Rail Transit (Passenger and Freight) in Ontario

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

What's the efficient way to transport goods according to you then?

I have said it before, but I would really like to see the government subsidize intermodal rail transport, similar to CPR's former Expressway service, but coast to coast. Major (and some minor) cities would have terminals where trailers could be picked up and dropped off. The "last mile"* would then be done by truck. While this will work well for goods, admittedly it won't work as well for fresh produce where time to market is critical.

* Obviously it most cases it would be far more than a mile.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

For me, I've always thought that twinning TCH throughout Ontario was the way to go, both to make roads safer (0 head-on collision) and to make travel faster (for commuters and for truckers alike).

I am not against the idea of widening the TCH (be it by twinning or just making it 4 lanes) to make it safer, but not to increase long distance truck capacity. We need the highway if for no other reason than for local transport (both people and freight).

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Then I thought that maybe we should revive rail transit.

Transit or transport?

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Now I'd think that the best way to transport things quickly is to not have to do that at all. Take grocery for example. We should just go to the local farms off the suburbs to buy them. (Obviously, this eats so much into corporate interests of those chain grocery stores that it will end up being controversial.)

Certainly buying local is the best option whenever it is practical. Unfortunately it isn't practical for everything to be grown or manufactured locally. In those cases we need to encourage the most sustainable method of transport.

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...164316&page=87 #1729
So a train between Montreal and Sudbury via Upper Ottawa Valley, one between Toronto and SSM via Parry Sound and Sudbury, in addition to that between TO and Cochrane? xD

So you are quoting a post I made on passenger rail service between Vancouver (pop. 2.5 million), Seattle (pop. 3.7 million) and Portland (pop. 2.4 million) and applying it to Northern Ontario (pop. 780 thousand for the entire region)?

While as a rail fan I would love to see passenger rail return to Northern Ontario, I am not convinced it is practical. The passenger volume isn't there to make a train any more efficient than a bus (the rail line basically follows highway 11 from Washago to Cochrane), so it then all comes down to comfort and reliability in bad weather.

There are other routes that don't have decent road access that should be a higher priority for regular passenger service. The Algoma Central is one, but I would also like to revisit The Canadian and see if better service (possibly at a lower cost) could be provided by splitting it up into multiple routes.

[Dengler Avenue]

So subsidized rail? Just to make sure.

[Dengler Avenue]

My other reason is this: If Ontario Northland takes over some of the rail tracks, it has the final say on whether or not to provide train ferry during highway closures. (I hope it actually does it though.)

For instance, Highway 11 is very susceptible to closures around Temagami. Then, Northland can run train ferries between there and North Bay so cars don't have to go through Quebec.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

The video talks about trains in the states, but those in Canada are somewhat analogous too.

Watch till the end.

Also this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ

[Dengler Avenue]

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=233936&page=2 #36
Any thought?
Motivation: Federal politics is annoying. Funding, IMO, doesn’t seem certain. So I thought the province should intervene.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...=233936&page=2 #36
Any thought?
Motivation: Federal politics is annoying. Funding, IMO, doesn’t seem certain. So I thought the province should intervene.

You think provincial politics are any better?

[Dengler Avenue]

Originally Posted by roger1818

You think provincial politics are any better?

Lol, honestly, no. Am I just too harsh on Canada, or is the country simply bad at building or upgrading infrastructures?

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by Dengler Avenue

Lol, honestly, no. Am I just too harsh on Canada, or is the country simply bad at building or upgrading infrastructures?

It seems to me the countries good at building and maintaining infrastructure have one principle city where all resources can be directed.

On this project I don’t know if it is emblematic of a lack of commitment to infracture or a poorly-conceived project. It is a wash for the Toronto-Montreal route (because most speed increases will be lost with a longer routing through Ottawa). It is worse for the half million or so people living on the lakeshore (who will lose intercity train service to be replaced with an unknown regional service). It is very much an Ottawa-centric solution which makes it politically dumb.

[CityTech]

^ That's why I think adding more tracks to the Lakeshore route to have parallel passenger & freight services would make more sense. It means replacing an awful lot of bridges but it's not like the Peterborough route is cheap either, and it's still a lot cheaper than full blown HSR.

[Dengler Avenue]

What’s the problem with adding 2 additional tracks along the current ones then?

Ps: Granted, Via will need to do some serious rerouting along Turcot Interchange in Montreal.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.sudbury.com/local-news/h...r-year-1117414

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

It seems to me the countries good at building and maintaining infrastructure have one principle city where all resources can be directed.

On this project I don’t know if it is emblematic of a lack of commitment to infracture or a poorly-conceived project. It is a wash for the Toronto-Montreal route (because most speed increases will be lost with a longer routing through Ottawa).

I did the math and the new route is only 47 km (or 9%) longer (584 km vs 537 km)*. Currently the fastest train is 4:49 and the slowest is 5:28, so that is an average speed of between 98 and 112 km/h. To get the new route down to 4 hours, they need it increase the average speed to 146 km/h. With fewer stops, dedicated tracks and faster trains, this doesn't seem unreasonable.

It is worse for the half million or so people living on the lakeshore (who will lose intercity train service to be replaced with an unknown regional service). It is very much an Ottawa-centric solution which makes it politically dumb.

I am not sure about that. Because the trains along the lakeshore are to/from Ottawa and Montreal, they are the cities influencing the schedule. As a result, the lakeshore will frequently get two trains back to back and then a long gap without one. With service dedicated to the lakeshore, they could end up with fewer trains, but equivalent if not better service.

---

* Here is the math I used:

Current Route (in miles)

CN Oshawa Subdivision		Toronto to Belleville			113.19

CN Gananoque Subdivision	Belleville to Brockville Yard		94.41

CN Cornwall Subdivision		Brockville Yard to Montréal (Central)	126.24

Total									333.84

in km									537.26



HFR Route  (in miles)

CP Oshawa Subdivision		Toronto to Agencourt		12.80

CP Peterboro Subdivision	Agencourt to Havelock		88.00

CP Havelock Subdivision		Havelock to Glen Tay		93.70

CP Belleville Subdivision	Glen Tay to Smiths Falls	15.40

CN Smiths Falls Subdivision	Smiths Falls to Federal		35.80

CN Beachburg Subdivision	Federal to Riverside		5.70

CN Alexandria Subdivision	Riverside to de Beaujeu		70.62

CP Winchester Subdivision	Crossing CN to Dorion		16.50

CP Vaudreuil Subdivision	Dorion to Dorval		14.00

CN Cornwall Subdivision		Dorval to Montréal (Central)	10.31

Total								362.83

in km								583.92

References: C.N.Ry. in Ontario, CPR 1947 Ontario Timetable, and The Foamer Files

[acottawa]

^

So if Via’s math is correct, Montreal-Toronto passengers will save 20 minutes, which hardly justifies a multi-billion dollar project.

There is up to 17 trains per day per direction serving the lakeshore. There are no significant gaps in service.

[roger1818]

Originally Posted by acottawa

So if Via’s math is correct, Montreal-Toronto passengers will save 20 minutes, which hardly justifies a multi-billion dollar project.

How do you figure it will only save 20 minutes? VIA's fastest train from Toronto to Montreal currently takes 4 hours 49 minutes (train #68). If that is cut to 4 hours, that is a savings of 49 minutes. On top of that, with the current route, the trains keep getting slower and slower due to increased freight (in this post in 2016, that train was listed as being "4 hrs 42 minutes"). Also, that is the scheduled time. VIA's on time performance is getting worse and worse due to freight conflicts. Dedicated tracks would make both of these issues go away.

On top of that, you are forgetting the time savings on the Ottawa-Montreal and Ottawa-Toronto routes. Those fastest times are currently 1 hours 55 min and 4 hours 05 min respectively (once again, worse than they were in 2016 as shown here). If those can be cut to 1 hour 20 min and 2 hours 30 min respectively, that is time savings of 35 minutes (Ottawa-Montreal) and a whopping 1 hour and 35 minutes on the Ottawa-Toronto route.

The other thing is, these are all fastest times. Many trains are much slower than that. With fewer possible stops and less freight interference, the difference between the slowest trains on the old and new routes will be even greater.

There is up to 17 trains per day per direction serving the lakeshore. There are no significant gaps in service.

I guess that depends on your definition of significant. According to the PDF schedule (there seems to be a bit of a discrepancy between it and the online timetable) midweek, train 52/62 arrives* in Kingston 2 hours 27 min after train 50/60. Also train 54 arrives in Kingston 2 hours 10 min after train 46.

On the other extreme, train 668 arrives in Kingston 5 minutes after train 54, train 65 arrives in Toronto 14 minutes after train 63, train 69 arrives in Toronto also 14 minutes after train 647 and train 61 arrives in Toronto 16
minutes after train 43. That is 4 times that trains less than 20 minutes of each other (not counting the fact that 50 and 60 as well as 52 and 62 have identical schedules between Toronto and Kingston).

If you take out the trains that are less than 20 minutes apart, you end up with only 14 westbound and 12 eastbound trains.

* I used arrival times as they seem more important than departure times.

[GreatTallNorth2]

Via has to change the way passengers board and off board the trains. I had to take the train from Union to London and everyone lines up to get on the train, have tickets checked, etc. Very inefficient when you do this at every station. It needs to be more like GO or catching the subway, which is how it is done in Europe and the UK. I bet a lot of time could be shaved off if they changed this.

[Dengler Avenue]

Again, if there’s political(?) will to do so.

That will be nice though.

[lrt's friend]

The big advantage of the Peterborough route is that VIA will own it. Passenger trains will have absolute priority, therefore much fewer unexpected delays, and faster running trains. Adding track on the Lakeshore route will be exceedingly expensive and will almost certainly be owned by CN, which will allow for expansion of freight service at the continued expense of VIA. My understanding is that some track was already added on the Lakeshore route with no benefit to VIA service at all.

[roger1818]

Further on the Lakeshore route, I was reading VIA Rail's 2017 ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS and read something interesting:

Corridor East
. . .

9. Why are there only two trains that stop at Guildwood?

Will you be adding extra trains to/from Cornwall and Toronto?

What are you going to do about full commuter trains running in the morning from Port Hope to Toronto and turning away passengers?

What is being done with the lack of cars/ seats on our commuter trains between Kingston and Toronto?

Stops are determined based on a combination of market demand and the need to offer shorter trip times than car travel. VIA Rail’s HRF project will allow for more stops between Toronto and Kingston, including Guildwood and Port Hope. It will also offer more options between Cornwall and Toronto by using both the current line and the planned HFR line through a connection at Smith Falls.

Finally the HFR project will transform Kingston into a hub with more departures throughout the day to and from Toronto, Ottawa, and Montreal.

Certainly makes a lot of sense. The only thing I don't understand is how one could conveniently get from Cornwall to Toronto via Smiths Falls. Presumably trains to Cornwall would go to Kingston and Montreal, not Smiths Falls.

[Dengler Avenue]

https://www.saultstar.com/news/local...iting-campaign

Now I’m fantasizing:
Four-lane, divided TCH with trains running in the median...

Expensive? Check.
Necessary? Probably.
Nice? Definitely.

[lrt's friend]

Originally Posted by roger1818

Further on the Lakeshore route, I was reading VIA Rail's 2017 ANNUAL PUBLIC MEETING – QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS and read something interesting:



Certainly makes a lot of sense. The only thing I don't understand is how one could conveniently get from Cornwall to Toronto via Smiths Falls. Presumably trains to Cornwall would go to Kingston and Montreal, not Smiths Falls.

Will there be any speed advantage to send some trains via Montreal-Brockville-Smiths Falls- Peterborough-Toronto?


I expect that the VIA owned track between Smith's Falls and Brockville will not be as heavily used if most Ottawa trains are moved to the new route via Peterborough. I could see the number of trains from Ottawa going via the Lakeshore route to be cut possibly in half. The extra capacity may be re-purposed.