VIA Rail network developments

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by roger1818

The plan for HFR is to have hourly train service between Montreal-Ottawa-Toronto. Currently CN limits the number of trains a day that VIA is allowed to run. Once VIA owns their own track, they are only limited by the design capacity of the track.

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

And that's the baseline service. Very likely if they owned the track, they'd add additional departures at peak.

Makes me wonder what the max frequency would actually be. It'll mainly depend on the number of sidings (if it's a mostly single track route) and the average trip speed. I wonder how much extra it would cost to enable departures every 30 minutes.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

Makes me wonder what the max frequency would actually be. It'll mainly depend on the number of sidings (if it's a mostly single track route) and the average trip speed. I wonder how much extra it would cost to enable departures every 30 minutes.

I think up to half hourly service is possible with a minimum amount of sidings. Especially is stations are all double or triple tracked. Just schedule more meets at stations.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by Buggys

Apparently a new federal department is currently being formed to look into high frequency rail between Toronto & Quebec city. Not sure why Niagara to Toronto is not included.

https://hfr-tgf.ca/

You're quoting an article from 2015. The new department being referred to is the Canada Infrastructure Bank. They've been around for 5 years already.

As for why they aren't going to Niagara, it's because the project was specifically designed to take advantage of existing disused rail corridors in the East. Specifically the Havelock corridor. There's no such opportunity West of Union Station.

Originally Posted by roger1818

Certainly an interesting idea, though I think they’re going a bit too far.

• Video Link

Great idea if you ignore political, legal and business realities. If it were this easy, we'd have done this a long time ago. But the convent hasn't legislated RoW or track sharing. They've not shown any inclination to build Ottawa-Montreal first. And now VIA is not even part of the project. The Joint Project Office is basically answering to just the CIB now. All of this is ignored in the rants in the video.

[acottawa]

This proposal is more or less Via Fast, which was rejected in the early 00s.

The advantage is it actually gets something done in the shorter to medium term. Even with the government’s optimistic timelines, HFR is a 20 year project to get something that is a fairly marginal improvement.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

This proposal is more or less Via Fast, which was rejected in the early 00s.

I think HFR is actually pretty close to VIA Fast conceptually. Using existing tracks and corridors, being the big idea behind both. The Saunders idea just proposes to use corridors owned by CP instead of VIA's own corridor.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The advantage is it actually gets something done in the shorter to medium term. Even with the government’s optimistic timelines, HFR is a 20 year project to get something that is a fairly marginal improvement.

There's no major passenger rail proposal that actually got to RFP in Canada. I seriously doubt that this proposal would be faster than what's currently underway. Especially if such a proposal rests entirely on forcing CN and CP to share their RoWs.

[CastlesintheSky]

That OBJ article seems to be from July 2015.
I'm not sure how relevant the info would be today.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

There's no major passenger rail proposal that actually got to RFP in Canada. I seriously doubt that this proposal would be faster than what's currently underway. Especially if such a proposal rests entirely on forcing CN and CP to share their RoWs.

They are also going to RFP at a much more conceptual stage than most infrastructure projects. 8 years in there is still no route (at least according to the FAQs).

Or paying CN and/or CP.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

They are also going to RFP at a much more conceptual stage than most infrastructure projects. 8 years in there is still no route (at least according to the FAQs).

They don't have a fixed route. But they certainly have a corridor in mind. Kind hard to imagine serving Peterborough from the current Lakeshore corridor.

That said, nobody is suggesting their effort has been spectacular or even decent. It's the sad reality that this is the best we'll ever have because this is the best our politics on this subject allows for. No government is going to impose anything on the freight rail operators. So unless they are joining a consortium, that makes these fantasy ideas dead on arrival. If Deutsche Bahn, SNCF and Renfe can't convince CN and CP to join their bids for HFR, what makes anybody seriously believe they'll happily sign on for hundreds of kms of HSR track on their RoWs?

So yes, while it sucks that this government did nothing on HFR for about 5 years and then took 2-3 years to get to RFP, there's zero chance that any other process, especially if it involves legislating against the big freight rail operators would go much faster.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

They don't have a fixed route. But they certainly have a corridor in mind. Kind hard to imagine serving Peterborough from the current Lakeshore corridor.

That said, nobody is suggesting their effort has been spectacular or even decent. It's the sad reality that this is the best we'll ever have because this is the best our politics on this subject allows for. No government is going to impose anything on the freight rail operators. So unless they are joining a consortium, that makes these fantasy ideas dead on arrival. If Deutsche Bahn, SNCF and Renfe can't convince CN and CP to join their bids for HFR, what makes anybody seriously believe they'll happily sign on for hundreds of kms of HSR track on their RoWs?

So yes, while it sucks that this government did nothing on HFR for about 5 years and then took 2-3 years to get to RFP, there's zero chance that any other process, especially if it involves legislating against the big freight rail operators would go much faster.

Has that been reported?

CN and CP are publicly-traded companies, their management and boards have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits. I think shareholders would be asking questions if CN and/or CP turned down significant offers for leasing out unused parts of their ROW for passenger track.

I have a feeling that nobody has asked them, or nobody has asked them in a way that they have seen as a potential source of profit.

The problem with the RFP specifying the Peterborough route is it didn't really incentive proponents into looking at other options. I think it would have been better to specify outcomes (e.g. Toronto to Ottawa in under 3 hours) and let the proponents figure out how to get there.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Has that been reported?

They aren't on any of the bidding teams that were pre-qualified. I assume if they were seriously interested they would be.

Originally Posted by acottawa

CN and CP are publicly-traded companies, their management and boards have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to maximize profits. I think shareholders would be asking questions if CN and/or CP turned down significant offers for leasing out unused parts of their ROW for passenger track.

I have a feeling that nobody has asked them, or nobody has asked them in a way that they have seen as a potential source of profit.

This isn't a high school senior waiting to be asked out to the prom. The other companies have to close a business case too. If it doesn't work out for CP and/or CN to be included, so be it. I do find it hard to believe that some of the biggest rail developers in the world leading those consortiums (which include major Canadian rail subcontractors and financiers) didn't talk to the two largest track owners in Canada.

Or maybe they had some discussions and CN and CP figured out that these majors aren't as imprudent as the government and won't do things like pay triple the quoted price for triple tracking, without performance guarantees, as the Harper Government did for the Belleville sub in 2012. I don't think Deutsche Bahn or SNCF will be gullible enough to sign off on a deal spending the better part of a billion dollars to see on-time performance get worse.

Originally Posted by acottawa

The problem with the RFP specifying the Peterborough route is it didn't really incentive proponents into looking at other options. I think it would have been better to specify outcomes (e.g. Toronto to Ottawa in under 3 hours) and let the proponents figure out how to get there.

There's outcomes included in there too. Strongly suggest you read what they put on the website. But when it comes to teaming up, there's nothing stopping CN and CP joining up a consortium to develop segments, such as the idea pitched in this video. If it was really worthwhile to them, they might have signed on, or even lobbied the government harder to change requirements. Instead, they seem rather happy to see VIA moved off their tracks wherever possible.

[acottawa]

If they have given Peterborough as the only option then there is little incentive for the consortia to talk to CN and CP or for CN and CP to get involved.

Ultimately though the presumed route through will require the full participation of CP as they own nearly all of the needed track (except a small greenfield segment between Havelock and Glen Tay and the Via-owned track).

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by acottawa

If they have given Peterborough as the only option then there is little incentive for the consortia to talk to CN and CP or for CN and CP to get involved.

Plenty of incentive as you suggest here:

Originally Posted by acottawa

Ultimately though the presumed route through will require the full participation of CP as they own nearly all of the needed track (except a small greenfield segment between Havelock and Glen Tay and the Via-owned track).

Personally I'm ambivalent on serving Peterborough. But I do recognize, is a fairly large city to not have rail service of any kind. And it offers substantial potential. And there's nothing in the RFP that says they can't build a route that serves Peterborough and Kingston. Just have to make the business case work. But I'm going to guess geometry largely favours going via Peterborough, since any Lakeshore route inevitably results in splitting Ottawa and Montreal bound traffic.

I just don't think CN and CP are interested outside of being legislated into action. Passenger rail will never be as profitable as freight. Any sort of deal will have to necessarily prioritize passenger rail interests over freight rail interests. I think the consortia are right to wait and evaluate several routing options which have different dependencies and see what ends up being the preferred option. It would be different if CN and CP showed plenty of interest.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Plenty of incentive as you suggest here:



Personally I'm ambivalent on serving Peterborough. But I do recognize, is a fairly large city to not have rail service of any kind. And it offers substantial potential. And there's nothing in the RFP that says they can't build a route that serves Peterborough and Kingston. Just have to make the business case work. But I'm going to guess geometry largely favours going via Peterborough, since any Lakeshore route inevitably results in splitting Ottawa and Montreal bound traffic.

I just don't think CN and CP are interested outside of being legislated into action. Passenger rail will never be as profitable as freight. Any sort of deal will have to necessarily prioritize passenger rail interests over freight rail interests. I think the consortia are right to wait and evaluate several routing options which have different dependencies and see what ends up being the preferred option. It would be different if CN and CP showed plenty of interest.

A standard railway ROW in Canada is 100 feet. The CP mainline (via Belleville and Smith Falls) is mostly single tracked, so using about 12 feet. I am not clear why building passenger track in the unused portion of the ROW impedes freight operations. Even if they had future plans to double the track there is still lots of room.

On the plus side it puts several hundred thousand lakeshore residents on the line, takes a more direct route to Ottawa, and has way fewer regulatory loopholes to jump through than a partly greenfield line.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

A standard railway ROW in Canada is 100 feet. The CP mainline (via Belleville and Smith Falls) is mostly single tracked, so using about 12 feet. I am not clear why building passenger track in the unused portion of the ROW impedes freight operations. Even if they had future plans to double the track there is still lots of room.

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but here are some comments:

• Using Google Maps, there seem to be several places where there is only 80 feet between private structures on either side of the track on CPKC's Belleville Sub.
• While, the minimum spacing between mainline tracks (centre to centre) is 13' , the minimum spacing to an adjacent structure is 18 feet where no maintenance road is required and 26 feet where a maintenance road is required.

So assuming CPKC wanted to leave room for future double track, VIA also wanted room for double track, and a maintenance road is required on one side of the track, That would require 84 feet of clearance (13 x 3 + 18 + 26). That of course assumes there aren't any other sidings required.

Originally Posted by acottawa

On the plus side it puts several hundred thousand lakeshore residents on the line, takes a more direct route to Ottawa, and has way fewer regulatory loopholes to jump through than a partly greenfield line.

That is only a plus if the trains stop in those communities. If most trains don't stop, it creates disruption for those residents.

Additionally, the ROW goes through the middle of the lakeshore communities, resulting in many more crossings. Given that, if adding additional track(s), the vast majority of the crossings would need new grade separations (for both safety and speed), that would drastically increase the cost.

[Truenorth00]

^ Yep. People keep looking at Lakeshore as though it's easy. It runs in settled areas with a ton of crossings. Even if Peterborough wasn't a requirement, I bet no developer would choose Lakeshore for HSR when given the choice. And Alstom already rejected the Lakeshore route even before the RFP came out.

On distance, total track to go from Toronto to Montreal via Peterborough and Ottawa is probably 50-100 km shorter than Toronto-Montreal with Brockville-Ottawa-Alexandria-Couteau triangle. And not only is that less track to maintain, combining Ottawa and Montreal on a single routing provides enough traffic to boost frequencies for the whole corridor. There's just no sense in using Lakeshore and splitting traffic. The only reason people can't see it, is recency bias. We're used to routings via Lakeshore. Thankfully, somebody like DB or SNCF coming in, has no such bias.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

I'm not sure where you are getting your figures from, but here are some comments:

• Using Google Maps, there seem to be several places where there is only 80 feet between private structures on either side of the track on CPKC's Belleville Sub.
• While, the minimum spacing between mainline tracks (centre to centre) is 13' , the minimum spacing to an adjacent structure is 18 feet where no maintenance road is required and 26 feet where a maintenance road is required.

So assuming CPKC wanted to leave room for future double track, VIA also wanted room for double track, and a maintenance road is required on one side of the track, That would require 84 feet of clearance (13 x 3 + 18 + 26). That of course assumes there aren't any other sidings required.



That is only a plus if the trains stop in those communities. If most trains don't stop, it creates disruption for those residents.

Additionally, the ROW goes through the middle of the lakeshore communities, resulting in many more crossings. Given that, if adding additional track(s), the vast majority of the crossings would need new grade separations (for both safety and speed), that would drastically increase the cost.

Have you seen the havelock sub on google maps as well? It is considerably more encroached than the CP mainline. Also, to the extent sheds or other structures have been built in the ROW they can be removed for way less than building greenfield in the wilderness (at least with Canada’s current delays for such construction). CN is four tracked in the Belleville area, the four tracks use 20m of the corridor. The Northeast Corridor (which has a high speed service of sorts) which is also electrified is 98 feet outside of urban areas.

Why are you adding maintenance roads? That is not standard in Canada or in Europe. If a maintenance road is required to service signals or a transformer that would be part of the planning process.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

Have you seen the havelock sub on google maps as well? It is considerably more encroached than the CP mainline.

How does that matter? The Havelock Sub isn't CPKC mainline and they run 3 trains a week on it.

Also, to the extent sheds or other structures have been built in the ROW they can be removed for way less than building greenfield in the wilderness (at least with Canada’s current delays for such construction).

You think that expropriating private land in cities to allow them to widen the ROW so that they can destroy/move the structures would be cheap? You are also ignoring the costs of building/widening the hundreds of grade separations along the Bellville Sub. That alone would dwarf the cost of a fully greenfield route (even if you ignore that most of the route won't be truly greenfield).

CN is four tracked in the Belleville area, the four tracks use 20m of the corridor.

To keep units consistent, 20m ≈ 65 feet. Is that building edge to building edge, or some rough estimate as to the edge of the ROW?

The Northeast Corridor (which has a high speed service of sorts) which is also electrified is 98 feet outside of urban areas.

First, 98 feet is not < 80 feet. Secondly, most of the NEC is owned by Amtrak, and the parts that aren't are owned by commuter rail systems. They are not sharing track with freight railways.

Why are you adding maintenance roads? That is not standard in Canada or in Europe. If a maintenance road is required to service signals or a transformer that would be part of the planning process.

The maintenance roads only add 8 feet to the corridor width. I assumed that they would be needed in some lactations and didn't include sidings (which would require an additional 13 feet) required by industry along the ROW. You can't just look at the absolute minimum requirements and assume that they apply to the entire corridor.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by roger1818

How does that matter? The Havelock Sub isn't CPKC mainline and they run 3 trains a week on it.



You think that expropriating private land in cities to allow them to widen the ROW so that they can destroy/move the structures would be cheap? You are also ignoring the costs of building/widening the hundreds of grade separations along the Bellville Sub. That alone would dwarf the cost of a fully greenfield route (even if you ignore that most of the route won't be truly greenfield).



To keep units consistent, 20m ≈ 65 feet. Is that building edge to building edge, or some rough estimate as to the edge of the ROW?



First, 98 feet is not < 80 feet. Secondly, most of the NEC is owned by Amtrak, and the parts that aren't are owned by commuter rail systems. They are not sharing track with freight railways.



The maintenance roads only add 8 feet to the corridor width. I assumed that they would be needed in some lactations and didn't include sidings (which would require an additional 13 feet) required by industry along the ROW. You can't just look at the absolute minimum requirements and assume that they apply to the entire corridor.

I see no evidence that the standard ROW on the CP mainline is 80 feet, so I don’t know why a mass expropriation is necessary. There may be sections where it is 80 feet, but that does not appear to be the standard. Even in downtown Toronto there seems to be a 100 foot ROW (it is triple tracked already). Again, there may be some instances where something has been built on the ROW, although I would wonder if they were built legally.

There doesn’t seem to be any problem with 4 tracking within standard North American ROWs, there are several examples in both Canada and the US. I think you’re reaching here.

[Truenorth00]

It's not just RoW width. There's also the issue of grade separation. Having that many 4 track grade separations is a hell of an expense. It only makes the Peterborough route more attractive. Especially if the requirement is only double track the whole way.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

It's not just RoW width. There's also the issue of grade separation. Having that many 4 track grade separations is a hell of an expense. It only makes the Peterborough route more attractive. Especially if the requirement is only double track the whole way.

If they are planning full grade separation. That isn’t obvious from the documents they have posted so far.