VIA Rail

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

An average speed for HFR of 85mph does sound high. For interest, I compared it to a route I know well - London (UK) to Newcastle, which while not HSR, is 125mph trains on high quality, fast, electrified track with only a few stops (perhaps only 1 - 3). It does the 270ish miles in about 3 hours 10 minutes - 85mph. Sometimes they can go a little faster, and slower also.

The currently planned average speed is 78 mph for the Toronto-Ottawa portion. It's 253 miles planned in 3 hr 15 mins.

Originally Posted by milomilo

Happy to be corrected, but I cannot see a Siemens Charger on Canadian track spending anywhere close to as much time at a top speed of 125mph as they would on the East Coast Main Line in the UK, where it's basically full speed the whole trip.

Brightline in Florida is building to a similar goal. 240 miles between Miami and Orlando in 3 hrs. They are using Chargers too. The cover the ~68 miles between Miami and West Palm Beach in an hour today. And that's in a much more urbanized/built up environment.

The Chargers are capable of 125 mph. Class 6 track would allow 110 mph without grade separation requirements. So again, this comes down to how much the government is willing to spend enable VIA to achieve a decent running time on these new segments.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The Chargers are capable of 125 mph. Class 6 track would allow 110 mph without grade separation requirements. So again, this comes down to how much the government is willing to spend enable VIA to achieve a decent running time on these new segments.

Sure, there is no reason the HFR line can't be built up to the same speeds, or higher, that the ECML is built to. But it will take a lot of time, effort and cash and it won't be at that standard in the initial build nor for a while after.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Sure, there is no reason the HFR line can't be built up to the same speeds, or higher, that the ECML is built to. But it will take a lot of time, effort and cash and it won't be at that standard in the initial build nor for a while after.

I would argue that it's much easier to design and build a line for those speeds from scratch than trying to make it work on an established line never designed and built for those speeds.

VIA is halfway in-between here. The corridor was never designed for those speeds. But it's a fresh start and they been make the mods they need to get the speeds they need. And even if they fall a bit short on travel time, I don't see it as the end the world given that reliability and frequency will be up massively.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I would argue that it's much easier to design and build a line for those speeds from scratch than trying to make it work on an established line never designed and built for those speeds.

VIA is halfway in-between here. The corridor was never designed for those speeds. But it's a fresh start and they been make the mods they need to get the speeds they need. And even if they fall a bit short on travel time, I don't see it as the end the world given that reliability and frequency will be up massively.

That is correct. Call me cynical though, but I'll only believe the government will start investing in rail upgrades when I see it. Best case scenario I'd say is that HFR gets built in what, 5-10 years? Then it runs for a while successfully and after a few years VIA gets some momentum to upgrade it, with upgrades coming into play maybe 10, 15, 20 years from now?

[Truenorth00]

We'll see what happens. But it's the only hope we really have for improved intercity rail in Canada. This heavy reliance on freight networks seeing growing traffic is not at all sustainable.

We'll know more in a few months. We've now had several articles saying they want to make a decision early next year. My only real concern is a change of government killing this.

[GreatTallNorth2]

I was watching an interesting show on TVO tonight produced by BBC about fast train systems around the world. One of the highlighted countries was Japan and the comment came from the Japanese train operator that they not only look at train speed but every single element of train travel to make the journey as fast as possible. Their goal was to shave as many hours, minutes and seconds off the trip with the desire to have the absolute best system in the world.

Conclusion: Canada has no desire to be good, let alone great, let alone the greatest and that is why our rail transport sucks. Who is looking at every minute detail of our system trying to shave seconds off the trip? No one.

[Truenorth00]

We don't need great. Let's just get something that is functional first.

[wave46]

Originally Posted by GreatTallNorth2

I was watching an interesting show on TVO tonight produced by BBC about fast train systems around the world. One of the highlighted countries was Japan and the comment came from the Japanese train operator that they not only look at train speed but every single element of train travel to make the journey as fast as possible. Their goal was to shave as many hours, minutes and seconds off the trip with the desire to have the absolute best system in the world.

Conclusion: Canada has no desire to be good, let alone great, let alone the greatest and that is why our rail transport sucks. Who is looking at every minute detail of our system trying to shave seconds off the trip? No one.

Well, I think the expectation was that VIA would simply preside over the demise of rail passenger transport in Canada, save for a couple of essential services. The US government had the same expectation with Amtrak. It never actually did die, however. Atrophied, yes, but never 'died' enough to give government the carte blanche to kill it.

So, you ended up with governments that put in the minimum cash to maintain a "network". It's a recipe for mediocrity, especially when the rail companies want priority for goods.

If you're in a management position in VIA, you're stuck in a loop of 'make this better' without any actual tools to do so. Shaving seconds doesn't matter when you're sitting for hours waiting for a freight to pass. It's not exactly a management role for somebody with any ambition. More like a place for your career to die, with the bonus of being subject to the whims of whatever government is in power.

You're also playing politics of spreading dollars across the country, as taking Western dollars and giving nothing in return is a hard sale.

JR Group has a much stronger mandate and support. It also has a much smaller, more dense, more urban country. It is a product of its environment. Until VIA gets a stronger mandate from the citizenry of this country, I don't see its future as bright.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We'll see what happens. But it's the only hope we really have for improved intercity rail in Canada. This heavy reliance on freight networks seeing growing traffic is not at all sustainable.

We'll know more in a few months. We've now had several articles saying they want to make a decision early next year. My only real concern is a change of government killing this.

For the rest of the country, are you suggesting that we acquire a new ROW, for a 3rd time?

The first time, we paid for CP's route. The second time, we bought up bankrupted routes and created CN.

Sounds like a waste of money for taxpayers to foot the bill for a third time. Maybe the laws and regulations should reflect that these 2 companies are here because we paid for their lines.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We'll know more in a few months. We've now had several articles saying they want to make a decision early next year. My only real concern is a change of government killing this.

I think the risk is the cost. Via has spent 5 years lowballing this thing. Because they have linked the Toronto-Montreal service to this project and the marketed time improvements over existing services are pretty minimal, there is little room to scale back some of the infrastructure to save costs.

If it is 5 or 6 Billion it will probably get approved. More than that I doubt it.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For the rest of the country, are you suggesting that we acquire a new ROW, for a 3rd time?

The first time, we paid for CP's route. The second time, we bought up bankrupted routes and created CN.

Sounds like a waste of money for taxpayers to foot the bill for a third time. Maybe the laws and regulations should reflect that these 2 companies are here because we paid for their lines.

You’re talking as of the freight companies are a parasite. Canada has more rail freight than the entire EU. Sacrificing billions of dollars of freight for a passenger service that would be lightly used is pretty stupid.

[jamincan]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the risk is the cost. Via has spent 5 years lowballing this thing. Because they have linked the Toronto-Montreal service to this project and the marketed time improvements over existing services are pretty minimal, there is little room to scale back some of the infrastructure to save costs.

If it is 5 or 6 Billion it will probably get approved. More than that I doubt it.

The truth is that, for VIA, actual service improvements are the icing on the cake that they can use to sell this to the public. The true benefit of the HFR project is that they won't be playing second fiddle to CN between Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. It's the foundation they need before they can start building the house. Right now, with existing funding, they are pretty much stuck where they are with insufficient money to make an investment that would actually improve service in the corridor. They've tried it before and ended up being screwed over by CN with next to nothing to show for it. GO has had similar challenges in the GTA, which is why they have been quite aggressively acquiring ownership of the lines they operate on.

With an independent line, initial improvements might only show a small benefit in the immediate term, but every single little investment they make after that will have dividends that can actually be felt by passengers and lead to greater market share and greater revenue.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For the rest of the country, are you suggesting that we acquire a new ROW, for a 3rd time?

How exactly did you get that interruption? I'm suggesting no such thing. I've said before that I want VIA to focus on a Corridor strategy: Quebec-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, Moncton-Halifax. Everything else? No more than once per day. And no new services needed.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

I think the risk is the cost. Via has spent 5 years lowballing this thing. Because they have linked the Toronto-Montreal service to this project and the marketed time improvements over existing services are pretty minimal, there is little room to scale back some of the infrastructure to save costs.

If it is 5 or 6 Billion it will probably get approved. More than that I doubt it.

I can't see it being more than $5-6B. At that point, we're getting in to HSR territory. And most of that spending is for Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal-Quebec. Doesn't look like Ottawa-Montreal needs much.

I don't get why people don't think the time savings are "substantial". If they hit the planned travel times in the Globe article, I certainly think the savings are decent. And most of those savings are benchmarked off the fastest trains today, of which VIA may only have 1-2 runs. Compare to the average schedule and savings look even better. The only exception as discussed in Toronto-Montreal. Savings aren't substantial there. But every train would be as fast as an Express today.

And this discussion of time savings ignores the unreliability of VIA today and how much that contributes to travel time today. You pretty much have to add 0.5 - 1 hr to any planned trip on the Corridor today. So even those scheduled times aren't all that accurate. Achieving scheduled times 95% of the time would be a huge improvement. And would get real world trip times down considerably.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by acottawa

You’re talking as of the freight companies are a parasite. Canada has more rail freight than the entire EU. Sacrificing billions of dollars of freight for a passenger service that would be lightly used is pretty stupid.

They have become just that in their business ethics. They are willing to schedule over siding trains everyday, but cannot schedule a train that has a schedule to me. The removed double track to save money, yet the amount of freight has gone up.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

How exactly did you get that interruption? I'm suggesting no such thing. I've said before that I want VIA to focus on a Corridor strategy: Quebec-Windsor, Calgary-Edmonton, Moncton-Halifax. Everything else? No more than once per day. And no new services needed.

I have been saying one a day outside the Corridor and you balk at it. Moncton to Halifax is CN. We already bought and paid for that line. Any complaints on our usage for passenger service is moot. As far a Calgary-Edmonton, I cannot see spending the money needed for HFR there. It is a hard sell. At least with Toronto-Ottawa there is currently service to improve on.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I have been saying one a day outside the Corridor and you balk at it.

And you've never had any opposition from me on those. What I don't want, is to throw away money on new services. I'd also argue that VIA should divest from the Adventure routes, in Ontario and Quebec. Let their provincial governments fund those.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Moncton to Halifax is CN. We already bought and paid for that line. Any complaints on our usage for passenger service is moot.

A pointless sentiment that would be useless in court. Or VIA could have done that for the Corridor.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

As far a Calgary-Edmonton, I cannot see spending the money needed for HFR there. It is a hard sell. At least with Toronto-Ottawa there is currently service to improve on.

The only thing that is there in Toronto-Ottawa is an old trail. Half of it doesn't have track. So it's not as far along as you think. Calgary-Edmonton might be marginally more expensive to pull off. But it's also a distance where rail could dominate. There would be commuter traffic too. It's as strong a business case as Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec or Toronto-London. So yes, they should spend the $3-4B and get it done.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And you've never had any opposition from me on those. What I don't want, is to throw away money on new services. I'd also argue that VIA should divest from the Adventure routes, in Ontario and Quebec. Let their provincial governments fund those.

Is here another Truenorth on here? Were you hacked? Do you really want me digging back to show it?
You have been one of the many that wants to see the Canadian shut down.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

A pointless sentiment that would be useless in court. Or VIA could have done that for the Corridor.

I say it based on fact, not based on legal opinion. It is a fact that all Canadian taxpayers have paid for all CN line. The legal mess of rights to it would not be something I am wanting to dive into.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The only thing that is there in Toronto-Ottawa is an old trail. Half of it doesn't have track. So it's not as far along as you think. Calgary-Edmonton might be marginally more expensive to pull off. But it's also a distance where rail could dominate. There would be commuter traffic too. It's as strong a business case as Ottawa-Montreal or Montreal-Quebec or Toronto-London. So yes, they should spend the $3-4B and get it done.

I know that between Peterborough and Smith Falls that the only thing there is a rail trail for most of it. That is more than what is in the Calgary-Edmonton area. I know rail could work well in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. I just don't think HFR would ever be a political move for it. I welcome being proved horribly wrong on that.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

I can't see it being more than $5-6B. At that point, we're getting in to HSR territory. And most of that spending is for Toronto-Ottawa and Montreal-Quebec. Doesn't look like Ottawa-Montreal needs much.

I don't get why people don't think the time savings are "substantial". If they hit the planned travel times in the Globe article, I certainly think the savings are decent. And most of those savings are benchmarked off the fastest trains today, of which VIA may only have 1-2 runs. Compare to the average schedule and savings look even better. The only exception as discussed in Toronto-Montreal. Savings aren't substantial there. But every train would be as fast as an Express today.

And this discussion of time savings ignores the unreliability of VIA today and how much that contributes to travel time today. You pretty much have to add 0.5 - 1 hr to any planned trip on the Corridor today. So even those scheduled times aren't all that accurate. Achieving scheduled times 95% of the time would be a huge improvement. And would get real world trip times down considerably.

To get the kind of average speeds they are promising there is going to have to be a fair bit of overlap into HSR territory.

They are promising a 25% reduction in Ottawa-Montreal, so I am not sure how they would get those sorts of improvements without significant investment. They also need to get through Montreal to the start of the Q-G, where there is no obvious route and as far as I know have not published a plan for doing that.

The VIA owned track between Smith Falls and Coteau is not particularly fast, despite not having the freight conflicts that everyone keeps complaining about. They have not released any plans, but if they are cheap I don’t understand why they wouldn’t have implemented them already.

We don’t really know how much of the Agincourt-Glen Tay infrastructure is actually useable for the speeds Via needs. Agincourt to Havelock is class 1 track with a 10 mph speed limit. The last time via used the line it took hours. Is it just replacing the rails (or installing rails on the snowmobile track) or does all the ballast have to be replaced? Do the bridges have to be replaced? How are they getting across Peterborough? How are they crossing the Trent? (using the existing swing bridge?). If you have to grade separated he line through Peterborough and build a new bridge then the cost is not much different than HSR.

And then there are the curves. Much of the route looks like a sine wave because Victorian engineers avoided geographic features. Since they have non-tilting rolling stock many curves will probably have to go. The cost of going through or over geographic obstacles is not much different if you’re building to HSR or HFR specs.

As I have said before, this proposal is costed (about 5 million per km) as if relatively straightforward upgrade to an existing line. Yet the average speeds are estimated as if it were a greenfield project, engineered from the ground up to meet very ambitious targets.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

For the rest of the country, are you suggesting that we acquire a new ROW, for a 3rd time?

The first time, we paid for CP's route. The second time, we bought up bankrupted routes and created CN.

Sounds like a waste of money for taxpayers to foot the bill for a third time. Maybe the laws and regulations should reflect that these 2 companies are here because we paid for their lines.

I think you forgot that we sold CN, so unlike when it was a Crown Corporation we have little control over it. Even Canadian shareholders of which I am one have little control over it. Only the federal government through its legislative means has limited control.

We should have kept the track and sold the rolling stock and the sales book.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Is here another Truenorth on here? Were you hacked? Do you really want me digging back to show it?
You have been one of the many that wants to see the Canadian shut down.

Personally, I don't think shutting it down would be a big deal. But I have repeatedly said, if we are going to have services, they should be daily. But pushing a northern and southern route and more frequencies simply risks making VIA a bigger hole.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I say it based on fact, not based on legal opinion. It is a fact that all Canadian taxpayers have paid for all CN line. The legal mess of rights to it would not be something I am wanting to dive into.

The fact is irrelevant and there's no legal mess. It's not a crown corporation. It's an exchange listed public corporation now. So there is nothing the government can do to impose on it without ponying up substantial sums.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

I know that between Peterborough and Smith Falls that the only thing there is a rail trail for most of it. That is more than what is in the Calgary-Edmonton area. I know rail could work well in the Calgary-Edmonton corridor. I just don't think HFR would ever be a political move for it. I welcome being proved horribly wrong on that.

I share milo's view on this. Do it right or don't do it at all. Doing it wrong just risks creating another money pit for VIA. Any service offered has to be:

1) Competitive with driving on trip times from downtown to downtown.
2) Price competitive (not cheaper than) single-occupancy driving.

Incidentally, this is exactly the approach VIA is taking HFR in the Corridor. The advantage in relatively shorter distances is that competitive with driving also ends up being somewhat competitive with flying.