VIA Rail

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I agree that the government would like to do away with Via completely. The problem is politicians of all stripes except for the Greens, who don’t have any power all have the same ideology. The bureaucrats at Transport Canada have been allowed to make it the air and pavement ministry.

I love how people want to blame the ones executing the government's plan. They are no different than you or I. The only difference is their boss changes every few years.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I am not sure where the via good, TC bad narrative came from. I think they both handled this very badly.

The so-called “plan” that Via came forward with 7 years ago was always completely aspirational, they had never thought out any of the actual details or made any attempt at cost estimates (which is why each iteration kept getting worse and worse).

The government’s decision to try to do the follow-up in-house was bizarre. It is both a Canadian and international best practice to follow up a proposal with a feasibility study that is made public. We still have very little idea what TC has done for 6 years.

We have studied the Corridor to death. AFAIK studies for it has gone back decades to even before the great cuts of the 1990s.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Yep. The best argument for HFR is that building infrastructure that allows VIA to use a lot of the new Siemens fleet more efficiently on a route designed to accomodate higher average operating speeds for inter-metro service, is relatively moderate investment and utilizes existing rolling stock. This is actually a pretty reasonable idea. Even if VIA may have underestimated the cost of the HFR corridor a fair bit.

Pushing electrification and speeds that may require substantial grade separation or straightening and adding bypasses, is substantial scope creep that completely breaks the initial lower investment idea VIA had in mind. And most of this increase in scope doesn't seem to have come from VIA at all.

I can understand why Cynthia Garneau left.

Some times, scope creep is bad, like BRT but without the stuff to make it rapid. When it comes to creep towards HSR, what is wrong with that? Imagine they build it a little to much, but not enough for true HSR, then they can focus on building the frequency and speed with the existing new fleet and focus elsewhere, like maybe more service outside of existing routes?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I'll also say that some transit advocates like Reece Martin have happily cheered on the scope creep towards HSR without appreciating the risk of failure. No idea if this impacted the political decision-making. But it would have been nice to see at least some pushback on scope creep from transit advocates as the project moved further and further out of reach.

The project was always just out of reach due to no politician wanting to do anything with Via in the first place.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

We have studied the Corridor to death. AFAIK studies for it has gone back decades to even before the great cuts of the 1990s.

.

As far as I know there have been no feasibility studies on “HFR” or related initiatives in the corridor. There was a “High Speed Rail” study several decades ago and a more recent update, but I don’t think those would be relevant to Via’s proposal.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

The main problem with not allowing the Via plan to go ahead is project creep and the resultant increase in costs. HFR was a relatively low cost proposal of increasing both moderately increasing speeds and drastically increasing on time performance while also adding frequencies.The Via plan was a gradual step in getting to high speed rail. There have been arguments that this route does not have the geometry from HSR. While this may be true, most of the route is in countryside where the land acquisition costs would be quite low for changing some of the routing in later years. Now the Feds, be it the Minister of Transport or the department are saying that 90% of the line will be electrified and making sounds like the speeds will be increased while at the same time the government is trying to get the private sector to be the owners. As others have stated there is no economic case for ownership by the private sector. Electrification and the purchase of electrified rolling stock will cost several billion of additional dollars. This makes the likelihood of the project even less likely.

It was a relatively low cost proposal because they were massively low-balling the cost. A decent feasibility study would have determined that by about 2017, and would have either required a rethink or an acceptance of the higher price.

Land acquisition was probably not a huge expense, but the significant infrastructure necessary to get the promised speeds were. Just as a simple example, look at the google maps “satellite” of the rail line through Peterborough.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It was a relatively low cost proposal because they were massively low-balling the cost. A decent feasibility study would have determined that by about 2017, and would have either required a rethink or an acceptance of the higher price.

Land acquisition was probably not a huge expense, but the significant infrastructure necessary to get the promised speeds were. Just as a simple example, look at the google maps “satellite” of the rail line through Peterborough.

It's a question of what the promised speeds were. Stay under 110 mph and not much grade separation is required. Yes, there would have been substantial rehabilitation of the corridor and some rerouting, but still a whole lot less than a fully grade separated HSR on a whole new alignment would cost. The big jump comes when going above 110 mph when it's a new class of track driving grade separation and straightening requirements. And if that was going to be the goal, might as well spend a bit more and do full 300 kph HSR.

Whatever the cost, both original estimate and corrected with further study, the logic was pretty reasonable. Avoid ambitious HSR plans that don't get built. And avoid scope creep that drives towards HSR. It was supposed to be something like 70% of the benefit for 50% of the cost. But once they started talking about 200 kph, bypasses and electrification (requiring a whole new fleet), the plan started getting to the point where they were getting 75% of the benefit for 80% of the cost. The also start driving to a price tag where these things get killed.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

As far as I know there have been no feasibility studies on “HFR” or related initiatives in the corridor. There was a “High Speed Rail” study several decades ago and a more recent update, but I don’t think those would be relevant to Via’s proposal.

So, HSR wouldn't have a high frequency?

I know that it was HSR that has been studied to death.I think one of the outcomes was the suggestion of HFR.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

So, HSR wouldn't have a high frequency?

I know that it was HSR that has been studied to death.I think one of the outcomes was the suggestion of HFR.

The Via HFR was a specific proposal that had 4 major assumptions

1) It could be built relatively cheaply, compared to other rail projects.
2) It could attain relatively high average speeds, compared to other rail projects.
3) That the service would attract significant new ridership.
4) That the project would attract significant private sector interest.

https://financialpost.com/transportation...icated-passenger-track-says-via-rail-ceo

I am not sure old HSR studies would shed any light on these assumptions. The question isn’t whether the line is technically possible to build, the question is whether Via’s assumptions were mostly accurate, which is exactly why it is an international best practice to commission feasibility studies for new infrastructure projects.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's a question of what the promised speeds were. Stay under 110 mph and not much grade separation is required. Yes, there would have been substantial rehabilitation of the corridor and some rerouting, but still a whole lot less than a fully grade separated HSR on a whole new alignment would cost. The big jump comes when going above 110 mph when it's a new class of track driving grade separation and straightening requirements. And if that was going to be the goal, might as well spend a bit more and do full 300 kph HSR.

Whatever the cost, both original estimate and corrected with further study, the logic was pretty reasonable. Avoid ambitious HSR plans that don't get built. And avoid scope creep that drives towards HSR. It was supposed to be something like 70% of the benefit for 50% of the cost. But once they started talking about 200 kph, bypasses and electrification (requiring a whole new fleet), the plan started getting to the point where they were getting 75% of the benefit for 80% of the cost. The also start driving to a price tag where these things get killed.

I can’t find the old time estimates chart, but I recall the average speeds were quite high, particularly if they were sticking to class 6 track. Conditions in Peterborough are similar to the West side of Guelph, where it is seen as a significant obstacle to increasing speeds and frequency (plus there is a swing bridge). Not a technical problem obviously, but addressing it could be expensive and I am not sure Vis accounted for that in its estimates.

I think the logic was based on the assumptions in my last post. If HFR is 3B and HSR is 20B it is a no brainer. If HFR is 12B I am not sure the logic holds up.

I think people assume the Peterborough line looks like the the lines Via uses now. It it is a pre-WWI line that has never been upgraded. There are few grade separations, it is very zigzagging, and there is currently a 10 mph speed limit.

[canucklehead2]

Need a national railway network operator to help coordinate like Europe to sort this all out to everyone's satisfaction.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Need a national railway network operator to help coordinate like Europe to sort this all out to everyone's satisfaction.

Good luck with that. CN & CP will never give up their rights to own, construct, maintain, operate and dispatch their own track. To buy them out would cost in the high billions.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the logic was based on the assumptions in my last post. If HFR is 3B and HSR is 20B it is a no brainer. If HFR is 12B I am not sure the logic holds up.

But context matters. The last TOM HSR estimate corrected for inflation it's at least $15B today. The Alghabra HFR proposal was supposedly in the $10-12B range for two lines, a bypass and service till Québec City. That's easily a $20B HSR proposal.

I get the temptation to say, "Why bother with HFR then?". To that I'd argue, just look at history. We don't have the ability to do anything ambitious in this country anymore. And given the stream of failures on HSR proposals, why not stick to a proposal that might actually be within the realm of achievable?

Also, there's this weird idea in Canada with infrastructure that it's all a binary zero sum game. That is not how intercity rail development should be done. Build a base. Then build extensions and increase capacity as needed. Getting the corridor now for HFR with discretionary additional investments going towards straightening and bypasses of problematic areas, instead of electrification and grade separation, provides bones to build on. Build HFR now. And it can be upgraded to electrified grade separated HSR over the next decade or two, one segment at a time, as justified by demand and as allowed for with funding.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

Good luck with that. CN & CP will never give up their rights to own, construct, maintain, operate and dispatch their own track. To buy them out would cost in the high billions.

A national rail network operator is a far reach. But I've always wondered if the feds, Ontario and Quebec wouldn't get together and create a tri-partite agency for the Corridor to manage and develop a passenger rail network.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But context matters. The last TOM HSR estimate corrected for inflation it's at least $15B today. The Alghabra HFR proposal was supposedly in the $10-12B range for two lines, a bypass and service till Québec City. That's easily a $20B HSR proposal.

I get the temptation to say, "Why bother with HFR then?". To that I'd argue, just look at history. We don't have the ability to do anything ambitious in this country anymore. And given the stream of failures on HSR proposals, why not stick to a proposal that might actually be within the realm of achievable?

Also, there's this weird idea in Canada with infrastructure that it's all a binary zero sum game. That is not how intercity rail development should be done. Build a base. Then build extensions and increase capacity as needed. Getting the corridor now for HFR with discretionary additional investments going towards straightening and bypasses of problematic areas, instead of electrification and grade separation, provides bones to build on. Build HFR now. And it can be upgraded to electrified grade separated HSR over the next decade or two, one segment at a time, as justified by demand and as allowed for with funding.

HFR was presented as a relatively cheap, relatively easy to implement project. It seems to not be that anymore (I don’t think it ever was) I think that warrants a reevaluation of alternatives.

If you think you can renovate your house relatively cheaply, but your assumptions were wrong and the estimates approach what it would cost to build a new house, then you should be asking yourself whether the renovation makes any sense.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by acottawa

HFR was presented as a relatively cheap, relatively easy to implement project. It seems to not be that anymore (I don’t think it ever was) I think that warrants a reevaluation of alternatives.

If you think you can renovate your house relatively cheaply, but your assumptions were wrong and the estimates approach what it would cost to build a new house, then you should be asking yourself whether the renovation makes any sense.

Maybe but I'm tired of delays. The main reason I bought into the HFR proposal is because it seemed likelier to actually move forward given VIA's strong support when their position on HSR has ranged from indifferent to opposed. Obviously I'd rather have HSR if just choosing between the two as final outcomes. But we've been talking about and studying HSR for what seems like decades and nothing has come of it which I assume is in part because there just isn't much of an existing ridership base to support it.

I feel like if we assume that investing in a major upgrade is a given, then yes we should put in the time and effort in deciding which major upgrade to invest in. But if the main decision is between a major investment vs no major investment, the main deciding factor is simply what will make a major upgrade likelier than none. And so far with HSR being the proposed upgrade, it seems that "none" is the likely outcome, so wasting more time thinking about it isn't productive.

Yes you can argue that the increased cost makes HFR less likely, but if frugality and rail austerity is the major driving force, then increasing cost further, even if it improves overall ROI, wouldn't be politically advantageous.

[hipster duck]

Honestly, I wonder how much CP would be willing to sell its trackage east of Toronto for. CN has too much of a stake in eastern Canada, but accessing the Atlantic ports isn’t exactly pivotal to CP, which is definitely more western-focused.

CP’s Belleville sub is already built, in good condition, and much more direct, especially for Toronto-MTL service, than the twisty, abandoned former route east of Havelock that’s eyed by HFR.

It’ll probably be billions, but still cheaper than HFR.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Honestly, I wonder how much CP would be willing to sell its trackage east of Toronto for. CN has too much of a stake in eastern Canada, but accessing the Atlantic ports isn’t exactly pivotal to CP, which is definitely more western-focused.

CP’s Belleville sub is already built, in good condition, and much more direct, especially for Toronto-MTL service, than the twisty, abandoned former route east of Havelock that’s eyed by HFR.

It’ll probably be billions, but still cheaper than HFR.

Where would CP run it’s freight? If CP ran on the hfr route then they would expect at a minimum that the government would rebuild the original mainline, give them access to freight customers or compensation for not having access to them. CN would not agree to share the lakeshore route and neither would Via.

CP made some serious mistakes when is sold it’s QC and NB lines to 3rd parties. CP lost a bit of its mojo when CP Limited sold off its other subsidiaries. It only recently repurchased it’s route through the eastern townships, Maine and obtaining access from NB Southern (aka the Irvings) to the port of Saint John

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The Via HFR was a specific proposal that had 4 major assumptions

1) It could be built relatively cheaply, compared to other rail projects.
2) It could attain relatively high average speeds, compared to other rail projects.
3) That the service would attract significant new ridership.
4) That the project would attract significant private sector interest.

https://financialpost.com/transportation...icated-passenger-track-says-via-rail-ceo

I am not sure old HSR studies would shed any light on these assumptions. The question isn’t whether the line is technically possible to build, the question is whether Via’s assumptions were mostly accurate, which is exactly why it is an international best practice to commission feasibility studies for new infrastructure projects.

Compared to HSR, with the costs of inflation, HFR still is a bargain.

Originally Posted by canucklehead2

Need a national railway network operator to help coordinate like Europe to sort this all out to everyone's satisfaction.

We did, and then we privatized it. We seem to like to do that with most things.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

But context matters. The last TOM HSR estimate corrected for inflation it's at least $15B today. The Alghabra HFR proposal was supposedly in the $10-12B range for two lines, a bypass and service till Québec City. That's easily a $20B HSR proposal.

I get the temptation to say, "Why bother with HFR then?". To that I'd argue, just look at history. We don't have the ability to do anything ambitious in this country anymore. And given the stream of failures on HSR proposals, why not stick to a proposal that might actually be within the realm of achievable?

Also, there's this weird idea in Canada with infrastructure that it's all a binary zero sum game. That is not how intercity rail development should be done. Build a base. Then build extensions and increase capacity as needed. Getting the corridor now for HFR with discretionary additional investments going towards straightening and bypasses of problematic areas, instead of electrification and grade separation, provides bones to build on. Build HFR now. And it can be upgraded to electrified grade separated HSR over the next decade or two, one segment at a time, as justified by demand and as allowed for with funding.

The original Transcontinental railway would not be able to be built today. We have become shackled due to our desire to please everyone while pleasing no one.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A national rail network operator is a far reach. But I've always wondered if the feds, Ontario and Quebec wouldn't get together and create a tri-partite agency for the Corridor to manage and develop a passenger rail network.

With how Quebec acts federally? Reality is, we need the provinces to say what they want and Via deliver on that. The problem is, it is another political football to play with in the game where no one wins.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Honestly, I wonder how much CP would be willing to sell its trackage east of Toronto for. CN has too much of a stake in eastern Canada, but accessing the Atlantic ports isn’t exactly pivotal to CP, which is definitely more western-focused.

CP’s Belleville sub is already built, in good condition, and much more direct, especially for Toronto-MTL service, than the twisty, abandoned former route east of Havelock that’s eyed by HFR.

It’ll probably be billions, but still cheaper than HFR.

Sell their only connection to the Atlantic Ocean?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Compared to HSR, with the costs of inflation, HFR still is a bargain.

Maybe. It depends what they have to do. If you have to build a trench/viaduct through Peterborough or a greenfield bypass of the city then designing the track for a slightly faster speed probably wouldn’t cost that much more.

[Truenorth00]

Again. None of this is binary. HFR should basically lay a foundation on which HSR can eventually built. So it's not $12B or $20B. It's $10-12B now to give us a system we can start using right away and then another $8-10B over the next 10-20 years to upgrade it to full HSR. To this end HFR is a pretty valuable idea. It gives us an actually usable system in a shorter timeframe.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Again. None of this is binary. HFR should basically lay a foundation on which HSR can eventually built. So it's not $12B or $20B. It's $10-12B now to give us a system we can start using right away and then another $8-10B over the next 10-20 years to upgrade it to full HSR. To this end HFR is a pretty valuable idea. It gives us an actually usable system in a shorter timeframe.

But in many cases it is binary. The engineers have to choose what speed to spec the infrastructure for. Going back later to increase the spec will be very expensive in many cases (changing curves, widening tunnels, etc).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

But in many cases it is binary. The engineers have to choose what speed to spec the infrastructure for. Going back later to increase the spec will be very expensive in many cases (changing curves, widening tunnels, etc).

Again. This is not something novel that no other country has dealt with. The majority of HSR in Europe today is upgraded rail corridors.

Yes, there may be segments that may not be upgradeable later. And when that time comes decisions will have to be made whether to run slower through that segment or build a new alternative. They should not in general invalidate an entire corridor though.

There seems to be this strange idea that if we build HFR, we can never build HSR. Looking at that route, it's pretty clear that a lot of it could be upgraded to 200+ kph at least simply with grade separation later. I would think just a few percent of straightening and they can probably achieve something like 70-80% of the whole TOM HFR routing to 250+ kph. The vast, vast majority of what is spent on HFR would be useable on an HSR corridor. The worst case scenario may be writing off something like 20%, in which case, we still got 15-20 years of service before HSR, for those dollars.