VIA Rail

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Some here have pitched it as being faster than flying or it wont work. There are people on here who are in the HFR/HSR or don't do it. I say get it going at a reasonable speed, at a reasonable frequency to be relevant. The key will be to get departures to work for people doing business trips in the other city.

A reasonable speed and a reasonable frequency is HFR. And it requires its own ROW, and that requires a decent amount of money. And if you're spending that money, you're building HSR anyway.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

A reasonable speed and a reasonable frequency is HFR. And it requires its own ROW, and that requires a decent amount of money. And if you're spending that money, you're building HSR anyway.

once every 4 hours each way would be reasonable, but not that frequent.

HSR is not just a new ROW.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

once every 4 hours each way would be reasonable, but not that frequent.

HSR is not just a new ROW.

No one would use a service that has a frequency of 4 hours (that would also be slow), so it would be pointless to spend any amount of money on.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

No one would use a service that has a frequency of 4 hours (that would also be slow), so it would be pointless to spend any amount of money on.

Who said it would take 4 hours? Let's say it takes 3 hours. That extra hour is turn around time, or time built into the schedule to ensure it leaves on time.

For 1000 seats, you do not need a higher frequency to meet it every day. 5 coaches that seat 50 people can easily equal 800 people.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

once every 4 hours each way would be reasonable, but not that frequent.

Once every 4 hrs is useless.

Urban Sky has already explained this. And his explanation lines up with modeling from elsewhere. Passengers basically add half the headway time to their trip time and assume that is the travel time.
Roughly. So a 2 hr train ride with a 4 hr wait between trains is treated as a 2+4/2 = 4 hrs train ride mentally by passengers.

This is the reason VIA is pushing for hourly service at launch on HFR. And in due course it might be down to semi-hourly. VIA is already at nearly hourly service on Corridor East anyway.

CalEd is a corridor that doesn't just have intercity traffic. It also has commuter traffic. And any rail service needs to be designed for that. It needs to schedule closer to a GO train than a VIA train. So hourly service all day. And semi-hourly at peak.

Less than that and there's just no point. When you can almost drive between the two cities in the time it takes to wait for your train, the train becomes useless. Any CalEd service that is less than bi-hourly will fail. And more than likely, anything less than hourly will require a massive amount of subsidy and won't see much gain in share.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Who said it would take 4 hours? Let's say it takes 3 hours. That extra hour is turn around time, or time built into the schedule to ensure it leaves on time.

It's still 4 hrs between departures. Bus companies would offer hourly departures and steal most of the passengers on this route.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For 1000 seats, you do not need a higher frequency to meet it every day. 5 coaches that seat 50 people can easily equal 800 people.

This is exactly what I was saying earlier. It's flawed to use air traffic as a guide.

There's a lot more than 1000 people travelling between Calgary and Edmonton per day. But most of them are driving and taking the bus. Any rail service has to steal off them. Can't even dream of touching air passengers with a train than runs less than bi-hourly (frequency of flights).

I'm pretty sure all those reports for Alberta HSR will have reached the same conclusions on frequency too. They would literally be better off doing a two car DMU (like the UPE) every hr than a 5 car loco pulled train running every 4 hrs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Who said it would take 4 hours? Let's say it takes 3 hours. That extra hour is turn around time, or time built into the schedule to ensure it leaves on time.

For 1000 seats, you do not need a higher frequency to meet it every day. 5 coaches that seat 50 people can easily equal 800 people.

I didn't actually say it would take 4 hours, I said it would be slow. But unless you build new track, 4 hours is probably accurate. And thus slower and less convenient than driving or taking a bus.

Therefore, it is utterly pointless trying to run trains on the existing track at low frequencies and low speeds. At a minimum you need a single track dedicated to passenger rail, and if you are making that investment then it would be idiotic not to run it at a decent speed and frequency. And when the time comes in Alberta the question will be asked of why spend $5B on slow rail when you could spend a bit more to get something much better.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's still 4 hrs between departures. Bus companies would offer hourly departures and steal most of the passengers on this route.

This is exactly what I was saying earlier. It's flawed to use air traffic as a guide.

There's a lot more than 1000 people travelling between Calgary and Edmonton per day. But most of them are driving and taking the bus. Any rail service has to steal off them. Can't even dream of touching air passengers with a train than runs less than bi-hourly (frequency of flights).

I'm pretty sure all those reports for Alberta HSR will have reached the same conclusions on frequency too. They would literally be better off doing a two car DMU (like the UPE) every hr than a 5 car loco pulled train running every 4 hrs.

I was going to ask if you were expecting a 4-5 car train to run at hour frequencies. I was thinking something simple as my idea would need 2 engines and 10 cars, of which all might be salvaged from the existing Corridor fleet when the Chargers come online. With hour frequencies, you'd need 6-10 sets of 2 car DMUs. That is still about the same 1000 seats. I'm not apposed to that.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I didn't actually say it would take 4 hours, I said it would be slow. But unless you build new track, 4 hours is probably accurate. And thus slower and less convenient than driving or taking a bus.

Therefore, it is utterly pointless trying to run trains on the existing track at low frequencies and low speeds. At a minimum you need a single track dedicated to passenger rail, and if you are making that investment then it would be idiotic not to run it at a decent speed and frequency. And when the time comes in Alberta the question will be asked of why spend $5B on slow rail when you could spend a bit more to get something much better.

It appears to be a single track. Putting a double track in, to achieve hour frequencies with smaller trains would make some sense. Laying the ~300km of track could be seen as a stimulus project. At that distance, if it were timed well, there wouldn't be a need for the train to use the other track. Just have a passing siding or few in well positioned areas.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Therefore, it is utterly pointless trying to run trains on the existing track at low frequencies and low speeds. At a minimum you need a single track dedicated to passenger rail, and if you are making that investment then it would be idiotic not to run it at a decent speed and frequency. And when the time comes in Alberta the question will be asked of why spend $5B on slow rail when you could spend a bit more to get something much better.

Wasn't $5B the HSR estimate?

In any event, $5B in the worst case should allow for ~300 km of Class 6 track with some grade separation and tunneling in urban areas. That
should allow running at 177 kph/110 mph. With stops, slower running in urban and suburban areas and approaches to stations, this should mean a travel time of ~2.5 hrs from centre to centre.

The question of spending more becomes all about the potential commuter market from cities in between. Notably Red Deer. Would say spending a billion or two more to cut 15-20 mins from Red Deer to Calgary or Edmonton, bring in that much in development to Red Deer. Is it even worthwhile to develop Red Deer? This is the kind of tradeoff they'd have to look at.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I was going to ask if you were expecting a 4-5 car train to run at hour frequencies. I was thinking something simple as my idea would need 2 engines and 10 cars, of which all might be salvaged from the existing Corridor fleet when the Chargers come online. With hour frequencies, you'd need 6-10 sets of 2 car DMUs. That is still about the same 1000 seats. I'm not apposed to that.

The reason rail service succeeds elsewhere isn't so much speed as it is frequency. This is what Urban Sky has been trying to convey. And I agree with him. VIA is finally coming around to this worldview. Speed was actually used to boost capacity elsewhere. But frequency came first. We have this bizarre idea in North America that running long trains half a day apart is good service. That's not rail service. That's tourist service. You should be able to simply walk up to a station and never wait more than an hour for a train. That is what makes the train competitive with driving and bussing. People will even accept travel times that are as long as driving, if the schedule is this convenient.

This what multiple units allow them to do elsewhere. They can scale the size of the trains based on demand while maintaining a fixed schedule that is frequent. The best thing for CalEd would be two DMU trains running as frequently as possible. Train size shouldn't increase until they are running every 30 mins off-peak and 15-20 mins on-peak.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Wasn't $5B the HSR estimate?

Ballpark, but corridor HFR is in the $5B region and will almost certainly end up costing more as all large projects do. We also have the 2004 study which says upgrading the CPR route would be $1.7B.



20 years of inflation and it's already $2.5B, and I would assume inflation of costs for rail construction runs higher - we just saw that 4.5km of bog standard LRT in Edmonton was more than a billion. Plus these preliminary studies always vastly underestimate costs.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It appears to be a single track. Putting a double track in, to achieve hour frequencies with smaller trains would make some sense. Laying the ~300km of track could be seen as a stimulus project. At that distance, if it were timed well, there wouldn't be a need for the train to use the other track. Just have a passing siding or few in well positioned areas.

I mean adding a single track that would be dedicated to VIA, that would be the bare minimum to achieve good service. If CP operated the track then they'll just prioritise their own trains.

But a single track railway for passenger service is a joke. In the UK and Europe single track railways almost don't exist outside of very remote areas. Since if your frequency is so low that you don't need two tracks, it is self evident that the demand does not justify rail.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

But a single track railway for passenger service is a joke. In the UK and Europe single track railways almost don't exist outside of very remote areas. Since if your frequency is so low that you don't need two tracks, it is self evident that the demand does not justify rail.

I wouldn't go quite that far. The shorter distances and more stops can make higher frequencies harder to support without dual track. CalEd could do hourly and possibly even semi-hourly with just passing tracks. Especially with shorter trains. That said, if designing for growth and higher speeds, twin tracks will be a necessity. So at minimum the system needs to be designed to expand to twin tracks.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Ballpark, but corridor HFR is in the $5B region and will almost certainly end up costing more as all large projects do. We also have the 2004 study which says upgrading the CPR route would be $1.7B.



20 years of inflation and it's already $2.5B, and I would assume inflation of costs for rail construction runs higher - we just saw that 4.5km of bog standard LRT in Edmonton was more than a billion. Plus these preliminary studies always vastly underestimate costs.

I recall from researching for my Bachelor Thesis that multiplying the relative increase in CPI with itself is a good approximation of the increase in capital cost estimates between subsequent HSR studies in the Quebec Windsor Corridor. That suggests that $3 billion is a good estimate for upgrading the CP line: $1.77 billion * (1.3729 ^ 2) = $3.088 billion

[Ave_Christus_Rex]

Came across this article when searching for news about HFR:

Today, the Honourable Marc Garneau, Minister of Transport, and the Honourable François-Philippe Champagne, Minister of Infrastructure and Communities announced that the Government of Canada and Canada Infrastructure Bank are committing a total of $71.1 million in funding to further explore VIA Rail Canada’s proposal for High Frequency Rail in the Quebec City-Toronto Corridor.

The balance of the funding, $16.1 million, including $5 million still available from Budget 2018, is for Transport Canada and VIA Rail Canada to support VIA Rail Canada’s contributions to the important work of the Joint Project Team. It will also fund technical work to ensure the interoperability and integration of High Frequency Rail with operating tracks used by local and regional transit providers in Montreal and Toronto. This includes track work in Montreal’s Mont-Royal Tunnel to enable VIA Rail Canada’s heavy rail trains to operate on this segment of the Réseau express métropolitain (REM) light rail system. This important piece of preliminary work is needed so that the different rail systems work together should High Frequency Rail proceed in the future.

Enough with the studies! Why don't they just build the darn thing already???

Well we all know why. The airlines own all the politicians.

[Nouvellecosse]

Canada has become a world leader in the infrastructure proposal study industry! As long as you keep studying, it looks like something is happening and politicians never have to choose between projects or say no to anyone.

But yeah... a high frequency automated metro line is never going to share tracks with mainline rail trains. The only "work in the Mont-Royal tunnel" that would allow both services to share it is to twin the tunnel and put in additional tracks.

[Ave_Christus_Rex]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Canada has become a world leader in the infrastructure proposal study industry! As long as you keep studying, it looks like something is happening and politicians never have to choose between projects or say no to anyone.

But yeah... a high frequency automated metro line is never going to share tracks with mainline rail trains. The only "work in the Mont-Royal tunnel" that would allow both services to share it is to twin the tunnel and put in additional tracks.

Which means that Quebec is going to throw a bitch-fit and completely derail this project

[Psychedelic Sailor]

another fucking study? VIA is a joke

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Ave_Christus_Rex

Came across this article when searching for news about HFR:

This was two years ago. It's almost done. It's partly why they allocated several hundred million in the last budget for pre-procurement. They won't exactly say what that is yet. But it's almost half a billion dollars. So that's not for more studies. Part of that 71 million was also VIA retaining Arup and AECOM as Owner's Engineers. That was presumably for substantial engineering including drafting potential RFPs.

There's an announcement next week in Trois Rivière. We'll see what's up. I wouldn't expect any real launch until after the election. But we may start seeing certain things like station upgrades announced along the way.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Psychedelic Sailor

another fucking study? VIA is a joke

What exactly do you expect VIA to do? Start construction anyways, even though it has neither the necessary approvals, funding or mandate to get shovels in the ground...?

[Nouvellecosse]

One thing I found a bit odd about the REM project is that they converted the existing 25kv AC electrified section used for the Deux-Montagnes line into 1.5kv DC. While it's certainly true that most (all?) urban metro lines use DC at 0.6 - 1.5kv DC, there are plenty of longer distance suburban services that use higher voltage, as do nearly all long distance intercity lines. For instance, the u/c Crossrail in London will use 25kv AC despite having a central metro-like section, while Munich S-Bahn uses 15kv AC. Paris RER has both sections that use 1.5kv DC and 25kv AC.

If HFR is ever electrified it will almost certainly be at a higher voltage and while REM is never going to share tracks with it, there's the possibility it could share a corridor using parallel tracks at some point, such as the stretch leading into Central station. So there must have been a pretty big advantage in order to prompt the switch when existing infrastructure was already in place.