bridge under construction, driving from the east-of-river suburbs of Kingston to the train station will actually be pretty fast.

That's a good point. Maybe Via could look at demand once the bridge is done.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Plus Montreal, where trains have to get from Coteau to Laval via central montreal.

I agree that getting through Montreal will be challenging and will be far more difficult than the bits west of Ottawa that you have been moaning about up until now. The thing is, it will be a problem regardless of which route they use.

I don't know what routing Via is planning through Montreal (because that's a state secret), but that distance is 70 km by car (so 40 miles might be a good guestimate).

I suspect that VIA doesn't even know exactly which route they will end up using as there are several options. They probably have a leading candidate, but that could change if the Environmental Assessment says that another option is better.

CP is not going to abandon the track because a municipal government wants it, and even if they did, Via could use the abandoned track (which is more centrally located for passenger service).

I agree, but they might if it is financially advantageous to do so. See:

St-Luc rail yards relocation could earn CP half-billion dollars: Libman

Even with the cost of moving the St-Luc rail yard off the island and decontaminating the 200 hectares of land they sit on, Canadian Pacific could make half a billion dollars by relocating them, according to a feasibility study conducted by McGill University graduate students.

https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/st-luc-rail-yards-relocation-could-earn-cp-half-billion-dollars-libman

[Allandale25]

Thread of 36 tweets.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214542142762127362

[daud]

Originally Posted by Allandale25

Thread of 36 tweets.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1214542142762127362

Amazing thread with lots of data...Ottawa and Barrhaven really pulling their weight in terms of ridership adn growth.

~600K Ottawa
~120K Barrhaven

Up from ~400 and ~50 respectively in 2008.

the graphic showing increases by station is impressive:

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by daud

Amazing thread with lots of data...Ottawa and Barrhaven really pulling their weight in terms of ridership adn growth.

~600K Ottawa
~120K Barrhaven

Up from ~400 and ~50 respectively in 2008.

the graphic showing increases by station is impressive:

This is a result of increasing frequency to 10 trains a day from 3 or 4 a day. Further increases will be seen when and if Via has its own ROW and can run trains faster and with more reliability.

The service west of Toronto has seen nothing but reductions in frequency over the years since 1990. In 1990 there were 5 trips a day between London - Kitchener - Toronto and 6 trips a day between London - Brantford - Toronto for a total of 11 round trips per day between London and Toronto.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

This is a result of increasing frequency to 10 trains a day from 3 or 4 a day. Further increases will be seen when and if Via has its own ROW and can run trains faster and with more reliability.

The service west of Toronto has seen nothing but reductions in frequency over the years since 1990. In 1990 there were 5 trips a day between London - Kitchener - Toronto and 6 trips a day between London - Brantford - Toronto for a total of 11 round trips per day between London and Toronto.

Great evidence for HFR's thesis of frequency increasing ridership. Not so great for Lakeshore service at Kingston though. Can fewer and better timed trains actually get higher ridership?

Does really slow how much traffic is there between the major metros (including their burbs).

Wanted to add. Absolutely amazing work by Johnny Renton.