VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To replace the existing fleet. They have pre-negotiated options if they want to buy more. The assumption all this time was that they would exercise those options for HFR. This announcement makes it unclear what they are doing. They might just procure a different fleet for HFR and leave the Siemens fleet on the Lakeshore and Corridor West services. They could also exercise the options and get the second order in dual mode. We'll see what they do.

You are missing the point. Let's say they fill the existing order as is. Let's say they decided that the HFR routes will be electrified. We have near new equipment that, as delivered are not able to utilize that electrification. So, now we have a large fleet of engines not compatible with the route.

Now, they could be moved to other routes, but i don't think there is enough routes running enough service to need this many new engines.

I could see them moving some to a new service between Calgary and Edmonton, and if they decided a daily on all routes, this would use them up.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not about what you want. It's about what we need. Most countries usually build HSR with the intention of substantially diverting air passengers from a given city pair. So their target speed is usually based on achieving a door-to-door travel time that is competitive with air for that city pair.

Given how long it takes to travel to/from airports on both ends and pre-departure times, 3 hrs from downtown-to-downtown is more than competitive. Heck, given the cost of air travel and our climate, 3.5 hrs with a reasonable fare would be plenty competitive.

I know what you said vs what you meant. How long should it take is based more on what you are trying to do. For example, the travel time/speed for the Canadian can be slower than the Corridor due to the customer base. If I were looking at the Corridor, I would first ensure it can match the bus or a car. Then aim to match a plane.

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If HFR is very successful, an Ottawa bypass for Toronto-Montreal express trains via the CP Winchester subdivision would likely cut travel times by at least 30 minutes. This does not need to negatively impact service to Ottawa. This would be a natural future upgrade.

Is there really a demand for it though?

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You are missing the point. Let's say they fill the existing order as is. Let's say they decided that the HFR routes will be electrified. We have near new equipment that, as delivered are not able to utilize that electrification. So, now we have a large fleet of engines not compatible with the route.

VIA specified locomotives that were capable of conversion to bimodal operation in their RFP. There should be no real issues converting. Whether that's an efficient idea is another matter.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Now, they could be moved to other routes, but i don't think there is enough routes running enough service to need this many new engines.

They could always increase service on Corridor West. And there's the Senneterre, Jonquiere and Ocean out of Montreal that could probably use newer rolling stock if needed.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I could see them moving some to a new service between Calgary and Edmonton, and if they decided a daily on all routes, this would use them up.

Rolling stock isn't an issue for CalEd service. It's finding a corridor where rail services can operate in a reasonable amount of time. The feds aren't going to setup a service that is a money pit because it's not close to competitive with driving. If it didn't happen under a government dominated by Western conservatives with Harper, it ain't happening under this government. All the more so with a provincial government that shows no real interest in rail. Contrast that to how hard Quebec's provincial government and mayors fought for HFR when the first proposals were to terminate in Montreal.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know what you said vs what you meant. How long should it take is based more on what you are trying to do. For example, the travel time/speed for the Canadian can be slower than the Corridor due to the customer base. If I were looking at the Corridor, I would first ensure it can match the bus or a car. Then aim to match a plane.

I would suggest that based on the government's professed intentions of reducing emissions, rail service would have to fall at a point that can get passengers from driving and from flying. Thankfully, with the distances involved, that doesn't need full blown high end HSR. Getting Toronto-Montreal to around 3.5 hrs would be enough.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

Not necessarily. I am sure the plan west of Smiths Falls on the same CP rail line will build a separate dedicated passenger track. Given the rural flat terrain that the Winchester subdivision follows, I am sure a dedicated passenger track could also be built east of Smiths Falls.

The issue isn't west of Smiths Falls. The issue is east of Smiths Falls. And that's a busy CP corridor if I am not mistaken. So I don't see why VIA would jump from one boiling pot to another.

There's also the whole argument that combining Ottawa and Montreal traffic allowed for higher frequencies. The bypass substantially breaks that. Let's say service is every half hour. If half the trains go to Ottawa and half to Montreal, both cities now end up with hourly service. Is losing half the trains to gain a few minutes in travel time really worthwhile? Only VIA can answer that. But I have my doubts, since that would explicitly run against the idea of "high frequency". But I guess they gotta have lots of options on the table when negotiating with CP.

[Nouvellecosse]

Half hourly service would be rather awkward for the Havelock sub to handle anyway since it's single tracked. By my calculation there would need to be about 3 double track meeting points for hourly service but around 6 for half hourly, and these sections would need to be reasonably long if the meets were intended to occur at speed. Requiring trains to stop and wait at a siding would eat up valuable time. I can't see it being more than hourly for the time being, especially given that there will still be trains running on the current corridor. A train running every hour from 06:00 - 00:00 is still 18 trains per day per direction, and train length could be increased as ridership rises.

Ultimately if the route proves popular it will eventually need to be mostly double tracked but it's unclear if this is within the scope of the initial project.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

VIA specified locomotives that were capable of conversion to bimodal operation in their RFP. There should be no real issues converting. Whether that's an efficient idea is another matter.

That's good. I wasn't sure whether Via was future proofing their equipment.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They could always increase service on Corridor West. And there's the Senneterre, Jonquiere and Ocean out of Montreal that could probably use newer rolling stock if needed.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Rolling stock isn't an issue for CalEd service. It's finding a corridor where rail services can operate in a reasonable amount of time. The feds aren't going to setup a service that is a money pit because it's not close to competitive with driving. If it didn't happen under a government dominated by Western conservatives with Harper, it ain't happening under this government. All the more so with a provincial government that shows no real interest in rail. Contrast that to how hard Quebec's provincial government and mayors fought for HFR when the first proposals were to terminate in Montreal.

If there were a government that would do it, it is one starving for seats there. However, I don't feel anything will happen there with the current sitting government.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would suggest that based on the government's professed intentions of reducing emissions, rail service would have to fall at a point that can get passengers from driving and from flying. Thankfully, with the distances involved, that doesn't need full blown high end HSR. Getting Toronto-Montreal to around 3.5 hrs would be enough.

Can they do it with the Havelock subdivision is the real question. Having their own ROW is one thing, but if it is a slow winding route, it will hamper speeds. If they wanted to be sneaky with it, lay new rails on the existing ROW without much change to track geometry or straightening. Run it at that. Then announce a billion dollars to straighten it. First it could be HFR, then it could be faster.

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Half hourly service would be rather awkward for the Havelock sub to handle anyway since it's single tracked. By my calculation there would need to be about 3 double track meeting points for hourly service but around 6 for half hourly, and these sections would need to be reasonably long if the meets were intended to occur at speed. Requiring trains to stop and wait at a siding would eat up valuable time. I can't see it being more than hourly for the time being, especially given that there will still be trains running on the current corridor. A train running every hour from 06:00 - 00:00 is still 18 trains per day per direction, and train length could be increased as ridership rises.

Ultimately if the route proves popular it will eventually need to be mostly double tracked but it's unclear if this is within the scope of the initial project.

This is where my idea of express and local trains comes into play. A local train can sit at one of the stations to let the express trains go. Adding passing sidings at key spots also will keep them more frequent. When bottlenecks occur, adding double track there to keep them moving will also help. In simplest terms, it likely won't get done the whole way all at once, but be done in sections.

[Djeffery]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If there were a government that would do it, it is one starving for seats there. However, I don't feel anything will happen there with the current sitting government.

Is rail that big a selling feature to Albertans that they would consider voting Liberal for it? I think the Liberals probably feel that money is better spent shoring up their support in Ontario and Quebec.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Is rail that big a selling feature to Albertans that they would consider voting Liberal for it? I think the Liberals probably feel that money is better spent shoring up their support in Ontario and Quebec.

Probably not a big thing for Alberta voters, however, by doing it, even if it is done crappy, they can stand on it and say they care about Alberta. The question is whether the Liberals are that desperate and whether they think Albertans are that gullible.

With how Ford has been, votes are secured in Ontario. The Trois Riviere anouncment is the shoring up of Quebec. Let's be honest, the HFR will be built, and likely open within 10 years.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Djeffery

Is rail that big a selling feature to Albertans that they would consider voting Liberal for it?

Absolutely not. That is the absolute bottom priority, no one gives a shit.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Absolutely not. That is the absolute bottom priority, no one gives a shit.

... all they care about is oil pipelines...

Or maybe it isn't that simple. Getting a regular service train between Calgary and Edmonton may not turn the province blue, but it might move enough people to gain a few seats.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Absolutely not. That is the absolute bottom priority, no one gives a shit.

Because nobody has tried offering them trains with bull balls hanging from the couplers. These things are all about the marketing.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

... all they care about is oil pipelines...

Or maybe it isn't that simple. Getting a regular service train between Calgary and Edmonton may not turn the province blue, but it might move enough people to gain a few seats.

Or maybe you don't actually understand the lives of people here. How would a railway improve a significant number of Albertan's lives? Especially one that is slower than driving, let alone faster than flying. A railway here needs a cost/benefit justification, showing that the cost is worth it because it (any combination of the following) is cheaper than upgrading the roads, saves Albertans money, decreases the time Albertan's spend travelling or increases economic productivity, more than than the cost of the project.

We actually just today got a $1.5B "investment" (just a recommitment, for the millionth time) from Trudeau for rail in Calgary, for a project that actually matters to Calgarians.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Or maybe you don't actually understand the lives of people here. How would a railway improve a significant number of Albertan's lives? Especially one that is slower than driving, let alone faster than flying. A railway here needs a cost/benefit justification, showing that the cost is worth it because it (any combination of the following) is cheaper than upgrading the roads, saves Albertans money, decreases the time Albertan's spend travelling or increases economic productivity, more than than the cost of the project.

We actually just today got a $1.5B "investment" (just a recommitment, for the millionth time) from Trudeau for rail in Calgary, for a project that actually matters to Calgarians.

You missed about how it isn't that simple. For example, the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives was about 10% in Edmonton Centre. Do you know what is in that riding? The Edmonton Via Rail station. Also it is the downtown of Edmonton. Would a crappy Via rail route to Calgary be enough for the extra 10%? Maybe not on it's own, but with how bad Kenny has been doing, it might be enough. TBH, even if the Liberals announced commencing construction of a HSR in AB, it likely wouldn't be enough to get more than 1 or 2 votes, if any at all.

Do you think that after that rail project opens the Liberals will gain seats? Doubtful, but hey, you never know what finally tips someone one way or the other.
Let's be fair, the majority of Canadians are not card carrying members and therefor will vote for the least worst, or thee one that says the things to massage the voter's egos.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Because nobody has tried offering them trains with bull balls hanging from the couplers. These things are all about the marketing.

They would need to be big bull balls.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

You missed about how it isn't that simple. For example, the difference between the Liberals and Conservatives was about 10% in Edmonton Centre. Do you know what is in that riding? The Edmonton Via Rail station. Also it is the downtown of Edmonton. Would a crappy Via rail route to Calgary be enough for the extra 10%? Maybe not on it's own, but with how bad Kenny has been doing, it might be enough. TBH, even if the Liberals announced commencing construction of a HSR in AB, it likely wouldn't be enough to get more than 1 or 2 votes, if any at all.

Do you think that after that rail project opens the Liberals will gain seats? Doubtful, but hey, you never know what finally tips someone one way or the other.
Let's be fair, the majority of Canadians are not card carrying members and therefor will vote for the least worst, or thee one that says the things to massage the voter's egos.

I really don't care what gains the parties seats but I know that passenger rail transport is not top of mind for people in Alberta.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I really don't care what gains the parties seats but I know that passenger rail transport is not top of mind for people in Alberta.

Do you speak to everyone?
Do you speak for everyone?

I doubt even on this thread that passenger rail transport isn't top of mind. For example, for me, top of mind is packing the trailer for camping this weekend. However, if a government said I could get from Toronto - Sudbury daily, I would listen a little more at election time. Most people think that way. If a government says they will make something better for you, you will listen a bit more.

So, what is the top of your mind?

[Truenorth00]

Alberta is the next obvious location for intercity rail investment. But not before HFR is sorted out and expanded westward till Windsor. That's easily 15-20 years out. $6-12B for HFR is basically all the intercity rail money in the federal kitty this decade. If anything is leftover, the Liberals will use it to completely overhaul VIA's fleet. And that's assuming the CPC doesn't get in and start slashing funding to VIA.

There's going to have to be a serious push from the provincial government in Alberta to do this. And we don't see that. So I don't get how anybody can say that Albertans want this. They routinely elect provincial and federal politicians who don't make rail a priority. I'm pretty sure if you gave the average Albertan a choice between another pipeline and CalEd HSR, they'd choose the pipeline.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The issue isn't west of Smiths Falls. The issue is east of Smiths Falls. And that's a busy CP corridor if I am not mistaken. So I don't see why VIA would jump from one boiling pot to another.

There's also the whole argument that combining Ottawa and Montreal traffic allowed for higher frequencies. The bypass substantially breaks that. Let's say service is every half hour. If half the trains go to Ottawa and half to Montreal, both cities now end up with hourly service. Is losing half the trains to gain a few minutes in travel time really worthwhile? Only VIA can answer that. But I have my doubts, since that would explicitly run against the idea of "high frequency". But I guess they gotta have lots of options on the table when negotiating with CP.

While I agree with your argument about the benefits of combining Ottawa and Montreal traffic , you are incorrect on the volumes of freight east and west of Smiths Falls. There is the same amount of traffic east and west of Smiths Falls as the Ottawa Valley line that used to diverge at Smiths Falls no longer exists. The only difference west of Smiths Falls is probably a few local freights that pick up and drop off at local industries between Belleville and Toronto. All freight from western Canada is routed via Toronto and then to Montreal.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Alberta is the next obvious location for intercity rail investment. But not before HFR is sorted out and expanded westward till Windsor. That's easily 15-20 years out. $6-12B for HFR is basically all the intercity rail money in the federal kitty this decade. If anything is leftover, the Liberals will use it to completely overhaul VIA's fleet. And that's assuming the CPC doesn't get in and start slashing funding to VIA.

There's going to have to be a serious push from the provincial government in Alberta to do this. And we don't see that. So I don't get how anybody can say that Albertans want this. They routinely elect provincial and federal politicians who don't make rail a priority. I'm pretty sure if you gave the average Albertan a choice between another pipeline and CalEd HSR, they'd choose the pipeline.

There is probably a majority of Albertans including those in the cities that would be serviced by the Edmonton-Calgary route that are against government ownership. Calgary is very protective of the flights between the two cities, especially West Jet which they consider one of their own. In my opinion any Calgary - Edmonton service has to be phased in with gradually building separate ROW and gradually increasing frequency in order to show the public there is a viable option and show both government that it is worth funding.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I don't know about that. The 200 kph diesel HSR from the Ecotrain study would be $12B today for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. That itself is the top end of the HFR budget.

I do agree that we're likely to end up closer to $12B than $6B if we want anything that is both upgradable and can be better than services today (I think people forget that VIA does have express services that do T-O in 4 hrs and T-M in 4.5 hrs).

Not really. Speed drives grade separation requirements. For anything below 200 kph, they can just build protected crossings. Above that it has to all be grade separated. Not cheap.

True, there are a ton of grade crossings and that does put a hard limit on speed.

I (perhaps naively) hope that many, perhaps 2/3, of those can be just closed leaving the rest to cross the railway. I will also make a semi-baseless prediction that as the project progresses, there will be a push to grade separate many of the remaining ones from various parties.

So I wouldn't be surprised if the final HFR product is closer to HSR than it will be to the current corridor line. 200km/h already just about makes the grade by some definitions - the original Shinkansen ran at that speed, and sections of the UK's ECML and WCML are classified as such by some.

I've said it before, but it gets me thinking of how the Green Line in Calgary developed. The original vision was for a $4.5B line crossing all of Calgary using cheap surface LRT technology. That was just a guess, but it was presented to the public as real fact. Then as they did the work, it transpired that there was no way of actually building that cheap surface LRT, it needed a downtown tunnel, and there was lots of grade separation elsewhere. The $4.5B for 45km went out the window, and what is being produced is close to a metro in terms of cost and grade separation, but still using stupid streetcar vehicles.

The same will happen with HFR. It already happened in the Tuesday announcement with the addition of electrification. Once they do more detailed work, it'll turn out that to do certain parts of the line properly it'll require spending more money than the original bare-bones proposal laid out, and certain interest groups will want to change the project in ways that possibly make it better, but definitely make it more expensive. This will be hand-waved away later by politicians and perhaps it's all worth it in the end, but it is entirely predictable.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

There is probably a majority of Albertans including those in the cities that would be serviced by the Edmonton-Calgary route that are against government ownership. Calgary is very protective of the flights between the two cities, especially West Jet which they consider one of their own. In my opinion any Calgary - Edmonton service has to be phased in with gradually building separate ROW and gradually increasing frequency in order to show the public there is a viable option and show both government that it is worth funding.

I don't know about Edmontonians, but for Calgarians travelling to Edmonton isn't something they do very often, by plane or by car. You can see it in the numbers.

You want rail for the sake of rail. Your posts have said this over and over again. But that is not a reason to build rail. It needs to make the economy larger. That is what infrastructure is for.

Highway 2 between Calgary and Edmonton is not particularly busy, and it's 4 lane for much of it. Once it's 6 or 8 lanes the whole way, and the traffic is impacting the economy, then maybe building a railway will be worth it.

The situation with travel to Banff is closer IMO to needing rail than to Edmonton. That road actually does get very busy at peak periods and will only get worse. And there is a hard limit on how many people can park in the mountains, something that we really want to reduce. Getting people out of cars there will have real benefits, as will offering rail transport for tourists from YYC.