VIA Rail

[Al Ski]

I'm fairly excited that we're getting a 1980's (diesel) rail line in 2021 (+10 or more years)!

Woo hoo! We're so modern, we're bordering on groovy!

[blacktrojan3921]

I'm just honestly confused as to why they can't implement high speed rail, ala bullet train. It can't cost much more but only marginally shave off trip times.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by milomilo

The point of HFR is to separate VIA trains from CP and CN ones. Sharing with GO would probably be OK.

According to the Canadian Rail Atlas GO owns the lines into Toronto, there's six tracks and room for more. Getting from those lines to the line to Peterborough (I think that's the Havelock Subdivision?) might be a little more challenging but harder things have been done. It might require bending over for CP/CN one last time, but then VIA will be free. Yes I am (more accurately, VIA) proposing building new stations, tunnels or flyovers - we don't know what form yet but that's where your $6-$12 billion goes. The money needs to be spent to get something that works.

Bi-modes are a shite compromise and would be a failure of policy.

I was talking about Montreal not Toronto and yes access to Union Station in Toronto is enhanced by ownership of the ROW by GO Transit.

[GoTrans]

Originally Posted by Nouvellecosse

And of course a big part of electrification is reduced maintenance costs, and reduced CO2 emissions. The corridor is the ideal place for electrification since a large proportion of the electricity comes from hydro and nuclear.

If you are taking about reduced maintenance cost for locomotives and/or trainsets you are correct but there are higher costs related to the maintenance of ROW due to having to maintain electrical infrastructure compared to diesel, hydrogen or other alternative fuels which require no ROW infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of electrifying the network but lets be realistic about the cost structure.

[Urban_Sky]

Originally Posted by Al Ski

I'm fairly excited that we're getting a 1980's (diesel) rail line in 2021 (+10 or more years)!

Woo hoo! We're so modern, we're bordering on groovy!

Both, electrical trains and internal combustion engine (ICE) cars were considered modern already 100 years ago, with the Deux-Montagnes line opening in 1923 as Canada's first (and until its demolition for the REM scam: only) electrified heavy rail line.

As with anything rail-related, most Canadians have a bizarrely obscured understanding of the European rail network: Zürich-Munich was only electrified last December, Munich-Prague still lacks electrification for about half of its distance (Regensburg-Plzen) and Hamburg-Copenhagen still operates with diesel trains even though these have now been diverted (after the closure of the Vogefluglinie with the ferry Puttgarden-Rødby) via a line which is completely electrified (due to the Danish State Railway's refusal to buy multi-voltage EMUs)...

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

I'm just honestly confused as to why they can't implement high speed rail, ala bullet train. It can't cost much more but only marginally shave off trip times.

You can find the capital cost and travel time estimates in the two parts of deliverable 6 of the Ecotrain Study, but as we discussed last week, you may want to square the CPI adjustment factor to obtain more realistic cost values...

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If you are taking about reduced maintenance cost for locomotives and/or trainsets you are correct but there are higher costs related to the maintenance of ROW due to having to maintain electrical infrastructure compared to diesel, hydrogen or other alternative fuels which require no ROW infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of electrifying the network but lets be realistic about the cost structure.

To avoid exactly the kind of fragmentation which plagues international operations all across Europe (let Denmark's endless wisdom to electrify their national network at 25 kV@50Hz AC, which has become the leading global standard, but is unfortunately different to the 15 kV@16.7Hz, which all its neighbors - from Finland to Switzerland and Austria - operate, be a warning!), there is no point to electrify any intercity routes without forcing the freight railroads to decide how they are going to electrify their transcontinental networks...

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

I was talking about Montreal not Toronto and yes access to Union Station in Toronto is enhanced by ownership of the ROW by GO Transit.

OK fair the route into Montreal is more constrained. VIA needs its own ROW regardless though so it needs to be done.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

To avoid exactly the kind of fragmentation which plagues international operations all across Europe (let Denmark's endless wisdom to electrify their national network at 25 kV@50Hz AC, which has become the leading global standard, but is unfortunately different to the 15 kV@16.7Hz, which all its neighbors - from Finland to Switzerland and Austria - operate, be a warning!), there is no point to electrify any intercity routes without forcing the freight railroads to decide how they are going to electrify their transcontinental networks...

Who's to say the freight companies will ever electrify (using OHLE at least)? Rail transport is the last thing we need to make carbon neutral in this country, and when the time comes to do that running the trains on hydrogen, batteries or bio/synthetic fuel might be the better option. Even if they did use OHLE at the same voltage would it be at the same height? Building absurd looking ultra high OHLE today for VIA for electrification of freight railways that may never happen doesn't seem like a sound plan.

Lastly, and most importantly, I'd see breaking compatibility with freight lines as a good thing, not bad.

Aren't GO electrifying anyway? So wouldn't VIA just use whatever they use?

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by GoTrans

If you are taking about reduced maintenance cost for locomotives and/or trainsets you are correct but there are higher costs related to the maintenance of ROW due to having to maintain electrical infrastructure compared to diesel, hydrogen or other alternative fuels which require no ROW infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, I am a proponent of electrifying the network but lets be realistic about the cost structure.

Well sure, but that really just depends on frequency since as frequency/traffic increases the savings in maintenance increase while the proportional cost of infrastructure decreases. Then there's also the difference in rolling stock upfront cost which is much lower for wired electric than any of the other. Not to mention that there's less track wear with wired electric compared to diesel or battery given the much lower weight.

Originally Posted by Urban_Sky

To avoid exactly the kind of fragmentation which plagues international operations all across Europe (let Denmark's endless wisdom to electrify their national network at 25 kV@50Hz AC, which has become the leading global standard, but is unfortunately different to the 15 kV@16.7Hz, which all its neighbors - from Finland to Switzerland and Austria - operate, be a warning!), there is no point to electrify any intercity routes without forcing the freight railroads to decide how they are going to electrify their transcontinental networks...

There's no indication that they're planning to electrify freight routes any time soon which makes sense given that electrification almost always occurs on the most frequent routes first which are those that host passenger services in/around metro areas or between those in fairly close proximity. And obviously the parts of the network that are electrified first should set the trends. While one might want to coordinate between different cities and regions, the idea of delaying the electrification of frequent passenger routes for the sake of freight is pretty silly. Especially given the that freight is already so efficient due to the ultra low power to weight ratio required, even compared to passenger trains that the cost and resource usage needed to electrify such long expanses may never be warranted.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by blacktrojan3921

I'm just honestly confused as to why they can't implement high speed rail, ala bullet train. It can't cost much more but only marginally shave off trip times.

Cost and politics. Fully Electric 300 kph HSR from Toronto to Quebec City would be at least $20 billion.

As it is, the opposition is already out complaining about the cost of this proposal. And this is apparently $6-12 billion.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

Cost and politics. Fully Electric 300 kph HSR from Toronto to Quebec City would be at least $20 billion.

As it is, the opposition is already out complaining about the cost of this proposal. And this is apparently $6-12 billion.

Honestly, once all is said and done I bet the cost of HFR won't be that far off HSR and people will get the hindsightometer out and wonder why we didn't spend the money.

The most expensive part of HSR/HFR will be the approaches into the city. Unless they really cheap out with HFR, this will be similar in cost with either option. The cost difference in the countryside will be less. Trains will be more expensive for HSR, but you also need less of them and your staff costs are lower and ridership higher.

I can all but guarantee as well there will be mission creep. We'll spend a little here and there to grade separate a few more roads and chop off a few sharp corners, change the route to avoid some farms. Eventually your bare minimum HFR line looks (and costs) more like an HSR line.

But if this is what we need to do to get the tracks built, then it is what it is.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Honestly, once all is said and done I bet the cost of HFR won't be that far off HSR and people will get the hindsightometer out and wonder why we didn't spend the money.

The most expensive part of HSR/HFR will be the approaches into the city. Unless they really cheap out with HFR, this will be similar in cost with either option. The cost difference in the countryside will be less. Trains will be more expensive for HSR, but you also need less of them and your staff costs are lower and ridership higher.

I can all but guarantee as well there will be mission creep. We'll spend a little here and there to grade separate a few more roads and chop off a few sharp corners, change the route to avoid some farms. Eventually your bare minimum HFR line looks (and costs) more like an HSR line.

But if this is what we need to do to get the tracks built, then it is what it is.

I think true 320 km/h HSR is starting to become what the battleship was after the end of the Second World War - technology that, while impressive on the surface and suggestive of power and might, is actually kind of a dodo bird given the new realities of how things work and the fact that less impressive, less costly new technologies can do the same job. Even European countries and China are scaling back on true HSR construction.

The problem with HSR is that you basically have to build a highly-engineered, grade-separated superstructure for almost its entire length. So it's like you're building a 500km long metro line. Given the realities of property acquisition and the inevitable scope creep, I think this would be more than a $20B undertaking; it would be more like $40B, or who knows?

Post-pandemic, now that we have the tools to work and interact remotely to almost the level of what one can do in person, including on trains with a decent WiFi connection, what is the marginal utility of getting between Toronto and Montreal in 2.5 hours versus 4 hours? Is it worth the added cost of constructing and operating a true HSR? Or is it worth giving up the opportunity costs of lower-speed rail? For example, having places like Peterborough serve as bedroom communities for Toronto commuters is just as easily facilitated by HFR as it is with HSR. If Peterborough were a stop on an HSR line, it would lower the utility of people who want to travel between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal quickly.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Honestly, once all is said and done I bet the cost of HFR won't be that far off HSR and people will get the hindsightometer out and wonder why we didn't spend the money.

I don't know about that. The 200 kph diesel HSR from the Ecotrain study would be $12B today for just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal. That itself is the top end of the HFR budget.

I do agree that we're likely to end up closer to $12B than $6B if we want anything that is both upgradable and can be better than services today (I think people forget that VIA does have express services that do T-O in 4 hrs and T-M in 4.5 hrs).

Originally Posted by milomilo

The cost difference in the countryside will be less.

Not really. Speed drives grade separation requirements. For anything below 200 kph, they can just build protected crossings. Above that it has to all be grade separated. Not cheap.

Originally Posted by milomilo

I can all but guarantee as well there will be mission creep. We'll spend a little here and there to grade separate a few more roads and chop off a few sharp corners, change the route to avoid some farms. Eventually your bare minimum HFR line looks (and costs) more like an HSR line.

I hope this is what happens. It's exactly what I argued for before. Spend $8-10B and build a line that isn't electrified or grade separated but has all the geometry and approaches sorted out. That gives a path to upgradability.

Electrification now actually increases the cost of upgrading later.

Originally Posted by milomilo

But if this is what we need to do to get the tracks built, then it is what it is.

Yep. At this point, something is better than nothing. But given their timeline I'm really worried about political risk. A 2030 entry into service means 2-3 years before there's even shovels in the dirt. It also means 1-2 elections where this thing is still before the point of no return.

I'm pissed the Liberals took 6 years to even get this approved. And now we have to hope they retain power for another 5-7 yrs to make sure this thing actually gets completed. God I hate the politics of this country.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by hipster duck

I think true 320 km/h HSR is starting to become what the battleship was after the end of the Second World War - technology that, while impressive on the surface and suggestive of power and might, is actually kind of a dodo bird given the new realities of how things work and the fact that less impressive, less costly new technologies can do the same job. Even European countries and China are scaling back on true HSR construction.

Disagree. And here's why:

Originally Posted by hipster duck

The problem with HSR is that you basically have to build a highly-engineered, grade-separated superstructure for almost its entire length. So it's like you're building a 500km long metro line.

And this is why every single study for the corridor finds very little difference between 200 kph and 300 kph HSR. If you have to grade separate the entire route, the cost to have slightly larger radius curves and straighter approaches to cities isn't substantially more.

The Ecotrain study, for example, had $9B for 200 kph diesel HSR service and $11B for 300 kph electric HSR between Toronto, Ottawa and Montreal. 22% more cost for 50% more top speed.

https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-se...ndsor-corridor

The reality is usually something in the middle. Sacrifice on the expensive grade separation in urban and suburban areas. But build the corridor to run at 300 kph in rural areas.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

...what is the marginal utility of getting between Toronto and Montreal in 2.5 hours versus 4 hours? Is it worth the added cost of constructing and operating a true HSR?

A 4 hr trip time isn't going to cut air travel. A 3 hr trip time will. So really the question at that point (HFR isn't even in the ballpark) is one of how much we want to reduce air traffic between the cities.

Originally Posted by hipster duck

Or is it worth giving up the opportunity costs of lower-speed rail? For example, having places like Peterborough serve as bedroom communities for Toronto commuters is just as easily facilitated by HFR as it is with HSR. If Peterborough were a stop on an HSR line, it would lower the utility of people who want to travel between Toronto and Ottawa or Montreal quickly.

It's not normally a choice between those two. Corridors can add are built to run multiple services. There's no reason a limited stop pattern HSR and an higher stop pattern regional service can't operate on the same corridor. If we didn't have freight railways to contend with, this is exactly what we would have built.

[Truenorth00]

The correct approach here isn't to talk about whether to build 200 kph or 300 kph service. It's to talk about what the target travel time should be and work back from there.

A good comparison in my opinion for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona. About the same distance. It's got non-stop service that takes 2.5 hrs. And non-express service that takes 3:10 hrs. I would argue that we need 3 hr express and 4 hrs all stop to be competitive. HFR from Toronto to Ottawa should show how effective rail can be at reducing air travel demand.

[swimmer_spe]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

We'll know when the RFP is out in the Fall. The Siemens Chargers can be designed for bi-modal operation. Though, no idea if they have delivered any capable of that. I think they might just pass on exercising their options and just put a new fleet in the RFP. In theory, could just get battery electric trains for the last 10%.

Aren't they already building the engines?

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The correct approach here isn't to talk about whether to build 200 kph or 300 kph service. It's to talk about what the target travel time should be and work back from there.

Ok, I want to do Toronto-Montreal in a hour......

What I feel will happen with HFR is the existing roadbed will be used and improved as much as reasonable to open it. Then they will look at straightening the line.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Aren't they already building the engines?

To replace the existing fleet. They have pre-negotiated options if they want to buy more. The assumption all this time was that they would exercise those options for HFR. This announcement makes it unclear what they are doing. They might just procure a different fleet for HFR and leave the Siemens fleet on the Lakeshore and Corridor West services. They could also exercise the options and get the second order in dual mode. We'll see what they do.

Originally Posted by swimmer_spe

Ok, I want to do Toronto-Montreal in a hour......

It's not about what you want. It's about what we need. Most countries usually build HSR with the intention of substantially diverting air passengers from a given city pair. So their target speed is usually based on achieving a door-to-door travel time that is competitive with air for that city pair.

Given how long it takes to travel to/from airports on both ends and pre-departure times, 3 hrs from downtown-to-downtown is more than competitive. Heck, given the cost of air travel and our climate, 3.5 hrs with a reasonable fare would be plenty competitive.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

To make thing worse, Radio Canada and La Presse have crazy ideas about bypassing Ottawa. So no idea what the real details are.

If HFR is very successful, an Ottawa bypass for Toronto-Montreal express trains via the CP Winchester subdivision would likely cut travel times by at least 30 minutes. This does not need to negatively impact service to Ottawa. This would be a natural future upgrade.

[hipster duck]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

The correct approach here isn't to talk about whether to build 200 kph or 300 kph service. It's to talk about what the target travel time should be and work back from there.

A good comparison in my opinion for Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal is Madrid-Zaragoza-Barcelona. About the same distance. It's got non-stop service that takes 2.5 hrs. And non-express service that takes 3:10 hrs. I would argue that we need 3 hr express and 4 hrs all stop to be competitive. HFR from Toronto to Ottawa should show how effective rail can be at reducing air travel demand.

I agree that speed (travel times) matters to some extent, but I think we're entering an era where, paradoxically, speed matters less and less, because we have electronic productivity tools that allows the time in transit to become productive time, rather than the dead time that it used to be.

Now, obviously, there are travel time limits no matter how productive or comfortable the train will be. I'd rather not sit on a train for 8 hours to Montreal, even if I could get in a full day's work and eat a nice meal in the dining car, but I think a 1.5 hour difference will feel more trivial than it used to.

So the question is whether the improvement in utility is worth the increase in cost in construction/operation, especially since that utility is diminishing as the years progress. I feel like that the Ecotrain study from 2009 lowballed the added cost of building true HSR. The debacle in California and other places that have our property acquisition and scope creep issues baked into their culture doesn't give me confidence.

I think we will not only see a decrease in the number of people who place a huge price premium on time savings, not only from the fact that time in transit is more productive but also because a lot of these same business travelers won't travel to faraway meetings anymore, either. That leaves more of VIA's passengers to be less time sensitive or more commuter-oriented, which is at distances where HFR or HSR doesn't really matter (e.g. Toronto-Peterborough in 40 minutes instead of 1 hour).

**

Definitely agree that there should be different levels of service on the line, whether it is HSR or HFR. I would even suggest that all Toronto-Montreal service bypass places like Peterborough completely. The number of Peterborians traveling to Montreal on any given day is probably less than 100 on all modes of transport.

[Truenorth00]

Originally Posted by lrt's friend

If HFR is very successful, an Ottawa bypass for Toronto-Montreal express trains via the CP Winchester subdivision would likely cut travel times by at least 30 minutes. This does not need to negatively impact service to Ottawa. This would be a natural future upgrade.

That would negate the very purpose of HFR: having a dedicated passenger rail corridor that VIA can control and ensure reliability on. They'd be back to where we are today. Only now trading CP for CN.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by Truenorth00

That would negate the very purpose of HFR: having a dedicated passenger rail corridor that VIA can control and ensure reliability on. They'd be back to where we are today. Only now trading CP for CN.

Not necessarily. I am sure the plan west of Smiths Falls on the same CP rail line will build a separate dedicated passenger track. Given the rural flat terrain that the Winchester subdivision follows, I am sure a dedicated passenger track could also be built east of Smiths Falls.