VIA Rail

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere

The idea back when HFR was first proposed 3 or 4 years ago was that service would remain on the existing corridors but would be refined to focus on service for the local areas along the existing route. From what I recall all services would start or end in Kingston with route timing adjusted to best serve those trips, and no real through service of note beyond maybe a couple of milk runs.

You'd expect for that to be more GO Transit oriented, not VIA. Maybe it'll end up that way someday.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Acajack

The routing on the north shore of the river isn't really longer. Not in any significant way.

Someone else with more knowledge could explain it better, but I believe the HFR route was intended to go through the tunnel that REM is now using to get to that northern route. There was talk of sharing the tunnel but that to me seems like an obvious non starter that has no hope of happening ever and contemplating it wastes time.

It looks like there are other options to get to the northern railway through Montreal, they are just more circuitous..

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by 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.

There is the option of dual voltage trains, which is used in the UK and Europe a lot. The original Eurostars even had 750V third rail pickups along with 25kV AC and 3kV DC as they embarrassingly had to use London commuter lines for a while. Some were even quad voltage.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Someone else with more knowledge could explain it better, but I believe the HFR route was intended to go through the tunnel that REM is now using to get to that northern route. There was talk of sharing the tunnel but that to me seems like an obvious non starter that has no hope of happening ever and contemplating it wastes time.

It looks like there are other options to get to the northern railway through Montreal, they are just more circuitous..

OK I get what you are referring to.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

I suspect there is a distinction to be made between HFR and HSR.

HFR is basically regular regional rail service in Europe. Hourly trains. Sub-200 kph service. The only difference is that stop spacing is closer to high speed rail standard.

Originally Posted by Acajack

I honestly doubt that an HFR line will have this many stations. If so any time savings from the increased speed would be eliminated by all of the stops.

Normal stop spacing on HSR is about 50 km. So the HFR plan is on par with that. If anything they could stand to add 1-2 stops.

Those are the stops. You can look at VIA's website for confirmation.

https://corpo.viarail.ca/index.php/en/projects-infrastructure/high-frequency-rail

• Video Link

Originally Posted by Acajack

I would think Kingston could be the only stop between Toronto and Ottawa, with maybe another occasional stop added in the eastern part of the GTA.

Kingston won't be on the HFR corridor. If and when HFR is upgraded to high speed rail, it'll be a separate discussion whether to build a spur to Kingston. I doubt it will happen.

Kingston, however, will get its own hub with service that originates from Kingston. The mayor covered it in his blog, based on discussions with VIA in 2017.



https://mayorpaterson.com/proposed-via-rail-expansion-in-eastern-ontario/

Originally Posted by Acajack

I don't see any HSR stops between Montreal and Ottawa, and only Trois-Rivières between Montreal and Quebec City.

That would be highly unusual for stop spacing by global standards. And could only be done, if a parallel all-stop service was maintained. Highly unlikely. It's possible instead that either Casselman or Alexandria loses service with HSR. Zero chance of any stops losing service between Montreal and Quebec City. There's only three HFR stops and they are all essential: Laval, Trois-Rivières and Jean-Lesage airport. Those would all be HSR stops too.

[ue]

To me, excluding Kingston from enhanced service doesn't make any sense. The trains definitely shouldn't be stopping at every town over 10,000 people, but Kingston is a formidable stop. The city is a decent size, close-ish to the bigger cities, has a large university population, and has a sizable walkable core that is easy to get around without a car. The location of the existing station kind of sucks, however. I am glad there are plans for Kingston to still be well-connected, although enhanced plans for it feels like it'd cause needless duplication with HFR.

I think it's plainly obvious the kinds of HFR (or eventually HSR) routes VIA/the feds should be pursuing, and then expanding service to other areas thereafter.

There's two "Corridor" lines that make sense and could share much of the same track, but ensure all the major centres in Southern Ontario and Quebec are covered.

So Line 1: Windsor-Chatham-London-Kitchener-(maybe Guelph)-Toronto-(maybe Belleville)-Kingston-Montreal-Trois Rivieres-Quebec City.

Line 2: Sarnia-London-Brantford-Hamilton-Toronto-(maybe Belleville)-Kingston-Ottawa-Montreal-Drummondville-Victoriaville-Quebec City.

And then another Southern Ontario route to capture the last major destinations in that part of Ontario. So Line 3: Barrie-Toronto-Hamilton-St Catharines-Niagara Falls.

And then of course there's Alberta. Line 4: Edmonton-Red Deer-Calgary-Canmore-Banff.

After these lines are built, and more demand is created by having frequent, affordable, and reliable routes, other areas could begin to be considered.

The next most obvious places would be:
-Toronto-Peterborough spur
-Mont Tremblant-Montreal-Granby-Magog-Sherbrooke
-Halifax-Truro-(maybe Sackville)-Moncton-Saint John-Fredericton
-Charlottetown-Moncton-Fredericton
-Victoria-Duncan-Nanaimo-Parksville-Courtenay-Campbell River
-Vancouver-Abbotsford-Chilliwack-Harrison Hot Springs
-Vancouver-Squamish-Whistler-Pemberton
-Lethbridge-High River-Calgary-Drumheller

Then if those are successful, you could start looking at sparser and/or more difficult geographies, like:
-Saskatoon-Davidson-Regina-Weyburn-Estevan
-Salmon Arm-Vernon-Kelowna-Penticton-Oliver-Osoyoos
-Vancouver-Abbotsford-Hope-Merritt-Kelowna
-Edmonton-Camrose
-Regina-Moose Jaw
-Kenora-Falcon Lake-Winnipeg-Portage la Prairie-Carberry-Brandon
-Steinbach-Winnipeg-Selkirk-Winnipeg Beach-Gimli
-Barrie-Orillia-Bracebridge-Huntsville-North Bay

From there you can start connecting these segments into an improved transcontinental service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by thewave46

You'd expect for that to be more GO Transit oriented, not VIA. Maybe it'll end up that way someday.

Technically the Kingston hub will offer inter-provincial service as there will be trains from Kingston to Montreal.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ue

To me, excluding Kingston from enhanced service doesn't make any sense.

It does when serving Kingston negates any benefit of building a dedicated corridor. It's 60 km straight line from Sharbot Lake to Kingston. So 120 km round trip minimum for the detour. This is why it's unlikely that Kingston would see service even if the corridor was upgraded to high speed.

Kingston is getting it's own hub and originating service. The 3 hrs from Kingston to Toronto or Montreal is shorter than it would be by using a 60 km spur from Sharbot Lake anyway.

[thewave46]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It does when serving Kingston negates any benefit of building a dedicated corridor. It's 60 km straight line from Sharbot Lake to Kingston. So 120 km round trip minimum for the detour. This is why it's unlikely that Kingston would see service even if the corridor was upgraded to high speed.

Kingston is getting it's own hub and originating service. The 3 hrs from Kingston to Toronto or Montreal is shorter than it would be by using a 60 km spur from Sharbot Lake anyway.

The limitations of using the CN Lakeshore line seem to be insurmountable.

Expedient service between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal seems to be the best option. It's not like Kingston's totally left in the cold - it still has service.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Normal stop spacing on HSR is about 50 km. So the HFR plan is on par with that. If anything they could stand to add 1-2 stops.
.

Are you sure that's the case for HSR?

I've ridden a lot of HSR around the world, and it seems more like the average distance between stations is in the 150-250 km range.

A 200-kmh train with stops every 50 km will be stopping every 15 minutes. And many HSRs operate at 250-300 kmh. They'd be stopping even more often. Lots of lost time and speed.

I think that it's more than 50 km between stations is the minimum to allow for appropriate acceleration and deceleration.

[TownGuy]

Wonder what will happen with Cobourg. They built what is essentially an elaborate overpass at the train station not too long ago. A lot of commuters use the service.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by TownGuy

Wonder what will happen with Cobourg. They built what is essentially an elaborate overpass at the train station not too long ago. A lot of commuters use the service.

They get better commuter service. 12 trains per day starting in Kingston instead of Toronto.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Acajack

Are you sure that's the case for HSR?

I've ridden a lot of HSR around the world, and it seems more like the average distance between stations is in the 150-250 km range.

A 200-kmh train with stops every 50 km will be stopping every 15 minutes. And many HSRs operate at 250-300 kmh. They'd be stopping even more often. Lots of lost time and speed.

I think that it's more than 50 km between stations is the minimum to allow for appropriate acceleration and deceleration.

50-100 km is sort of typical. For example, the Madrid-Barcelona line has 6 stops in between the two termini, a 621 km line.

The difference is that in many countries, the really fast HSR is often paired with regional all stop services to complement. If they can't do that and run 200 kph service, they tend to add stops.

In our case, they really don't have too many useless stops on the HFR corridor. Alexandria and Casselman are debatable. Beyond that though, the smaller stops are reasonably logical and serving the suburban areas of a large metro (Fallowfield), an airport (Dorval) or a separate city (Peterborough). I'd argue they could stand to add a station in Markham or North Pickering.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

For example, the Madrid-Barcelona line has 6 stops in between the two termini, a 621 km line.

That's actually the last one I took! Just before the pandemic hit.

In either direction, there were only two stops: Zaragoza and Tarragona.

Both serve areas of around 800,000 people.

Also, neither Barcelona nor Madrid had extra AVE (HSR) stops within their metro areas.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It does when serving Kingston negates any benefit of building a dedicated corridor. It's 60 km straight line from Sharbot Lake to Kingston. So 120 km round trip minimum for the detour. This is why it's unlikely that Kingston would see service even if the corridor was upgraded to high speed.

Kingston is getting it's own hub and originating service. The 3 hrs from Kingston to Toronto or Montreal is shorter than it would be by using a 60 km spur from Sharbot Lake anyway.

Via Kingston is a more direct line from Toronto to Montreal. What does Sharbot Lake have to do with anything? You can't tell me a Toronto-Kingston-Montreal HFR or HSR would not be feasible and well-used.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

In our case, they really don't have too many useless stops on the HFR corridor. Alexandria and Casselman are debatable. Beyond that though, the smaller stops are reasonably logical and serving the suburban areas of a large metro (Fallowfield), an airport (Dorval) or a separate city (Peterborough). I'd argue they could stand to add a station in Markham or North Pickering.

Even if they don't lose their stations and may retain some other type of service, I am not sure it's worth it to slow down and stop an HSR train filled with hundreds of people from large cities for 1-2 additional passengers in towns of 3,000 people.

If you factor in the service depreciation to those city slickers in terms of longer trip times, and even the energy cost (decelerate and then accelerate) I wonder if the price of the handful of extra tickets you're gonna sell in Alexandria and Casselman would be worth it.

[Truenorth00]

That's the good part about HFR. It's built on existing service. We can discuss HSR and all the tough conversations later. Maybe they set up some kind of parallel Ottawa-Montreal regional rail service later when they ditch Alexandria and Casselman with HSR. Or they keep those two towns but limit number of trains that stop at each one. Etc.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by ue

Via Kingston is a more direct line from Toronto to Montreal.

What does Sharbot Lake have to do with anything?

The most direct route between the GTA and Ottawa is to parallel Hwy 7 which is what the Havelock subdivision does. And that is what the HFR proposal is using.

Originally Posted by ue

You can't tell me a Toronto-Kingston-Montreal HFR or HSR would not be feasible and well-used.

Except that there's no business case without serving Ottawa en route. The metro of 1.4M that is actually VIA's biggest market from Toronto, and the nation's capital. So they traded Ottawa for Kingston.

Kingston really isn't losing anything with the hub they are getting. All the Lakeshore communities will benefit from service that actually originates from Kingston.

There was also no way to build an inter-metro rail service using the Lakeshore corridor given how uncooperative CN was. So repurposing the Havelock sub was the only realistic way to do this.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That's the good part about HFR. Nursing built on existing service. We can discuss HSR and all the tough conversations later. Maybe they set up some kind of parallel Ottawa-Montreal regional rail service later when they ditch Alexandria and Casselman with HSR. Or they keep those two towns but limit number of trains that stop at each one. Etc.

Many people like to argue that buses on quieter routes would give better flexibility due to the fact that some can run express, while others run local. For example, the ONR buses between Toronto and Sudbury/North Bay have a bus that does Toronto - Parry Sound -Sudbury a few times a day, and the more local one with stops all along the way. Can't the Corridor Via trains do the same?

[Acajack]

(Again) in most places in the world, there are lots of stations along HSR lines but the HSR trains generally just blow right by them.