VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Island airport is 20 minutes by streetcar from Union Station. You can usually arrive about 40 minutes before the flight if you aren’t checking bags. Montreal to downtown is a challenge but the REM should get it down to 20 minutes.

Exactly. And this is why rail in the Corridor will need substantial investment to compete and a separation of TOM traffic from the Lakeshore. Can't be competitive without it.

Even HFR can only hope to be an hr slower than air door-to-door for Toronto-Ottawa. And only competitive with driving Toronto-Montreal. Anything more requires high speed rail.

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I still say a 3 1/2 rail journey is the more attractive option even if in your example the A to B journey comes in at 3 hours, or just a bit quicker.

3.5 hrs from Toronto to Montreal requires fully electric High Speed Rail that was estimated at $11B over a decade ago:

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-servic...ail-service-quebec-city-windsor-corridor

That would be at least $14B in current dollars assuming a very conservative 2% inflation (construction has been running substantially higher). So if you have any ideas under whose couch we should look for that much change, please let us know.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

[...]

Didn't you already promise us twice to leave this thread, snowflake?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Whatever these credentials are, and if there are any at all, have no relation to passenger rail travel or systems.

Ah yes. A guy who worked as a planner and scheduler at VIA knows nothing about passenger rail travel or systems.

We've gotten to the point where railfans think they know more than the pros by virtue of fandom. Ridiculous.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

Depending on how much funding potential investors are willing (and able) to provide, any travel time between five and (with Maglev technology) one hour is feasible. Therefore, I can't answer you any specific questions unless they refer to a specific proposal for which an approximate route and cost estimates exist...

Five hours, I think it was faster pre-WWI. No point building it then, that's far slower than driving or the bus. My goodness, a diesel-electric (full electrification is preferred but more expensive) 125 mph service is out of the question, but let's consider Maglev? France built the LGV-Est line capable of operations at 200 mph for about C$40 million per mile, so realistically my diesel-electric 125 mph proposal, a 2h15m service, should not cost more than $10 billion + stock (get it second hand if need be, at least the power) and that's being quite liberal. The investors are the federal and provincial governments, period. While there are examples to the contrary, PPPs are more often more expensive in the long-term than straight public financing.

Anyways, that's the last one.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Anyways, that's the last one.

We'll remind you of your words...

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Ah yes. A guy who worked as a planner and scheduler at VIA knows nothing about passenger rail travel or systems.

We've gotten to the point where railfans think they know more than the pros by virtue of fandom. Ridiculous.

You know nothing about me and so suggesting that I am purely a railfan has no basis in evidence. Anyways doesn't matter, the posts speak for themselves. See ya.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Whatever these credentials are, and if there are any at all, have no relation to passenger rail travel or systems. Your main issue appears to be that I arrived on this thread after you, an extreme example of pettiness. You don't have to read my posts and I would ask that you do not reply to them again. You're too negative for me and offer nothing interesting.

This is the problem with this thread. The poster you are talking to has put more effort into this thread than anyone else, posting reams of analysis using publicly available data to show why VIA has made the decisions it does. It's pretty disrespectful to claim you have more credentials than him, especially considering he offers up his personal identity.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

We'll remind you of your words...

Last one for you I meant. And just so you know, there's no seniority here.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You know nothing about me and so suggesting that I am purely a railfan has no basis in evidence. Anyways doesn't matter, the posts speak for themselves.

They do indeed. You know what they say. "Better to be thought a fool. Then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

See ya.

Bye Felicia.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They do indeed. You know what they say. "Better to be thought a fool. Then to open one's mouth and remove all doubt."



Bye Felicia.

You're another one that offers nothing, seemingly having little knowledge about even your own region, and your last line, how childish. Okay, bye Daphne, see you next Tuesday. Should I have put an icon in too?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

This is the problem with this thread. The poster you are talking to has put more effort into this thread than anyone else, posting reams of analysis using publicly available data to show why VIA has made the decisions it does. It's pretty disrespectful to claim you have more credentials than him, especially considering he offers up his personal identity.

Yep. Nobody has done more to make VIA's decision-making process less opaque. And thanks to his efforts, we at least understand that a lot of issues are less about management of resources than VIA just being substantially under-resourced. Yet all we get are railfans talking casually about $10B rail lines as if nobody has thought of just asking the government to fork over $10 billion dollars before....

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That would be at least $14B in current dollars assuming a very conservative 2% inflation (construction has been running substantially higher). So if you have any ideas under whose couch we should look for that much change, please let us know.

To be fair Canada could afford this with no issue whatsoever, we just choose not to. What is being lost or ignored in the conversation though is that even though many of us would be happy for Canada to spend that money, the decision has been repeatedly been negative. With that reality in mind, HFR is the last best option.

HFR won't be flashy but it will be a solid foundation for more improvement. I'm confident it will be successful, as long as it is built. If it doesn't get build, HSR won't be built immediately instead, there will have to be years more of pondering before a real study is done, then deliberation and maybe that time it will get built. Or maybe not.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

[...]

How many more final posts do you need, drama queen?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You're another one that offers nothing, seemingly having little knowledge about even your own region, and your last line, how childish. Okay, bye Daphne, see you next Tuesday. Should I have put an icon in too?

It's alright. I get why basement dwelling neckbeards have to insult others on an internet forum. It's all you've got, when you don't even have facts.

Also, I'm curious how old of a grandpa you must be to not understand the cultural reference made?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

To be fair Canada could afford this with no issue whatsoever, we just choose not to. What is being lost or ignored in the conversation though is that even though many of us would be happy for Canada to spend that money, the decision has been repeatedly been negative. With that reality in mind, HFR is the last best option.

We've had a half century of high speed rail talk and studies. And every time they study the price goes up, the government gets sticker shock and shelves the whole idea till another generation of politicians comes along a decade later. How long are we going to put up with this shit? I'd like to ride a moderately fast service in the Corridor in my lifetime. And I'm in my early 40s and not sure that's going to happen.

Originally Posted by milomilo

HFR won't be flashy but it will be a solid foundation for more improvement. I'm confident it will be successful, as long as it is built. If it doesn't get build, HSR won't be built immediately instead, there will have to be years more of pondering before a real study is done, then deliberation and maybe that time it will get built. Or maybe not.

HFR is sort of how HSR got built elsewhere. I didn't fully get this until Urban_Sky explained it. But now that I think of services I've taken in Europe it makes sense. It's the pre-requisite Higher Speed (and higher capacity) service we need to both justify and provide a pathway to HSR.

Getting to HSR may cost more in the end. But this is also the only way to get there, given that no government is willing to slap down $14-16B in one go. Unfortunately, our timid and inexperienced governments need a multi-billion dollar confidence building exercise before going all in.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

I still say a 3 1/2 rail journey is the more attractive option even if in your example the A to B journey comes in at 3 hours, or just a bit quicker.

It's marginally quicker to go from Central London to Edinburgh by air in comparison the fastest Flying Scotsman, but the railway completely dominates that market. The idea is to dramatically increase the market share. Railways have a marked advantage on trips at or below about 4 hours.

This is fine. Conventional wisdom has always been that rail excels at trips below about 500km/a few hours. So Toronto - Ottawa - Montreal makes sense, as does Calgary - Edmonton. Connecting the Atlantic cities make some sense too.

What does not make sense currently is routes between any of the other cities in the prairies. Not only are they all smaller than Calgary and Edmonton, they are much further apart. And there are almost no other significant population centres along the way.

If those cities have a long term goal of rail service (and where's the evidence they do?), then improving their bus links would be the best start. Since a bus will be far, far cheaper to run it can be run more frequently and will be faster and more reliable as well as having the flexibility to go where a train can't. If they end up with a bus route carrying thousands of passengers a day then, and only then, would it make sense to upgrade to rail service.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's alright. I get why basement dwelling neckbeards have to insult others on an internet forum. It's all you've got, when you don't even have facts.

Also, I'm curious how old of a grandpa you must be to not understand the cultural reference made?

An ageist as well as a moron. Low-brow pop culture has no interest to me.

You should join your buddy in Calgary who when asked to describe the highway link between Alberta's two largest cities, answered that the highway is pretty decent and traffic is picking up. What kind of dog crap answer is that? Similar to yours, not interesting and not informative. An exception is your $14 billion estimate in your post above, which if accurate is an excellent number and which investment would be recouped rather quickly. And you even said full-high speed and fully electrified, so by the modern definition that means up to 160 mph. That would mean the fastest trains in under 3 hours. You just made the argument of those who wish to see significant investment and improvements in Canada's passenger rail network, including of course myself, much stronger. Thanks, have a good weekend.

[Djeffery]

It's not like the government is being asked to write a check tomorrow for 10-15 billion dollars. How many years would HSR take to build out? The feds of either party always come out with wild-assed plans for things they plan to do a decade down the road. Surely a major economic boost like a several year construction project at a couple or three billion a year can be fit in the plans.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

It's not like the government is being asked to write a check tomorrow for 10-15 billion dollars. How many years would HSR take to build out? The feds of either party always come out with wild-assed plans for things they plan to do a decade down the road. Surely a major economic boost like a several year construction project at a couple or three billion a year can be fit in the plans.

HSR proposals have been tried many times though with no success. With their long term survival at stake, VIA are choosing to try a different approach. It's not as exciting, but it does make sense.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

You should join your buddy in Calgary who when asked to describe the highway link between Alberta's two largest cities, answered that the highway is pretty decent and traffic is picking up. What kind of dog crap answer is that?

Sorry, what? What was wrong with my answer? If one wants traffic data its just as easy as for you as it is for me to look that up but I gave an anecdotal description which I thought was appropriate to the context. If anyone wants more information they can ask.