VIA Rail

[VANRIDERFAN]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I partially agree with you, but you can’t easily arrive 10 minutes before your train, you have to line up for the baggage police and have 7 via employees ask you your final destination. A domestic flight boards faster than a train does.

Also, most elements of airline check in are automated now.

Where are you getting on the Train? I get on at Fallowfield, the only Via employees I see are the ticket agent and a couple more on the train. I highly doubt that a plane is faster than where I board the train.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Does VIA still assign passengers to certain cars based on their destination? I remember that if you were traveling to a destination on the corridor that wasn't the terminus (e.g. Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Windsor, QC), then the people on the platform would tell you to keep walking to a specific coach.

I never understood what the rationale for that was. Is it because platforms are too short at smaller stations, so you can only disembark from certain cars? Or is it because only a staff member can open doors to let people disembark, so you corral all the people who are disembarking at a certain station into the same car to minimize staff involvement? In any case, it seemed to necessitate one conductor per car, whereas on a European intercity of 12 cars, they usually get away with 2-3 conductors total who move freely up and down the train.

Another thing that always puzzled me was how the necessity to serve pre-made meals in trays necessitated a little kichenette in every car that had a hot water carafe and space for the food trolley. Seemed like it ate up space that could have been used for at least 4 seats.

A lot of VIA's onboard experience is just...weird.

The whole thing is definitely labour intensive. In Europe you scan your phone or ticket, walk onto the train, find your seat, all without encountering a railway employee. Maybe there is one employee on the train doing secondary ticket checks, and usually an employee in the dining car or pushing a food cart. That’s it. Via has luggage weight inspections, about three people that have to see your ticket before you board, somebody to watch each door, multiple ticket checkers on the train, multiple cart pushers, etc.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by VANRIDERFAN

Where are you getting on the Train? I get on at Fallowfield, the only Via employees I see are the ticket agent and a couple more on the train. I highly doubt that a plane is faster than where I board the train.

If you get on at Tremblay you have go get into a giant lineup, somebody has to approve your luggage, there is a slow boarding line while somebody at the door checks your ticket, then you have to board the train while people direct you to the right car, etc.

Especially those small planes going to Toronto board pretty quick.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Frequency does not equal speed.

Sure. But by building a dedicated corridor, HFR will enable average speeds to be much higher than current services. This is why HFR's projected travel times are much better than today.

Toronto-Ottawa: 3:15
Ottawa-Montreal: 1:33
Toronto-Montreal: 4:45
Montreal-Quebec City: 2:10

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...for-extending/

There's a reason the project is officially called the "Dedicated Tracks Project". The service concept is HFR, with the primary focus being frequency. To enable proper frequency, however, you need a certain level of speed and reliability, and track capacity.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Sure. But by building a dedicated corridor, HFR will enable average speeds to be much higher than current services. This is why HFR's projected travel times are much better than today.

Toronto-Ottawa: 3:15
Ottawa-Montreal: 1:33
Toronto-Montreal: 4:45
Montreal-Quebec City: 2:10

Source: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...for-extending/

There's a reason the project is officially called the "Dedicated Tracks Project". The service concept is HFR, with the primary focus being frequency. To enable proper frequency, however, you need a certain level of speed and reliability, and track capacity.

It is interesting you believe the government projections. I cannot think of a single projection they have had right about transportation, or really any government funded project in at least a decade.

I will believe the actual numbers.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

It is interesting you believe the government projections. I cannot think of a single projection they have had right about transportation, or really any government funded project in at least a decade.

I will believe the actual numbers.

There's no point having any discussions in that case. And you can shut down this whole thread. If we are going to disregard any and all projections made.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If you get on at Tremblay you have go get into a giant lineup, somebody has to approve your luggage, there is a slow boarding line while somebody at the door checks your ticket, then you have to board the train while people direct you to the right car, etc.

This is all particular to VIA's city centre stations in the big metros. Elsewhere not so much. I sincerely hope that will be modernized as part of HFR.

Would add too....if HFR gets extended through Union to Pearson, they won't be able to the lined up boarding since that would massively increase dwell time at a non-terminal station.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

This is all particular to VIA's city centre stations in the big metros. Elsewhere not so much. I sincerely hope that will be modernized as part of HFR.

Would add too....if HFR gets extended through Union to Pearson, they won't be able to the lined up boarding since that would massively increase dwell time at a non-terminal station.

It is unfortunate that they spent so much to renovate union station and did nothing about the platform situation. I think the best solution would be to sacrifice one track, fill it in and have a normal size platform (hopefully also raised to align with the level of the door). Then people could wait on the platform and walk onto their car.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no point having any discussions in that case. And you can shut down this whole thread. If we are going to disregard any and all projections made.

There is also no point in having a discussion if we blindly accept projections either, particularly given how little information they have put out. They haven't even publicly identified their proposed routes through major urban centres yet. The cost estimates seem to assume limited major engineering interventions are necessary (tunnels, etc) and mostly what is needed is updated track, fencing, a few new stations, etc). The time estimates seem to suggest one of the highest ratios of average speed to top speed of any rail system in the world, which suggest major interventions are involved to keep the speed up in challenging geographic areas or urban areas. Maybe Via rail has an elegant solution to reconcile these to seemingly irreconcilable facts, but as they have released little information about this project it is hard to be certain of that.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There is also no point in having a discussion if we blindly accept projections either, particularly given how little information they have put out. They haven't even publicly identified their proposed routes through major urban centres yet. The cost estimates seem to assume limited major engineering interventions are necessary (tunnels, etc) and mostly what is needed is updated track, fencing, a few new stations, etc). The time estimates seem to suggest one of the highest ratios of average speed to top speed of any rail system in the world, which suggest major interventions are involved to keep the speed up in challenging geographic areas or urban areas. Maybe Via rail has an elegant solution to reconcile these to seemingly irreconcilable facts, but as they have released little information about this project it is hard to be certain of that.

I was skeptical until several posters at Urban Toronto went mile by mile along the proposed to look at the kind of turning radii needed and what kind of straightening is required to achieve the proposed speeds. Long story short, it's not as unbelievable as you'd think. Namely because there's a large stretch without any stops between Peterborough and Smiths Falls.

If amateur math can get into the ballpark, I would pros can do better. Do I expect the times will be exactly as pledged? No. But if they are anywhere close, the impact will be substantial.

On the meta topic, what's the point of having circular discussions on how more investment is needed, if we're simply going to decide that nothing is believable at all? That too about the largest intercity passenger rail investment ever. If this isn't believable, we can also write off analysis on any other project being advocated for here. It'll all be the same folks doing the same analysis (in this case outside engineers hired by VIA and the CIB).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It is unfortunate that they spent so much to renovate union station and did nothing about the platform situation. I think the best solution would be to sacrifice one track, fill it in and have a normal size platform (hopefully also raised to align with the level of the door). Then people could wait on the platform and walk onto their car.

Platform size at Union was driven by the number of tracks that VIA and GO said they needed to fit in the Corridor. This is why I hope they can extend through to Pearson and build a larger station there.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Platform size at Union was driven by the number of tracks that VIA and GO said they needed to fit in the Corridor. This is why I hope they can extend through to Pearson and build a larger station there.

I'm pretty sure platform size at Union was dictated by the needs of the 1920s (which is why you have those tiny platforms for loading the mail and baggage).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm pretty sure platform size at Union was dictated by the needs of the 1920s (which is why you have those tiny platforms for loading the mail and baggage).

They could have reconfigured the tracks as part of the Union Station Rail Corridor project. They chose not to. In large part because of so many demands for the various GO services, UPE and VIA. Reducing dwell time at Union, is what will enable fewer tracks at the station itself. Having trains park at the station, even for 15 mins, takes up valuable real estate.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was skeptical until several posters at Urban Toronto went mile by mile along the proposed to look at the kind of turning radii needed and what kind of straightening is required to achieve the proposed speeds. Long story short, it's not as unbelievable as you'd think. Namely because there's a large stretch without any stops between Peterborough and Smiths Falls.

If amateur math can get into the ballpark, I would pros can do better. Do I expect the times will be exactly as pledged? No. But if they are anywhere close, the impact will be substantial.

On the meta topic, what's the point of having circular discussions on how more investment is needed, if we're simply going to decide that nothing is believable at all? That too about the largest intercity passenger rail investment ever. If this isn't believable, we can also write off analysis on any other project being advocated for here. It'll all be the same folks doing the same analysis (in this case outside engineers hired by VIA and the CIB).

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure those guys were assuming a tilting train, which I don't believe is a feature the Siemens trains they bought has.

I think the difference is most transportation projects (particularly 5 years after their initial announcement) come with details at a pretty granular level that the public can see. You usually know the exact or tentative route (HS2, for example https://www.gov.uk/check-hs2-route), there is often a feasibility study or business with a detailed breakdown of cost estimates.

We still don't know how trains will get from Union Station (if Union Station is the planned terminal) to Agincourt with reasonable average speeds. We don't know how trains will cross Peterborough with any sort of speed (a situation somewhat analogous to GO's Guelph problem, where proposed solutions are quite expensive). Peterborough to Smiths Falls will be some combination of existing track, repurposed snowmobile track and greenfield route, which are the kinds of projects that often get expensive (particularly given the geography of Eastern Ontario). We don't know how Via will increase average speeds on the track it owns from Smith Falls to Coteau (it takes almost an hour to get from Smith Falls to Ottawa, almost 1/3 of the total estimate time to Toronto and in very few sections do they go top speed of the existing trains). We also don't know how they plan to get from Coteau to the start of the QCRY in Northern Montreal with a reasonable average speed.

None of these problems are insurmountable from an engineering perspective, but if you have to to start tunneling or building grade separations, the 4.4 billion estimate budget will go pretty quickly. As a point of comparison, even a fairly straightforward grade separation at Davenport is costing metrolinx about 4% of Via's total estimate for the entire project.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure those guys were assuming a tilting train, which I don't believe is a feature the Siemens trains they bought has.

They weren't assuming any particular technology. Just looking at existing curves and what kind of straightening might be necessary to achieve the proposed speeds. Turns out it's just not as difficult as people think. It might, however, be more expensive....

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the difference is most transportation projects (particularly 5 years after their initial announcement) come with details at a pretty granular level that the public can see. You usually know the exact or tentative route (HS2, for example https://www.gov.uk/check-hs2-route), there is often a feasibility study or business with a detailed breakdown of cost estimates.

Most transportation projects elsewhere get much more funding and support to do everything including definition activities. They also don't have to deal with the hostility that VIA might face from the airlines to the rail freight cos.

From the contracts tendered for engineering services we know the JPO has been quite active and are getting to the decision gate. We'll get more transparency then I suppose.

Originally Posted by acottawa

None of these problems are insurmountable from an engineering perspective, but if you have to to start tunneling or building grade separations, the 4.4 billion estimate budget will go pretty quickly. As a point of comparison, even a fairly straightforward grade separation at Davenport is costing metrolinx about 4% of Via's total estimate for the entire project.

I am far more pessimistic on the budget than I am meeting estimated travel times and frequencies. I have a feeling this comes in closer to $6-7B all said and done. And they'll have to phase it by separating Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal from Montreal-Quebec.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

If you think that Via, or the federal government is going to put in HFR to a place that has none, then you are more of a dreamer than I am.

What do you define as garbage rail?
It is clear that you think anything less than once every 15 minutes, at speeds less than 300 km/hr is garbage rail.

I would argue that garbage rail is anything that is slower than 100km/hr, with a frequency that does not match the ability to go to a city for the day and come back the same day.

I don't expect the investment any time soon, but that doesn't mean VIA should waste any effort on providing service that is garbage. What do I define as garbage? Same as I always have - service that is slower, less reliable, less frequent and more expensive than a bus would be for equivalent investment. Until you spend decent money, in the billions, on rail service then there is no point investing at all.

The service you have described building between Calgary - Edmonton wouldn't even meet your criteria for not being garbage. The max speed would be slower than a car, and the average further still. The lack of frequency makes it even worse, and the lack of a good station location in Edmonton further still.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

And you are talking in the billions, if not trillions. The land acquisition alone is billions. That does not even include the political capital needed to do that. Right now, just imagine the uproar from Alberta if the federal government were to try this? Which is why taking an existing line and upgrading it makes more sense.

This is the kind of thinking that I am of. It is also why a daily service is needed. To know that every day you can leave makes vacationing with the train easier.

There is no reason an HFR type deal in Alberta would cost much different per km to the one in Ontario and Quebec.

And we don't care about people vacationing to Edmonton, no one is doing that. We care about business people. Business use is what makes the money and justifies the investment, so if businesses workers won't take the train, the investment is poor and should not be built.

[Truenorth00]

The best way to think about it, is what trips can best be displaced to rail. And those are usually the short/medium haul regional trips.

[esquire]

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't expect the investment any time soon, but that doesn't mean VIA should waste any effort on providing service that is garbage. What do I define as garbage? Same as I always have - service that is slower, less reliable, less frequent and more expensive than a bus would be for equivalent investment. Until you spend decent money, in the billions, on rail service then there is no point investing at all.

It's kind of funny, there is not enough demand for common carrier ground transportation on the prairies to justify a bus, and here we have people saying that we need to double down on that with more train service.



The train would make sense if buses were overflowing, not when there isn't even enough traffic to keep the buses running.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I was skeptical until several posters at Urban Toronto went mile by mile along the proposed to look at the kind of turning radii needed and what kind of straightening is required to achieve the proposed speeds. Long story short, it's not as unbelievable as you'd think. Namely because there's a large stretch without any stops between Peterborough and Smiths Falls.

If amateur math can get into the ballpark, I would pros can do better. Do I expect the times will be exactly as pledged? No. But if they are anywhere close, the impact will be substantial.

On the meta topic, what's the point of having circular discussions on how more investment is needed, if we're simply going to decide that nothing is believable at all? That too about the largest intercity passenger rail investment ever. If this isn't believable, we can also write off analysis on any other project being advocated for here. It'll all be the same folks doing the same analysis (in this case outside engineers hired by VIA and the CIB).

I saw those there too. First thoughts were if they don't fix the curve, they will not get the speeds needed to gain the time to be competitive. We are not getting tilting trains, so a straighter track is needed. The fact that this is not explicitly stated in the proposals I have seen leads me to doubt the speed gain. Please show me that Via has proposed straightening the ROW and then I can agree.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Platform size at Union was driven by the number of tracks that VIA and GO said they needed to fit in the Corridor. This is why I hope they can extend through to Pearson and build a larger station there.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I'm pretty sure platform size at Union was dictated by the needs of the 1920s (which is why you have those tiny platforms for loading the mail and baggage).

Maybe it is time for a Grand Central fix. Tunnel under the tracks for Via's Corridor service. Make the tunnel high enough for bilevel cars so that in the event of needing more platforms, GO can use it, or if Via ever decides to go with bilevel cars, they will fit.

Originally Posted by acottawa

I may be wrong, but I am pretty sure those guys were assuming a tilting train, which I don't believe is a feature the Siemens trains they bought has.

I think the difference is most transportation projects (particularly 5 years after their initial announcement) come with details at a pretty granular level that the public can see. You usually know the exact or tentative route (HS2, for example https://www.gov.uk/check-hs2-route), there is often a feasibility study or business with a detailed breakdown of cost estimates.

We still don't know how trains will get from Union Station (if Union Station is the planned terminal) to Agincourt with reasonable average speeds. We don't know how trains will cross Peterborough with any sort of speed (a situation somewhat analogous to GO's Guelph problem, where proposed solutions are quite expensive). Peterborough to Smiths Falls will be some combination of existing track, repurposed snowmobile track and greenfield route, which are the kinds of projects that often get expensive (particularly given the geography of Eastern Ontario). We don't know how Via will increase average speeds on the track it owns from Smith Falls to Coteau (it takes almost an hour to get from Smith Falls to Ottawa, almost 1/3 of the total estimate time to Toronto and in very few sections do they go top speed of the existing trains). We also don't know how they plan to get from Coteau to the start of the QCRY in Northern Montreal with a reasonable average speed.

None of these problems are insurmountable from an engineering perspective, but if you have to to start tunneling or building grade separations, the 4.4 billion estimate budget will go pretty quickly. As a point of comparison, even a fairly straightforward grade separation at Davenport is costing metrolinx about 4% of Via's total estimate for the entire project.

And this makes me wonder how successful at speeding the trains up it will be. I agree that it will have a much higher frequency of trains between Toronto and Montreal. I am just hesitant to believe it really will be much faster than the current route.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I don't expect the investment any time soon, but that doesn't mean VIA should waste any effort on providing service that is garbage. What do I define as garbage? Same as I always have - service that is slower, less reliable, less frequent and more expensive than a bus would be for equivalent investment. Until you spend decent money, in the billions, on rail service then there is no point investing at all.

The service you have described building between Calgary - Edmonton wouldn't even meet your criteria for not being garbage. The max speed would be slower than a car, and the average further still. The lack of frequency makes it even worse, and the lack of a good station location in Edmonton further still.

Initially, it would be slower than all modes, but it would be cheaper than flying. Mind you, maybe with enough investment it could compete with driving. Realistically, if it can have an average speed over the whole line of 60mph (which on that area looks possible), then it can.

You still have not told me what you would expect. I have stated actual speeds. Not compering one to the other. So, here are the actual numbers I would like you to fill in. Please list your Via expectations as well as the competition.
How fast?
How often?
What price?

Originally Posted by milomilo

There is no reason an HFR type deal in Alberta would cost much different per km to the one in Ontario and Quebec.

And we don't care about people vacationing to Edmonton, no one is doing that. We care about business people. Business use is what makes the money and justifies the investment, so if businesses workers won't take the train, the investment is poor and should not be built.

How much would the 300km line cost?

[Gat-Train]

Originally Posted by MonctonRad

VIA needs to be a national rail passenger service - i.e., transcontinental and interconnected.

Fixed that for you. No reason VIA can't run bus service, just like Amtrak.