Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Oh I fully expect any Conservative government to see this as a project solely for the benefit of Easterners and can it. Paul Martin had ambitious plans for VIA. They all got junked when Harper took over. And eventually they spend a few hundred million help CN move more freight than helping VIA move passengers....
|
I hate to admit it, but I think you might be right. Hopefully things get started soon so it make cancelling it harder. I kinda forgot the Harper years and it's effect on Via.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
We know a bit more than that from what has been revealed through through those FOIA requests. Those numbers that the Globe and Mail go weren't just random.
|
Do you have a link that shows the speeds between stations or anything along those lines?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
A train running once or twice per hour doesn't need substantial track. Good management should handle that. Let alone trains like the Maple Leaf and Northlander which run a few times per day or per week.
GO could probably combine a few platforms for its trains too. Especially since most of them will still be at or above 15 mins with RER.
|
I am not saying it needs to be built on day one. I am also not suggesting that it cannot be managed. I am saying that it may come to the point that there will be a be a need for more than the existing platforms. With nowhere else to put them, underground or overhead are the only options.
I was wrong, there are 16 tracks, not 12. Grand Central has 67. As a side note, Montreal's Central has 20. So, how would you fit 4 more tracks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Since there's no way that CN will ever give up priority or control of the existing ROW, there is no way that the Havelock sub will be slower. The Kingston and Belleville sub upgrades that VIA got hosed on should have been an adequate lesson on this discussions. Hundreds of millions spent to effectively stand still. I am pretty sure it is that experienced which has convinced VIA that they cannot achieve anything without a dedicated track.
Also, a dedicated corridor can be upgraded slowly over time with future capital projects. Spent a few million on grade crossings in one stretch. Spend $200M to straighten out a stretch. Etc. If VIA owns the ROW, they can and will slowly improve it as capital allows. And they'll be able to quantify exactly how much improvement each dollar buys. Which makes for an easier pitch to government.
|
I agree. However, day one they are touting wonderful speeds. They could over time make it a fast line. Mind you, having good frequency and not being held up by freight is a good plus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Pretty much. Ridership went down after spending hundreds of millions on the Kingston and Belleville subs. VIA is barely holding on in the Corridor. And if freight traffic picks up and their trains get slower with worse on-time performance, ridership will drop, and yield will drop even faster. VIA will end up a highly subsidized student and senior shuttle. HFR is needed to avoid this fate.
|
I didn't realize things were that bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
$10-13M per km seems like a good guess. Also, I believe one of the previous HSR proposals was around $5B. So with less grade separation, I would guess $3-4B.
|
I didn't meant he number, I meant where in Via's budget will it come from. It would be nice if it could come from the subsidy freed up from when the Corridor breaks even. I have my doubts that will be where it can come from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
If you think a train that is slower than 100km/h is garbage rail, most of what you are fighting for (putting trains on existing shared tracks without any upgrades) is garbage rail by your own definition.
|
One does not equal the other. For the Calgary-Edmonton corridor, upgrading the line so that it can maintain speeds of 60mph is not unreasonable. However, upgrading the line for HFR, 90mph speeds is not realistic for the opening of the line. It is not that I am against it, it is more about what makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roger1818
If nothing else, time will be saved just by using a shorter route. VIA's current route between Toronto and Ottawa is 446 km. I estimate the new HFR route to be about 404 km. That is a 9.5% savings which works out to about 25 minutes. That doesn't take into account reduced congestion, full control over their schedule and higher speeds.
|
The existing route is more twisty, so the speed will be lower. Providing they can at least match the overall speed, then yes, there is the potential.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Truenorth00
Yep. And ~404 km over 3 hrs and 15 mins, with only 5 stops en route really isn't the onerous average speed requirement that people make it out to be. If we assume ~30 mins and 30km of deceleration and acclereation is taken up by the stops en route, that works out to an average running speed of 85 mph. Hardly some crazy ambitious number. There will be sections where it runs slower and where it can run faster. All they have to do it make the investments to have it average out to that speed.
|
Varied speeds is not unusual. The average speed is more of a concern. Providing the average speed goes up, then it will be faster.
What is the current average speed between Toronto and Ottawa?